News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million res... by wes-exp on Monday May 14, 2012 @10:28PM (#3974553)
Also, not as many women => not as many babies supporting population growth.
Re:Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million res... by ttfntatafornow on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @02:01AM (#3975128)
there are just as many women here as anywhere else.

Males: 408,462 (50.7%) Females: 396,773 (49.3%)

if anything, when you consider that there are far more homosexual men than homosexual women, men have it good here.

http://www.city-data.com/city/San-Francisco-California.html

Re:Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million res... by wes-exp on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @02:30AM (#3975239)
Well, whatever the population figures, something creates an overabundance of single men. This must create a drag on the reproductive rate. Also, what you're saying might apply to SF itself, but not necessarily to South Bay / Silicon Valley.

http://creativeclass.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/...

One other thought... even given a balanced overall population, we need to look specifically at those of reproductive age. Population figures will include children, which should be roughly 50/50 m/f, until they move away as adults (perhaps due to the high rents!).

Re:Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million res... by hollerith on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @02:53AM (#3975318)
That's the ratio for San Franciso. Silicon Valley, different story.
Re:Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million res... by jarek on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @03:25AM (#3975411)
Oh you mean like San Jose? "For every 100 females there were 101.1 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 99.8 males."

Palo Alto? "For every 100 females there were 95.7 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 93.0 males."

Cupertino? "For every 100 females there were 97.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 94.6 males."

San Bruno? "For every 100 females there were 97.1 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 95.1 males."

Redwood City? "For every 100 females there were 99.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 98.1 males."

Menlo Park? "For every 100 females there were 93.7 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 91.5 males."

Millbrae? "For every 100 females there were 90.0 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 86.7 males."

San Carlos? "For every 100 females there were 93.6 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.7 males."

San Mateo? "For every 100 females there were 95.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 92.8 males."

Atherton? "For every 100 females there were 96.6 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 95.3 males."

Milpitas, Mountain View, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale were the ones with more males - worst ratio in Milpitas, 104.5 and 104.6 respectively. Surrounding cities would more than balance that out.

Re:Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million res... by hollerith on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @09:28AM (#3976436)
Well, look at that! Thanks for the information.
Re:Why the San Francisco Bay Area should have 11 million res... by dennisgorelik on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @12:05AM (#3974835)
Not only that.

No urban sprawl -> no backyards & cul-de-sacs -> few babies -> no natural population growth.