Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After following the recent state releases so far there are a number of trends:
1) The fastest growing cities were overestimated
2) The slower growing cities were underestimated
3) Rural decline still is rampant, but less than estimated.
This may be a direct correlation to one or two things:
1) An over-count to the 2000 census
2) A simple exaggeration of migration trends in this country.
What this is not:
1) This is not a large error in the 2010 Census in comparison to any other census. It's better to get over that thinking now, because there is no more risk of an error this time around than any other.
What are your thoughts on it so far? I know it is a bit premature as many states haven't been release yet. This seems to be consistent for almost all locations that have been released, however.
After following the recent state releases so far there are a number of trends:
1) The fastest growing cities were overestimated
2) The slower growing cities were underestimated
3) Rural decline still is rampant, but less than estimated.
Also, Im very interested in seeing how much cities' initiatives to redevelop blighted inner city neighborhoods have led to significant population growth?
Quote:
This may be a direct correlation to one or two things:
1) An over-count to the 2000 census
2) A simple exaggeration of migration trends in this country.
Or the estimates were wrong.
Quote:
What are your thoughts on it so far? I know it is a bit premature as many states haven't been release yet. This seems to be consistent for almost all locations that have been released, however.
Prior to 1990, the Census Bureau worked together with state agencies to conduct the count and they took into consideration the results of the states, but since then they decided not to include the states and that is a major reason I think the concerns against these numbers being correct is valid.
After following the recent state releases so far there are a number of trends:
1) The fastest growing cities were overestimated
2) The slower growing cities were underestimated
3) Rural decline still is rampant, but less than estimated.
Not necessarily, but mostly yes. I think that it will always be the case that places will be over or underestimated due to the fact that it depends on when you are making your estimates. Back in 2000 or 2001, those estimates were probably pretty accurate, but as time went on we all saw that things changed.
I do think that some of the fastest growing cities that we have yet to see might have done well. I know that a place such as Raleigh was predicted to have gained a lot and I think it probably did considering Austin is one of those "fastest growing" cities as well and actually grew by a lot even though a tad bit lower than the expected 800,000. We will probably see a lot of them overestimated, but I still think they will have shown some good growth.
Not necessarily, but mostly yes. I think that it will always be the case that places will be over or underestimated due to the fact that it depends on when you are making your estimates. Back in 2000 or 2001, those estimates were probably pretty accurate, but as time went on we all saw that things changed.
I do think that some of the fastest growing cities that we have yet to see might have done well. I know that a place such as Raleigh was predicted to have gained a lot and I think it probably did considering Austin is one of those "fastest growing" cities as well and actually grew by a lot even though smaller than the expected 800,000. We will probably see a lot of them overestimated, but I still think they will have shown some good growth.
Good growth? Yes. Great growth? Yes. A trend to follow for upcoming state releases? Yes.
Austin, San Antonio, Houston and Dallas (also more) all had very strong gains in their MSAs this decade. The question isn't whether they grew a lot, but is actually where the latest estimates fall in line with the 2010 census.
Good growth? Yes. Great growth? Yes. A trend to follow for upcoming state releases? Yes.
Austin, San Antonio, Houston and Dallas (also more) all had very strong gains in their MSAs this decade. The question isn't whether they grew a lot, but is actually where the latest estimates fall in line with the 2010 census.
Right, and I think that a lot of the "fastest growing" cities will probably be in line if not a little lower than expected. I don't think it's those cities that will surprise the most as the underestimated ones will.
Right, and I think that a lot of the "fastest growing" cities will probably be in line if not a little lower than expected. I don't think it's those cities that will surprise the most as the underestimated ones will.
Actually, the fastest growing cities have fallen short so far. Most of the fast growing metros up to this point have fallen short of their 2009 estimate for city and MSA by a significant amount. This doesn't mean they are still not some of the fastest growing US cities, but rather that the US census was a bit too optimistic with their numbers is all. You can't always get them right.
Yeah and there are always some factors to that. I mean, we can't ever really know why that is, but there could be some indications as to why that is.
For instance, it could be an undercount, which is bound to happen, but more than anything I think it has to do with the economy. I'm not sure, any guesses?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.