Houston at 7 Million

[Sky-guy]

I remember a few years back when Houston reached 6 million. How long until we reach 7 million? (especially with the ongoing boom our city is seeing.) Also, does anyone know what the current population of Houston is?

[Howard Huge]

I'd say we've been there for a while.

If you were to count up all of the undocumented and illegal aliens, and basically everyone who doesnt show up on a census report,living in the greater Houston area, I'd say we are at 7 million plus, easily.

Just my opinion.

[Sky-guy]

Well then that brings up another question: If illigal aliens don't show up on census reports, than what's the population of other cities such as Dallas, San Antonio and Austin? What about Texas and other states where immigrants enter the country illegally? What would be the actual population of the U.S.?

But I'll leave that for a different discussion.

[Sellanious Caesar]

I remember a few years back when Houston reached 6 million. How long until we reach 7 million? (especially with the ongoing boom our city is seeing.) Also, does anyone know what the current population of Houston is?

As of July 2013

Houston MSA 6.3 million

Houston CSA 6.5 million

Houston has been steadily averaging 120k in growth the last 13 years. A trend it's expected to continue for at least another decade for the foreseeable future.

So for CSA in about slightly more than 4 years from the July 2013 estimates (so by Autumn 2017). For MSA it will be in about 6 years, so around summer 2019.

Houston CSA should surpass Philadelphia CSA by the census 2020 for #8. Up 2 spots from #10 in 2010. Philly CSA will finish at 7.3 million and Houston CSA will be a few thousand larger, also at 7.3 million.

Here's the 2020 estimates using 2010-2013 growth trends for MSA.

1. New York, NY-NJ-PA: 20,743,078

2. Los Angeles, CA: 13,759,896

3. Chicago, IL-IN-WI: 9,695,518

4. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX: 7,609,914

5. Houston, TX: 7,128,853

6. Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV: 6,601,239

7. Miami, FL: 6,375,577

8. Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD: 6,178,682

9. Atlanta, GA: 6,013,541

10. Boston, MA-NH: 4,958,239

11. San Francisco-Oakland, CA: 4,891,461

12. Phoenix, AZ: 4,826,349

13. Riverside-San Bernardino, CA: 4,704,935

14. Detroit, MI: 4,294,983

15. Seattle, WA: 3,963,797

16. Minneapolis-Saint Paul, MN-WI: 3,688,204

17. San Diego, CA: 3,452,049

18. Tampa, FL: 3,051,939

19. Denver, CO: 3,017,310

If you really want to get a sense of how far Houston will be in 6 years in 2020, look at how massive the lead Houston MSA will have on Philly MSA when in 2010 Philly MSA was slightly larger. Nearly 1 million larger 10 years later.

In the 2010 census, Houston MSA was just barely smaller than Philly MSA and by the next year surpassed Philly for #5. Philly MSA by 2020 will DROP 3 spots from #5 to #8 also being surpassed by DC and Miami by the census. Then Atlanta MSA shortly after the census, so Philly in 10 years by 2023 will fall to #9.

There's also the very high chance that SFO MSA absorbs Stockton by the 2023 redefinition, meaning it can push Philly to #10 in 10 years. Representing a drop of 5 spots in just 1 decennial census period. Then in 2 decades Phoenix MSA even in its slowed down state will crack the top 10.

[Sparrow]

I was always under the impression the census numbers reflected counts of actual people, not just citizens.

[Sellanious Caesar]

I was always under the impression the census numbers reflected counts of actual people, not just citizens.

No, that's why they are known as "undocumented immigrants." The census since 2010 has only just started trying to include them in its counts but it's info retention rate has been meager to say the least.

Houston is probably already at 7 million with the undocumented immigrants included. By that same token Chicago CSA is already well above 10 million. DFW is likewise probably over 7.6 million. All the other cities where this largely applies are (in no order); LA, NYC, Miami, SF, Phoenix, SD, Las Vegas, Denver, Sacramento, SA, ATX, El Paso, RGV, Etc. Either cities in border states or the top 7 or 8 immigration hubs.

[Sparrow]

No, the Census does include all people regardless of status.

www.census.gov/population/foreign/about/faq.html

 

The undercounting only comes into play when considering how many out there don't complete the survey because they irrationally fear ICE is going to knock on their door if they do send it in.

[Howard Huge]

No, the Census does include all people regardless of status.

www.census.gov/population/foreign/about/faq.html

The undercounting only comes into play when considering how many out there don't complete the survey because they irrationally fear ICE is going to knock on their door if they do send it in.

Well that's the point.

How many illegals do you think are filling out these forms to tell the government that they live here?

[Sparrow]

The Census Bureau has statistical methods to account for omissions, overcounting, and undercounting. Their population estimates are of the total population residing within the given region and do not need additional revision on the basis of general-population-uninformed-mass-media-bias-assumptions.

 

To be clear, my point is to speak to the competence of the statisticians, not a political stand one way or the other. It'd be rather callous to think the governmental body whose field of expertise is demographics and statistics would be so incredibly incompetent as to be duped into failing to consider a large portion of their survey, or lack there of. 

 

If the Census Bureau states the estimated Houston MSA population statistic at 6.313 million, there is no reason to add some irrational, imagined number to it. Deaths, births, and migration of all types are already factored in. 

[ricco67]

I worked for the 2000 census and I took a physical count for every person I came across.

because I was a Spanish speaker, I was assigned the gulfton/Hillcroft area, and I have to say it was a bit of a challenge, but highly rewarding.

[luciaphile]

The Census Bureau has statistical methods to account for omissions, overcounting, and undercounting.

 

I am confused.

 

Are you saying the census bureau assumes a certain number of people are eluding them, deliberately or not, and hazards a guess as to their number? I was only a lowly enumerator for a couple months, but I understood the census to be, pretty simply, a head count.

 

i think I heard them say they had a way of catching duplicate surveys, but that's all I remember.  

 

Perhaps you are referring to statistical methods and assumptions that are likely involved in census bureau reports, based on sampling, on the attributes of the population.

[august948]

I am under the impression that the Census Bureau assumes, quite logically, that they won't be able to get a truly accurate count of every single person in the US and so they use statistical methods to arrive at what they believe to be the best approximation of the totals.

[luciaphile]

I am under the impression that the Census Bureau assumes, quite logically, that they won't be able to get a truly accurate count of every single person in the US and so they use statistical methods to arrive at what they believe to be the best approximation of the totals.

 

Seems to indicate Supreme Court rejected massaging the numbers, but the legalese is too lengthy for me:

 

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/census-methods-raise-constitutional-flags

 

Pro and Con:

 

http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-2/Should-statistical-sampling-be-used-in-the-United-States-Census.html

[Subdude]

http://www.newgeography.com/content/004153-moving-south-and-west-metropolitan-america-2042

 

 

 

[IronTiger]

I am under the impression that the Census Bureau assumes, quite logically, that they won't be able to get a truly accurate count of every single person in the US and so they use statistical methods to arrive at what they believe to be the best approximation of the totals.

 

Well, I imagine that they do incorporate a margin of error and all that fun stuff. 

 

I think statistics need to be taught at every high school in America, since it both explains about the margin of error and other things like correlation is not causation, which many have a hard time grasping.

[august948]

Well, I imagine that they do incorporate a margin of error and all that fun stuff. 

 

I think statistics need to be taught at every high school in America, since it both explains about the margin of error and other things like correlation is not causation, which many have a hard time grasping.

 

Statistics should be taught for that and also for this reason...

 

 

[IronTiger]

Oh yeah, accounting too. A little knowledge on accounts receivable, and accounts payable, can really distort how well (or poorly) the company's doing.

[Fringe]

I don't think it's fair to count two separate cities like Dallas and Fort Worth together. Perhaps I will change my tune when Houston annexes Austin. 

[august948]

I don't think it's fair to count two separate cities like Dallas and Fort Worth together. Perhaps I will change my tune when Houston annexes Austin. 

 

 

[luciaphile]

Well, I imagine that they do incorporate a margin of error and all that fun stuff. 

 

 

No.

A census is an ancient thing, unlike statistics, so I find it strange that you should all trust that the government "knows" the result in advance and assume statistical methods are used to arrive at it.

I think, if you'll forgive me, there may be a generational divide at the moment, as to faith in what government "knows."

This article explains the one statistical method of "imputation" employed, more and less in some decades, to try not to undercount:

 

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/05/04/imputation-adding-people-to-the-census/

 

When after repeated failed attempts to count them, people are still thought to live at an address, they are added based on household size in the neighborhood. The article says that Texas had the largest "add," of 143,000 people, in this way.

 

For its between-census estimates, and other data collection, the Census employs the usual statistical methods, and includes a margin of error.

 

I have read the next Census will be internet-based.

 

Perhaps in future they will decide to make it more "scientific," and abandon the notion of a Census, but they'll have to amend the Constitution first.

 

 

 

 

 

[Subdude]

No.

A census is an ancient thing, unlike statistics, so I find it strange that you should all trust that the government "knows" the result in advance and assume statistical methods are used to arrive at it.

I think, if you'll forgive me, there may be a generational divide at the moment, as to faith in what government "knows."

This article explains the one statistical method of "imputation" employed, more and less in some decades, to try not to undercount:

 

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/05/04/imputation-adding-people-to-the-census/

 

When after repeated failed attempts to count them, people are still thought to live at an address, they are added based on household size in the neighborhood. The article says that Texas had the largest "add," of 143,000 people, in this way.

 

For its between-census estimates, and other data collection, the Census employs the usual statistical methods, and includes a margin of error.

 

I have read the next Census will be internet-based.

 

Perhaps in future they will decide to make it more "scientific," and abandon the notion of a Census, but they'll have to amend the Constitution first.

 

I know the US Constitution requires a census, but does it specify that it oughtn't be statistically corrected?

[luciaphile]

I know the US Constitution requires a census, but does it specify that it oughtn't be statistically corrected?

 

I don't know about "statistically corrected" - the seemingly modest (in terms of the numbers it generates) practice of imputation, while not directly statistical, has a statistical component, in assigning a number to a presumed household based on local characteristics - but the Supreme Court case that I linked to earlier, held that a Census that is "statistically produced," which had evidently been proposed ahead of the 2000 census, was not consistent with the Constitution. I think Scalia argued that in order to show that sampling would yield a more accurate result than counting, you would have to rely on - sampling. 

 

Perhaps the Nine may change their minds, though; that would definitely be more consistent with the Game of Special Interests.

[mollusk]

The actual language in Article I, Section 2, is:  "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

 

Translated, this means an actual headcount, and that the Census Bureau doesn't have the authority to use statistical corrections unless directed to do so by Congress.

[Houston19514]

The actual language in Article I, Section 2, is:  "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

 

Translated, this means an actual headcount, and that the Census Bureau doesn't have the authority to us statistical corrections unless directed to do so by Congress.

 

It's more than that.  Congress can add the authority to use statistical corrections, but Congress cannot remove the requirement to perform the actual headcount.  The Census must do an actual headcount every ten years.

[kylejack]

I'd say we've been there for a while.

If you were to count up all of the undocumented and illegal aliens, and basically everyone who doesnt show up on a census report,living in the greater Houston area, I'd say we are at 7 million plus, easily.

Just my opinion.

Those people are counted.

[kylejack]

Contrary to some opinions expressed above, the US Census has always counted everyone living in the United States, not just citizens and lawful residents. 

[mollusk]

You are correct, kylejack, mostly.  "Indians not taxed" seem to be excluded from the census, both in Article I and in the 14th Amendment. 

 

The Constitution routinely uses the word "person."  "Citizen" is used in the context of qualifications for elected Federal office, but interestingly enough, not the judiciary.  "Citizen" comes up again in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments, in each case limited to the context of qualifications to vote for Federal office.

 

 

[kylejack]

Ah yes, native peoples. I would imagine a Census would have been difficult of tribes that were, at the time, at war with the United States.