ok, i'm starting to get the hang of the factfinder 2 website. It looks like the differing stats from different news articles is because the Baycitizen article was listing stats for total white people, including Latino people, whereas the Examiner separated those two apart.
Here are the the big Bay Area cities by race and latino population:
NOTE: Hispanic people are not included in any of the following stats, except of course where it says "hispanic or latino of any race".
San Francisco:
2000 - 776,733
2010 - 805,235
white alone:
2000 - 338,909 (43.6%)
2010 - 337,451 (41.9%)
black alone:
2000 - 58,791 (7.6%)
2010 - 46,781 (5.8%)
American Indian/Alaska native alone:
2000 - 2,020 (0.3%)
2010 - 1,828 (0.2%)
Asian alone:
2000 - 238,173 (30.7%)
2010 - 265,700 (33.0%)
native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander alone:
2000 - 3,602 (0.5%)
2010 - 3,128 (0.4%)
some other race alone:
2000 - 2,580 (0.3%)
2010 - 2,494 (0.3%)
two or more races:
2000 - 23,154 (3.0%)
2010 - 26,079 (3.2%)
Hispanic or Latino of any race:
2000 - 109,504 (14.1%)
2010 - 121,774 (15.1%)
San Jose:
2000 - 894,943
2010 - 945,942
white alone:
2000 - 322,534 (36.0%)
2010 - 271,382 (28.7%)
black alone:
2000 - 29,495 (3.3%)
2010 - 27,508 (2.9%)
American Indian/Alaska native alone:
2000 - 2,959 (0.3%)
2010 - 2,255 (0.2%)
Asian alone:
2000 - 238,378 (26.6%)
2010 - 300,022 (31.7%)
native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander alone:
2000 - 3,093 (0.3%)
2010 - 3,492 (0.4%)
some other race alone:
2000 - 1,699 (0.2%)
2010 - 1,820 (0.2%)
two or more races:
2000 - 26,796 (3.0%)
2010 - 25,827 (2.7%)
Hispanic or Latino of any race:
2000 - 269,989 (30.2%)
2010 - 313,636 (33.2%)
Oakland:
2000 - 399,484
2010 - 390,724
white alone:
2000 - 93,953 (23.5%)
2010 - 101,308 (25.9%)
black alone:
2000 - 140,139 (35.1%)
2010 - 106,637 (27.3%)
American Indian/Alaska native alone:
2000 - 1,471 (0.4%)
2010 - 1,214 (0.3%)
Asian alone:
2000 - 60,393 (15.1%)
2010 - 65,127 (16.7%)
native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander alone:
2000 - 1,866 (0.5%)
2010 - 2,081 (0.5 %)
some other race alone:
2000 - 1,229 (0.3%)
2010 - 1,213 (0.3%)
two or more races:
2000 - 12,966 (3.2%)
2010 - 14,076 (3.6%)
Hispanic or Latino of any race:
2000 - 87,467 (21.9%)
2010 - 99,068 (25.4%)
It looks like Oakland was the only of the three cities that gained white, non-Hispanic people, and it also lost the largest proportion of it's black population, both of which may surprise some people. But of course that's all assuming there were'nt any significant undercounts in any of these cities.
Those numbers are all DEFINITELY correct (i promise), and required me to spend way too much time navigating the new fact-finder website, as well as finding and manually subtracting/figuring out non-hispanic race stats from the old factfinder website, in order to find the true numbers for "race alone" in every non-white group (the census themselves only listed white-alone-non hispanic pop. in the general info section of the 2000 census, for some reason, even though all the data is there to figure it out for every racial group). Why is it so hard for government stuff to be non-convoluted? I never would have thought the new census website would suck even more than the old one 
|