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.
That's fine but in the meantime, these cities have to provided services for thousands of undercounted people without any federal funding--which is a royal pain to say the least.
And for cities, that's what the census is for the for the most part-to determine how much federal funds to allocate to local municipalities.
This is not the only instance where the federal government essentially shrieks its responsibility and turns a blind eye to the problems their inaction or incorrect data collecting causes.
The issue of illegal immigration is a MAJOR problem for states, counties and cities specifically because its a FEDERAL ISSUE but they are NOT enforcing their own laws. Meanwhile a state like CA has to pay for health care and education for 3-5 Million estimated illegals who are not counted in the census.
No, you've just again, assumed that the census MUST be wrong and the estimates based on the last census MUST be right. You can't ignore that the estimates might be wrong. I'm not saying the census MUST be right, but they are the best numbers we have, and are better than a mere educated guess based on the previous census which you probably all assumed was wrong.
How knowledgeable are any of you about census methodology? The Census bureau uses aerial mapping to identify every dwelling or structure that could possibly have any people living in it, and a personal enumerator was sent to every single one of them to look for signs of habitation. If a place appears to be occupied, and no occupant is ever identified, the hypothetical occupant is still counted and listed as identity unknown.
They don't just sit in an office by a phone and wait for people to call in and say "count me".
The people I had working for me in the Census Bureau were pretty diligent and enthusiastic about their job, and worked hard and faithfully to enumerate fairly and comprehensively. And in 2010, with high unemployment, there were a lot of damned good people available and eager to do census work, so it was probably the most accurate ever.
Based on what I know about how the bureau works, I'd be very surprised if the undercount was as high as 1%. Even 3-million illegals would be less than a 1% error. There might have even been an overcount, as some families might have been motivated to claim children that did not exist, or for two households to list the same individuals.
How knowledgeable are any of you about census methodology? The Census bureau uses aerial mapping to identify every dwelling or structure that could possibly have any people living in it, and a personal enumerator was sent to every single one of them to look for signs of habitation. If a place appears to be occupied, and no occupant is ever identified, the hypothetical occupant is still counted and listed as unknown.
They don't just sit in an office by a phone and wait for people to call in and say "count me".
The people I had working for me in the Census Bureau were pretty diligent and enthusiastic about their job, and worked hard and faithfully to enumerate fairly and comprehensively. And in 2010, with high unemployment, there were a lot of damned good people available and eager to do census work, so it was probably the most accurate ever.
Based on what I know about how the bureau works, I'd be very surprised if the undercount was as high as 1%. Even 3-million illegals would be less than a 1% error. There might have even been an overcount, as some families might have been motivated to claim children that did not exist, or for two households to list the same individuals.
That's so good to hear someone knowledgeably debunking the idea that the MUST have been an undercount. Well done sir/miss.
Percentage wise (major cities only) I would say DFW and Houston, raw numbers wise NYC and LA
Just curious why just the cities here and not others with large immigrant/illegal opulations? And one thing that Houston/DFW/Atlanta all had in common is a still very large MSA growth (albeit a little below the ESTIMATES) and a more pronounced lessor growth in their central city. Seems suspiciously like a trend in that the ESTIMATES poorly accounted for greater growths or even over projected the growth at a higher rate. Seriously the with more time the census number make and more ssense whereas the ESTIMATES seem to have had more and more error.
I also would be curious to see the change in persons per household in these places; this dynamic can make large impacts on estimates. Increases/development of newer places with smaller family sizes at times can not account for migration or movement of folks from larger household sizes that may have even moved of the cities; this has been a common occurance in many cities over history as they (cities/metros) start to mature
Last edited by kidphilly; 05-31-2011 at 10:27 AM..
Reason: Spelling of course
No, you've just again, assumed that the census MUST be wrong and the estimates based on the last census MUST be right. You can't ignore that the estimates might be wrong. I'm not saying the census MUST be right, but they are the best numbers we have, and are better than a mere educated guess based on the previous census which you probably all assumed was wrong.
And we have every right to assume the census is wrong if we so choose.
Furthermore, Im not saying that the census per se is to blame, but rather there was an undercount, either based on people not filling out the questionnaire for perhaps they never received it.
And anywhere with a large percentage of minorities and immigrants is prone to massive undercounts.
Also, Im not understanding your confrontational attitude about something that is totally irrelevent to your life?
And we have every right to assume the census is wrong if we so choose.
Furthermore, Im not saying that the census per se is to blame, but rather there was an undercount, either based on people not filling out the questionnaire for perhaps they never received it.
And anywhere with a large percentage of minorities and immigrants is prone to massive undercounts.
Also, Im not understanding your confrontational attitude about something that is totally irrelevent to your life?
Yes you have every right, but what you are basing this assumption on is ludicrous. If you were interested in this stuff 10 years ago (I was only 11), then did you think there was an undercount then? If you didn't why didn't you? Did those numbers agree with the estimates based on the 1990 census? If there was some way, hell, even just an estimate, which was based on something that wasn't a previous census, I could understand. Obviously you'd still be choosing to believe an estimate over an actual count, so I can't totally understand your view.
I am being a bit confrontational I guess, but that's because nearly every time I come on here, I see a thread moaning about this and it just makes me mad. It may not affect me, but when I strongly believe that someone is wrong, I have to state my case.
Yes you have every right, but what you are basing this assumption on is ludicrous.
No, not ludicrous.
Last edited by CaseyB; 06-01-2011 at 08:50 AM..
Reason: rude
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.
