Census Estimates for 2005 -> 2010 apportionment (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 01:57:16 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Census Estimates for 2005 -> 2010 apportionment (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Census Estimates for 2005 -> 2010 apportionment  (Read 24687 times)
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


« on: December 24, 2005, 08:37:44 PM »

1. Actually the first wave of Northeastern urbanization hit its relative peak in 1930, even before the New Deal. The cities that we now call the rust belt began to decline at that time, though final absolute decline was not seen until about 1950.

2. Yeah, the Census bureau is biased Pym. Statistical facts are clearly being twisted by the rhetorical magic surrounding them.

It might be better to ask why the housing market is biased. If people are moving into North Dakota and West Virginia, the law of supply and demand suggests that the price or quantity of housing should be growing in those areas, while it should be falling in New York and Boston.

Clearly this is not the case, quite the opposite. The market boom has been most pronounced in those regions which are losing population.

WHY?

I think you have it backwards.  People are starting to move out of those areas because the cost of living has risen so high there.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.