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 exactly my argument yes. I have no idea at all if there was an undercount or not, and neither does anyone else. I question the logic that there MUST have been an undercount based solely on the estimates being out.
So again, you're saying that because Atlanta was estimated to have 541k in 2010 and they only counted 420, it must be the 2010 census that was wrong? The questions I would ask are why is it assumed that the 2000 census was correct? Could that not have been an over-count? Why are these estimates thought to be so great? I'll admit I have no idea at all how they calculate them, and I'll bet that most people on here don't either, and yet it is these educated guesses that MUST be correct, and the actual count MUST be wrong.
Also, you are saying it's impossible, utterly loony, that an estimate might be off by 100k. You think that would be ludicrous. Yet, you think it's entirely plausible that an actual count, and not just an educated guess, can be off by that same 100k?
Again, I don't know that there wasn't an undercount, and I'm not arguing that there wasn't. Montclair on the other hand IS arguing that there MUST have been an undercount, which he/she can just not know.
Fact. There was an undercount. Many people have come forth and stated they weren't counted or never recieved papers. I hope you honestly don't believe EVERY single person was counted. I don't think I was even counted for the right city or even counted at all.
Fact. There was an undercount. Many people have come forth and stated they weren't counted or never recieved papers. I hope you honestly don't believe EVERY single person was counted.
Of course a couple of people here and there can be missed, which is all 'many' people coming forward suggests. I imagine a large number of the people coming forward now wilfully chose not to fill in their census at the time, but that's irrelevant. We aren't talking about a couple of hundred or thousand per city, those who blindly assume the estimates were right, believe up to 100,000 people in Atlanta were not counted. I find that extremely hard to believe. A few thousand I could understand, but that number, you have to admit, does seem quite ridiculous.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 15,011,433 times
Reputation: 7339
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceTenmile
Of course a couple of people here and there can be missed, which is all 'many' people coming forward suggests. I imagine a large number of the people coming forward now wilfully chose not to fill in their census at the time, but that's irrelevant. We aren't talking about a couple of hundred or thousand per city, those who blindly assume the estimates were right, believe up to 100,000 people in Atlanta were not counted. I find that extremely hard to believe. A few thousand I could understand, but that number, you have to admit, does seem quite ridiculous.
Maybe not 100,0000, but the amount is quite significant and has been estimated 30,000 and 70,000. How can one be sure? Because certain Census blocks had return rates for Census forms below 30% or worse. With rates that low, either no one lives there or they just aren't being returned. The latter can be assumed by the city because they can see who is using what services as well as the city's own count. If added up over enough areas then you can get to 70,000 or 100,000 in no time.
OH, and LOL at "of course a couple of people here and there can be missed". Have you ever lived in a big city? There is a very large chunk of people in every city who just simple don't want to be counted.
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.
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.
Without even reading all of this, just by skimming through it, one notices that your strange emotional outbursts imply that you are taking this exchange very seriously--and that is odd.
Furthermore, the notion that there is an undercount is not a figment of our imagination. If that were the case, then several media outlets across the country are also on some drug because they are also reporting this as well as here are some recent articles on the issue:
In fact, California is claiming an undercount of 1.5 Million
Quote:
State officials say the US Census count announced last week is short about 1.5 million Californians. The Census, though, is standing by its Golden State tally.
The US Census found California’s population grew by 10 percent – about the national average – to just over 37 million people. But California’s Department of Finance says that’s 1.5 million short. The state used birth and death certificates, tax returns, school enrollment numbers and other statistics to come up with its population numbers.
In any event, while its not a physical count, its wrong that the census bureau would blithely disregard data complied by in-state demographics agencies that might actually HELP it find people.
Without even reading all of this, just by skimming through it, one notices that your strange emotional outbursts imply that you are taking this exchange very seriously--and that is odd.
Furthermore, the notion that there is an undercount is not a figment of our imagination. If that were the case, then several media outlets across the country are also on some drug because they are also reporting this as well as here are some recent articles on the issue:
In fact, California is claiming an undercount of 1.5 Million
I wonder, does that hurt your feelings?
In any event, while its not a physical count, its wrong that the census bureau would blithely disregard data complied by in-state demographics agencies that might actually HELP it find people.
What is your problem? I've given you a well reasoned argument which states what I think, and that I can't see how you can know something for certain based on no evidence, and all you can do is try and belittle me.
First you state that as I haven't rolled over and agreed with you, I must not be listening, and now, you take the fact that I am rebuking you to mean that I clearly care too much about this. You can state your case and that means you don't care. I retort, and clearly I care far too much. What hypocrisy.
I've never said it's a figment of your imagination, just that there is no way at all for you to be certain, especially not because of estimates.
I understand your point, and with respect, I will continue to disagree. You apparently have no respect at all and would rather make me seem small for providing resistance against the great Montclair. I'm bored, so I'll say no more and you can continue to berate people for not agreeing with you
I understand your point, and with respect, I will continue to disagree. You apparently have no respect at all and would rather make me seem small for providing resistance against the great Montclair. I'm bored, so I'll say no more and you can continue to berate people for not agreeing with you
The only real resistance is hard facts based on information gathered from across the nation- something other than trite personal opinion based on nothing more than a desire to create a contentious argument.
There are countless articles and reports of undercounts across the country contesting the 2010 census and no one but the census bureau itself(and now you ,for some really strange unknown reason) that is defending the results of its findings.
And its important enough for many jurisdictions to consider legal action.
take your rhetoric to the illegal immigration sub forum. this isn't the place where anyone is interested in your political views.
So I guess you have no thought on whether or not illegals should be counted?
I would think in a thread that asks what people think the city with the biggest difference between the census counted population and the actual population, where illegals were mentioned a few times before I posted, that my post was certainly on topic.
Fact. There was an undercount. Many people have come forth and stated they weren't counted or never recieved papers. I hope you honestly don't believe EVERY single person was counted. I don't think I was even counted for the right city or even counted at all.
Did you not fill out your census?
Did no one come to your door?
Did no one leave a notice on your door?
What makes you think you were not counted?
take your rhetoric to the illegal immigration sub forum. this isn't the place where anyone is interested in your political views.
Yes we are Mr. wanna be moderator.
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.
