Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner
This is totally wrong, and I suspect you are being intentionally dishonest here. The census bureau gave a figure of 879k which is a lot closer to the retroactive county based number than it is to your initial guess of 700k. By 1930 the county based number and the metro "district" number are virtually identical at 2.3m which shows the validity of retroactively using the county based number for this particular metro. So no, the other forumer did not confirm your "guessing." In fact, it turned out you were wrong on all counts. You said the metro shouldn't include Orange County. Not only did the census bureau include most of Orange County, it also included parts of San Bernardino County. In some ways it's even more expansive a metro area definition than today's MSA.
|
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.
And where did you see they included communities outside LA County? I haven't seen any map posted there. 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner
Yes, back to this thread. You still haven't explained why your methodology for calculating metro areas has seemingly done a 180 in a couple of days. There is no consistency, no logic to it. It's just whatever it needs to be for your agenda at the time. I'll stick to the census bureau definitions, imperfect as they may be.
|
As this thread doesn't deal with metro areas definition, but metro area declines. Metro areas here could be anything that include more than the city proper itself (as we had a thread dealing with city proper decline recently).
And as we're are in SSP/SSC where people main concern is to have their city look bigger and better, here my definition for Los Angeles metro area: Los Angeles CSA. And for me that's the case since 1960 or 1970.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner
Why do any of that?
|
I explained above: 4 counties would leave out the only boom county of the metro area; 7 would make Pittsburgh bigger than Detroit and twice the size of Cleveland, adding two more fast declining counties that Pittsburgh forumers always claim they are just coal towns that might as well be located in WV, not "being Pittsburgh". In fact, I read once in this section a Pittsburgh forumer saying Pittsburgh metro area was Allegheny County only. It might have been @pj3000, I don't remember.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner
So you included it under a false premise.
|
Butler is indeed booming since the 1950's, non-stop. What's the false premise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner
Why? This seems totally arbitrary.
|
Answered above.