[East of the River]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Absolutely. Every single millennial I know that lived in the city is now settling down and guess where they're moving? The 'burbs. The liberal media would have you believe otherwise, though.

That's true but they tend to do it at an older age then their parents which has the same effect. More people are living in cities. The burbs aren't going to die, but there is a bit of a trend towards less people living there as a whole. I agree not like the media says but the census data does indicate a trend. Part of this trend is being driven by companies deciding to locate their offices closer to cities then they have since the 60's.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by just_because

I'm not about doom and gloom but to say that the stats are skewed signficantly by 'snowbirds' does not hold water and is irrelevant to the points being discussed.

All over the world, there is a massive skills shortage. Continued prosperity of any place depends on attracting younger working people with today's skills. Businesses go to and are born where there are skilled workers and skilled workers go where there are successful businesses who need their skills. CT's footing in this virtuous circle is too weak and that's the issue.

Snowbirding is a red herring and the number of people who maintain two homes and declare themselves moved down south is a rounding error in the big picture. Many of the people termed 'snowbirds' use RVs or just rent a place down south for a month or two rather than declaring that they are 'moving out' while still maintaining a CT home.

Anyway, the snowbird is not flying as high these days so any small benefit (if there is one) should be viewed with caution. Years of low interest rates on savings, ever increasing healthcare/drug costs, high CT taxes (state and local), long term care issues, longer lifespans, less lucrative pensions and related benefits for newer retirees, etc, etc. have decreased the number of people who can live this dreamy lifestyle supporting two homes. Old people are also having to support their adult children more (student loan/education costs, weak job prospects for many young people, healthcare, expensive housing in many areas, etc). Finally, states and municipalities are not stupid when it comes to tax and fee collecting and residency tricks/loopholes are increasingly difficult to exploit.

The issue is the ones that can afford it have the most potential tax income. Hence the issue. I know several high vale individuals (including a cousin of mine) who moved their residence to FL. In my cousins case he has very large homes in both states (both are over 4,000 sqft both on the ocean) but he spends slightly more time in FL and claims it as his permanent residence.

[AMSS]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

Forget the anecdotes, there were links to credible sources with census data to validate. Scroll up.

I wouldn't put the Wall Street Journal and credibility in the same sentence. But various think tanks have done that study and more people are choosing cities. It doesn't mean they're choosing city public schools (I'd have to look into that), but they are opting for convenience.

[wolf39us]

Plenty of people where I live in CT. If half of them left, I probably wouldn't notice.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by AMSS

I wouldn't put the Wall Street Journal and credibility in the same sentence. But various think tanks have done that study and more people are choosing cities. It doesn't mean they're choosing city public schools (I'd have to look into that), but they are opting for convenience.

I don't dispute the think tank research from 2009-2014 that revealed an urban preference. But most recent data clearly shows the trend reversing. As for your jab at the WSJ, it remains the single most reputable publication in the US. Jayson Blair ring a bell? The #2 NYT editor who resigned after years of plagiarism?

"Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception" - Straight Dope Message Board

[just_because]

This is turning into a strange argument. I don't know what this has to do with the NYT vs the WSJ and i don't see what it has to do with the liberal media.

I'll believe the 0.8 growth rate for urban vs 1.0 growth rate for suburban counties. But I will question what it means and the conclusions both sides are trying to make. As the article acknowledges, the suburbs have grown faster than cities for decades. No news there. It was only in the recent housing crash that it temporarily reversed. New housing development in suburbs is the main engine of net growth in suburban growth. What was a tract of farmland with 0 people can turn into relatively affordable homes for 200+ people in a few months. Housing starts hit the toilet hard in the housing market crash which is why suburban growth declined temporarily. Nothing to do with people not favoring cities anymore.

Trying to read into this that cities are becoming more or less favored vs the suburbs is fruitless. The US has 20,000 towns and cities, 3,000 counties, 320 million people and 50 states, many of which have the populations, economies and geographic areas of decent sized countries. The economies and views on city vs suburban vs rural living are very different across this land. Cities in some areas are dangerous and highly undesireable while cities in other areas are in extremely high demand from domestic buyers and second homes are being gobbled up from foreign buyers.

I'm not fighting for one side of this silly argument or the other. Just appealing to use some logic here.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by AMSS

I wouldn't put the Wall Street Journal and credibility in the same sentence.

Why?

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by just_because

Cities in some areas are dangerous and highly undesireable while cities in other areas are in extremely high demand from domestic buyers and second homes are being gobbled up from foreign buyers.

True, but there is another factor: after decades of falling crime rates, they are rising again. I'm pretty sure that the desirability of cities is inversely correlated to the crime rate.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by just_because

Businesses go to and are born where there are skilled workers and skilled workers go where there are successful businesses who need their skills.

That's just one factor (albeit an important one.) Actually it has not been a factor for many companies -- for example -- large banks didn't relocate to cow farms in Omaha because of the talent pool already there. Something else attracted them, despite the unsuitable "talent pool." Or Micron setting up shop in Boise Idaho.

Originally Posted by just_because

CT's footing in this virtuous circle is too weak and that's the issue.

CT actually has a very good workforce, especially white-collar. Let's face it, Chevy will not build a factory in CT, but financial services, insurance, high-tech, pharma -- there are plenty of local talent in CT. The problem is that CT's left-wing Govt is becoming more and more hostile towards businesses. Gimmicks like "incubators" or "tax credits" are bandaids to a gushing wound.

[jp03]

Originally Posted by BPt111

Are you surprise by this ?

Numbers released by the U.S. Census Bureau show that Connecticut’s population has declined for the third year in a row. Connecticut has had a net loss of 19,581 residents since the state peaked in 2013.

This includes a population decrease of 8,278 last year.
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Rhode Island all saw increases in population, while New York also declined.

Connecticut’s population decline has been blamed on a number of factors including high taxes and cost-of-living driving residents to other states, cold winters and one of the lowest birthrates in the nation coupled with an aging population.



Connecticut loses population for third year in a row, according to Census Bureau | Yankee Institute for Public Policy

I don't get the surprise here ... Old folks retire TO other places not to HERE. Its simple as that.