[Crawford]

I have no idea what's happening with the Census counts. Either the annual estimates are garbage, or the decennial counts are garbage, bc they aren't remotely close, especially for older, more urban parts of the U.S.

Also, how does one reconcile the annual estimates with the prevailing narratives. During peak Covid, the narrative was that rich people were in the Hamptons and Palm Beach, and digital natives were relocating to cheaper, second tier places. Then we find that cheap urban places like Baltimore had some of the worst population losses and the Hamptons was flat. Even Miami, where supposedly half the planet had moved to, to escape allegedly heavy-handed Covid response, had population loss.

Later on, the prevailing narrative was that urban unrest, unrestrained liberalism and remote work would bleed urban centers of the mobile wealthy, leaving cities with the poorest of the poor. But the biggest population losses appear to be in the poorest jurisdictions, and the best population numbers appear to be in wealthier jurisdictions.

Also, SF was supposedly the poster child for worst post-pandemic urban outcomes. Tech oriented elites scattered, remote work emptied downtown, and wacky liberalism supposedly allowed bums to go buck-wild. Yet Seattle is the closest analogue to SF (West Coast techie, white-Asian, affluent, heavy remote, outdoorsy, silly expensive, very liberal, lots of homeless) and appears to have the best Census outcomes. What gives?