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)
 
Old 12-19-2018, 11:57 AM
 
9,382 posts, read 9,541,753 times
Reputation: 5786

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata View Post
States like NY and CA depend on international migration for population growth. Govt now reducing legal immigration quotas, could explain loss.
So does Massachusetts and itís population went up faster than in 2017
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2018, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,633 posts, read 8,326,006 times
Reputation: 7592
In actuality if you take into account the population gain and loss from the pre-revision 2017 numbers to the 2018 numbers, then California only added (+) 20,400 people; New York declined by (-) 307,000 people; Texas gained (+) 397,000 people; Florida gained (+) 314,000 people; Illinois declined by (-) 60,000 people; and Pennsylvania stayed flat (2017: 12,805,537 / 2018: 12,807,060).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2018, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Heart of Dixie
712 posts, read 398,105 times
Reputation: 1207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric View Post

The bigger story to ponder over is why California has slowed to a crawl and why New York is now leading the United States in raw number population decline. From July 1, 2017 (post-revision numbers) to July 1, 2018 the state of New York declined -48,000 people.
Simple: people have been fleeing NY the past couple of years due to either taxes, weather, or insane COL. And I mean fleeing. Even Long Island and NYC suburbs have ground to a halt. Manhattan is a playground for the 1%, and the rest of the city is following in its footsteps. Consider this: since 2010, NYS has lost 1.2 million to other states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2018, 12:38 PM
 
11,985 posts, read 5,122,573 times
Reputation: 18734
CA to me is no surprise at all. Living there, I'm aware of many people leaving the state, especially retirees that are cashing out on their homes and moving to TX, NV, Arizona. The younger Hispanic population increases constantly and makes up some of the difference, but currently it's not enough to balance those that leave.
Few middle class people from across the country move to CA from other states. The jobs are there, but for many it's not affordable mostly due to the high price of housing. You can't easily sell a home in Pennsylvania or Ohio and buy another comparable one in CA, at least not where the jobs are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2018, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,633 posts, read 8,326,006 times
Reputation: 7592
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjoseph View Post
Simple: people have been fleeing NY the past couple of years due to either taxes, weather, or insane COL. And I mean fleeing. Even Long Island and NYC suburbs have ground to a halt. Manhattan is a playground for the 1%, and the rest of the city is following in its footsteps. Consider this: since 2010, NYS has lost 1.2 million to other states.
I notice that New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago along with New York, California, and Illinois tend to have weak population growth during times when the national economy is booming and other places are prospering and growing rapidly.

Observe with the Greater Los Angeles MSA and the state of California below.

Los Angeles MSA 2000 to 2010:
2000: 12,365,627 (+ 112,404) [9 month cycle]
2001: 12,511,491 (+ 145,864) [15 month cycle)
2002: 12,614,158 (+ 102,667)
2003: 12,696,521 (+ 82,363)
2004: 12,734,974 (+ 38,453)
2005: 12,726,428 (-8,546)
2006: 12,670,216 (-56,212)
2007: 12,631,988 (-38,228)

2008: 12,692,740 (+ 60,752)
2009: 12,774,577 (+ 81,837)
2010: 12,828,837 (+ 54,260) [9 month cycle]

California 2000 to 2010:
2000: 33,871,648 (+ 372,444) [9 month cycle]
2001: 34,479,458 (+ 607,810) [15 month cycle]
2002: 34,871,843 (+ 392,385)
2003: 35,253,159 (+ 381,316)
2004: 35,574,576 (+ 321,417)
2005: 35,827,943 (+ 253,367)
2006: 36,021,202 (+ 193,259)
2007: 36,250,311 (+ 229,109)
2008: 36,604,337 (+ 354,026)
2009: 36,961,229 (+ 356,892)
2010: 37,253,956 (+ 292,727) [9 month cycle]

Notice how Los Angeles MSA actually was declining from 2005 to 2007, it was at the same time the United States' national economy was in a period of a superboom (the kind of boom the United States will never have again). Then Los Angeles went back to growing in 2008 when the world economy crashed due to the Great Recession, the reason was that the recession decimated the financial and housing industries, so it kept people from moving, thus the domestic out-migration was null and void during the recession. As housing prices dropped precipitously around the world, people felt safer waiting it out and staying where they were instead of moving somewhere and investing in housing that would lose value. As the United States began recovering more and more, both Los Angeles and California began to decelerate even more as the Great Recession was left further and further back in the rear-view mirror. This is the same phenomena as Illinois (Chicago) and New York (New York). These places, at least when it comes to population growth, tend to suffer when the rest of the country is outright booming. This is probably attributed to their runaway real-estate prices, when the national economy is in a state of boom, New York and Los Angeles reach excruciating levels of unaffordable costs, thus making their outward migration flows larger and larger and consequently it makes their population growth lower and lower each passing year.

The same thing has been occurring this decade.

Los Angeles MSA 2010 to 2017:
2010: 12,828,837 (+ 54,260) [9 month cycle]
2011: 12,939,463 (+ 110,626) [15 month cycle]
2012: 13,041,538 (+ 102,075)
2013: 13,132,253 (+ 90,715)
2014: 13,209,445 (+ 77,192)
2015: 13,283,824 (+ 74,379)
2016: 13,328,261 (+ 44,437)
2017: 13,353,907 (+ 25,646)

Los Angeles MSA reached stagnation just last year since its year-over-year population growth fell to a mere + 25,000 for an MSA of 13 million people but the 2018 numbers when they come out next March have a high chance of posting decline for Los Angeles MSA. If it posts any growth at all, it will be even lower than the + 25,000 it gained last year since both the state and Los Angeles MSA have trended towards deceleration each passing year, a state of even further deceleration. I think it will post modest decline, California's new 2018 numbers show + 157,000 people since 2017, that's the lowest in every person's lifetime that is a member of this forum and Los Angeles has a huge hand in California's large-scale deceleration because it is by far the largest place in California.

The irony is that the Great Recession actually helped some places grow their population even more because it prevented out-migration. Now that the United States is booming and the Great Recession is far back in the rearview mirror and both the financial and housing industries are growing, these places are bleeding domestic migrants with more ferocity each passing year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2018, 12:59 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
2,479 posts, read 2,225,716 times
Reputation: 2353
Chicago doesn't have runaway real estate prices though. A lot of the metro has yet to even see their home prices return to pre-recession levels.

What's ailing Chicagoland is frankly the state Illinois. The state is financially on the brink, its credit rating is one notch above junk status, and taxes will only be going up for the foreseeable future as services continue to decline. Unless Governor Elect Pritzker pulls off a miracle, we're going to see what happens when a state, which cannot legally declare bankruptcy, runs out of money. I also have little faith that we're going to see the needed constitutional amendments to allow for a graduated income tax and a renegotiation of the pensions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2018, 01:09 PM
 
9,382 posts, read 9,541,753 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerseusVeil View Post
Chicago doesn't have runaway real estate prices though. A lot of the metro has yet to even see their home prices return to pre-recession levels.

What's ailing Chicagoland is frankly the state Illinois. The state is financially on the brink, its credit rating is one notch above junk status, and taxes will only be going up for the foreseeable future as services continue to decline. Unless Governor Elect Pritzker pulls off a miracle, we're going to see what happens when a state, which cannot legally declare bankruptcy, runs out of money. I also have little faith that we're going to see the needed constitutional amendments to allow for a graduated income tax and a renegotiation of the pensions.
Is it metro Chicago or is it Downstate? We will find out in March
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2018, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Nashville, TN
5,069 posts, read 4,101,525 times
Reputation: 3692
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjoseph View Post
If you look at components of change, net migration actually improved a bit since 2017. However, international migration fell from 130,000 to 70,000. Not good considering immigration numbers were driving upstate growth.
This aspect may be indicative of extraneous variables/perceptions not unique to New York and beyond their control. *sighs to refrain further commentary*
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2018, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,097 posts, read 13,487,812 times
Reputation: 5777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric View Post
I'm surprised that not a single person yet has reported on the census revisions to the 2017 numbers. The lot of it is extremely shocking. Each year when the census bureau releases their population estimates they also revise the previous year's population estimate either upward or downward if they find evidence that they have been over-counting or under-counting places.

Please pay close attention to the detail in the three lists below. I'll be posting three lists: the first will be the 2017 census estimates that were reported last year; the second will be the 2017 census estimates that were released today as upward and/or downward revisions; and the third will be the 2018 census estimates that came out today.

State population for 2017 (pre-revision/released 1 year ago):
01. California: 39,536,653
02. Texas: 28,304,596
03. Florida: 20,984,400
04. New York: 19,849,399
05. Pennsylvania: 12,805,537
06. Illinois: 12,802,023
07. Ohio: 11,658,609
08. Georgia:10,429,379
09. North Carolina: 10,273,419
10. Michigan: 9,962,311

State population for 2017 (post-revision/released today):
01. California: 39,399,349
02. Texas: 28,322,717
03. Florida: 20,976,812
04. New York: 19,590,719
05. Pennsylvania: 12,790,447
06. Illinois: 12,786,196
07. Ohio: 11,664,129
08. Georgia: 10,413,055
09. North Carolina: 10,270,800
10. Michigan: 9,976,447

State population for 2018 (released today):
01. California: 39,557,045
02. Texas: 28,701,845
03. Florida: 21,299,325
04. New York: 19,542,209
05. Pennsylvania: 12,807,060
06. Illinois: 12,741,080
07. Ohio: 11,689,442
08. Georgia: 10,519,475
09. North Carolina: 10,383,620
10. Michigan: 9,995,915

Take an extra careful look at California and New York on all three lists. California's 2017 numbers were revised downward by -137,000 people. In addition to that, California's + 157,000 from the newly released 2018 numbers is the lowest it has added in a year since the 1940s. The next lowest year for California was 2006 with + 193,259. It does not appear that California will be reaching 40 million by the 2020 census, it is way off course now. The state of New York's 2017 numbers were revised downward by nearly -260,000 people. On a brighter note, Michigan is doing pretty well now.

When the numbers for metropolitan areas come out in March of 2019, there will likely be population decline for the New York MSA, Los Angeles MSA, and Chicago MSA. If they avoid decline, then stagnation of barely any year-over-year growth.
So the pre and post revision differences for 2017 were:

Texas: +18,121
Michigan: +14,136
Ohio: +5,520
North Carolina: -2,619
Florida: -7,588
Pennsylvania: -15,090
Illinois: -15,827
Georgia: -16,324
California: -137,304
New York: -258,680

Seems like most states are growing more slowly than originally estimated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2018, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro (Cobb County)
1,565 posts, read 746,690 times
Reputation: 1668
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
Is it metro Chicago or is it Downstate? We will find out in March
My guess is both metro Chicago and other parts of Illinois are experiencing decline. Interesting to see that every other state in the Midwest is growing at least a little, including Michigan which was notoriously depressed a decade ago.
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