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.
People are leaving high taxed states for low taxed states. It's that simple.
Agreed, totally--this is basically it, 100%.
Plus add in warmer weather, abundant job opportunities (paying less, but still come out making more), and much much cheaper housing, and it makes total sense.
Midwest and northeast states that are overly-taxed, higher priced, and have harsh winters like Illinois, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, for example, makes relocating down south or out west a no-brainer for a lot of people looking for easier, less stress-filled living.
Plus add in warmer weather, abundant job opportunities (paying less, but still come out making more), and much much cheaper housing, and it makes total sense. Midwest and northeast states that are overly-taxed, higher priced, and have harsh winters like Illinois, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, for example, makes relocating down south or out west a no-brainer for a lot of people looking for easier, less stress-filled living.
It's beginning to make less and less sense as many of the destinations like here in Florida become overly congested with insufficient infrastructure such as roads/transit, more and more crime-ridden, more expensive with sky-rocketing rental values in particular and facing flat economies in terms of salary growth versus cost of living increases. South Florida (Miami-Ft Lauderdale-West Palm Beach), Central Florida (Greater Orlando) SW Florida (Fort Myers-Cape Coral and Naples) and Tampa-St Pete are among areas in FL with these issues in acceleration mode along with other places in the Southeast/South like much of Atlanta, Charleston, Nashville, Austin and Dallas. The smart money is beginning to figure out there are better places in NC, SC, TN and GA in terms of jobs and lower cost living minus the bad winters and high taxes...yet also lacking in unplanned sprawl/growth minus the congestion, crime and other stresses that come with high growth areas.
Florida is too risky a state, to purchase real estate. That would be the last state I would consider. No offense, I love to visit Florida, but would be afraid to make an investment there.
Michigan is an example of what happens to boom states. Two generations ago hundreds of thousands of people, most from the south moved there to build cars. Detroit grew from a small midwestern city into the third largest city in the nation. (Today much of it is abandoned and has somewhere around 750k people, down from 3 million)Surrounding areas also grew, places like Lansing, Flint and Saginaw all became auto factory towns. Large amounts of people meant more demands on government and infrastructure, an economy dependent on the auto industry also led to a vulnerability in the states economy that would spell its doom. When the inevitable happened and the auto industry finally collapsed after decades of decline the consequences were severe. Michigan spent a decade bleeding population and it’s already dangerous and depressed cities became almost apocalyptic. Everyone saw the Detroit banckrupcy and everyone saw Americans being told they cannot drink thier own water in flint. While Michigan is recovering, or more or less adjusting to its new reality, it’s cities are still very run down and depressing. People still leave every day.
The point is boom states do go bust, when the economic factor that drove unhealthy growth changes you will have a lot of human misery. This really should serve as a warning for places who’s population is on out of control growth mode. There will be more Michigan’s in the future.
California is next.
The auto industry has not collapsed. Thousands of people in Michigan are still employed by the auto industry.
The problem was thousands of workers moved to Michigan during World War 2 to support war production. These plants were running 24/7. When the war ended, the plants shifted back to civilian auto production and were not running 24/7. Hence, many could not find work.
TX to almost everywhere. Not just FL, but also WA, ID, OR, AZ. However, Texas is still growing and their mass puts them high on out-migration almost by default.
Here are the latest numbers:
(Note that numerically-based charts are different from percentage-based charts)
People are leaving high taxed states for low taxed states. It's that simple.
Then they vote for the same politics that caused them to leave in the first place. I've seen this with a vast majority of California transplants with my own eyes.
Then they vote for the same politics that caused them to leave in the first place. I've seen this with a vast majority of California transplants with my own eyes.
I suppose you're referring to the type of politics that results in booming economies, something Red States largely aren't known for outside of "thriving" service sector employment or blessed locations in terms of oil production.
From what I understand you have ties to Michigan, and your perception of reality may be somewhat skewed by your animosity. The post below contains so many factual errors it is almost tabloid-esque and should not have been allowed. But since it has been left here for almost 3 months I'll set some of your errors in fact checking straight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72
Michigan is an example of what happens to boom states. Two generations ago hundreds of thousands of people, most from the south moved there to build cars. Detroit grew from a small midwestern city into the third largest city in the nation. (Today much of it is abandoned and has somewhere around 750k people, down from 3 million)
Detroit peaked as the 5th largest city in the nation with 1.8 million people in 1950. Your inflation to 3 million woefully negligent and I suspect deliberate. In the 1950's Detroit's metropolitan region had 3 million people. Today it has 4.3 million. While the region has suffered ups and downs it has never consistently declined with other Rustbelt poster children like Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Since the 2012 estimates year it has posted gains every year, and not declines.
Quote:
Everyone saw the Detroit banckrupcy and everyone saw Americans being told they cannot drink thier own water in flint. While Michigan is recovering, or more or less adjusting to its new reality, it’s cities are still very run down and depressing.
Michigan started transitioning to economic recovery in 2011, a full 7 years before you posted this. The Flint Water crisis started in 2014 when the state was in full recovery mode. It was political, not economic. It however suits the purpose of your hyperbole ridden and deliberately misleading narrative to spin it as part of Michigan's economic downfall that ended 7 years ago. You also deliberately leave out cities on the western side of the state that have long been strong gainers and standouts in the Midwest. These metros have never lost population.
Quote:
People still leave every day.
Since 2010 Michigan has been estimated to have gained more than 78,000 residents. Which when considering the struggle of the previous decade is remarkable, and speaks to the states resilience. The 2017 estimates showed the state posting it's largest year over year gain since 2002. The 10 year recession, that lead to big population declines between 2007-2011 is over. Although I am certain there will always be bitter people who refuse to let the 2010 census, and the economic circumstance surrounding it to not be their reality.
Then they vote for the same politics that caused them to leave in the first place. I've seen this with a vast majority of California transplants with my own eyes.
Increased supply and demand is what raises costs of living and creates the "push" factor and causes people to look at other places to relocate to. Painting it as some simple left/right ideological differences is overly simplistic and really misses the point altogether.
Increased supply and demand is what raises costs of living and creates the "push" factor and causes people to look at other places to relocate to. Painting it as some simple left/right ideological differences is overly simplistic and really misses the point altogether.
Cities become more liberal as they increase in not only population but more importantly, density. As cities grow they need more garbage trucks, more schools, more parks, more buses, etc. and people understand that higher taxation is necessary to accommodate that. This is why big cities, especially dense ones like New York City, and conservatism are oxymoronic. Rural areas and suburbs align with conservatism however, because they don't need organization to stop them from going into chaos. They don't need waste management systems, or large public school systems, rather suburbs and rural areas can rely on community involvement to take care of certain problems. In cities while community involvement is there, it's not enough to keep up with the demand.
As cities become denser, see many of the southern and southwest states who had mostly suburban cities become more dense as trends push towards higher density and increase in jobs, this causes the ideological shift. When the jobs move with the people (in the sense that employers need humans and employers are made up of humans who also follow cultural migration patterns of the country) others will follow.
It could be that those liberal in the first place may not consider living in a suburb or a rural area to begin with, and as many of these once suburban conservative cities (Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, etc.) become denser and more liberal, get put on their radars. And with the jobs, they follow them.
Many dense areas are unaffordable right now, and that's partially because of weird zoning laws regarding setbacks, parking minimums, etc. that take up extra time and money on the developers end including restricting supply, making new housing expensive and old housing in too high of demand that the prices end up matching. Zoning is prohibitive to affordable housing, I do put some faith in developers that they would tap into the "non-luxury" housing market that no one is building housing for purely because of lack of competition, but zoning makes it rather difficult. This isn't a scenario unique to California or Seattle or New York City (aka expensive areas) but rather nationwide as they all have zoning (yes, even Houston) regarding parking minimums and setbacks. Name one new development that is affordable to the median wage of the city it's built in.... you won't be able to. So even our now booming cities will see the same fate of the as old ones, as supply is purposely being restricted for the sake of rather dumb zoning policies and NIMBYs.
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.
