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.
Here's another article by Forbes...haven't checked if the numbers are the same, but it would be interesting, to compare. Maybe the difference is "educated" millennials. It actually looks like Chicago does really well, here.
I'm a Millennial and do not understand the hype of SF, Seattle, Boston, NYC, etc. I also don't see why cities like Nashville are booming - any time I've tried finding a job in Nashville, it has paid notably less with a much higher cost of living compared to the Midwest.
Unless you're around the top 5%-10% of the income distribution, it's likely that the cost of living in these places will consume any (and likely more) extra salary you'd get by being there.
Three years ago, I moved from rural east Tennessee to work at a satellite office in Indianapolis of a Boston-based tech company. The COLA from Indy to Boston was just 30%. There's no way that 30% raise would cover your increased expenses in Boston. The $60,000 we were paid in Indy was $78,000 in Boston, but probably needed to be closer to $100,000 to really capture the COL increase.
I'm a Millennial and do not understand the hype of SF, Seattle, Boston, NYC, etc. I also don't see why cities like Nashville are booming - any time I've tried finding a job in Nashville, it has paid notably less with a much higher cost of living compared to the Midwest.
Unless you're around the top 5%-10% of the income distribution, it's likely that the cost of living in these places will consume any (and likely more) extra salary you'd get by being there.
Three years ago, I moved from rural east Tennessee to work at a satellite office in Indianapolis of a Boston-based tech company. The COLA from Indy to Boston was just 30%. There's no way that 30% raise would cover your increased expenses in Boston. The $60,000 we were paid in Indy was $78,000 in Boston, but probably needed to be closer to $100,000 to really capture the COL increase.
You're absolutely correct. The COLA, from what I've seen, NEVER makes up the true difference in living in one of the cities you listed. I've not seen it, yet. People can check for themselves, but on this site, they continually delude themselves into thinking they'll make up the difference with a higher wage...it's never enough to maintain the same quality of living. You would need $96,000 in Boston, as the equivalent to $60,000 in Indianapolis.
This is incredibly misleading. They're tracking the population growth of 18-34 year-olds from 2000-2015. It stands to reason that a city with more 3-19 year-olds in 2000 would have a lot more 18-34 year-olds in 2015. We don't know if millennials are truly moving to these cities or aging into the cohort. A city like Pittsburgh, which was in deep decline in the 70's, 80s and 90s, would have seen the loss of potential parents of millennials. This is evidenced by Pittsburgh's paltry overall 18-34 population growth. On the other hand, Pittsburgh is high on list for college-educated 18-34 growth, which is probably indication that college educated millennials are moving here, rather than aging in place.
This is incredibly misleading. They're tracking the population growth of 18-34 year-olds from 2000-2015.
They show for 2000-2015 and also 2010-2015 which paints starkly different pictures for places that were disproportionately affected by the great recession. For instance in the metrics they provided Detroit shows up dead last in the 2000-2015 numbers, but was in a recession from 2002-2010. It ranked a much more healthy 26 in the 2010-2015 numbers showing a 7.6% growth rate in the metric.
My only push back would be that the 15 year time span does not create an accurate overall picture where certain places are completely different economically between that span.
This list was compiled by Joel Kotkin, a proponent of sprawling suburban-style urban development. His list has as much validity as any other list. But like other lists, the bias and preferences in any type of research need to be understood. Within this very thread, you have two very different outcomes in studies proclaiming millennial preferences, both from the same magazine.
This is incredibly misleading. They're tracking the population growth of 18-34 year-olds from 2000-2015. It stands to reason that a city with more 3-19 year-olds in 2000 would have a lot more 18-34 year-olds in 2015. We don't know if millennials are truly moving to these cities or aging into the cohort. A city like Pittsburgh, which was in deep decline in the 70's, 80s and 90s, would have seen the loss of potential parents of millennials. This is evidenced by Pittsburgh's paltry overall 18-34 population growth. On the other hand, Pittsburgh is high on list for college-educated 18-34 growth, which is probably indication that college educated millennials are moving here, rather than aging in place.
according to Nytimes
here a look at the % change in College graduate between 2000-2012
When young college graduates decide where to move, they are not just looking at the usual suspects, like New York, Washington and San Francisco. Other cities are increasing their share of these valuable residents at an even higher rate and have reached a high overall percentage, led by Denver, San Diego, Nashville, Salt Lake City and Portland, Ore., according to a report published Monday by City Observatory, a new think tank.
And as young people continue to spurn the suburbs for urban living, more of them are moving to the very heart of cities — even in economically troubled places like Buffalo and Cleveland. The number of college-educated people age 25 to 34 living within three miles of city centers has surged, up 37 percent since 2000, even as the total population of these neighborhoods has slightly shrunk.
Some cities are attracting young talent while their overall population falls, like Pittsburgh and New Orleans. And in a reversal, others that used to be magnets, like Atlanta and Charlotte, are struggling to attract them at the same rate.
Percent change in the number of college graduates aged 25 to 34, from 2000 to 2012
Houston 50%
Nashville 48%
Denver 47%
Austin 44%
Portland 37%
Washington 36%
Buffalo 34%
Baltimore 32%
Los Angeles 30%
Pittsburgh 29%
St. Louis 26%
New York 25%
Top 51 metro areas, average 25%
Minneapolis 21%
Chicago 17%
Boston 12%
San Francisco 11%
Memphis 10%
Providence 6%
Atlanta 3%
Cleveland 1%
Detroit -10%
1 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA 16.4% 7,034
2 Richmond, VA 14.9% 5,176
3 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 11.7% 1,014
4 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 9.5% 1,714
5 New Orleans-Metairie, LA 8.5% 5,199
6 Austin-Round Rock, TX 6.6% 4,523
7 Pittsburgh, PA 6.6% 4,177
8 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 6.5% 7,740
9 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 6.5% 15,549
10 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 6.4% 9,633
11 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6.2% 14,383
12 Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY 6.0% 1,881
13 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 5.4% 3,665
14 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 5.2% 4,242
15 Salt Lake City, UT 4.8% 1,983
16 Raleigh, NC 4.2% 677
17 Jacksonville, FL 4.0% 1,112
18 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 4.0% 1,372
19 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 3.9% 5,905
20 Providence-Warwick, RI-MA 3.8% 2,355
21 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 3.6% 2,171
22 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 3.4% 7,289
23 Columbus, OH 3.2% 1,606
24 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 2.9% 2,372
25 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 2.5% 29,774 Millennials: See the Top 25 Cities Where They're Moving | Time.com
and one more according to Credible.
Key Takeaways:
While affordability might be one reason cities attract out-of-state graduates, a lack of affordability does not appear to be an issue preventing job centers like San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, and Washington D.C. from attracting out-of-state grads.
However, affordability becomes more of an issue in recruiting out-of-state grads if they have large amounts of student loan debt.
College graduates who aren’t immediately looking to buy a home, or are satisfied with renting, may have fewer reservations about moving to cities like Washington D.C., San Francisco and Dallas, where homes are more expensive.
The nine cities where out-of-state graduates outnumbered in-state grads were:
1.Washington D.C. (2.20 out-of-state graduates for every in-state graduate),
2.Charlotte (2.17)
3.Denver (1.92 )
4.Portland (1.48)
5.Seattle (1.35)
6.San Francisco (1.22)
7.Oakland (1.19)
8.New York City (1.06)
9.Dallas (1.03)
They show for 2000-2015 and also 2010-2015 which paints starkly different pictures for places that were disproportionately affected by the great recession. For instance in the metrics they provided Detroit shows up dead last in the 2000-2015 numbers, but was in a recession from 2002-2010. It ranked a much more healthy 26 in the 2010-2015 numbers showing a 7.6% growth rate in the metric.
My only push back would be that the 15 year time span does not create an accurate overall picture where certain places are completely different economically between that span.
Yep, Nashville kind of played second fiddle to Memphis in TN for many years, and has only relatively recently caught up and since passed it. Nashville in 2000 was a far, far different city in many ways than Nashville today.
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.
