Interesting report on U.S. migration trends (Pittsburgh, Clark: employment, versus)

[BrianTH]

So here is the report:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fil...ation_frey.pdf

Lots of interesting material, but specifically with respect to Pittsburgh: net domestic out-migration was slowing down at the beginning of the decade, but then it picked up again in the middle of the decade, coincident with the housing bubble. But then it turned over and headed down again, and in 2007-08 it was at its decade low. That is as far as their data goes, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number dropped lower (or actually went positive) in 2008-09.

Meanwhile, although there wasn't data specific to Pittsburgh presented, the gap between net domestic in-migration to the suburbs versus net domestic out-migration in core urban areas also peaked with the housing bubble, and since then the gap has been narrowing. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if that gap narrowed further in 2008-09, with more metros seeing net domestic in-migration in their core urban areas (San Francisco was the only one reported to have urban core net domestic in-migration in 2007-08 among the six cities reported). As an aside, I think the data they are using for that purposes might actually be understating this effect a bit.

Anyway, of course domestic migration is only one component of population change. Still, net domestic out-migration has been a real drag on Pittsburgh population trends in recent years, particularly (although not exclusively) in the core urban area. So if these trends have in fact turned around and continue to move in the same direction (at least, say, during the ongoing economic crisis), it could lead to some interesting overall changes in the Pittsburgh region in general, and the core urban part of Pittsburgh in particular.

[bradjl2009]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So here is the report:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/1209_migration_frey/1209_migration_frey.pdf

Lots of interesting material, but specifically with respect to Pittsburgh: net domestic out-migration was slowing down at the beginning of the decade, but then it picked up again in the middle of the decade, coincident with the housing bubble. But then it turned over and headed down again, and in 2007-08 it was at its decade low. That is as far as their data goes, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number dropped lower (or actually went positive) in 2008-09.

Meanwhile, although there wasn't data specific to Pittsburgh presented, the gap between net domestic in-migration to the suburbs versus net domestic out-migration in core urban areas also peaked with the housing bubble, and since then the gap has been narrowing. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if that gap narrowed further in 2008-09, with more metros seeing net domestic in-migration in their core urban areas (San Francisco was the only one reported to have urban core net domestic in-migration in 2007-08 among the six cities reported). As an aside, I think the data they are using for that purposes might actually be understating this effect a bit.

Anyway, of course domestic migration is only one component of population change. Still, net domestic out-migration has been a real drag on Pittsburgh population trends in recent years, particularly (although not exclusively) in the core urban area. So if these trends have in fact turned around and continue to move in the same direction (at least, say, during the ongoing economic crisis), it could lead to some interesting overall changes in the Pittsburgh region in general, and the core urban part of Pittsburgh in particular.

I'm curious why the census bureau showed such a large out migration in the middle of the decade. I think our population is probably being underestimated. I'm not sure, but I think there was a decent under estimate of the population compared to what it was for the 2000 census.

[AaronPGH]

I wonder if that part has to do with the de-hubbing of PIT by US Airways. I know 2004-2007 were extra awful for US Airways job losses here.

[barneyg]

Originally Posted by AaronClark

I wonder if that part has to do with the de-hubbing of PIT by US Airways. I know 2004-2007 were extra awful for US Airways job losses here.

I don't think it was just a Pittsburgh thing. Looking at graphs on page 11 of the report, seems like net domestic migration went from bad to worse for all their selected rust belt metros (Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Providence), and hit highs for the Florida metros (Orlando, Tampa, Cape Coral). All rust belt metros have picked back up since (e.g. it's not positive net domestic migration but it's not as negative -- even Cleveland, which surprised me a bit), and Florida metros have come tumbling down.

That said, Pittsburgh's net domestic migration has been negative for a long time but it's the least important source of Pittsburgh's population trend 'problem'. We had a discussion about 2 years ago about this, and I'm too lazy to find the thread, but Pittsburgh mostly suffers from (1) very low immigration, and (2) very few births compared to deaths (e.g. older population). (1) has nothing to do with net domestic migration, and (2) is the direct result of terrible net domestic migration from 1975-1985, not from the net domestic migration of the past 25 years.

[BrianTH]

Yep, from the overall patterns it looks likely some people were chasing jobs and the general perception of money to be made in the bubble cities.

Incidentally, I agree net domestic migration hasn't been the most important direct component of population change in recent years. Still, every component does count, and I think in the central urban area in particular we may be looking at a more signficant net change than in the overall metro area.

[Hopes]

Check out page 17.

Family and employment were equal reasons for moving between states in 2004-2005.

Employment tops all other reasons for moving between states in 2008-2009.