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.
25 years ago, Philadelphian police dropped a bomb on residents of their own city and ordered the PFD to not put out the resulting fire to cause the maximum amount of damage. I'd sure love to be black there.
... All the terrible **** that's happening in the country right now and you single out LA for something that happened 20 years ago as if the same couldn't be done to every major city in America? smh
And it was a black Mayor that ordered this bomb on the Black inhabitants; though race relations are obviously far from perfect in Philly
MOVE was a very interesting dynamic; in many ways a terrorist group and the incident was very unfortunate on many levels
Actually the Black population in Northern California is not shrinking, in fact its growing.
What is happening is the same thing that is occurring with other races, they are moving inland to find cheaper homes while maintaining higher wage jobs in the Bay Area.
And the Bay Area's net loss was actually under 1,000 which means that thousands of Blacks moved in from out of the region and was almost enough to equal the number that left for the valley.
Also, the Bay Area has the highest percentage of multiracial persons of any large metro region, it stands to reason that many people who we might identify as Black identify themselves as 'two or more races' on the census survey.
I knew the number that moved out of state was actually minimal--even before the census results came in.
But the census data proves that the number 1 destination of Blacks who left the Bay Area was one of the Metros that border the Bay Area.
And that makes total sense considering the astoundingly high supercommuter numbers for the Bay Area from 2000.
They are moving further though (Not sure Sacromento is the Bay area per se - kind of stretching it a bit); though not distinct to Cali Allentown/Beth has a similar hispanic dynamic into the NYC and Philly MSAs while there is less loss out of the MSAs in either on the whole
They are moving further though (Not sure Sacromento is the Bay area per se - kind of stretching it a bit); though not distinct to Cali
Never said it was distinct, nor did I imply that Sacramento is part of the Bay Area.
However to say that there is a huge exodus of Blacks from the Bay Area to out of California is clearly FALSE.
The overwhelming supermajority of Blacks that leave the metro/csa borders of the Bay Area are simply moving to within commuting distance of major Bay Area employment centers.
Hence the Black population of the 100-mile radius around SF Bay has grown by 5% since 2000. An increase of 40,000.
Never said it was distinct, nor did I imply that Sacramento is part of the Bay Area.
However to say that there is a huge exodus of Blacks from the Bay Area to out of California is clearly FALSE.
The overwhelming supermajority of Blacks that leave the metro/csa borders of the Bay Area are simply moving to within commuting distance of major Bay Area employment centers.
Hence the Black population of the 100-mile radius around SF Bay has grown by 5% since 2000. An increase of 40,000.
And how many of the commuters are black; am just curious as if this is the flow are they just moving further and continuing to work in the Bay or are they just being displaced in total.
Fact does remain that the movement is out of the Bay area in either regard; not sure how super commuters play into diversity; less out of necessity
But is but one group and would be the same as saying some lessor percentage of Asian or Hispanic in other areas is any different.
One thing for the Bay is that the core city SF is becoming less black; maybe not any less diverse on the whole
If you read my threads, everyone knows that I have a lot of respect for SF (the city as a whole). The entire Bay doesn't do it for me as it does for others. However, if one racial group is being pushed out (as in blacks), how does that increase diversity. As it I see it, you have 4 major groups in SF: white, black, hispanic and asian. Blacks are now less than 7 pct of the population. Even with the influx of asians to nearly 33 pct, how does that 'increase' diversity. The majority, which is white, hasn't gone anywhere and their hasn't been another race to enter the fray. Therefore, it doesn't seem like the city itself is becoming more diverse. I've read recently that cities like Boston and Seattle are becoming more attractive to blacks, in addition to having considerable diversity in the other three races that would signal to me that they are trending toward becoming more diverse. Thoughts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
And how many of the commuters are black; am just curious as if this is the flow are they just moving further and continuing to work in the Bay or are they just being displaced in total.
Fact does remain that the movement is out of the Bay area in either regard; not sure how super commuters play into diversity; less out of necessity
But is but one group and would be the same as saying some lessor percentage of Asian or Hispanic in other areas is any different.
One thing for the Bay is that the core city SF is becoming less black; maybe not any less diverse on the whole
If you read my threads, everyone knows that I have a lot of respect for SF (the city as a whole). The entire Bay doesn't do it for me as it does for others. However, if one racial group is being pushed out (as in blacks), how does that increase diversity. As it I see it, you have 4 major groups in SF: white, black, hispanic and asian. Blacks are now less than 7 pct of the population. Even with the influx of asians to nearly 33 pct, how does that 'increase' diversity. The majority, which is white, hasn't gone anywhere and their hasn't been another race to enter the fray. Therefore, it doesn't seem like the city itself is becoming more diverse. I've read recently that cities like Boston and Seattle are becoming more attractive to blacks, in addition to having considerable diversity in the other three races that would signal to me that they are trending toward becoming more diverse. Thoughts?
I mostly agree; though do believe the Bay to be diverse and even the city of SF itself. I do think it is somewhat overstated by the Bay faithful in this regard as some badge of supremacy on here; especially as it relates to blacks. I also really like SF, definataely among my favorite cities in the US and I basically lived there for a year and visit regularly
If you read my threads, everyone knows that I have a lot of respect for SF (the city as a whole). The entire Bay doesn't do it for me as it does for others. However, if one racial group is being pushed out (as in blacks), how does that increase diversity. As it I see it, you have 4 major groups in SF: white, black, hispanic and asian. Blacks are now less than 7 pct of the population. Even with the influx of asians to nearly 33 pct, how does that 'increase' diversity. The majority, which is white, hasn't gone anywhere and their hasn't been another race to enter the fray. Therefore, it doesn't seem like the city itself is becoming more diverse. I've read recently that cities like Boston and Seattle are becoming more attractive to blacks, in addition to having considerable diversity in the other three races that would signal to me that they are trending toward becoming more diverse. Thoughts?
I'd agree, except SF technically doesn't have a White majority (41% is not a majority of anything. Correct term is it's a White plurality, being the alrgest group)
Since this thread is all encompassing East Coast vs. West Coast, which now has gone the way of Northeast vs. California (never mind that the Atlantic Ocean does go south of New Jersey, but hey, who cares about facts right? ) it's safe to say that if you're a Black American of any ethnicity, be it African American, Haitian, Jamaican, Ethiopian, Ghanian, etc. you will vastly prefer the Northeast (which does include DC, for all intents and purposes) than California simply because the exodus of Blacks from the Northeast, while still very much present, does not make as much of a devastating impact as the Black community of California leaving the state, leaving behind empty Black communities in their wake.
What we're seeing in SF, LA, Oakland, and all the other traditional centers for Black Americans in California is that once they reach a certain income threshold and want to live a simple middle class lifestyle, they leave the communities they live in to go elsewhere, be it into the interior of California (San Bernardino/Riverside, Sacramento, etc.) or out of state (Nevada is a HUGE destination for Black Californians, but also Texas, Arizona, Washington, etc.) to be able to live out a middle class lifestyle. Since the pool of black Americans across California is not that large to begin with (it has never passed 2.3 million people), a few hundred thousand leaving the state every decade makes a noticeable impact on the community, moreso than the few hundred thousand Black Americans leaving the Northeast (minus DC of course) in an area where over 5 million Black inhabitants live.
DC, in this case, is more like the South. In places like DC, Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Miami, Charlotte, etc. the Black population is greatly INCREASING. In the DC area itself, while the Black population isn't exploding by all means, it definitely isn't decreasing. In fact, after Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and Miami, DC has the 5th largest growing Black population in the US. Los Angeles, on the other hand, is the 2nd largest LOSER of Black Americans after New Orleans (who had a natural disaster).
This is why I have made this contention, and will continue to do so: the Northeastern metros inclusive of DC (whether government defines it as such or not, this is a real world fact that DC is more part of the Northeast than South) are not only diversifying faster than the California metros, but in the near future will be outright more diverse than California using the 4 race rubric that everyone loves here, instead of an ethnicity based rubric. The Black American question makes all the difference.
Until California learns to appeal to Black Americans, or an exodus of African refugees decide to make California its home like many other refugee groups from around the world (notably Southeast Asians and Central Americans), California will be left in the dust. I can forsee California being simply a very large version of San Jose, where there is a huge White (albeit decreasing), Hispanic, and Asian population, with very little Blacks and decreasing amounts of Whites (from 2000-2010, Santa Clara County has lost at least 100,000 White Americans)
the majority, which is white, hasn't gone anywhere
The Bay Area has lost over 80,000 white people since 2005:
2005 white population: 3,297,001 (47%)
2010 white population: 3,210,454 (43%)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 75 South
and their hasn't been another race to enter the fray.
What do you mean? Are you trying to say no other races are growing in the Bay Area? If so that would be false, as the asian and latino populations are growing...if we weren't constantly adding Asian and Latino people (as we have been since at least 1950, the earliest decade I can find Bay Area stats for), the Bay Area would currently be losing population instead of gaining it, and that population loss would have been steady for the past four decades straight (the bay has been losing both whites and blacks since 1970).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 75 South
Therefore, it doesn't seem like the city itself is becoming more diverse.
SF's diversity index is currently 0.688, as opposed to 0.689 in the year 2000. Technically it got just 0.1% less diverse over the past decade, which is such a small difference that it barely even means anything. SF from the year 2000 through 2012 has been more diverse racially than it has ever been at any time previously.
here's SF's racial breakdown from 2000 vs. 2010:
2000: white alone: 43.6%
asian alone: 30.6%
latino of any race: 14.1%
black alone: 7.6%
mixed race: 3.5%
pacific islander alone: 0.5%
other alone: 0.3%
native american alone: 0.2%
racial diversity index (higher = more diverse): 0.689
2010:
white alone: 41.9%
asian alone: 33.0%
latino of any race: 15.1%
black alone: 5.8%
mixed race: 3.2%
pacific islander alone: 0.4%
other alone: 0.3%
native american alone: 0.2%
racial diversity index: 0.688
The racial diversity index was figured out using the same method the census uses here, on page 4: http://www.census.gov/population/cen...ensr01-104.pdf (broken link) (the highest diversity level would come from a city evenly split between all races)
The trend does have SF getting less racially diverse over time if nothing changes, but it's at a pretty slow pace, and it's not due to white people moving in, as many might wrongly assume (it is the case in certain neighborhoods, but not city-wide).
Thanks for the last few posts. I think I get it. Blacks are moving out (at a faster rate), Asians are moving in (at a faster rate) and Hispanics/Whites are basically remaining the same. Therefore, the 4-race matrix is losing pct points on blacks but gaining them back on Asians. Which makes the racial diversity index remain relatively the same. So, it appears to this thread, if you are white, you should feel comfortable everywhere. If you are Asian, you will feel more comfortable in the Bay Area vs. perhaps anywhere else in the country. If you are Hispanic, South Florida, LA and NY metro will be more user-friendly. And if you are black, it's more likely for you to be in the South, Chicago area (although not specifically apart of this thread) or the NE corridor.
Did I gain an accurate assesment?
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.
) it's safe to say that if you're a Black American of any ethnicity, be it African American, Haitian, Jamaican, Ethiopian, Ghanian, etc. you will vastly prefer the Northeast (which does include DC, for all intents and purposes) than California simply because the exodus of Blacks from the Northeast, while still very much present, does not make as much of a devastating impact as the Black community of California leaving the state, leaving behind empty Black communities in their wake. 
