[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by mrgmrg

South Dakota is probably a high inbound state due to fracking. It's wreaked havoc on the state, so not necessarily something to strive for.

North Dakota is having a high inbound because of the fracking, not so much South Dakota. Fracking in South Dakota is limited to a very small portion of the State (extreme NW and SW).

http://denr.sd.gov/des/og/documents/..._wells_000.pdf

Apparently, SD is a major player in Banking/Retail/medical research, who knew. These 3 or 4 industries, along with good business environment and local Universities are really driving the economy in SD.

[mrgmrg]

Do you know what the word relative means? The population of the country and world is growing. If your state's population is growing at a slower rate, its population is shrinking relative to the rest of the country.

Since between the 2000 and 2010 census only one state (Michigan) and Puerto Rico saw their populations shrink, it is clear that that is not a useful measure against which to gauge a state's relative success or failure.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by mrgmrg

Do you know what the word relative means? The population of the country and world is growing. If your state's population is growing at a slower rate, its population is shrinking relative to the rest of the country.

Since between the 2000 and 2010 census only one state (Michigan) and Puerto Rico saw their populations shrink, it is clear that that is not a useful measure against which to gauge a state's relative success or failure.

Ct has lost residents to state-to-state migration, while offsetting it via immigration gains in several years. That happens in many states, and that is why few actually lose net population. But when you lose state-to-state, you lose Congressional seats, Ct had 6 when I was growing up, and after the next census, will likely have 4, if normal US growth patterns take place.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by mrgmrg

Do you know what the word relative means? The population of the country and world is growing. If your state's population is growing at a slower rate, its population is shrinking relative to the rest of the country.

In a thread that's about people leaving the state, one would assume that your use of the word "shrink" means a decline in number of people living here.

I think I see what you're trying to accomplish, but there are more favorable words to use than "shrink" to prove your point that's going nowhere. Perhaps describing CT's population growth as stagnant would be better?

Again, a growth rate of +.6% is not a shrinking population. Period. Move along now.

[mrgmrg]

Ok, so let's reframe the issue: More people are leaving Connecticut than are coming to Connecticut. Is anyone surprised? I'm not. Does anyone think that's positive? I don't.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by mrgmrg

Ok, so let's reframe the issue: More people are leaving Connecticut than are coming to Connecticut. Is anyone surprised? I'm not. Does anyone think that's positive? I don't.

What? Do you even pay attention to the numbers or are you just choosing to ignore simple math? CT's population rose by .6% in the past 3 years. Not a Texas or Arizona gain, but a gain nonetheless. If more people were leaving CT than coming, there would be a minus in front of that number.

[mrgmrg]

Did you read the survey OP linked to? It looks at the total number of people moving from one state to another. It then breaks that down into those moving into states and out of states. 59% of people moving in Connecticut were moving out of the state; i.e., more people are leaving Connecticut than coming to Connecticut.

If you have an issue with the methodology of the survey, they state as such. It certainly is pretty limited in what it measures. But the fact that CT's population is growing at a teensy rate is a different issue than that raised by the OP's survey.

[Mr_250]

Numbers don't lie. I don't like this trend that shows the outbounds are relatively the same YOY while the inbounds are gradually slowing down.

825<1230..We all agree. So more people Bye bye than Hello.

[mrgmrg]

I'll further the discussion to something substantive: I'm someone who recently moved from Connecticut to New York City. I did so because doing the math, it was actually cheaper for me to live in a prime Manhattan neighborhood than to live in Stamford (which was my only other serious option) and commute to my job in the city. Why? Stamford, despite its progress, is not a truly walkable city. So I would need to keep my car, making my transportation costs insane (car insurance, maintenance, and gas plus a $300-something-dollar monthly train pass to NYC, plus monthly parking at the train station, plus a monthly metro-card of $120 = easily $800-$1000 per month in transportation costs (and I own my car outright!)). While housing is somewhat cheaper and tax rates are lower, even combined that's not enough to offset the outrageous transportation costs.

[UconnHusky1]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

What? Do you even pay attention to the numbers or are you just choosing to ignore simple math? CT's population rose by .6% in the past 3 years. Not a Texas or Arizona gain, but a gain nonetheless. If more people were leaving CT than coming, there would be a minus in front of that number.

Ugh....you are ignoring simple math. There are two components of population change: natural increase/decrease and net migration.

Therefore, Connecticut witnessed a negative net migration (outbound movement exceeded inbound movement). However, the natural increase (birth rate) offset the negative net migration, which resulted in the 0.6% increase.