1263 replies to this topic

[LeoVictoria]

The 45+ age brackets are specific to boomers and retirees for the 2011 and 2016 census periods (boomers were 48+ in 2011, 52+ in 2016). I'd have started my numbers at 48 if we had that breakdown, but we do not. My article was specific to boomers and retirees, but your blog shapes the article as solely about retirees (65+).

 

Clearly we're interpreting the data in different ways, and we clearly do not agree with each other, but we also don't need to be blatantly picking apart each other's articles in the pieces that we publish on our respective platforms.

 

Examining whether the boomers (currently aged 52-71) are the biggest newcomers would be a another analysis.    Requires additional work applying mortality estimates across the range to conclusively determine the number of newcomers.    

 

Thing is with data in this case, it is not about interpreting it one way or the other.     There is a correct way to calculate the change in population due to migration.    By factoring  aging out of the equation we are left with net migration and mortality.   We can factor out mortality as well, that leaves net migration.   As for blatant picking apart, sorry, didn't find much other coverage of the supposed boom in retirees coming here and given I said months ago that your analysis didn't hold up it made sense to examine the specific claims in detail now.   Next time I'll let the article stand alone.

Edited by LeoVictoria, 21 August 2017 - 06:35 AM.

[LeoVictoria]

When aging population data we lose 4,040 individuals from the total growth tally of 23,145. Which means 18% of the population growth is unaccounted for. We can add the growth in 0-4 year-olds (955), but now we're mixing up the data and still 3,000 short.

 

We've also shown that the 5,275 person jump between 15-19 and 20-24 is explained by the annual influx of students that perennially grows the population by several thousand people, meaning that spike is not a factor solely between 2011 and 2016 despite what aged data appears to tell us. So what are we missing among all other age brackets?

 

If nearly 20% of your data is missing and there are many variables missing from each age bracket (i.e. the university effect), you're not in a position to make conclusions. You can definitely make inferences and you can present those inferences to your audience, but your audience has to also understand that you're presenting an opinion and not a fact.

 

You can't use aging of the 2011 to come up with the same number as 2016.   Clearly you can't do it for 0-4s, and most of the 85+ would have died.   That's not what I'm doing and isn't relevant to the discussion.

 

Regarding the university spike of 20-24 year olds.   Why do you think that is a problem?   The definition of the data doesn't change.   5275 people arrive in Victoria in that age group after taking into account aging.  That means 5275 = NET migration - mortality.  Same goes for every other age group.  

 

If you have a specific correction to the math involved then by all means correct me.     Nothing about this article is an opinion.

 

Here is another worked example for the age 70-74s that takes into account mortality to get closer to net migration:

 

Taking a look at those people who were 70-74 in 2016. They are made up of 65-69 year old locals from 2011 that didn’t die, and the net of migration in those 5 years.

 

There were 18,025 65-69 year olds in 2011.   Using life tables for BC, we can get the probability that this group survives for 5 years until they are 70-74 years old which is 93.8% or 1124 deaths in that period.    

 

Therefore:

18025 locals aged 65-69 in 2011

– 1124 who died in 5 years

Leaves 16901 people we should expect to be 70-74 in 2016 if not a single person left or arrived here.  

 

We know of course that as of 2016, there were actually 17,850 70-74 year olds here.

Those additional 949 people could only have come here from elsewhere, so net migration was 949 in that age group over 5 years.   That compares to over 1500 for the 40-44 age group.   

 

 

 

We could do the same for every age group to conclusively determine the largest group of (net) newcomers.

If you have a specific issue with the above calculation, we can discuss further, otherwise I think I've explained this in sufficient detail. 

Edited by LeoVictoria, 21 August 2017 - 07:11 AM.

[lanforod]

I hate that you keep writing 'conclusively determine' when you're using an estimate and average for mortality. You've determined a high probability of the largest group of newcomers.

 

I am curious what those other factors may be as well, but I can't think of anything, much less anything that would make a significant difference (other than a change in definition of 'living in Victoria').

[Mike K.]

Regarding the university spike of 20-24 year olds.   Why do you think that is a problem?

 

 

 

It's not a problem, but looking at that spike in isolation removes the key piece of data when we're talking about population growth: that demographic only rose by 3.7% between the 2011 and 2016 census and represented only 3.8% of the gross population growth.

 

According to your graph, ~1/26th of the region's population growth (875 people out of 23,145) was represented as over 25% of the growth in your aged figures.

 

[Edited]

[LeoVictoria]

I hate that you keep writing 'conclusively determine' when you're using an estimate and average for mortality. You've determined a high probability of the largest group of newcomers.

 

I am curious what those other factors may be as well, but I can't think of anything, much less anything that would make a significant difference (other than a change in definition of 'living in Victoria').

 

Sorry, get closer to the truth then.   Once you start fiddling with mortality percentages, you are not moving the needle so the conclusions won't change unless two groups are very close.    

Locals + mortality + net migration makes up the population.   Pretty sure that's all the possible factors.   

Edited by LeoVictoria, 21 August 2017 - 01:33 PM.

[LeoVictoria]

Off on vacation so no more time to discuss this.  I think I'm out of ways to present the methodology anyway.   Have a good week!

[Bingo]

Watch it or this thread will self-destruct.    ...in 10...9...8...7...

[PPPdev]

https://twitter.com/...7803954176?s=21

Thoughts??

[Mike K.]

Do we have a breakdown that would encapsulate the entire region as opposed to just the City of Victoria?

[aastra]

When was the last time *any* Victoria city neighbourhoods were drawing young families to a large degree? The 1960s? Even back then it would have been the exception.

Edited by aastra, 17 August 2018 - 08:58 AM.

[Mike K.]

Being a university town, could this outmigration be the result of students who migrated here at 18-25 to attend school leaving following graduation?

Most complete their BA and subsequent MA by what, 27-30?

[On the Level]

 

 

Vic West provided more townhomes then all other neighbourhoods combined and had an increase in young families.

 

Do we have a breakdown that would encapsulate the entire region as opposed to just the City of Victoria?

 

I would assume that the bulk would be to the Westshore since the growth is double of Vic.  The CRD population stats has forecasts but they are not totally up to date and don't breakdown the growth in demographics.

[Coreyburger]

I would assume that the bulk would be to the Westshore since the growth is double of Vic.  The CRD population stats has forecasts but they are not totally up to date and don't breakdown the growth in demographics.

 

Victoria + Saanich added ~10,000 people, Langford + Colwood added ~6000. Growth % is not the same as absolute numbers.

[On the Level]

Agreed....Saanich has some serious growth, but 2011 to 2016 gives a different metric than the last year

 

Victoria growth 2016 to 2017 = 689

Langford growth 2016 to 2017 = 1,326

 

https://www.crd.bc.c...vrsn=d00003ca_4

Edited by On the Level, 17 August 2018 - 08:46 PM.

[Casual Kev]

Do we have a breakdown that would encapsulate the entire region as opposed to just the City of Victoria?

 

Those figures are an aggregate of the Victoria CMA, so basically the entire CRD.

[Coreyburger]

 

Agreed....Saanich has some serious growth, but 2011 to 2016 gives a different metric than the last year

 

Victoria growth 2016 to 2017 = 689

Langford growth 2016 to 2017 = 1,326

 

https://www.crd.bc.c...vrsn=d00003ca_4

 

 

CRD  data are estimates, and one year growth isnt that indicative.

[Mike K.]

Those figures are an aggregate of the Victoria CMA, so basically the entire CRD.

 

Ah, gotcha.

 

Ok, so we can see how there is a massive spike in the 15-24 age group, which is the university effect, followed by a massive outflow of 25-34 year-olds, which is the graduated student effect.

[Citified.ca]

"CMHC estimates metropolitan Victoria's population to have increased from 366,852 in 2015 to 380,860 this year, representing a rise of 14,008 individuals over a three year period. By 2020 the population is estimated to settle at just under 390,000 inhabitants."

 

Victoria's apartment rental vacancy rate rises to 1%; growing population forcing rents higher

https://victoria.cit...g-rents-higher/

[aastra]

So the current estimates by BC Stats are 413,406 for the Capital Regional District and 396,509 for Victoria's Census Metropolitan Area? The CRD is 3.4 times the size of the CMA, so I don't think I'm misrepresenting things when I say the CRD is effectively unpopulated beyond the Greater Victoria metro area.

 

Victoria city is estimated at 92,041.

 

 

[Jackerbie]

CRD versus CMA map: https://www.crd.bc.c...-area-(cma).pdf