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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-25-2017, 07:50 PM
 
1,057 posts, read 1,391,355 times
Reputation: 1044

Advertisements

Whites are moving to Boise.

Chicago is becoming whiter as blacks leave.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2017, 08:04 PM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
17,307 posts, read 19,591,548 times
Reputation: 13099
I think whites are moving to the PNW, generally speaking.

And many cities in other regions are becoming whiter as well with gentrification.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 04:05 AM
 
574 posts, read 392,807 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seattle4321 View Post
So where are European Americans moving to?... What are the trends?

Last week the New York Times addressed this topic with the "Census Time Machine." Being, the NY Times, of course, they got it backwards.

See https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rica.html?_r=0

The darker counties of the map on that page shows the areas of the country that will grow more ethnically diverse by 2060.


The lighter (almost white) counties show the areas of the US that will be the least ethnically diverse. In fact, the white areas on this map will resemble Ronald Reagan's 1980 America in 2060.

BTW, I live in the big white blob in the middle (Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, and Iowa.) We're still one of the whitest places in the US and will be staying that way, according to this chart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 09:47 AM
 
142 posts, read 74,807 times
Reputation: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDM66 View Post
Last week the New York Times addressed this topic with the "Census Time Machine." Being, the NY Times, of course, they got it backwards.

See https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rica.html?_r=0

The darker counties of the map on that page shows the areas of the country that will grow more ethnically diverse by 2060.


The lighter (almost white) counties show the areas of the US that will be the least ethnically diverse. In fact, the white areas on this map will resemble Ronald Reagan's 1980 America in 2060.

BTW, I live in the big white blob in the middle (Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, and Iowa.) We're still one of the whitest places in the US and will be staying that way, according to this chart.
You read the map a little different than I did. If you hover over one of the areas on the map it gives you todays demographics "____ resembles America in ____" For example: "Mitchell County, KS resembles America in 1970. This county is 96% white, 0% black, 2% hispanic, 2% other. The median age is 43.5." Also from the article, "While southern Nevada offers a vision of tomorrow, the past is just a day’s car ride away. Drive about eight hours north and east into Utah, stopping just short of Salt Lake City, and you’ll find Tooele County, which most closely resembles the younger, less diverse national population of 1971, the earliest year for which comparative data is available."

I don't think it's showing which areas are going to become more diverse by that year. It's saying that right now you can go to one of the Dark Blue counties, Los Angeles for example, and see what the country's demographics will look like as a whole in 2060. And if you go to one of the Light Yellow counties, Provo, UT for example, the diversity you will see will be closer to resembling the national diversity demographics of 1971. So basically it's showing the current diversity of the country by county and how it compares to the national diversity during a time period in the past, present or future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2017, 01:12 PM
 
11,456 posts, read 6,608,386 times
Reputation: 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiscokay View Post
You read the map a little different than I did. If you hover over one of the areas on the map it gives you todays demographics "____ resembles America in ____" For example: "Mitchell County, KS resembles America in 1970. This county is 96% white, 0% black, 2% hispanic, 2% other. The median age is 43.5." Also from the article, "While southern Nevada offers a vision of tomorrow, the past is just a day’s car ride away. Drive about eight hours north and east into Utah, stopping just short of Salt Lake City, and you’ll find Tooele County, which most closely resembles the younger, less diverse national population of 1971, the earliest year for which comparative data is available."

I don't think it's showing which areas are going to become more diverse by that year. It's saying that right now you can go to one of the Dark Blue counties, Los Angeles for example, and see what the country's demographics will look like as a whole in 2060. And if you go to one of the Light Yellow counties, Provo, UT for example, the diversity you will see will be closer to resembling the national diversity demographics of 1971. So basically it's showing the current diversity of the country by county and how it compares to the national diversity during a time period in the past, present or future.
The US was NOT 0% black in 1970
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2017, 03:18 PM
 
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
15,534 posts, read 17,773,692 times
Reputation: 30886
Quote:
Originally Posted by l1995 View Post
The US was NOT 0% black in 1970
Where does wiscokay's post say that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2017, 03:23 AM
 
Location: Boston
2,276 posts, read 1,326,585 times
Reputation: 2109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert_from_back_East View Post
Nationally, whites will become a plurality if current immigration trends continue, since a great deal of the American populace is concentrated in the three most populous states of California, Texas and Florida. California and Texas are already majority-minority states, and Florida is approaching that threshold, although more slowly than demographers had previously anticipated.

However, the United States will probably always feel like a non-Hispanic white country outside of those areas. States like Kentucky, Iowa, Ohio, Oregon, Utah and Vermont probably going to remain very white well past the 2040's, regardless of current or future immigration trends.

Most of my family lives in Connecticut and Rhode Island, and at 70-80% non-Hispanic white, those states still feel very, very white relative to California, where I live. Hell, even Florida at 55-60% feels much, much whiter than California, which is about 35-40% non-Hispanic white.

I don't think percentages or raw numbers always tell the full story.
Connecticut Rhode Island and Massachusetts are 68 73 and 72.5 precedent White respectively. They're big cities don't feel very white because they're majority non white-especially not CT's since it's cities have like no suburban area in them.

Southern New England and NY/NJ. Alll lose whites at a much much faster rate than the rest of the country. In 1990 CT RI MA were 84 88 and 90 percent white.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2017, 05:19 AM
 
412 posts, read 307,695 times
Reputation: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seattle4321 View Post
Are there any places whites seem to be abondaning? I heard LA, and Miami? Any place whites are moving to in droves?
I dont Whites are abandoning the cities, its just that they are getting fewer and fewer while the other races are increasing in numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2017, 10:05 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,030 posts, read 102,707,476 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by waviking24 View Post
Seattle, Portland, Boulder

The great white flight
Boulder is barely over 100,000 people. It's pretty irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I'm not sure there's any way you could easily track this. I mean, every decade the Census will tell you the change in each sub-demographic of the population (including whites) for every single county, and even city. However, this is just a raw number. Population growth rates are modified by not only domestic migration but international immigration and natural population change (births minus deaths). As the white population of the U.S. is older and tends to have smaller families, it generally shrinks in any state which isn't seeing strong domestic migration.

The American Community Survey does track domestic migration each year, but it does not disaggregate by race. You can use it to tell the county of origin of domestic migrants however.

In general, in recent years, domestic migrants flow to two areas - the West (mostly WA, OR, NV, AZ, CO, UT, and ID), and parts of the South (FL, TX, GA, SC, NC, and TN). Much of the western growth is triggered by the California diaspora - people from elsewhere in the country don't move West in large numbers (and Californians don't move east of Texas). The southern growth is mostly triggered by Northeastern and Midwestern transplants.

My impression is that the western growth is mostly due to white domestic migrants - particularly in some of the booming small cities in the interior west like Bend and Boise. To the extent blacks leave Cali, they tend to migrate to the South, and I don't think there's any one place that's hot for Latino migrants. In contrast, blacks and whites are pretty much equally likely to move to the South, although they tend to go to different places - Blacks are more heavily drawn to Georgia, and to a lesser extent Texas, while transplants to say Tennessee or South Carolina are more heavily white.

One should also keep in mind a large proportion of domestic migrants are either retirees or empty nesters. This is an important caveat because it means in the longer run their movement into these areas will not lead to steady population growth. At some point they will age and die, and their communities will need to attract even more people to replace them.
Bold #1: That is untrue for Colorado. Most of our migrants come from the midwest. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/....html#Colorado

Bold #2: Do you have some documentation of that?
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