U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 07-08-2014, 09:52 AM
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,107 posts, read 13,526,827 times
Reputation: 5794


Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
It's not really true, though. The problem is that they changed the business rules for the annual Census estimates, but didn't change the business rules for the decennial Census count. So you will probably see the same thing that happened last decade, where everyone thought city propers were growing, and then were shocked when the decennial Census was released.

And, keep in mind, these are very rough estimates, using very small sample sizes. The margin of error is so much so that half the cities on the list could have declining populations (not saying it's true, but certainly within the margin of error of the sample size).
That's not really what happened, though. First, the 2000-2010 census did not fully capture the recent urban trend post-Recession. Second, it wasn't happening in all or most cities during that time as the suburbs were still hot right up through the mid-2000s. The two places where estimates were generally wrong on the central city were: 1. Fast-growing Sun Belt cities like Atlanta, which weren't investing in the city at all, or 2. In cities that had previously challenged estimates and were artificially held too high, such as in Chicago and Cincinnati.

Most other places were pretty close to where estimates had them. Estimates aren't going to be exact, but in general, they were mostly in the right direction (showing loss or gain).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 07-08-2014, 09:55 AM
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,107 posts, read 13,526,827 times
Reputation: 5794
Originally Posted by kyle19125 View Post
I disagree. The reason one sees rapidly growing cities in the South and West are mainly from those displaced from the economy in other cities with higher costs of living and a job market largely dependent on a well educated and/or highly skilled workforce, while cities in the South and West that are showing sizable growth are seeing it via rapidly expanding Service Sector employment which is the opposite.
The cities on the West Coast are not exactly known for their affordability. And even the South is equalizing in costs to other regions.

And what you're describing is a setting for a general lower quality of life in those areas, with lower-paying, lower-skilled workers being dominant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top