Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri
I guessed several numbers there, from 700k to 850k. AFAIK, it could be anything between Los Angeles City numbers and LA County numbers. Crawford, for instance, used the city proper number to state Los Angeles was smaller than Scranton-Wilkes. My first intervention was actually to correct that notion. Then you appeared saying everything was wrong and Los Angeles population was 997k. Which was not, of course.
|
I was obviously giving the number based on modern MSA definitions, which others had done in that thread. That is a perfectly valid population figure to cite (in some metros more than others). And it turns out that number was a lot closer to the census bureau's own metro district number than the number you made up in your head (no surprises there).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri
And where did you see they included communities outside LA County? I haven't seen any map posted there.
|
You couldn't have missed
this post so I will again assume that you are just being intentionally dishonest here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri
And if that's the case, you are also wrong as I claimed LA County rural population was big in 1920 and you said it was not. If LA metro area had 850k, including areas outside LA County (932k), then you have a much bigger rural population there, even bigger than the one guessed by me.
|
Where are you coming up with these numbers like 850k and 831k? Those figures don't exist anywhere in that thread. LA county did indeed have a very small "rural" population in 1920. An 8 to 1 or 10 to 1 "metro" to "rural" population split would have been huge for 1920s America.