[PRCo] Re: population trends

[John Swindler]

 Perhaps much of the US census statistics are not important - except to politicians looking for someone to tax, and for playing games with number of congressional districts.   Don't overlook what Stasey told Geissenheimer back in 1972 - that about 25% of the voting rolls have changes each election.  People move.  They get jobs.  They get married.  They have children.  They buy homes.  Children get old and leave the home.  They retire.  They die.  So why should this all occur in the same county or even the same municipal district??       > Subject: [PRCo] Re: population trends 
> From: fwschneider at comcast.net
> Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 16:18:07 -0400
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementix.org
> 
> Some of the U. S. Census Bureau's intercensal estimates have been way off base.   Do I believe growth in Allegheny County?
> 
> The county is much more urban than the surrounding areas.   It includes Pittsburgh.  Many other cities showed unprecedented growth in the 2010 census ... perhaps we are learning that we cannot afford to live on huge lots in the suburbs in humongous homes that cost a fortune to heat and cool and require inordinate expense to get to and from our daily destinations.    Would I believe a slight gain ... maybe.   The gain they are showing is 0.2 percent, which, if extrapolated over ten years, would only be one-third of the loss between 2000 and 2010.
> 
> For the first time, Pittsburgh's unemployment is slightly below the national average.  Maybe the region has finally reached equilibrium and can accept a slight influx of people.  Time will tell.   
> 
> But the story tells us it was driven not by more births than deaths but by people moving into the area.   If you start with a given ... given we already believe that the population is growing, and we know from vital statistics that deaths exceed births, then we must blame the increase on people into the area.   Yes, you all know I am a cynic.   But I also know there is no good way to document migration between states or counties or cities.   
> 
> We should be creating the estimate by adding together births minus deaths plus in migration minus out migration.  However, I want you to tell me how you are going to measure migration from state to state.   If the federal government was really good at it, then we would know where all those Mexicans are dispersed!   :<)   Truth is, they don't know.   If they want to take the time to look, for example, at where courtesy claims for unemployment insurance are being filed, they might have some idea that people from Pittsburgh moved to Topeka or that people from Wichita moved to Dallas.   They might also get a clue by looking at school enrollment data.   But my experience in looking at some of their intercensal estimates makes me believe they are more along the line of projections based on the past than honest attempts at estimating the future.   The latter takes too much work and is awfully hard to defend.    But this Pittsburgh number is the reverse of the past.   I have no clue!
>   what they are doing.   Maybe they know some cities went up and think it's only proper to move them all up?????
> 
> I remember a urinating contest I got into back in the early 1970s over how many Spanish speaking people lived in Lancaster County. I inflamed the Spanish speaking community by telling them that my estimate was 2,500.  My estimate was one-quarter of the number they wanted us to believe.   I had based it on the percentage of kids in the schools and the family size of Spanish kids compared to non Spanish.   All knowns.   When the census came in a few months later at 2,475, we were of course both idiots ... I didn't know how to estimate and the census didn't know how to count.    But the guy who argued most loudly with me moved back to Puerto Rico.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Dennis F Cramer wrote:
> 
> > http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_790377.html
> > This was in the Sunday (4-8) Tribune Review. What is not included in the 
> > online version is the graph showing the various counties. I have attached a 
> > scan of it.
> > 
> > Here is a small portion of the article.
> > "The 10-county area of Western Pennsylvania showed population gains in 2011, 
> > according to Census Bureau population estimates released last week.
> > 
> > Allegheny County's population increased by 2,233 people from 2010 for a 2011 
> > population of 1.2 million people. The region's population - despite losses 
> > in some counties, like Westmoreland, which saw a 614 decrease from 2010 - 
> > rose by 930 people for a 2011 population of 2.6 million people.
> > 
> > The 10-county region includes Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, 
> > Greene, Indiana, Lawrence, Washington and Westmoreland counties.
> > 
> > Newcomers rather than newborns made the difference. The region had 3,468 
> > more deaths than births, Census figures showed."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >          Dennis F. Cramer
> > http://home.windstream.net/dfc1
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> > -- Type: image/jpeg
> > -- Size: 433k (444399 bytes)
> > -- URL : http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/population%20trends.jpg
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>