Got a b/c from VH who already used her post quota today, so I thought I'd add the relevant section of her reply and add the obvious follow-up.
> According to the Census Bureau, Minneapolis lost another 9,000 people during 2003. The Strib reported this and I posted about it at the time. > > Minnesota's population has now grown to over 5 million, so Minneapolis continues to diminish in size compared to the total. The 2003 Census estimates are going to vary significantly from the 2000 actual census. The first reason is the 2003 excludes those "living in institutions, college dormitories, and other group quarters." The second reason is that the American Community Survey (ACS) is based on the Census Long Form, which decreases response rates. Further, the follow-up method is less thorough than used for the decnnial census. If a selected household has not returned the survey, the Census Bureau tries calling. If this doesn't work, 1 of 3 non-respondents are selected for visits at the door. Again, this will reduce the overall response rate. The effects of the lower response rates can be easily seen in the more detailed information provided by the 2003 ACS results for Minneapolis. Example One: The median age in Minneapolis with the 2003 estimate is 33.4 (cf. 31.2 in 2000), a 2.2 year increase in 3 years, compared to the US difference of a 0.7 year increase (from 35.3 to 36.0). If these data were representative of what actually happened, one would have to assume that there were essentially no new young folks in Minneapolis. (In a situation in which there were no new move-ins to an area, one would anticipate a somewhat less than 3.0 year increase in median age, since there would likely be some deaths, more of which would be for those above the median age.) It seems far more likely that the ACS results for Minneapolis are a bit off. Example Two: The percentage of population with a bachelor's degree went from 37.4% in 2000 to an estimate of 42.5% in 2003 in Minneapolis (compared to a increase from 24.4% to 26.5% nationwide). So, it is either one of two things: Many of those people with less formal education have left the city OR they were under-represented in the survey (perhaps because they did not reply to the survey). The latter seems a bit more plausible (although if the former is true, then it would seem to undermine one of VH's hypotheses about who is "fleeing" the city, as a bunch of college-educated people are staying behind and, on the average, they are earning much more than their non-college-educated counterparts.) Example Three: If one examines the racial composition, the percentage of city residents classifed as black decreased from 18.0 to 16.6 and the percentage of residents classifed as American Indian decreased from 2.2 to 1.2. Given the denominator (total population decrease) the estimate in the raw number of residents who identify themselves as back or American Indian really dropped off. In short, the ACS estimates for Minneapolis don't seem valid. Erik Larson Downtown East REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
