11 ms·
Again, those are self reported surveys with biased surveyors (who want to push the narrative you believe in) with very weird results. They are basically trying
by seanmcdirmid 2y ago
Again, those are self reported surveys with biased surveyors (who want to push the narrative you believe in) with very weird results. They are basically trying to convince us that the unhoused population is more local than the housed population, sometimes by an order of magnitude, and it really isn’t statistically possible. Something like 75% of the general population are transplants but only 25% of the unhoused population are?
- offnominal 2y agoIt's unclear to me why this is isn't statistically possible. Could you please explain? But anyways, this article (paywalled) claims that 48% of California adults were born in the state as of 2022: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2024/california-population-demographic-change/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2024/california-populat...
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoIn SF and LA those numbers are nowhere near to being 50%. And I guess the wording is important, since many people can crash on a couch for the first few months and then are considered previously housed by the self reporting survey question.
- offnominal 2y agoThe survey was done across California -- not just SF and LA. Either way, wikipedia claims that 37.7% of SF residents were born in California which is slightly closer to 50% than the 25% figure you quoted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco#Race_and_ethnicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco#...). The survey also states that "Most participants (87%) were born in the United States. ... Two-thirds (66%) were born in California." I still don't understand why the survey is statistically impossible.