From: Virginia DeMarce <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:59:56 PM US/Pacific
Subject: Revised population allocation per 2000 census
OK, folks, the following analysis is Eric-Approved, on the basis of the 2000 census. The figures used earlier were projections from 1990, and it turns out that Mannington did a few things in the decade that weren’t expected.
The 2000 census reports:
The population of the City of Mannington is 2,124
The total households are 884
Mannington City only = Grantville:
The overall RoF population figure of about 3,500 is OK, but we had allotted too many people as over 65 and 18 and under.
One interesting thing about the comparison of the 2000 figures to the 1990 figures is that during that decade, the median age actually dropped by 1.2 years, to 39.9. The absolute number of elderly also dropped.
Mannington in 2000 has 408 elderly (just a bit under 20%, but I went with that for the projections, which would mean 700, not 900, out of our total 3,500). (I’m assuming that a lot of the elderly move into town — it’s a very common pattern in rural areas — so that the elderly rate for the outlying part of the RoF will not be higher than that for Mannington).
This, by itself, gives an allocation of 200 more “working age” adults.
We also have very good news: there are fewer children than we thought, so there is more spare capacity in the elementary and middle schools for absorbing incoming refugees.
Although the web sites give the impression that the elementary and middle schools draw from the immediate Mannington area, whereas the HS is consolidated, they must have a wider draw, because the town and RoF don’t have enough kids to fill them.
Mannington City has elementary and middle school students as follows:
Because of the usual demographic trend of the elderly moving into town, I’m projecting that the percentage of kids in the rest of the RoF will be a little higher. For the entire RoF, that’s coming to:
That’s only about 2 1/2 classrooms per grade — nowhere near enough to fill the capacity at those schools.
For the elementary school, it would fill 14 classrooms rather than 25, allowing for the smaller size of kindergarten classes.
For the middle school, it would fill 10 homerooms rather than 18.
So, moving on, and assuming that GV wants to keep as many of its young people in school full time through HS graduation as is humanly possible:
|– 700||population 65 and over|
|– 910||population 0-18|
For Mannington City, the census shows 924 “in labor force” which is up 294 since 1990, and which is 53.1% of the total population over 16 years (not quite the same age breakdown as above — the census is infuriating that way).
For actually employed, the census shows 817: up 280 from 1990. For women in the labor force, it’s 408, up 154 from 1990 (60.6%). For women actually employed, it’s 357, up 163 from 1990 (84%).
The census gives 53% of the population in the labor force. I have shrunk that to take out the 16, 17, and 18 year-olds, (approx. 103 persons, because GV is committed to maintaining the education level), so bringing the % in the labor force to 49% (with only summer and part time jobs for those 16-18, generally).
So, of 3,500 population, it’s between 1,650 (low) to 1,715 (moderate) to 1,850 (high) people currently “in the work force” and/or “employable” — without allowing for the wedding guests.
There’s an element of uncertainty here because the census isn’t clear on how it counts people of working age who have some kind of disability, but some of whom are nevertheless working.
Using these numbers seems to me to be much more realistic, given the number of businesses that Mannington has. It will also introduce far more flexibility into the grid, which simply did not have enough live bodies to go around on the earlier projection, based on the number of known businesses in Mannington.
The projections from the actual figure of high school students in Mannington 137 aged 15-19) to the RoF figure (227) gives 58 per year of HS from inside the RoF, before allowing for dropouts.