Poll on Cincinnati's 2010 census figure

Does anyone know when the figures are going to be announced? 

1900 325,902

1910 363,591

1920 401,247

1930 451,160

1940 455,610

1950 503,998

1960 502,550

1970 452,524

1980 385,457

1990 364,040

2000 331,285

2008 333,336*

 

*Estimated

 

Are there estimated figures for 2009 or 2010?

Does anyone know when the figures are going to be announced?

 

Before the end of the year.  Thanks for posting that Sherman, if people are wondering where some of the numbers in the poll came from, that's where.

1900 325,902

1910 363,591

1920 401,247

1930 451,160

1940 455,610

1950 503,998

1960 502,550

1970 452,524

1980 385,457

1990 364,040

2000 331,285

2008 333,336*

 

*Estimated

 

Are there estimated figures for 2009 or 2010?

 

2009: 333,013

2010 should come out soon, as the official census results.

 

I think this serves as a source for the 2009 estimate, but I can't look at a spreadsheet right now:

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-pop-chg.html

The city peaked at just 500,000 residents? That surprises me, I thought we peaked around 600,000. 

^ Well it could have peaked in 1955, but i guess we will never know.

Wow, just out of curiosity I looked up the historical population numbers for Pittsburgh and Cleveland and are they impressive.  There was a time when Cleveland was adding 200,000 residents every decade!  Cincinnati, in contrast, grew much slower even in boom times, and has shrunk less in bad times as well.

340,000 in 2010. 350,000 in 2020, probably will level off there. I think all of Ohio will level off by then.

I'm going to be optimistic and say 333,337 to 337,999

 

And for fun I made this graph. You could derive a lot of analysis from it if you took the time:

 

 

 

  I vote 300,000.

 

 

^ Are you just saying that so if there happens to be a low number you can be all "I told you so"?

 

You often seem to predict unlikely doomsday scenarios to which no one else subscribes (see: streetcar).

See the sharp population incline since 1990 for Columbus? The unemployment rate in Columbus in that same time frame would show the same incline. 1990, unemployment was 3.2% or 2.3% in Columbus; I can't remember which one. Now I believe it's above 10% People aren't moving to Columbus because there's so many job opportunities. They're coming here because they're refugees and get a bunch of free government money.

They're coming here because they're refugees and get a bunch of free government money.

Interesting. Could you elaborate?

Do you think some of the struggling cities such as Dayton, Toledo and Cleveland would benefit if the state agencies that are all based in Columbus spread out to all the cities in the state. THere is nothing that says they all have to be based in the capital city and in todays economy, techonology will allow them to be spread out more than ever.

 

This would help some of the other cities by spreading out state jobs and even help columbus because it would diversify the economy and they would not be as reliant on state employees for their economy.

 

In IL, many state agencies are based in Chicago as opposed to Springfield. Same with New York. Maybe we can move the Secretary of State to Cincinnati, Attorney General to Cleveland and Bureau of Workers Comp to Dayton, etc.

There are State agencies in Cleveland.  We have a whole building downtown dedicated to them.  BWC is already in all these cities.  The AG, for a multitude of reasons, must stay in Franklin County.

 

Interesting idea, but C-Bus has become reliant on those state employees and shuffling the deck is not going to make a significant enough impact in the other two C's or some of the mid-size cities to make it worth it.... IMHO.  The benefit to Cincy and Cleveland would not outweigh the harm to Columbus.

There are State agencies in Cleveland.  We have a whole building downtown dedicated to them.  BWC is already in all these cities.  The AG, for a multitude of reasons, must stay in Franklin County.

 

While the other cities have offices such as BWC field offices and such, the agency is based in Columbus. I was looking at relocating the center of operations.

 

Your right, it would have a harmful effect on columbus in the short term but would Columbus be better off in the longer term if it were not so reliant on the government offices. (The labor could be better deployed to more efficient ventures)

 

Interesting idea, but C-Bus has become reliant on those state employees and shuffling the deck is not going to make a significant enough impact in the other two C's or some of the mid-size cities to make it worth it.... IMHO.  The benefit to Cincy and Cleveland would not outweigh the harm to Columbus.

 

Your right, it would have a harmful effect on columbus in the short term but would Columbus be better off in the longer term if it were not so reliant on the government offices. (The labor could be better deployed to more efficient ventures)

 

?

 

The state government is just one of the main industries of Columbus.  It'd be like telling Cincinnati "stop being so reliant on Proctor & Gamble and shuffle the deck to Coshocton and Marion!"  There'd be no point.  Cincinnati is P&G; the State Government is Columbus.

Or could it be worth weakening a stronger city like columbus mainly to prop up the struggling cities like Dayton, Toledo, Youngstown, Akron.

 

Not necessarily for this but hey could be a way to help out the ones in more dire straight while Columbus would suffer short term, its economy could be in better position to withstand and recover.

^Yeah, but P&G doesn't milk the state of tax dollars and then just provide service to one city.  It's not just an Ohio thing though, even on a national scale it happens.  DC constantly sees growth and high wages because the rest of the country provides the bulk of the funding for their local economy.  If there are 100,000 government jobs, then there are 300,000 service and manufacturing sector jobs associated with that.  In Ohio, everyone employed privately pays state taxes, and the bulk of jobs directly created through those tax dollars are in Cbus.  There's always going to be a disproportionate amount of tax dollars put back into local economies through direct employment from the government, though, and moving things out of the capital would be a bad idea in my opinion.  It's just the way it works.

 

Anyway, since 340,000 is taken I'll be optimistic and take 345,000.

Bad timing for the census. I see a ton of for rent and for sale signs with no one living in them.

Your right, it would have a harmful effect on columbus in the short term but would Columbus be better off in the longer term if it were not so reliant on the government offices. (The labor could be better deployed to more efficient ventures)

 

?

 

The state government is just one of the main industries of Columbus. It'd be like telling Cincinnati "stop being so reliant on Proctor & Gamble and shuffle the deck to Coshocton and Marion!" There'd be no point. Cincinnati is P&G; the State Government is Columbus.

 

Finally someone just said it.

Or could it be worth weakening a stronger city like columbus mainly to prop up the struggling cities like Dayton, Toledo, Youngstown, Akron.

 

Not necessarily for this but hey could be a way to help out the ones in more dire straight while Columbus would suffer short term, its economy could be in better position to withstand and recover.

 

Couldn't Cincinnati do the same by giving those struggling cities divisions of Proctor & Gamble, etc?  The question is "why?"  It is not the City of Columbus' responsibility to help prop up other cities in the state.  The state government should work with those cities but that shouldn't come at the cost of moving/shifting jobs simply to benefit those cities.

I think the distinction is that no one in those cities is legally required to pay the salaries of P&G employees, whereas they are for state employees in Columbus.  Overall, most cities do not get the ROI from the state, while Columbus benefits with thousands of jobs.  Columbus would not be propping up other cities as much as the jobs everyone has to pay for would be located elsewhere.  I am not saying the current setup it is right or wrong - it is just the way it is with being a state capital in today's environment.

 

As far as the census, I'll go with 331,313.

I think the distinction is that no one in those cities is legally required to pay the salaries of P&G employees, whereas they are for state employees in Columbus. Overall, most cities do not get the ROI from the state, while Columbus benefits with thousands of jobs. Columbus would not be propping up other cities as much as the jobs everyone has to pay for would be located elsewhere. I am not saying the current setup it is right or wrong - it is just the way it is with being a state capital in today's environment.

 

As far as the census, I'll go with 331,313.

 

That still doesn't defeat the question of "why?"  Yeah, it isn't fair the state capital has 95% of the government jobs but it also isn't fair that Fairborn has Wright-Patt and not Dayton or Middletown doesn't have AK Steel and...

 

Government is a business.  Business likes to create and grow from where it is and in this case, that's Columbus. 

Agreed, "Government is a business.  Business likes to create and grow from where it is and in this case, that's Columbus."

 

Columbus has developed that critical mass of government jobs, which is a compelling reason to leave it in Cbus just like Wright Pat and P&G have developed a core competency in their respective cities.

 

However, 1) Nothing is permanent, the government could close Wright Pat and move those jobs to another base out of state, P&G could be bought out and move those jobs from Cincy (Just like they moved all the executive jobs at Gillette out of Boston).

2) They are state jobs and represent the entire state of Ohio and their citizens. The city of Columbus does not deserve any extra advantage because it is the capital over the other cities.

3) If it is the most efficient thing, then of course you keep it inCBuS, but with today's economy, and techology some greater efficiencies may be realized by moving some of those positions to say Dayton or Toledo.

However, 1) Nothing is permanent, the government could close Wright Pat and move those jobs to another base out of state, P&G could be bought out and move those jobs from Cincy (Just like they moved all the executive jobs at Gillette out of Boston).

 

Bingo.

 

2) They are state jobs and represent the entire state of Ohio and their citizens. The city of Columbus does not deserve any extra advantage because it is the capital over the other cities.

 

Columbus is the state capital which is the center of the state jobs.  It's only logical it holds those jobs.  Columbus is the representative of the state government of Ohio and its citizens.  Much like Sacramento is for California, or Austin is for Texas.

 

3) If it is the most efficient thing, then of course you keep it inCBuS, but with today's economy, and techology some greater efficiencies may be realized by moving some of those positions to say Dayton or Toledo.

 

If Dayton or Toledo were closer to Columbus, I'd *might* agree a little on that but proximity is everything.

Do you think some of the struggling cities such as Dayton, Toledo and Cleveland would benefit if the state agencies that are all based in Columbus spread out to all the cities in the state. THere is nothing that says they all have to be based in the capital city and in todays economy, techonology will allow them to be spread out more than ever.

 

This would help some of the other cities by spreading out state jobs and even help columbus because it would diversify the economy and they would not be as reliant on state employees for their economy.

 

In IL, many state agencies are based in Chicago as opposed to Springfield. Same with New York. Maybe we can move the Secretary of State to Cincinnati, Attorney General to Cleveland and Bureau of Workers Comp to Dayton, etc.

 

Who needs help again?

 

Columbus has added 13000 jobs since the beginning of the year and lost 7000 jobs from Sept. '09-'10.

Cleveland has added 39000 jobs since the beginning of the year and added 9000 jobs from Sept. '09-'10.

 

Hell even Youngstown has outperformed Columbus in terms of job creation as a percentage of total jobs for this year.

 

I know it's off topic but it needs to be noted.

Things have changed since the major meltdown of the economy in '07-'08. Most Ohio metros are pretty diversified.

Columbus can help the other metros by helping or giving more grants to new start up businesses. There is no need to move branches around. Also Columbus can help by helping create consolidated city/county like Louisville and Jefferson county in Ky. Help get rid of the red tape.

I think the distinction is that no one in those cities is legally required to pay the salaries of P&G employees, whereas they are for state employees in Columbus. Overall, most cities do not get the ROI from the state, while Columbus benefits with thousands of jobs. Columbus would not be propping up other cities as much as the jobs everyone has to pay for would be located elsewhere. I am not saying the current setup it is right or wrong - it is just the way it is with being a state capital in today's environment.

 

As far as the census, I'll go with 331,313.

Government is a business. Business likes to create and grow from where it is and in this case, that's Columbus.

Off topic, but the last statement is a bit scary.  And at whose expense is that?  If a state is losing jobs, and residents, the government has no right to grow as it is losing income tax and property tax.

Or could it be worth weakening a stronger city like columbus mainly to prop up the struggling cities like Dayton, Toledo, Youngstown, Akron.

 

Not necessarily for this but hey could be a way to help out the ones in more dire straight while Columbus would suffer short term, its economy could be in better position to withstand and recover.

 

More offices are going to be more, not less, expensive. Many state government functions are already farmed out along the lines you suggest, but to much smaller towns than Dayton and Youngstown.

 

We do not need more government jobs. Keep most of the ones we have, sure, but the priority is a robust private sector. It's a lot easier and more productive for workers to move between private sector jobs than it is to move government workers around by shuffling the deck.

I think the distinction is that no one in those cities is legally required to pay the salaries of P&G employees, whereas they are for state employees in Columbus. Overall, most cities do not get the ROI from the state, while Columbus benefits with thousands of jobs. Columbus would not be propping up other cities as much as the jobs everyone has to pay for would be located elsewhere. I am not saying the current setup it is right or wrong - it is just the way it is with being a state capital in today's environment.

 

As far as the census, I'll go with 331,313.

Government is a business. Business likes to create and grow from where it is and in this case, that's Columbus.

Off topic, but the last statement is a bit scary. And at whose expense is that? If a state is losing jobs, and residents, the government has no right to grow as it is losing income tax and property tax.

 

Well, much with your point, the jobs should be stagnant and yet stay in Columbus.

I think the distinction is that no one in those cities is legally required to pay the salaries of P&G employees, whereas they are for state employees in Columbus. Overall, most cities do not get the ROI from the state, while Columbus benefits with thousands of jobs. Columbus would not be propping up other cities as much as the jobs everyone has to pay for would be located elsewhere. I am not saying the current setup it is right or wrong - it is just the way it is with being a state capital in today's environment.

 

As far as the census, I'll go with 331,313.

Government is a business. Business likes to create and grow from where it is and in this case, that's Columbus.

Off topic, but the last statement is a bit scary. And at whose expense is that? If a state is losing jobs, and residents, the government has no right to grow as it is losing income tax and property tax.

 

Well, much with your point, the jobs should be stagnant and yet stay in Columbus.

 

Absolutely.  No point in shuffling jobs around the state simply because too many people in differen places creates inneficiency and un-needed extra expenses.  However, if a state is shedding jobs and residents, the government should follow suit due to lower income to go toward payroll.  Not reacting to these demographic and economic shifts is what causes states and municipalities to lose money. 

Can we move this discussion to another thread, please?

Well, this is depressing.  But Eight and State was right (unfortunately).