1272 replies to this topic

[lanforod]

For what it's worth, it's interesting to see that every census since the 2006 census (as far back as I've looked) the median age of Victoria has increased by one year. In 2006 it was 43.1, 44.2 in 2011 and 45.0 in the last census.

 

Some of that is due to better healthcare and longer life, I suspect. The rest is due to retirees moving here. Don't we have a mini baby boom going on though? Perhaps that'll offset it a bit in 2021.

[LeoVictoria]

I enjoy reading your work but statistically your comments don't make sense. You can't explain a large increase in the 60-75 age group by simple aging of the participants. Every group would have shifted during the 5 year period and you would expect to see the same trend then for other cities as well (which we do not).. 

 

All you need to do is go to any event in Victoria and note that the blue hairs dominate. As we continue to age in Victoria it will have a major impact on the face of our economy.

 

I shifted every group.

And yes, we do see the same trend canada wide which I pointed out earlier.

[LeoVictoria]

Also, why would 85+ year olds drop so much? Has life expectancy dropped here? I'd expect that to remain fairly constant - they die, but are replaced in about equal numbers by aging.

 

They didn't drop, that graphs are the change from 2011 to 2016 after taking into effect aging.     So the over 80 population in 2011 was over 85 in 2016.   Except many of them died, hence the decrease in the older age groups compared to what would have been if they had all aged and not died.

[LeoVictoria]

That graph is incorrectly interpreting census data. The 85+ year-old age group increased in population between 2011 and 2016. That graph shows it dropped by a huge margin of people.

 

You can't "age" data in complete isolation.

 

Nope, you misinterpreted the graph.     It is showing the change after taking into account aging.   That means: "If no one died, there would have been an extra 1500 people aged 80-84.  However since they did in fact die, that is the -1500 on the graph.    I didn't chart the 85+ because it is not a 5 year bucket, so isn't apples to apples comparison.   

 

It might be easier to understand based on this graph:

 

As you can see, simply the effect of aging in place accounts for almost all the increase in 60+ population.

[Mike K.]

Comlaring data in isolation (ie 15-19 year olds in 2011 to 20-24 year-olds in 2016) is not an accurate way of assessing population growth relative to previous census data.

[LeoVictoria]

Comlaring data in isolation (ie 15-19 year olds in 2011 to 20-24 year-olds in 2016) is not an accurate way of assessing population growth relative to previous census data.

 

I made a small correction to the article.  You are correct that the normal university bump will always result in an increase in the 15-24 categories.    So part of that increase is due to this normal trend, the other part is due to growth at UVic.  Notice however that it goes both ways.  If it was just university students, we should see a negative at the 25-29 age group.  We don't.  That means either those students are staying in Victoria, or there is large in-migration in the 25-29 age group to counter graduating students who leave.

 

Either way it doesn't change the conclusion.   There is no evidence that the population increase was primarily driven by an increase in boomers retiring here.   They are a small factor at best.

[aastra]

 

All you need to do is go to any event in Victoria and note that the blue hairs dominate.

 

You know, it's funny. This summer I noted a few times how young the crowds were at this locale or that. Beacon Hill Park, a pleasantly crowded Mt. Tolmie lookout one evening, a neighbourhood festival, even Oak Bay Marina of all places. Obviously we're all getting older ourselves and everything is relative, but let's just say Mike K. would have seemed more like a respectable gentleman than an adolescent punk, and Bingo or Sparky would have seemed like wrinkled dinosaurs.

[LeoVictoria]

Another way to think about it is the following:

 

Given, today (2017) there are:

X people aged 55-59

Y people aged 60-64

 

How many people will there be aged 60-64 in 5 years (2022)?

 

Let's call the number of people aged 60-64 in 5 years Z

Z = number of people currently aged 55-59 (X)

PLUS number of people that moved here in that age group (a)

MINUS number of people that moved away in that age group (b)

MINUS number of people that died in that age group ( c)

 

Hence, to get a sense of how many people moved here, we factor out X, and look at the remainder of (a+b+c).    That gives us a sense of net migration.   If we wanted to take it a step further we could apply actuarial tables to estimate how many people died ( c) and get even closer to the net migration figures.

Edited by LeoVictoria, 18 August 2017 - 09:31 AM.

[Mike K.]

Your interpretation of the data incorrectly describes the population growth in this region and your rationale is not backed up by the data. The cohort aged 45+ grew literally twice as fast as the cohort aged 0-to-44 between 2011 and 2016, and it is not "a small factor" as you describe above.

 

The median age has increased from 43 to 45 over the last three census periods. For your theory to hold the median age would not be increasing at the magnitude that it is, and could actually decrease.

 

Considering the following:

 

Individuals aged 0-44
2006: 174,540
2011: 175,560 (+0.6%)
2016: 183,845 (+4.7%) 8,285 people

 

Individuals aged 45+

2006: 155,565

2011: 168,865 (+8.6%)

2016: 183,925 (+8.9%) 15,060

 

It is impossible to infer from the census data that it is individuals aged below the age of 45 that represent the largest cohort of newcomers to this region.

 

In fact, for the first time ever, I think, the population of individuals aged 45 and older is higher than individuals aged 0-to-44.

[DavidSchell]

Another way to think about it is the following:

 

Given, today (2017) there are:

X people aged 55-59

Y people aged 60-64

 

How many people will there be aged 60-64 in 5 years (2022)?

 

Let's call the number of people aged 60-64 in 5 years Z

Z = number of people currently aged 55-59 (X)

PLUS number of people that moved here in that age group (a)

MINUS number of people that moved away in that age group (b)

MINUS number of people that died in that age group ( c)

 

Hence, to get a sense of how many people moved here, we factor out X, and look at the remainder of (a+b+c).    That gives us a sense of net migration.   If we wanted to take it a step further we could apply actuarial tables to estimate how many people died ( c) and get even closer to the net migration figures.

 

Why don't you just got the BC Stats Website and get the official numbers?

 

BTW: I wrote the algorithms for BC Stats based on the methodology developed by the statisticians and you are missing a couple of variables, but you are on the right track.  

[LeoVictoria]

Why don't you just got the BC Stats Website and get the official numbers?

 

BTW: I wrote the algorithms for BC Stats based on the methodology developed by the statisticians and you are missing a couple of variables, but you are on the right track.  

 

BC stats does not have in and outmigration by age group for Victoria.  Feel free to point me in the right direction if I'm missing them.

 

Also I am not doing population and demographics projections here, I am determining where the net inmigration happened between 2011 and 2016.  I'm already using the BC Stats data for their historical data for the tool at the end of this page: https://househuntvictoria.ca/tools/

[LeoVictoria]

Your interpretation of the data incorrectly describes the population growth in this region and your rationale is not backed up by the data. The cohort aged 45+ grew literally twice as fast as the cohort aged 0-to-44 between 2011 and 2016, and it is not "a small factor" as you describe above.

 

The median age has increased from 43 to 45 over the last three census periods. For your theory to hold the median age would not be increasing at the magnitude that it is, and could actually decrease.

 

Considering the following:

 

Individuals aged 0-44
2006: 174,540
2011: 175,560 (+0.6%)
2016: 183,845 (+4.7%) 8,285 people

 

Individuals aged 45+

2006: 155,565

2011: 168,865 (+8.6%)

2016: 183,925 (+8.9%) 15,060

 

It is impossible to infer from the census data that it is individuals aged below the age of 45 that represent the largest cohort of newcomers to this region.

 

In fact, for the first time ever, I think, the population of individuals aged 45 and older is higher than individuals aged 0-to-44.

 

Nope, you don't get it.   

 

1.  Not sure why you are now talking about 45+ vs 0-44.   The topic is about seniors, and 45+ are not seniors.

2.  The median age has nothing to do with it and I'm not sure why you think it does.

 

You're confusing two different things.

Fact:  Yes, there are more seniors now than in 2011.  That was never under dispute.

 

The question is, where did those seniors come from?

You have made two claims: 

1. "retirees are the driving force behind the Capital Region's population spike " and 

2. "boomers/retirees are officially the largest group of newcomers to this region"

 

Both of these statements have been proven wrong by showing that the increase in seniors (generally accepted to be 65+) is due to aging of the population, not due to newcomers.   Furthermore, the increase in population is due to an increase in working age adults migrating here.

[sdwright.vic]

No... it's Mike's interpretation... thus it will never be changed or swayed. You don't know that by now?

[Bingo]

No... it's Mike's interpretation... thus it will never be changed or swayed. You don't know that by now?

 

Careful...you'll get this thread FIRED.

[LeoVictoria]

Why don't you just got the BC Stats Website and get the official numbers?

BTW: I wrote the algorithms for BC Stats based on the methodology developed by the statisticians and you are missing a couple of variables, but you are on the right track.

And don’t tease me like that!
What variables are missing?

Edited by LeoVictoria, 18 August 2017 - 07:16 PM.

[LeoVictoria]

Hey it was a reasonable assumption to make. I just wanted to dig deeper and was interested because I’ve been hearing for over a decade that the retirees are coming any day now. And I’m alergic to real estate hype, even if unintentional.

Here’s a simpler example though
In the town of Fantasyland a census is taken and it finds that the population is 2
1 resident is 70 years old.
1 resident is 64 years old.

Statistics are: 50% of population are seniors over 65.

One year later, a 30 year old moves to town and another census is taken.
1 resident is 71
1 resident is 65
1 resident is 30

Population has increased by 50% and now the population is 66% seniors.

Who is the driving force behind the increase in population? It’s the 30 year old, not the seniors who merely got older.

Since the percentage of seniors increased from 50% to 66%, does that mean seniors are the newcomers? No, the only newcomer is the 30 year old.

[Bingo]

The 30 year old is the layabout son of the 65 and 71 year old returning to bump off the parents and collect their pension cheques.

The census takers never find out, thus skewing the statistics, and it is a common* occurrence behind the decrease in the population.

*rare

[Mike K.]

Nope, you don't get it.   

 

1.  Not sure why you are now talking about 45+ vs 0-44.   The topic is about seniors, and 45+ are not seniors.

2.  The median age has nothing to do with it and I'm not sure why you think it does.

 

You're confusing two different things.

Fact:  Yes, there are more seniors now than in 2011.  That was never under dispute.

 

The question is, where did those seniors come from?

You have made two claims: 

1. "retirees are the driving force behind the Capital Region's population spike " and 

2. "boomers/retirees are officially the largest group of newcomers to this region"

 

Both of these statements have been proven wrong by showing that the increase in seniors (generally accepted to be 65+) is due to aging of the population, not due to newcomers.   Furthermore, the increase in population is due to an increase in working age adults migrating here.

 

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.

[zoomer]

I want to avoid Fake News so it's important to me you challenge each other. A quick email to Stats Canada and I'm sure they will be able to provide some insight/perspective vs. assumptions. I took a course they provided on interpreting their stats and there were several case studies on how the media had totally misinterpreted the census data.

[Mike K.]

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.