U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-21-2015, 01:24 PM
 
178 posts, read 242,820 times
Reputation: 127

Advertisements

So I was just looking at some migration stats from the U.S. Census Bureau. It says the biggest metro areas of NYC, LA, CHI are all losing domestic migration population.

Take a look at the 10 biggest CSA's.

Population
1. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA 23,484,225
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA 18,351,929
3. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA 9,912,730
4. Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA 9,443,180
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 8,469,854
6. Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA 8,041,303
7. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA 7,206,144
8. Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA 7,146,706
9. Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA 6,508,323
10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA 6,447,610

Net Domestic Migration 2010-2013
1. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA -406,367
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA -123,944
3. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA -178,617
4. Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA 47,712
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 31,668
6. Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA -27,607
7. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA 135,027
8. Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA -64,696
9. Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA 123,672
10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA 47,370

Net Domestic Migration Rate 2010-2013
1. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA -1.76%
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA -0.69%
3. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA -1.82%
4. Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA 0.53%
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 0.39%
6. Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA -0.35%
7. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA 1.98%
8. Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA -0.92%
9. Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA 2.02%
10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA 0.77%

As you could see New York and Chicago are losing domestic population from it's central city, suburbs, and commuter counties at a real fast pace. Los Angeles isn't as bad. While people are headed to those big sunbelt cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2015, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Dallas
282 posts, read 257,531 times
Reputation: 279
Are you new to this earth?

Every metro area loses population, but they're replenished by more people. In LA and NYC metro areas cases, their gains come through massive flows of international migrants. For decades now. During that period, NYC's CSA gained about 500,000 international migrants and LA's gained over 200,000. The same tale as London (neg. net 575,400) and Paris (-420,000) and every other mega international city. They've been entry points for immigrants and many of them leave and disperse throughout the country to find low cost of living, jobs etc. But once they're in those cities and leave, they're counted as domestic migrants.

San Francisco is like that as well, but something happened in early 2010-2012 to change that, briefly. In 2013 it went back into the negatives. San Jose's MSA never changed its decades long negative domestic growth.

.

Nonetheless, these slow growth places are the richest and most desirable parts of the country and have nothing to worry about. The typical American migrant is lower to middle class and don't move to big expensive cities, generally. The only bad one is Chicago because they don't get large flows of international people to grow.

Last edited by UAE50; 03-21-2015 at 03:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 01:59 PM
 
178 posts, read 242,820 times
Reputation: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by UAE50 View Post
Are you new to this earth?

LA and NYC metro areas gain massive population through international immigration. For decades now. They've been entry points for immigrants and many of them leave disperse throughout the country. Once they're in those cities and leave, they're counted as domestic migrants. You didn't know that?

I wasn't talking about foreign migration. Just domestic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Dallas
282 posts, read 257,531 times
Reputation: 279
Somewhat related,

Here are the latest Census pop growth figures:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
1,541 posts, read 1,789,406 times
Reputation: 1572
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookintomove15 View Post
So I was just looking at some migration stats from the U.S. Census Bureau. It says the biggest metro areas of NYC, LA, CHI are all losing domestic migration population.

Take a look at the 10 biggest CSA's.

Population
1. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA 23,484,225
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA 18,351,929
3. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA 9,912,730
4. Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA 9,443,180
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 8,469,854
6. Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA 8,041,303
7. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA 7,206,144
8. Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA 7,146,706
9. Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA 6,508,323
10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA 6,447,610

Net Domestic Migration 2010-2013
1. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA -406,367
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA -123,944
3. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA -178,617
4. Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA 47,712
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 31,668
6. Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA -27,607
7. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA 135,027
8. Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA -64,696
9. Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA 123,672
10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA 47,370

Net Domestic Migration Rate 2010-2013
1. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA -1.76%
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA -0.69%
3. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA -1.82%
4. Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA 0.53%
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 0.39%
6. Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA -0.35%
7. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA 1.98%
8. Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA -0.92%
9. Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA 2.02%
10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA 0.77%

As you could see New York and Chicago are losing domestic population from it's central city, suburbs, and commuter counties at a real fast pace. Los Angeles isn't as bad. While people are headed to those big sunbelt cities.
Miami is kind of ridiculous, it might as well go all the way to Jacksonville.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Dallas
282 posts, read 257,531 times
Reputation: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick View Post
Miami is kind of ridiculous, it might as well go all the way to Jacksonville.
I agree.

Also Miami is just like the other international cities. Net domestic migration is also negative. Positive in the surrounding counties

Net Domestic Migration gain:

Miami-Dade: -22,000
Broward: + 26,000
Palm Beach +27,000

Florida is the largest revolving door in the U.S., though. Florida actually has the highest rate of people who leave the state, and almost the numerical highest -- it's right behind the much larger California. But FL's loss offset by tons of people (retirees -- median age of one who moves to FL is much higher than average) and immigrants who move in the state.

# of taxpayers who left each state from 2005-2010 (from IRS)

California 1.9 million
Florida 1.8 million
Texas 1.4 million
New York : 1.3 million (850k if you exclude NJ and CT)

Hundreds of thousand of people actually leave Houston and Dallas every year, but we're offset by lots of Americans moving in. According to the IRS, median wage of all U.S. migrants is barely 40k, so it's no wonder places like NYC and CA aren't really that attractive to the average American migrant. Too expensive. People from abroad don't seem to have a problem with decreasing their living space, disposable $ etc. and continue to move to NYC and CA in huge numbers.

Last edited by UAE50; 03-21-2015 at 05:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 06:08 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,689,136 times
Reputation: 9781
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookintomove15 View Post
I wasn't talking about foreign migration. Just domestic.
All older metro areas have negative net domestic migration. This has always been the case.

How could a city be huge, pricey and a big immigration center without making room for newcomers? That doesn't even make sense.

And your commentary is all wrong too. The data is for MSAs, yet you claim that the data is for center cities. Not true.

And the other big factor is who moves in. Cheap Sunbelt metros attract young families, so you will get larger domestic migration numbers. Expensive metros attract singles and empty nesters, so you will get smaller family sizes. It makes no sense for Bill and Jane MidAmerica to move to San Francisco or Boston or Long Island, but it does make sense for a young single, or a wealthy retired couple, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 06:34 PM
 
178 posts, read 242,820 times
Reputation: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by UAE50 View Post
Also Miami is just like the other international cities. Net domestic migration is also negative. Positive in the surrounding counties

Net Domestic Migration gain:

Miami-Dade: -22,000
Broward: + 26,000
Palm Beach +27,000

Look at the Los Angeles area.

Net Domestic Migration gain:

Los Angeles: -153,000
Orange: 7,000
Riverside: 42,000
San Bernardino: -15,000
Ventura: -6,000
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 07:19 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,689,136 times
Reputation: 9781
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookintomove15 View Post
Look at the Los Angeles area.

Net Domestic Migration gain:

Los Angeles: -153,000
Orange: 7,000
Riverside: 42,000
San Bernardino: -15,000
Ventura: -6,000
But that makes perfect sense. Obviously immigrants, empty nesters and the wealthy go to LA County. Obviously young families looking for an affordable housing move further out. It would be very weird if LA had net domestic migration similar to that of, say, Ventura County.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
2,048 posts, read 1,462,298 times
Reputation: 2075
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookintomove15 View Post
So I was just looking at some migration stats from the U.S. Census Bureau. It says the biggest metro areas of NYC, LA, CHI are all losing domestic migration population.

Take a look at the 10 biggest CSA's.

Population
1. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA 23,484,225
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA 18,351,929
3. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA 9,912,730
4. Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA 9,443,180
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 8,469,854
6. Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA 8,041,303
7. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA 7,206,144
8. Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA 7,146,706
9. Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA 6,508,323
10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA 6,447,610

Net Domestic Migration 2010-2013
1. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA -406,367
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA -123,944
3. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA -178,617
4. Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA 47,712
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 31,668
6. Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA -27,607
7. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA 135,027
8. Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA -64,696
9. Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA 123,672
10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA 47,370

Net Domestic Migration Rate 2010-2013
1. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA -1.76%
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA -0.69%
3. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA -1.82%
4. Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA 0.53%
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 0.39%
6. Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA -0.35%
7. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA 1.98%
8. Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA -0.92%
9. Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA 2.02%
10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA 0.77%

As you could see New York and Chicago are losing domestic population from it's central city, suburbs, and commuter counties at a real fast pace. Los Angeles isn't as bad. While people are headed to those big sunbelt cities.

Good stats, OP. Do you blame people from leaving these old, heavily taxed, grimey cities?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top