Boston continues to lose people, but with a twist and not for much longer, I dare say.
As expected, the American Community Survey reveals that Boston continued to lose population in 2005, with blacks leaving in droves while whites made a tentative comeback. But who really knows?
The United States Census Bureau has released the first batch of data from its 2005 American Community Survey, which tries to measure population through a sample of household data (and excludes group-quarter populations, eg. college dorms). The Census also publishes population estimates that include the entire population, including group-quarters.
It all makes for a lot of confusion.
The table below shows the Census population estimates for Boston through 2005. I also added a column for Boston’s household population as estimated by the ACS from 2002 through 2005. Finally, I added the difference between the population estimate and the household population measured by the ACS. That number should be, I imagine, the group-quarters population. As you’ll see, the group-quarters population seems a bit fishy. Or maybe it’s just my methodology (which really is just artihmetic coupled with guesswork).
|
Boston city, Massachusetts |
|||
|
Total Population |
ACS |
Diff. |
|
|
July 1, 2005 |
559,034 |
520,702 |
38,332 |
|
July 1, 2004 |
567,660 |
523,683 |
43,977 |
|
July 1, 2003 |
577,432 |
540,772 |
36,660 |
|
July 1, 2002 |
585,259 |
545,181 |
40,078 |
|
July 1, 2001 |
590,293 |
n/a |
n/a |
|
July 1, 2000 |
589,255 |
n/a |
n/a |
|
April 1, 2000 (Estimates Base) |
589,141 |
n/a |
n/a |
|
April 1, 2000 (Census 2000) |
589,141 |
554,064 |
35,077* |
* According to the 2000 Census.
Did group-quarters population really decrease by almost 6,000 between 2004 and 2005? For that matter, did it increase by more than 6,000 between 2003 and 2004? I’m sure there’s a perfectly good explanation for this apparent discrepancy that I’m ignorant about.
Let us for the sake of argument and entertainment take the 2005 American Community Service data at face value and see what they show us.
The most interesting change recorded by the 2005 ACS is the accelerated loss of blacks. It is so large, in fact, that one has to wonder whether it is right. According to the 2005 ACS, the number of blacks in the city was 122,000, fully 16,000 fewer than in 2004. That’s quite a drop off. I know that black flight from Boston is a reality, and I know at least three black women who’ve left the city (and usually the state) over the last few years (keep in mind that I don’t exactly know a whole lot of black women to begin with) and apparently efforts have been made by black professional organizations in the city to keep black talent from fleeing. But 16,000 in one year? Can that really be right? Does the city of Boston have data of various types that can verify or contest the ACS’s finding? Am I reading the ACS data wrong (it’s happened before) for “Not Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American alone”*?
Whites, on the other hand, rebounded from their dramatic losses between 2003 and 2004, when they declined from 262,000 to 247,000. Last year they numbered 253,000 (increasing their share of the overall household population to 49% from 47% and making them the dominant group of “New Bostonians” last year - I assume this will be reflected in your hiring patterns, Mister Mayor!).
The Latino and Asian populations grew slightly.
The under-18 population grew by about 1,000 from 107,700 to 108,800 (give or take a few).
The shares of immigrants and people who speak a language other than English at home both grew slightly from 2004 to 2005.
I suspect there’s a strong possibility here that we’ll see a slight decrease in the white population in the 2006 ACS, and a slight increase in the black (mostly ones it missed this year), while the Latino and Asian populations will remain largely the same. I also think we’ll see an overall population growth for 2006. That’s right, I’m saying that Boston’s population will exceed 559,000 in 2006! Now write a misery op-ed on that premise, you Knights of Negativity!
More fun to come!
* By the way, since American race definitions are so arbitrary, blunt and weird anyway, why can’t we just call Hispanics a separate race and drop the whole “Not Latino” routine?
