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.
I take some of what Bloomberg 'reports' with a grain of salt, sometimes, but there's no denying that Upstate, NY, is having a tough time retaining its tax-paying population:
I take some of what Bloomberg 'reports' with a grain of salt, sometimes, but there's no denying that Upstate, NY, is having a tough time retaining its tax-paying population:
"Interestingly, these are also the cities with some of the highest net inflows of people from outside the country. That gives many of these cities a steadily growing population, despite the net exodus of people moving within the U.S."
Rochester might not be growing like some of these, but it also isn't having nearly as tough a time as you'd like it to.
"Interestingly, these are also the cities with some of the highest net inflows of people from outside the country. That gives many of these cities a steadily growing population, despite the net exodus of people moving within the U.S."
Rochester might not be growing like some of these, but it also isn't having nearly as tough a time as you'd like it to.
The article is poorly written and can be confusing. It actually described two types of cities. The first type includes cities like NYC, LA and DC, where the job market is booming but their high cost of living is pushing out local residents to be replaced by huge influx of immigration from abroad. The passage quoted above applies to these cities.
Rochester probably falls into the second category of cities that weren't so lucky, like Cleveland, Dayton and Toledo. The article says even though they are relatively inexpensive places to live, these cities didn't get enough international migrants to make up for the those who left, a reflection of the fact that locals were probably leaving out of a lack of jobs. Sounds like Rochester. Maybe Rochester is not as bad, but clearly closer to these Rust Belt cities than to NYC, LA or DC.
Quote:
Interestingly, these are also the cities with some of the highest net inflows of people from outside the country. That gives many of these cities a steadily growing population, despite the net exodus of people moving within the U.S.
So what's going on here? Michael Stoll, a professor of public policy and urban planning at the University of California Los Angeles, has an idea. Soaring home prices are pushing local residents out and scaring away potential new ones from other parts of the country, he said. (Everyone knows how unaffordable the Manhattan area has become.)
And as Americans leave, people from abroad move in to these bustling cities to fill the vacant low-skilled jobs. They are able to do so by living in what Stoll calls "creative housing arrangements" in which they pack six to eight individuals, or two to four families, into one apartment or home. It's an arrangement that most Americans just aren't willing to pursue, and even many immigrants decide it's not for them as time goes by, he said.
In addition, the growing demand for high-skilled workers, especially in the technology industry, brought foreigners who possess those skills to the U.S. They are compensated appropriately and can afford to live in these high-cost areas, just like Americans who hold similar positions. One example is Washington, D.C., which had a lot of people from abroad arriving to soak up jobs in the growing tech-hub, Stoll said. Other areas weren't so lucky. Take some of the Rust Belt cities that experienced fast drops in their American populations, like Cleveland, Dayton and Toledo, even though they are relatively inexpensive places to live. These cities didn't get enough international migrants to make up for the those who left, a reflection of the fact that locals were probably leaving out of a lack of jobs.
The article is poorly written and can be confusing. It actually described two types of cities. The first type includes cities like NYC, LA and DC, where the job market is booming but their high cost of living is pushing out local residents to be replaced by huge influx of immigration from abroad. The passage quoted above applies to these cities.
Rochester probably falls into the second category of cities that weren't so lucky, like Cleveland, Dayton and Toledo. The article says even though they are relatively inexpensive places to live, these cities didn't get enough international migrants to make up for the those who left, a reflection of the fact that locals were probably leaving out of a lack of jobs. Sounds like Rochester. Maybe Rochester is not as bad, but clearly closer to these Rust Belt cities than to NYC, LA or DC.
I think that Rochester would have been mentioned with those other "Rust Belt" cities, I think and Rochester is more white collar than most other cities in the Great Lakes region. So, it may be something else.
It is interesting that Buffalo isn't in this article and El Paso is on this list.
This is also only from July 2013 to July 2014. This means that this is based off of estimates and we've seen estimates be off in years recent years from the Census. So, it will be interesting to see once 2020 rolls around with something official.
Is this article only taking in account people who are moving in and out rather than the population of the entire MSA as a whole? Because most of the info I have seen have the Rochester MSA increasing.
Is this article only taking in account people who are moving in and out rather than the population of the entire MSA as a whole? Because most of the info I have seen have the Rochester MSA increasing.
This article is based on estimates for a single year. It's likely to be highly inaccurate.
Is this article only taking in account people who are moving in and out rather than the population of the entire MSA as a whole? Because most of the info I have seen have the Rochester MSA increasing.
I believe it's only taking into account people leaving, not net increase/decrease. Certainly doesn't paint a full picture at all.
I believe it's only taking into account people leaving, not net increase/decrease. Certainly doesn't paint a full picture at all.
I believe you accused OP of not reading the article before posting. This is funny, because this article contains a "methodology" section that clearly explains how the rate is calculated.
Quote:
Methodology: Bloomberg ranked 100 of the most populous U.S. metropolitan areas based on their net domestic migration rates, from July 1, 2013 to July 1, 2014, as a percentage of total population as of July 2013. Domestic migration refers to people moving within the country (e.g. someone moving from New York City to San Francisco). A negative rate indicates more people leaving than coming in. International migration refers to a local resident leaving for a foreign country or someone from outside the U.S. moving into the U.S.
The Rochester stats said that it included Batavia and Seneca Falls, but didn't add their respectfull populations. The numbers seemed pretty low for Syracuse too. I thought there was more like 750,000
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.
