Boston’s population loss worse than Springfield’s
I noted yesterday that Springfield’s population has declined by some 5,000 people over the last 15 years, not 13,000 as the Boston Globe wrote (based on a small misunderstanding). However, since 2000, when the last actual population count was undertaken, Springfield’s population has remained more or less flat, according to Census Bureau estimates. During those same years, Boston’s population declined by some 20,000 people, to 569,000 in 2004, from 589,000 in 2000.
New slogan for Boston: Boston - Now Less Attractive Than Springfield!
Which seems impossible.
The estimates for Boston and Springfield use the 2000 headcounts as baselines. Is it possible that census takers in Springfield cooked the population numbers in 2000? Is the Census Bureau underestimating Boston’s population? If the numbers for Springfield are correct, why the heck aren’t people there moving to more promising cities and states? Are subsidies from the Commonwealth locking in Springfieldians in stagnation?
