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.
The Census Bureau has released its latest estimate for 2011 population figures, and the news is definitely positive for New York City. The five boroughs are estimated to have grown by almost 60,000 people between July 1st 2010 and July 1st 2011, which is extremely impressive considering total growth for the past decade was just shy of 170,000. Extrapolated, New York will be well over 8.5 million by the next census, closing in on the 9 million mark.
It's great to see the city growing at such a healthy pace, but the latest estimates do call into question the validity of the 2010 Census... huge difference in one year vs. only 170k in 10?
Or they call the estimates into question. Remember that the 2010 Census supposedly counts everybody, whereas the estimates count something like 3% of the population.
I remember the estimates for my neighborhood, and they were pretty far off. They counted a portion of my neighborhood as 97% White in the estimate, when it was really about 68% White. Based on my observations and the fact that the census is supposedly more accurate, I'd take the census numbers.
I mean, the census may not be 100% accurate. There could've been people who didn't fill out a form and they never bothered to get back to them (they're supposed to keep checking until they get a response or they can certify it as vacant), and there could be extra people that weren't counted (you could put down 5 people in your household, when you're harboring another 3 illegal immigrants, or a fugitive or something like that), but they could do that with the estimates as well. In fact, I'd think that they'd be a little less cautious with the estimates as far as making sure they count everybody.
Or they call the estimates into question. Remember that the 2010 Census supposedly counts everybody, whereas the estimates count something like 3% of the population.
I remember the estimates for my neighborhood, and they were pretty far off. They counted a portion of my neighborhood as 97% White in the estimate, when it was really about 68% White. Based on my observations and the fact that the census is supposedly more accurate, I'd take the census numbers.
I mean, the census may not be 100% accurate. There could've been people who didn't fill out a form and they never bothered to get back to them (they're supposed to keep checking until they get a response or they can certify it as vacant), and there could be extra people that weren't counted (you could put down 5 people in your household, when you're harboring another 3 illegal immigrants, or a fugitive or something like that), but they could do that with the estimates as well. In fact, I'd think that they'd be a little less cautious with the estimates as far as making sure they count everybody.
I agree. Also, remember the estimates from before were way off.
If this estimate is accurate, that's a .69% increase in population, or 6.9% annualised. To compare, NYC grew by 2.1% for the 2000-10 period. Not sure how long that kind of growth can sustain itself, but it would take a lot of slowing down for that number to fall to 2.1% or below.
But how? Doesn't more people imply less jobs assuming the 60k aren't all newborns?
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.
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.
