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.
Never said that there was anything sinister behind it. I think people have been over the topic a bunch of times.
Another thing is that the estimates before the 2010 census have been shown to be off in regards to some states and areas. Considering the year that the information goes up to, I'd say that some of the information that you posted is off to some degree.
Then tell me what statistics would be acceptable in your eye? Which one wouldn't be off to some degree? Don't you think its a hefty task to record all this in real time considering how populated the US is, and how geographically large it is?
03-03-2012, 01:45 AM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 8 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,920,579 times
Reputation: 4052
I looked at all of the 50 states for domestic migration between 1990 to 2009.
A total of 32 states increased in population for that statistic, and 17 states by a lot.
A total of 18 states lost population for domestic migration, and 13 states by a lot.
I am very surprised Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Kentucky did so well for this.
I am not surprised for Texas, Washington state, Colorado, and Oregon doing well and that was expected.
I am very surprised California, New York state, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, and Alaska did badly for this.
I am not surprised for New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio, Louisiana, Connecticut, Maryland, and Rhode Island doing badly for this and that was expected.
However, some of the states that lost a lot people in domestic migration still increased in population because of foreign immigration, natural birth rate, etc such as New York state and California.
Also, domestic migration does not mean all aspects of the overall population rate/growth for a state. However, it is still an interesting statistic to observe.
Then tell me what statistics would be acceptable in your eye? Which one wouldn't be off to some degree? Don't you think its a hefty task to record all this in real time considering how populated the US is, and how geographically large it is?
Sure, but my point was that many of the pre 2010 census estimates for NY overstated a decline.
Also, the recession changed things a bit later in that time period.
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.
