Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Average SD family 2000 vs 2010
- This topic has 630 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 10 months ago by
sobmaz.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 5, 2011 at 4:18 PM #664293February 5, 2011 at 4:23 PM #663156
sdrealtor
ParticipantFWIW, when I moved to SD it was to work with a company that was involved in the health care information business using demographics to forecast health care demand. With the exception of the Census all data is based upon very limited household surveys. Even the Census has its flaws and limitations. We would often look at various suppliers of raw demographic and they were all different. There is no absolutely correct source just a collection of guestimates full of flaws.
Where you stand depends upon where you sit and where I sit people arent drinking powdered milk either.
February 5, 2011 at 4:23 PM #663218ParticipantFWIW, when I moved to SD it was to work with a company that was involved in the health care information business using demographics to forecast health care demand. With the exception of the Census all data is based upon very limited household surveys. Even the Census has its flaws and limitations. We would often look at various suppliers of raw demographic and they were all different. There is no absolutely correct source just a collection of guestimates full of flaws.
Where you stand depends upon where you sit and where I sit people arent drinking powdered milk either.
February 5, 2011 at 4:23 PM #663823ParticipantFWIW, when I moved to SD it was to work with a company that was involved in the health care information business using demographics to forecast health care demand. With the exception of the Census all data is based upon very limited household surveys. Even the Census has its flaws and limitations. We would often look at various suppliers of raw demographic and they were all different. There is no absolutely correct source just a collection of guestimates full of flaws.
Where you stand depends upon where you sit and where I sit people arent drinking powdered milk either.
February 5, 2011 at 4:23 PM #663960ParticipantFWIW, when I moved to SD it was to work with a company that was involved in the health care information business using demographics to forecast health care demand. With the exception of the Census all data is based upon very limited household surveys. Even the Census has its flaws and limitations. We would often look at various suppliers of raw demographic and they were all different. There is no absolutely correct source just a collection of guestimates full of flaws.
Where you stand depends upon where you sit and where I sit people arent drinking powdered milk either.
February 5, 2011 at 4:23 PM #664298ParticipantFWIW, when I moved to SD it was to work with a company that was involved in the health care information business using demographics to forecast health care demand. With the exception of the Census all data is based upon very limited household surveys. Even the Census has its flaws and limitations. We would often look at various suppliers of raw demographic and they were all different. There is no absolutely correct source just a collection of guestimates full of flaws.
Where you stand depends upon where you sit and where I sit people arent drinking powdered milk either.
February 5, 2011 at 4:25 PM #663161Participant[quote=AN]Another interesting data I found is median age. in 1990, the median age in SD county was 31. In 2000, it went up to 33.2. In 2010, it’s 35.3.[/quote]
That is a very big change for a place to go through. Probably due to the shift away from a military dominated town to one that now has a major presence in private industries combined with people aging in place.
February 5, 2011 at 4:25 PM #663223Participant[quote=AN]Another interesting data I found is median age. in 1990, the median age in SD county was 31. In 2000, it went up to 33.2. In 2010, it’s 35.3.[/quote]
That is a very big change for a place to go through. Probably due to the shift away from a military dominated town to one that now has a major presence in private industries combined with people aging in place.
February 5, 2011 at 4:25 PM #663828Participant[quote=AN]Another interesting data I found is median age. in 1990, the median age in SD county was 31. In 2000, it went up to 33.2. In 2010, it’s 35.3.[/quote]
That is a very big change for a place to go through. Probably due to the shift away from a military dominated town to one that now has a major presence in private industries combined with people aging in place.
February 5, 2011 at 4:25 PM #663965Participant[quote=AN]Another interesting data I found is median age. in 1990, the median age in SD county was 31. In 2000, it went up to 33.2. In 2010, it’s 35.3.[/quote]
That is a very big change for a place to go through. Probably due to the shift away from a military dominated town to one that now has a major presence in private industries combined with people aging in place.
February 5, 2011 at 4:25 PM #664303Participant[quote=AN]Another interesting data I found is median age. in 1990, the median age in SD county was 31. In 2000, it went up to 33.2. In 2010, it’s 35.3.[/quote]
That is a very big change for a place to go through. Probably due to the shift away from a military dominated town to one that now has a major presence in private industries combined with people aging in place.
February 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM #663171CA renter
Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]
Federal workers who’ve seen this kind of increase are very likely to see steep cuts in the coming 10 years. IMHO, the public sector (at all levels) leads the next leg down.[/quote]
Lets revisit this thread in 10 years. I don’t have a crystal ball, so I can’t really give you any opposition. However, SANDAG have their own crystal ball and their crystal ball seem to be giving different number than yours: http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/fcst/reg999fcst.pdf. What’s your thought?[/quote]I didn’t give any numbers other than a 10-year timeframe, and am not referring specifically to San Diego.
There is no way around it, government entities are going to take a hit. Look at all the hysteria about public pay and the public deficits — at all levels. Once the govt jobs are eliminated and the pay/benefits reduced, the rug will be ripped out from under U.S. workers — public AND private — because the public sector has set a floor for wages and benefits for ALL workers. If private sector jobs didn’t provide adequate pay and benefits, people could just migrate to public sector jobs. As the public sector shrinks and the number of jobs are reduced (as will inevitably happen over the coming years), this option will disappear, and the private sector will not have to compete with the public sector for good employees. Additionally, as the pay and benefits in the public sector go down, the pay/benefits in the private sector will go down as well. All those screaming about the “evil” unions today will sorely regret their demise in the future.
February 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM #663233Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]
Federal workers who’ve seen this kind of increase are very likely to see steep cuts in the coming 10 years. IMHO, the public sector (at all levels) leads the next leg down.[/quote]
Lets revisit this thread in 10 years. I don’t have a crystal ball, so I can’t really give you any opposition. However, SANDAG have their own crystal ball and their crystal ball seem to be giving different number than yours: http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/fcst/reg999fcst.pdf. What’s your thought?[/quote]I didn’t give any numbers other than a 10-year timeframe, and am not referring specifically to San Diego.
There is no way around it, government entities are going to take a hit. Look at all the hysteria about public pay and the public deficits — at all levels. Once the govt jobs are eliminated and the pay/benefits reduced, the rug will be ripped out from under U.S. workers — public AND private — because the public sector has set a floor for wages and benefits for ALL workers. If private sector jobs didn’t provide adequate pay and benefits, people could just migrate to public sector jobs. As the public sector shrinks and the number of jobs are reduced (as will inevitably happen over the coming years), this option will disappear, and the private sector will not have to compete with the public sector for good employees. Additionally, as the pay and benefits in the public sector go down, the pay/benefits in the private sector will go down as well. All those screaming about the “evil” unions today will sorely regret their demise in the future.
February 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM #663838Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]
Federal workers who’ve seen this kind of increase are very likely to see steep cuts in the coming 10 years. IMHO, the public sector (at all levels) leads the next leg down.[/quote]
Lets revisit this thread in 10 years. I don’t have a crystal ball, so I can’t really give you any opposition. However, SANDAG have their own crystal ball and their crystal ball seem to be giving different number than yours: http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/fcst/reg999fcst.pdf. What’s your thought?[/quote]I didn’t give any numbers other than a 10-year timeframe, and am not referring specifically to San Diego.
There is no way around it, government entities are going to take a hit. Look at all the hysteria about public pay and the public deficits — at all levels. Once the govt jobs are eliminated and the pay/benefits reduced, the rug will be ripped out from under U.S. workers — public AND private — because the public sector has set a floor for wages and benefits for ALL workers. If private sector jobs didn’t provide adequate pay and benefits, people could just migrate to public sector jobs. As the public sector shrinks and the number of jobs are reduced (as will inevitably happen over the coming years), this option will disappear, and the private sector will not have to compete with the public sector for good employees. Additionally, as the pay and benefits in the public sector go down, the pay/benefits in the private sector will go down as well. All those screaming about the “evil” unions today will sorely regret their demise in the future.
February 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM #663975Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]
Federal workers who’ve seen this kind of increase are very likely to see steep cuts in the coming 10 years. IMHO, the public sector (at all levels) leads the next leg down.[/quote]
Lets revisit this thread in 10 years. I don’t have a crystal ball, so I can’t really give you any opposition. However, SANDAG have their own crystal ball and their crystal ball seem to be giving different number than yours: http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/fcst/reg999fcst.pdf. What’s your thought?[/quote]I didn’t give any numbers other than a 10-year timeframe, and am not referring specifically to San Diego.
There is no way around it, government entities are going to take a hit. Look at all the hysteria about public pay and the public deficits — at all levels. Once the govt jobs are eliminated and the pay/benefits reduced, the rug will be ripped out from under U.S. workers — public AND private — because the public sector has set a floor for wages and benefits for ALL workers. If private sector jobs didn’t provide adequate pay and benefits, people could just migrate to public sector jobs. As the public sector shrinks and the number of jobs are reduced (as will inevitably happen over the coming years), this option will disappear, and the private sector will not have to compete with the public sector for good employees. Additionally, as the pay and benefits in the public sector go down, the pay/benefits in the private sector will go down as well. All those screaming about the “evil” unions today will sorely regret their demise in the future.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.