I don't disagree with most of what you said but (and I might be misremembering) but the "grew way to quickly" doesn't hold up.
When I was in school I learned the number "1.3m people" and that was the early/mid 90s, now it's 1.5m. So unless you start counting a more widespread urbanization of the adjacent towns.. the math doesn't seem to work out.
I do agree that it feels a lot worse than 20 years ago.
On an adjusted basis, sure. I was speaking in absolute terms. What's happening is that people are leaving the second quintile. About 1/3 move down, 2/3 move up.
The sort of thing people in the second quintile used to do has evaporated.
Also need to discuss demographic trends. I'm not sure of the exact stats and too many spammy content farms to find the numbers, but I believe there's fewer teens and more baby boomer "folks" category people.
> This small decline was largely the result of changes to the criteria for defining urban areas implemented by the Census Bureau, including raising the minimum population threshold for qualification from 2,500 to 5,000.
this is relative to the size of population. The numbers are right, you should also be able to reason how much better weve become at living places that used to be impossible.
(5) There are way more people than there used to be
reply