Garbage in, garbage out. It's a shame that ACS numbers are totally unusable now.
What basis do you have for this assertion?
And tell me what your preferred alternative is?
My basis is that ACS numbers were dramatically off in 2020. Based on how much you post about this sort of thing there shouldn't be anything you don't know in this Twitter thread, but I found that it provided a good summary of the problem:
-SNIP-
I do not have a preferred alternative because there does not appear at present to be a good way of estimating population. This does not mean that we should accept bad estimates.
Initially, I read the thread of Tweets and was concerned for a second. The arguments, taking them at face value, seem like good ones (and moreover, I am unfamiliar with this argument, it isn't one Zaybay brings up, as Zaybay's argument largely predicates on the idea that the Domestic Migration numbers are wrong, which the original author of this Twitter thread doesn't even attempt to make, showing how the domestic migration numbers are very good).
Lmao
"This twitter thread that was used as an example decides to bring up and focus on issue A over issue B, therefore issue B doesn't exist".
You do realize how ridiculous that sounds, right?
Edit: This post was up for 2 seconds how did you already recommend it lol
OK, I'll admit there may be some problems. But they aren't big ones clearly.
Anyway, his explanation based on international immigration miscalculations makes much more sense than anything related to domestic migration in ascertaining why the 2010-20 estimates were so off.
Do you think more Americans are moving into than out of New York state?
If so, could you provide the evidence for this from anywhere at all?
I have no idea. Looking at NYC/NYS can be helpful in that it points out exactly the scale of the issue, but beyond that I'd be just as fine using Chicago, LA, Houston, Boston, or any other city. Im quite perplexed, though, why you seem to be obsessed with how well/poorly NY is doing. In fact, a good amount of that post you made above is dedicated to creating some false world where everyone is "in the first five stages of grief" and "spreading a science-denying and math-denying narrative about New York City", and how everyone is so obsessed with it and superstar cities when in reality you were the first one to talk about NYC, the one to post all about it in the thread "NY fastest-declining in USA — New York state Decline Thread, 2020s", the thread
you created, and seem rather eager to constantly bring up anything about it, as you literally just did in the tables above. Maybe a look in the mirror is in order?
Anyway, the issue for the census has always been their inability to correctly model migration patterns, both internal and external. In a way, its not really their fault nor is it a new issue; they've had migration counting woes since at least the 1990 census. It all stems from the data set they use: Social Security, Medicare (65+), and tax returns(0-64). As is probably evident, each data figure is supposed to cover US demographics as best as is able; Medicare tracks those over 65, tax returns track those under 65, and every citizen has a Social Security card.
This system, however, falls apart when you consider international migration, and their subsequent migration within the US. Many immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, do not have a Social Security number, are not filed under Medicare, or do not send in tax forms. This creates the fundamental error, that the migration pattern calculations are much better at determining where the domestic-born US population is moving (particularly the olds since they make up an abnormally large amount of the data set relative to their population count which is also a problem but I digress) than where the foreign-born US population is moving. Combine that with the fact that these migration numbers are
extrapolated on a large scale, and you start to see where the issue lies in these figures.
Of course, most people see this issue, which is why there's been such extreme pushback. None of the data we have really lines up
at all with what the Census estimates suggest. Hell, all you even have to support your point is public school enrollment, which has 7000 other just as likely explanations (charter/private/homeschooling increasing in popularity after COVID being the most obvious one) and is also not unique to NYC:
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/education/2022/11/13/austin-district-schools-see-enrollment-declines-in-decade-long-trend/69630783007/https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article272508826.htmlas well as economic recovery being somewhat slower back in 2020, which is inherently a pretty silly point that has way more to do with government policy at the time and what kinda companies work in NYC (turns out a lot of it can be done remotely). Meanwhile, almost every other reliable tracker, such as rents, economic data, and even the NYC subway tracker largely disputes this idea of continued decline.
Oh, and lets talk about that rent figure, cause this is the whole reason I wrote this post. The article you linked...whooooooo boy, its awful. Its so intensely awful of a read. The entire premise of the article is that NYC "cannot be back" because:
1. Everyone I know is working from home and left NYC
2. I don't like NYC. Seriously, did you see all the rats? How could anyone move to NYC with all of these rats everywhere?
3. The Census Estimates say so, and they must be 100% correct
And it then proceeds to use circular logic to justify this as the case. In the end, the article comes to the brilliant conclusion that
landlords on a mass scale are artificially taking hundreds of thousands of units off the market in order to artificially inflate prices and no one else has noticed this but this one writer. It was the most batsh**t conspiracy nonsense I've ever seen, reminiscent of the classic "Oh all the properties in this city are bought by foreigners and that's why everything's expensive", bit ironic since you called out how others were "spreading a science-denying and math-denying narrative". Or maybe, demand is just high. And supply is very low. Cause we just had a pandemic where everyone started moving around. Prices literally increased almost everywhere for a reason.
I get liking data, but these are estimates for a reason; they're trying to create close-enough figures to what population counts
may look like. Taking these things as gospel is basically equivalent to taking any singular poll of an election as the sole truth. And in this case where there's some pretty clear structural issues that have been present since the 90s, it's probably wise to treat said numbers with the adequate amount of salt.
