In 25 years San Francisco will be a lot whiter

[fflint]

Originally Posted by lio45

FWIW, the article quoted in the OP (from sfgate.com) had SF becoming whiter over the [2000-2010] period.

Could they be wrong? It wouldn't be the first (nor the last) time we'd witness really sloppy journalism...

Now I'm thinking you didn't bother to read the discussion. Some random organization nobody heard of commissioned a report that made that prediction. Those of us who have read the report have all noted there's not a shred of evidence for the prediction, but sure--the local rag's website picked up the story for a day. Interestingly, this topic has had a zillion times more play on this forum than it ever got among actual San Franciscans.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by lio45

Currently, though, the trend might very well be that SF is becoming more white, not less white, with the passage of time. (Over the last 5 or 10 years.)

If I had to bet, I'd rather bet on "it's becoming more white" than on "it's becoming less white". The former seems much more likely.

Originally Posted by lio45

FWIW, the article quoted in the OP (from sfgate.com) had SF becoming whiter over the [2000-2010] period.

Could they be wrong? It wouldn't be the first (nor the last) time we'd witness really sloppy journalism...

You do realize there's this thing called the "census" right? And you do realize you can look up statistics on their website, right? You don't need to guess.

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/n...html?refresh=t

Here's another useful site for Bay Area census data:

http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/

White people in SF:

white alone:
2000: 385,728 (49.7%)
2010: 390,387 (48.5 %)

non-hispanic white:
2000: 338,909 (43.6%)
2010: 337,451 (41.9%)

SF also lost black people and gained Asian and Latino people. As you can see, there was a small increase in the "white alone" category, in raw numbers, but they still dropped as a percentage, because the city added quite a few more Asian and non-white Latino people from 2000-2010 than it did white people. And non-Hispanic whites lost population in raw numbers and as a percentage.

And for the record, the SF chronicle is a horrible newspaper, and sloppy journalism is not a surprise coming from them.

Sure, it is possible that the white population might start to rise again, and keep rising until SF is 60% or 80% or 100% white by 2040, or whatever some people expect. But looking back over the past several decades of census data, I think it might be too early to come to that conclusion. And it's not exactly clear how the study in the OP came to the conclusion that SF would be getting much whiter.

Originally Posted by lio45

So... I guess my point is, I don't really see any attack against SF in this thread, nor do I see any truly wrong facts being thrown around as truth.

Did you actually read the entire thread? The first few pages had a few forumers claiming that SF is extra white for a US city, which is not true. They were also arguing with myself and other SF forumers when we presented evidence that it isn't true, and that the study in the OP seems to be making some weird assumptions about the future. There are no "attacks" as you put it, but there are some people making incorrect assumptions, and who were arguing in support of those assumptions even after data had been posted to disprove it.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by tech12

SF is 34% Asian. Are you now implying that there are few Asians in SF?

I'm not implying that at all, I don't know how you would get that from my comment. My sister and her husband used to live in San Francisco and I would visit them often, and I know very well how Asian San Francisco is (they even lived in the Sunset District for a few years before moving to the Presidio). I was just saying that one shouldn't always assume that everyone you see in a particular place is an immediate local of the area.

Originally Posted by tech12

I'm an SF native, not a transplant, and who cares what race we are? The race of SF forumers doesn't change the fact that the people in this thread claiming that SF is extra white for a US city are wrong, and it doesn't change the fact that demographic trends over the past 75 years contradict the prediction of the study in the OP.

Being that you're a native, you didn't need to respond; I was only asking the forumers who are San Francisco transplants, recent and not so recent. I was just curious to know what race they are. Yes, facts are facts, but trends are also trends. I don't doubt that the Asian population of San Francisco will continue to grow, or perhaps level off, but is it so inconceivable of the possibility of the non-Hispanic white population to increase in the next 25 years? If these recent SF transplants who post regularly on here are non-Hispanic white, wouldn't that be a possible indicator of a trend that might continue, or would they just all be exceptions?

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Being that you're a native, you didn't need to respond; I was only asking the forumers who are San Francisco transplants, recent and not so recent. I was just curious to know what race they are. Yes, facts are facts, but trends are also trends. I don't doubt that the Asian population of San Francisco will continue to grow, or perhaps level off, but is it so inconceivable of the possibility of the non-Hispanic white population to increase in the next 25 years? If these recent SF transplants who post regularly on here are non-Hispanic white, wouldn't that be a possible indicator of a trend that might continue, or would they just all be exceptions?

I'm non-Hispanic white, and a transplant to SF (from 2004). I don't think it's much of a trend indicator though, but rather more likely an indication of the typical demographics of a skyscraper/urban building nerd forum. Just looking at the demographics of SSP users, we could also assume that most megacities in China are going to be majority Canadian immigrant soon. We've got like ten regular posters from SF, not even within two orders of magnitude of the numbers that we'd need to make some trend inference.

As to the possibility of the last 30+ years of trends reversing and the white population increasing as a percentage, sure, that's a possibility. However, the article does nothing to show why this would be a possibility, and links to no data that shows that this is happening or will happen. Instead, they made a clickbait headline and a couple statements in the article, but conducted no actual study that supports these statements. If someone has data that shows this, that would be interesting and worth taking a look at.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by tech12

And for the record, the SF chronicle is a horrible newspaper, and sloppy journalism is not a surprise coming from them.

Not surprised to hear that...

BTW, in the article, they sure insist about how SF's black population has been falling, having passed from 13.4% in 1970 to ~5% in 2013.


Of course "being less black" isn't the same as "being more white". (Facts being that SF is now both less African-American AND less Caucasian than in 1970.)

On the other hand, I guess one could argue that the average skin tone of San Franciscans has been becoming lighter and lighter for the last half-century. (It even almost seems at times that it's the point of the sfgate.com article...)

But as you know they then also forecast an exodus of Asians for the future... apparently projected by this study: (disclaimer, haven't read all it, I quickly looked for that part and didn't see it; maybe the journalists interpreted it wrong.)
http://www.policylink.org/sites/defa...2015_Final.pdf

Did you actually read the entire thread?

Originally Posted by fflint

Now I'm thinking you didn't bother to read the discussion.

I think I did... don't recall anyone being extra wrong. Of course I can't say that you two haven't been right during at least the last two pages. So if people were saying the opposite, then they were wrong.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by fflint

Some random organization nobody heard of commissioned a report that made that prediction.

The San Francisco Foundation commissioned the study. They're a pretty big philanthropic organization that's been around since 1948, apparently.

Originally Posted by Gordo

I'm non-Hispanic white, and a transplant to SF (from 2004). I don't think it's much of a trend indicator though, but rather more likely an indication of the typical demographics of a skyscraper/urban building nerd forum. Just looking at the demographics of SSP users, we could also assume that most megacities in China are going to be majority Canadian immigrant soon. We've got like ten regular posters from SF, not even within two orders of magnitude of the numbers that we'd need to make some trend inference.

As to the possibility of the last 30+ years of trends reversing and the white population increasing as a percentage, sure, that's a possibility. However, the article does nothing to show why this would be a possibility, and links to no data that shows that this is happening or will happen. Instead, they made a clickbait headline and a couple statements in the article, but conducted no actual study that supports these statements. If someone has data that shows this, that would be interesting and worth taking a look at.

I read the study; isn't the prediction based on current data? It shows access to high-opportunity jobs by race, Latinos and African-Americans having the least access to those; racial economic gaps; people of color being more likely to be among the working poor; people of color having higher housing burdens; etc., etc.

I guess some of you think none of this might make people of color, who tend to be lower income, leave the very expensive City of San Francisco for other areas in the Bay Area? Again, I know these are predictions, just like economics, which also isn't exactly a science, but... ?

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I read the study; isn't the prediction based on current data? It shows access to high-opportunity jobs by race, Latinos and African-Americans having the least access to those; racial economic gaps; people of color being more likely to be among the working poor; people of color having higher housing burdens; etc., etc.

I guess some of you think none of this might make people of color, who tend to be lower income, leave the very expensive City of San Francisco for other areas in the Bay Area? Again, I know these are predictions, just like economics, which also isn't exactly a science, but... ?

All of the things that they show have been true for three decades, all while the city has been decreasing in white %. They do nothing to show why the current trend is going to reverse, and they do nothing to explain why they think it might reverse. If you think that current or past data explains what will happen in the future, you have to at least explain why it isn't happening now or hasn't happened in the past and why you think that this time is different.

They could possibly use some of their data to predict a decline in Latino %, but there's just nothing there to support a claim that there will be a massive exodus of Asians, which is the only thing that could possibly support the "majority white by 2040" prediction. They're claiming that Asians will drop from 34% to 28% after 30+ consecutive years of % increases.

[fflint]

^Exactly. The report claims whites will become a majority in San Francisco because gentrification will drive Asians and Latinos out, but utterly fails to account for the fact the city's white population has steadily dropped over the last 35 years of gentrification. What is supposed to be different going forward? The report fails to explain.

Is it possible San Francisco's white population will grow in coming years? Sure it is possible. There's nothing in the nature of the world that necessarily precludes such a shift. I can imagine a scenario in which a continuing influx of techies from around the US (which is still majority white) might grow the local white population a bit.

Is it likely the city, currently 59% minority, will become majority non-Hispanic white? That's quite a different question, and one for which nobody has advanced a compelling answer, including the authors of this conjectural report.