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.
Franklin County (Columbus) +14,594 to 1,310,000
Hamilton County (Cincinnati) +2013 to 816,684
Cuyahoga (Cleveland) -4514 to 1427,847
Trumbull County (Youngstown) -1,697 to 198,675
Lucas (Toledo) -1,134 to 429,899
Montgomery (Dayton) 632 to 532,331
Cleveland.com has every county in Ohio but not the country like last year
Franklin County (Columbus) +14,594 to 1,310,000
Hamilton County (Cincinnati) +2013 to 816,684
Cuyahoga (Cleveland) -4514 to 1427,847
Trumbull County (Youngstown) -1,697 to 198,675
Lucas (Toledo) -1,134 to 429,899
Montgomery (Dayton) 632 to 532,331
Cleveland.com has every county in Ohio but not the country like last year
So sad to see Youngstown's continuing decline. We love day-tripping there.
The LA and NYC metros shrinking is also startling, though it makes more sense when you take falling immigration and still-rising COL into account.
A few days ago in conjunction with my thread on in-migration to MSAs from outside of them, I also looked at the components of population from these estimates for 2010 through 2017. I wanted to see why NYC and LA gained population but Chicago in the last few years declined in population. The interesting thing is that the death rate between NYC and Chicago were nearly identical. LA's death rate was about 1 per 1000 people lower than NYC and Chicago. The birth rates between LA, NYC, and Chicago were also almost identical though.
The difference came in the international migration. All 3 had big domestic migration losses - Chicago and LA by number were kind of similar though the rates different - and the rates between Chicago and NYC were very similar. The difference was that LA and NYC both had net international migration of a few hundred thousand people higher than Chicago. Chicago's number was big at something like +183,000 but both NYC and LA were around or over +400,000 each. This was pretty much the difference. With falling international migration and birth/death rates staying much the same, it's not surprising at all to me after seeing this data that it's gone into the red for NYC and LA too.
Regardless, this notion that a population change can alone indicate the health of an area is beyond ridiculous. All 3 of these areas are doing very well when it comes to the economy. The difference is that they continue to shift (especially NYC and Chicago) economically - Chicago and NYC were one of only 10-12 cities in the US between 2010 and 2017 where the under 6 figure earning households declined, but the 6+ figure household populations increased quite a bit. These places are all gentrifying enough that it's "forcing" many lower and lower middle/solid middle class people out.
Staten Island: +663 people
Manhattan: -1079 people
Bronx: -7593 people
Brooklyn: -13,555 people
Queens: -17,959 people
NYC total: -39,523 people
Washington DC city: +6764 people (now over 700K total people)
San Francisco city: +4139 people (Lowest year-to-year population change between 2010 and 2018)
No - I'm just stating the facts of the reality of what's going on in these places as indicated by objective economic data.
My own opinion is that I don't necessarily think that's good at all - you need all sorts of people to make a city actually work well, not just the upper mid/upper class. It's good that people are making more money, so yes.. But also not good that the middle class is shrinking there ...in other places it's actually growing. I'd rather see that than only the upper mid/upper class grow.
Point I was making was that basing your opinion around 1 number is ridiculous for a city. NYC lost nearly 40,000 people between 2017 and 2018. Nobody should be so stupid to proclaim NYC as a dying city based solely on that number.
No - I'm just stating the facts of the reality of what's going on in these places as indicated by objective economic data.
My own opinion is that I don't necessarily think that's good at all - you need all sorts of people to make a city actually work well, not just the upper mid/upper class. It's good that people are making more money, so yes.. But also not good that the middle class is shrinking there ...in other places it's actually growing. I'd rather see that than only the upper mid/upper class grow.
Point I was making was that basing your opinion around 1 number is ridiculous for a city. NYC lost nearly 40,000 people between 2017 and 2018. Nobody should be so stupid to proclaim NYC as a dying city based solely on that number.
Thank you for your explanation. Very well put.
I look at San Francisco (and the Bay Area at-large), for example, and wonder how service sector workers can afford to live there. Not everyone can "just go and be an engineer or a surgeon or a software developer". Society DOES need service sector workers despite so many on this forum wanting to push them out to exurbs 30 miles from their workplaces.
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.
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.
