U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-14-2014, 07:45 PM
 
250 posts, read 279,054 times
Reputation: 462

Advertisements

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...were-born.html

thought that was pretty cool
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2014, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Jersey City
6,490 posts, read 16,173,766 times
Reputation: 5646
I spent some time looking at this at work today. Cool indeed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2014, 08:54 PM
 
3,751 posts, read 3,725,492 times
Reputation: 3526
Wow, very cool! It really shows how other states are related.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2014, 12:06 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis
2,331 posts, read 3,059,308 times
Reputation: 3925
Besides Minnesota, Minnesotans show up as a category in Wisconsin, North Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Washington. Apparently we don't move to Iowa or South Dakota.

It is interesting that so much of the population of New York is native, it is closer to the Midwest than the sun belt in that respect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2014, 01:30 AM
 
Location: Somewhere below Mason/Dixon
6,523 posts, read 7,477,679 times
Reputation: 10928
Interesting how much of Louisiana and Michigan have a native born population. So many people left those states in recent years, while very few move in leaving more native born people there. In Louisiana it was a hurricane, Michigan an economic collapse that caused the exodus. If you want a state whos local culture is less altered by newcomers then those two states would be the ones to find that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2014, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,447 posts, read 11,951,877 times
Reputation: 10561
Default Interesting graphic from NYT...little mobility in U.S. across regions...

Hey all...

The other day, the NYT posted this amazing graphic showing migration flows for all 50 states over the last 100 years. Looking only at the present it's clear inter-state mobility has slowed way down. Historically tons of people flowed outward, particularly from the Midwest into the West, but modern day inter-regional migration is barely a trickle.

Going through the regions, Northeasterners (as defined by the NY Times, which includes DE, MD, and WV) barely migrate outside of the Northeast at all. Florida, Virginia, South Carolina, and North Carolina are the only states outside this expanded definition of the Northeast which have more than 10% of their population born in a Northeastern state. Expanding the range to greater than 5% adds Ohio (probably due to Western Pennsylvania), Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and Alaska. But on the whole Northeasterners are much more likely to migrate within the Northeast, as every single state but New York in the Northeast has 10% or more of their population attributable to inter-state migrants. Hell, New Hampshire has more people from the rest of the Northeast combined than people who were born in the state itself.

No state outside the south has more than 10% of its population of southern ancestry, barring New Mexico (Texans moving westward) and DC. Several states have southern populations in the 5%-9% range however - mostly border areas like DE, MD, WV, OH, IN, MO, and KS, along with a few oddball western states like CO, WY, NV, WA, and AK. Southerners are also just a lot less likely to migrate to other states in general, with Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee the only three states which have more than 15% of their population from other southern states.

Midwesterners have cast themselves further afield, perhaps because the economies in so many of these states have been bad for over a generation now. Transplanted Midwesterners, however, are all-but absent from the Northeast. While they've settled over a broader range of southern states than Northeasterners, they don't comprise more than 10% of the population anywhere but Florida and the border states of Kentucky and Oklahoma (which get regular cross-state traffic). They do continue to make up notable percentages of the population in many interior Western states though - Wyoming at the most extreme is 20% people from the Midwest.

The West is however the starkest by far. Outside of the West itself, only Arkansas and Oklahoma in the South, and the Great Plains states in the Midwest, have more than 5% of their population Western born. All are under 10%, and all but Arkansas actually border a western state. That's not to say that the west doesn't have a lot of transplants, but these mostly come from within other western states, particularly California.

The bottom line is with a few exceptions (Florida, the Carolinas, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado mostly) there really aren't too many states which seem able to attract a large number of migrants from across the country. Most people really do either seem to either stick to their home state, move around within their region, or (if in a border area) move one state over to a state technically in another region.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2014, 02:11 PM
 
56,741 posts, read 81,061,259 times
Reputation: 12549
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Hey all...

The other day, the NYT posted this amazing graphic showing migration flows for all 50 states over the last 100 years. Looking only at the present it's clear inter-state mobility has slowed way down. Historically tons of people flowed outward, particularly from the Midwest into the West, but modern day inter-regional migration is barely a trickle.

Going through the regions, Northeasterners (as defined by the NY Times, which includes DE, MD, and WV) barely migrate outside of the Northeast at all. Florida, Virginia, South Carolina, and North Carolina are the only states outside this expanded definition of the Northeast which have more than 10% of their population born in a Northeastern state. Expanding the range to greater than 5% adds Ohio (probably due to Western Pennsylvania), Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and Alaska. But on the whole Northeasterners are much more likely to migrate within the Northeast, as every single state but New York in the Northeast has 10% or more of their population attributable to inter-state migrants. Hell, New Hampshire has more people from the rest of the Northeast combined than people who were born in the state itself.

No state outside the south has more than 10% of its population of southern ancestry, barring New Mexico (Texans moving westward) and DC. Several states have southern populations in the 5%-9% range however - mostly border areas like DE, MD, WV, OH, IN, MO, and KS, along with a few oddball western states like CO, WY, NV, WA, and AK. Southerners are also just a lot less likely to migrate to other states in general, with Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee the only three states which have more than 15% of their population from other southern states.

Midwesterners have cast themselves further afield, perhaps because the economies in so many of these states have been bad for over a generation now. Transplanted Midwesterners, however, are all-but absent from the Northeast. While they've settled over a broader range of southern states than Northeasterners, they don't comprise more than 10% of the population anywhere but Florida and the border states of Kentucky and Oklahoma (which get regular cross-state traffic). They do continue to make up notable percentages of the population in many interior Western states though - Wyoming at the most extreme is 20% people from the Midwest.

The West is however the starkest by far. Outside of the West itself, only Arkansas and Oklahoma in the South, and the Great Plains states in the Midwest, have more than 5% of their population Western born. All are under 10%, and all but Arkansas actually border a western state. That's not to say that the west doesn't have a lot of transplants, but these mostly come from within other western states, particularly California.

The bottom line is with a few exceptions (Florida, the Carolinas, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado mostly) there really aren't too many states which seem able to attract a large number of migrants from across the country. Most people really do either seem to either stick to their home state, move around within their region, or (if in a border area) move one state over to a state technically in another region.
This bolded part is due to people moving to those states to retire in many/most cases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2014, 03:06 PM
 
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
9,866 posts, read 21,161,251 times
Reputation: 9426
I looked through all the graphs they did. It was very informative and interesting.

I found it interesting how Virginia and the Carolinas were basket cases in 1900, 95% of the population in all states being born instate. Today all three have around 60% or less of their population born in state. The influx began around 1950 and accelerated after 1980.

In my home state (Kentucky) the greatest interaction have been between Ohio and Indiana. Some of that is because Cincinnati and Louisville are major population centers located on those borders, people often move within the same metro area but are in a different state. Also many Kentuckians moved to IN and OH for jobs after WW2, since the 1980s there has been a reverse flow of people from IN and OH moving into KY (some of this is retired people who were born in KY and moved north for work and now are returning).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2014, 07:18 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 26 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,020 posts, read 102,689,903 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
This bolded part is due to people moving to those states to retire in many/most cases.
Not Colorado. Some people do come here b/c their kids moved here, but it's mostly young adults who move here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top