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.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 15,011,433 times
Reputation: 7339
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
No, not ludicrous, but apparently beyond either your ability or desire to understand.
I am constantly surprised how so many people are willing to not question the methods used by the Census Bureau and I link it to a desire to not wanting to understand because of the main reason why so many cities saw such a significant departure from population estimates: the method the Census Bureau used in 2010 specifically did not account for lower income minority and immigrant communities who by and large do not send in Census forms and they knew it.
For decades, it has been known that there is a certain segment of the population who does not wish to be counted in the Census. Mainly this affects lower income individuals in ethnic minority groups and immigrants both legal and illegal in urban enviroments. Obviously there is much that can be done to adjust for illegal immigrants (it's anyone's guess how many are really in America), but there is a way to counter people's specific desire not to be enumerated.
Big cities across the country since the 1950s knew that they were being short changed in the enumeration process and fought to have a new method developed. In the 1990s, the Census Bureau finally relented and approved using statistical sampling to count those individuals in situations where a straight headcount would never count everyone (source). Lo and behold, cities that had been losing population for decades all of a sudden had major gains in the 2000 Census count.
Unfortunately, when the Bush administration came around they decided to make the usage of statistical sampling a wedge issue and pushed an agenda of the the Census Bureau only using a straight head count for the 2010 Census. This policy was unfortunately extended by President Obama's nominee to the head the Census Bureau and statistical sampling was not on the plate for last years enumeration (source). Why would they do such a thing? Because the Republican party knows that inhabitants of the districts they control are more likely to turn in Census forms than the inhabitants of Democratic districts. Because of that disparity, it means that redistricting will favor their districts whether a state loses or gains a seat in the House of Representatives.
So how is this relevant? The Census Bureau knew from the get go that when they sent out Census forms last year that a very large chunk of several major cities (like almost all of them) would have tens of thousands (and in some cases hundreds of thousands) of people that would not be counted using a straight up head count. The problem was compounded by the inherent flaw in how enumeration teams go out and count people in households where forms were not received such as workers intentionally skipping neighborhoods or buildings they did not feel safe going in, skipping buildings or complexes they could not gain access to, and just the plain human error involved in paying someone $10 bucks an hour to walk around a neighborhood and write down inhabitants of a block not to mention the sheer size of some cities makes it impossible to cover every single dwelling in every single census block.
As 18Montclair pointed out, this isn't just about bragging rights. Some cities will be royally screwed when it comes to redistricting (as mentioned above) and a federal funding for services that benefit residents. If a city is alloted enough money to cover x number of people based on the Census, but there are at least several 10s of thousands of residents than is "officially" noted, then the city suffers because they wont have enough money cover serving all residents.
The few months will be interesting though. Starting this week, cities will begin filing their challenges to the Bureau's official enumeration and in July the Bureau will release the first population estimates for cities for this decade. Either one will mysteriously show tens of thousands of residents in many of the cities that showed a significant deviation from estimates that were supposedly not there last year for the official count. No doubt due to the uncounted being all away on holiday when the forms went out...
Last edited by waronxmas; 05-31-2011 at 01:05 PM..
For decades, it has been known that there is a certain segment of the population who does not wish to be counted in the Census. Mainly this affects lower income individuals in ethnic minority groups and immigrants both legal and illegal. Obviously there is much that can be done to adjust for illegal immigrants (it's anyone's guess how many are really in America), but there is a way to counter people's specific desire not to be enumerated.
there were a number of people who flat out threatened to shoot enumerators if they came a knocking again.
I think there was a case in Austin where an enumerator WAS shot. The person who did the shooting was already indicted on another felony involving a weapon and so back to jail she went awaiting 2 felony charges.
Dunno how accurate a count can be when you have people shooting at you shouting the government is prying too much into their personal lives
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 15,011,433 times
Reputation: 7339
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
there were a number of people who flat out threatened to shoot enumerators if they came a knocking again.
I think there was a case in Austin where an enumerator WAS shot. The person who did the shooting was already indicted on another felony involving a weapon and so back to jail she went awaiting 2 felony charges.
Dunno how accurate a count can be when you have people shooting at you shouting the government is prying too much into their personal lives
Exactly, and this is the 21st century. There are more efficient ways of counting a population other than just sending out forms and hoping people send them back and going door to door hoping people open the door and accurately state how many people live there....that is if they aren't trigger happy.
For example how is it that I could live in a place, and not send in a Census form, and the Federal government will say with a straight face that I do not live there while if I decide not to send in my tax return the IRS will hunt me down like a runaway slave and knows every detail about me from my cell phone # to what color boxers I wear.
How about we use all the fancy technology we have to more accurately count the populations of cities when so much is at stake such as congressional representation and sorely needed funding for governmental services.
Exactly, and this is the 21st century. There are more efficient ways of counting a population other than just sending out forms and hoping people send them back and going door to door hoping people open the door and accurately state how many people live there....that is if they aren't trigger happy.
For example how is it that I could live in a place, and not send in a Census form, and the Federal government will say with a straight face that I do not live there while if I decide not to send in my tax return the IRS will hunt me down like a runaway slave and knows every detail about me from my cell phone # to what color boxers I wear.
How about we use all the fancy technology we have to more accurately count the populations of cities when so much is at stake such as congressional representation and sorely needed funding for governmental services.
But given this arent most places going to be subject to similar levels of mis-count. Take my home town; a huge minority and low income population; thus should one expect a similar dynamic?
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 15,011,433 times
Reputation: 7339
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
But given this arent most places going to be subject to similar levels of mis-count. Take my home town; a huge minority and low income population; thus should one expect a similar dynamic?
Perhaps, then again there are always statistical anomlies with every set of data. What you have guage is what was the mean result of that data set.
Also, and I do not the answer to this, but perhaps the difference maker was that city leadership had superior effort in getting traditionally undercounted demographic groups counted. Or even growth in neighborhoods that traditionally aren't a part of demographic groups that don't get countedhad a high enough growth rate to compensate for under performing neighborhoods.
FWIW, I think Philly got shafted to the tune of 50,000 to 100,000 residents in last years count.
Indeed. Its totally ludicrous to attempt dialogue with someone who is never really interested in a conversation.
Lesson learned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas
I am constantly surprised how so many people are willing to not question the methods used by the Census Bureau and I link it to a desire to not wanting to understand because of the main reason why so many cities saw such a significant departure from population estimates: the method the Census Bureau used in 2010 specifically did not account for lower income minority and immigrant communities who by and large do not send in Census forms and they knew it.
Which is why its imperative for the federal government to factor in the local knowledge of state agencies.
The Census used to factor in state estimates until I think 1980 or 1990 and ever since then, many, many inner cities have been perennially undercounted ever since.
Indeed. Its totally ludicrous to attempt dialogue with someone who is never really interested in a conversation.
Lesson learned.
I thought the back and fourth of comments was by definition, a conversation, but ok. I guess it's because I've yet to throw up my hands and say 'oh god, I see now Montclair, thank you', so you'll try and say I'm not listening, but that's a really arrogant way to look at it. You've just not given a good argument. Let's try again.
Why do you think there was an undercount in many cities? Was it just the estimate being higher? Is it your thought that there just MUST have been due to many living illegally in the cities? I'm sorry if you think I'm the one being obtuse, obviously I think the same of you, but I just can't comprehend how you can KNOW that there was an undercount.
The estimate angle I find really mad, but I CAN understand the idea that many illegals weren't counted. Again though, how can you KNOW? You can think that it would make sense for them to have not been counted, but you have no way at all of knowing if that was the case.
Somebody earlier said it was odd how the IRS was able to know you existed immediately if you didn't give them your money, whereas if you don't fill out the census form, the CB assumes you don't exist. I thought this was interesting at the time, and was even going to say I agree and there must be other ways of getting population numbers, but I've had a rethink.
The reason the IRS knows you exist is because you have probably submitted something to them somewhen in your life, and I imagine, as it is financially advantageous for them to assume you STILL exist, they'll keep asking for money until the hear otherwise. The CB have no benefit from assuming that everyone that filled out the last census must still be alive, and in fact that would just be irresponsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Which is why its imperative for the federal government to factor in the local knowledge of state agencies.
The Census used to factor in state estimates until I think 1980 or 1990 and ever since then, many, many inner cities have been perennially undercounted ever since.
Sorry? The Census used to factor is estimates? Jesus, that is so stupid. So how was that? They'd count the people, as a census should, then they'd what? Find the median between the count and the estimate? A Census should be a count. If you start second guessing it and messing with the figures based on just guesses, that's almost foul play.
Last edited by BruceTenmile; 06-01-2011 at 01:22 AM..
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.
