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 11-25-2017, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,081 posts, read 22,924,480 times
Reputation: 35201

Advertisements

California. If they don't stay, they usually come back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-25-2017, 10:12 PM
 
Location: The Pacific Northwest
6,015 posts, read 6,362,170 times
Reputation: 8281
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
California. If they don't stay, they usually come back.
I’m not so sure about that.... Seattle is filled with ex-Californians. I’ve met quite a few who have been here 10, 20, 30 years with no plans to ever return. Of course, some might argue this is basically California North nowadays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2017, 06:02 AM
 
21,186 posts, read 30,343,833 times
Reputation: 19609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parhe View Post
Stop being so confidently dense. Your link shows what percentage of current residents were born in that state, not what percentage of people born in that state are also current residents. They are very different things.

Think of it this way. In 1980, five hundred people are born in Town A. In 2015, two hundred of them have left and only ten people of the same year have moved in. According to your link's method, over 97% of people in that town is native born, but also only 60% of the locals have choose to stay. Compare that to Town B, in which two hundred people are born in 1980. By 2015, ten leave but three hundred people from elsewhere of the same year move in. According to your link's method, only 39% of residents are native born, but over 95% of locals have choose to stay. For what the OP here is asking ("regions where you've noticed the locals tend to stick around"), Town B is a much better fit but your argument would be that Town A is a better fit, despite a greater percentage of its locals deciding to leave.
And you're somehow astutely correct given your unproven theory?

Lower percentages of native born residents would seemingly indicate less a tendency to stay to most, or is that too logical? Immigration and emigration, two flows of population working against "locals who stick around"...allow that to marinate for a minute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2017, 06:15 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, North Carolina
2,618 posts, read 2,930,153 times
Reputation: 4008
I'd have to say North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2017, 08:03 AM
sub
 
780 posts, read 405,678 times
Reputation: 1342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox View Post
I’m not so sure about that.... Seattle is filled with ex-Californians. I’ve met quite a few who have been here 10, 20, 30 years with no plans to ever return. Of course, some might argue this is basically California North nowadays.
A huge amount of Arkansas' population growth comes directly from California. I haven't a clue what they see in the place except cheap land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordHelmit View Post
I'd have to say North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas
Speaking of, Arkansas has forever suffered from significant brain drain.

What may have given you that impression is that for the longest time, the only people willing to live there pretty much had to be from there. Natives have always left in droves to find better opportunity elswhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2017, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Research Triangle Area, NC
3,744 posts, read 2,558,854 times
Reputation: 5379
This ought to clear up confusion and address all of the scenarios in question...

Magnet or Sticky?: A State-by-State Typology | Pew Research Center

I think the most interesting category they have is the "high-magnet; low-sticky" states. Basically states that lots of people are moving to from other states....but folks born there are also gettin' the hell out.

I question some of the numbers/rankings mostly because it seems very difficult to gather enough information to be able to accurately estimate the percentage of adults born in a given state who still live there (NOT the percentage of people who live there that where born there....there is a difference). But it does hit on all angles of the topic at hand here.

Last edited by TarHeelNick; 11-26-2017 at 08:27 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2017, 09:02 AM
 
16 posts, read 12,598 times
Reputation: 38
It's got to be anywhere in the deep south or flyover states
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2017, 09:29 AM
 
1,827 posts, read 1,249,305 times
Reputation: 1822
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle19125 View Post
And you're somehow astutely correct given your unproven theory?

Lower percentages of native born residents would seemingly indicate less a tendency to stay to most, or is that too logical? Immigration and emigration, two flows of population working against "locals who stick around"...allow that to marinate for a minute.
It isn't an unproven theory, it is simple mathematics. Lower percentages of native born residents also indicate that a lot of people are moving in to a location. I showed you with my two examples that it is possible for a city to be very sticky for locals (which is that the OP asked for) but have a lot percentage of its current residents being native born.

Just look at your link from earlier and the link posted by TarHeelNick, which I leave on the bottom of this post. According to that link, 75.8% of people who are still alive and were born in Texas still lived in Texas at the time of the study, more than any other state. According to your link, Texas ranks 25 in terms of how many of its current residents were born in that state (which I told you earlier isn't the question the OP asked-just go back and read it)-according to the link below, it is 17th, but point is that it ranks mediocre by both links in that. Both are true, but the fact that Texas attracts a lot of people born elsewhere does not negate the fact that Texas is very "sticky" for locals.

tl;dr More current residents of Louisiana were born in that state compared to Texas (78.8% vs 60.5%) but more people born in Texas choose to live there presently than people born in Louisiana choose to live there presently (75.8% vs 64.4%).

Interactive: Sticky States | Pew Research Center
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2017, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Jersey City
2,695 posts, read 986,379 times
Reputation: 1903
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
California. If they don't stay, they usually come back.
This is true, though I think we're going to see a major shift in this trend, given how high the COL is in all of its major cities. Lately I've been hearing a lot of talk from family members and friends about picking up and moving to Denver. (LA is my hometown). Pure speculation and no concrete plans from anyone yet, but it's been the buzz lately with people I know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2017, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Research Triangle Area, NC
3,744 posts, read 2,558,854 times
Reputation: 5379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian View Post
This is true, though I think we're going to see a major shift in this trend, given how high the COL is in all of its major cities. Lately I've been hearing a lot of talk from family members and friends about picking up and moving to Denver. (LA is my hometown). Pure speculation and no concrete plans from anyone yet, but it's been the buzz lately with people I know.
That trend has started.....and is already accelerating quite quickly according to the numbers from Forbes....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkot.../#2c5f4b7852d7

California gets it's own whole section of the article.

Quote:
And then there is the big enchilada, California. For generations, the Golden State developed a reputation as the ultimate destination of choice for millions of Americans. No longer. Since 2000 the state has lost 1.75 million net domestic migrants, according to Census Bureau estimates. And even amid an economic recovery, the pattern of outmigration continued in 2014, with a loss of 57,900 people and an attraction ratio of 88.5, placing the Golden State 13th from the bottom, well behind longtime people exporters Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Louisiana. California was a net loser of domestic migrants in all age categories.
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