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.
NC, FL, and TX are heavily transplanted, but, compared to most other states, tend to have a lot of natives stay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cttransplant85
Texas, Carolinas, Florida
Nope.
NC, SC and TX are at 58% which is the national average and well below the least transient. FL is at 35% which is obviously very mobile in the grand scheme.
Florida has a huge out-migration of natives. They're trying to get away from all of you who moved down there and made it a congested hell-hole.
NC natives will be following suit soon. Ironically; we'll also be getting away from all of the FL natives who've moved up here to escape the New Yorkers and New Englanders!
The states on both coasts tend to be more transient then those in the interior (with the exception of TX). The concentration of higher-education and "new economy" global work-forces in those areas means many people move in and out relatively often.
The states in the middle of the country, generally speaking, will be the ones where there are the most "born, live, die" residents. Places where the "old economy" is still the biggest factor.
Last edited by TarHeelNick; 11-25-2017 at 08:42 AM..
I don't think the US is as nomadic as we think, just the big cities. The least transplanty state I've lived in is Minnesota, and lots of natives stay and aside from retirees, a lot of the ones that move out, come back.
NC, SC and TX are at 58% which is the national average and well below the least transient. FL is at 35% which is obviously very mobile in the grand scheme.
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.
I think I read an article a few days ago which mentioned that the top three "sticky" state's are Michigan, Texas, and California. Cannot remember if it was for Natives to those states or just any residents.
I agree with the Michigan vote. Metro Detroit is 99% natives.
Michigan and Wisconsin are strong contenders as well as Iowa and Kentucky.
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.
