So, you don't have any data? Just checking that we're in total agreement here.
This is exactly why I've long said that the only course that should be required of every college major (or ideally every high school graduate) is basic accounting. The number of things in a system is the cumulative result of all inflows and outflows. The population of a city can fall without any kind of change in the outflow process. By the way population flows are both domestic and international. If you stop foreign in-migration but you don't touch domestic out-migration then the population will decline.
By the way SF's population also declined 2000-2009 and sequentially in each of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. So unless you have real data showing SF population already fell more than 4%, I also question "unseen in decades".
that number could be wrong. but that 20% beats your 4% by a comfy margin. and that 20% has special impact on the city center that employs many service workers. those people are no longer commuting. if they're no longer commuting, then prices of apartments close to jobs will lose value. then rents will fall. rents are hard data that you apparently refuse to google.
This is exactly why I've long said that the only course that should be required of every college major (or ideally every high school graduate) is basic accounting. The number of things in a system is the cumulative result of all inflows and outflows. The population of a city can fall without any kind of change in the outflow process. By the way population flows are both domestic and international. If you stop foreign in-migration but you don't touch domestic out-migration then the population will decline.
By the way SF's population also declined 2000-2009 and sequentially in each of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. So unless you have real data showing SF population already fell more than 4%, I also question "unseen in decades".