A total geek will find this slide pack interesting:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/relea...ion_slides.pdf. This is an upate on the 10 - 20 year old data offered by the OP. Some surprises:
- Slide 7: Only 11.6% of all people moved in 2010 - 11. Of those, only 1.6% moved to different state. Does this signify a new exodus?
- Slide 14: Of the top 5 state-to-state moves in 2009, only one involves an outflow from the northeast (NY - FL): A whopping 53,000 people out of a population of 19.5 million.
- Slide 16 presents the top 10 inter-state moves. Again, only one (NY - FL) is a move from the NE elsewhere.
- Slide 17 in interesting. NY is among the largest out- and
in-migation states. CA, FL, and TX rank higher in both criteria.
Lots of other good data here for folks who like such things.
So let's examine this: Across the entire US, people are moving from state to state at an annual rate of 1.6%. A smaller subset of that number represents moves from region to region. What some may call "fleeing" I call a bit of an excuse to drag out stereotypes, half-truths and unfounded statements paraded as facts. If I'm the only one who detects a not so veiled dislike of the northeast by the OP, I'll live with that.
In the big picture, there are a few other dynamics worth mentioning when judging the relative health of an area.
All of our major metro areas are growing:
List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, including those of the northeast. The question is whether they are growing at a sustainable rate. I have lived a boom city. I have also seen it go bust. Neither cycle is good. Areas that boom are not generally equipped to handle to inflow. They can't build highways and homes quickly enough to handle the demand. Cheap construction further and further from the core is the rule. Another word for this is sprawl. Then, for whatever reason (say an oil bust in Texas or a housing bust in Las Vegas or Florida), people leave and there is too much infrastructure. Smart, slow growth is generally considered more sustainable. In all this talk about migration rates, no one has considered the question of a what is a healthy rate of growth, migration or otherwise.
In the northeast, all the states and their major metros are showing good sustainable growth (with the exception of Little Rhody, which seems to be at a standstill for now). In fact, even cities many associate with population decline such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Providence and even Allentown are now in growth mode. We all (hopefully) agree that growth is important to the sustainability of our communities. It seem skewed and short-sighted to consider only one component of where that growth is coming from.
Is the sky falling? Are people fleeing the northeast? Rather than an informative thread, I think the OP has chosen outdated numbers in order to proclaim "Henny Penny"-style that the bottom is about to fall out. Facts don't support it. The northeast continues to thrive. The northeast, though it accounts for only 5% of the nation's territory, is home to 20% of its popualce who produce 23% of U.S. gross domestic product (
Northeastern United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It is home to 4 of the top 10 metropolitan areas in the country, all of which are growing. It is the home of nation's government and its its financial and media center. None of this is likely to change in the foreseeable future.