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.
This is a very interesting article about NY migration. It outlines who is moving to NY (young adults 18-34, Asians and immigrants) and why in recent years New Yorkers are staying in NY. Apparently, the population isnt increasing with just BIRTHS.
Write to the NY Times if you don't like their methods or statistics.
Right in the first 2 paragraphs it explains that the net migration is a negative. That means that more people are leaving the state than entering and we were discussing city populations. Apparently the population IS only increasing due to births.
It will probably be closer to 8,410,000. July 2009 estimates were 8,391,881.
NYC gains approx 69,000 per year from births less deaths but loses about 50,000 a year in net migration. That's about 20,000 a year but probably less movement over the last couple of years would push it up a little.
impossible. if the mexican population (for example) increased by as much as it has since 2008, then that alone gives us more ppl than 69k a year.
its more than just births in ny. also, nyS is not nyC.
impossible. if the mexican population (for example) increased by as much as it has since 2008, then that alone gives us more ppl than 69k a year.
its more than just births in ny. also, nyS is not nyC.
I doubt the census estimates were off by 100's of thousands and if the census estimates were not off by 100's of thousand then NYC would have to have added 600,000 in population this year to hit 9 million. That isn't happening.
You also can't say a certain population increased and that alone would give you X amount of growth. What about the other groups that are leaving. I gave you numbers and you are giving your opinion.
And I am quite aware that we were discussing city populations not state, I even pointed it out to Tanaples, so I don't know what you are trying to say to me.
[quote=Mike Peterson;15472592]Right in the first 2 paragraphs it explains that the net migration is a negative. That means that more people are leaving the state than entering and we were discussing city populations. Apparently the population IS only increasing due to births.
Thanks for playing. Try again?[/quo
In breathe, you talk about the City, and the next you are talking about the State. If people cannot sell their houses for a decent price, Mr. Real Estate Agent, they are just going to take any price just to LEAVE? Come on. Also, if they have a job, think they are going to quit it and just leave and go to another state without one? People are STAYING PUT and waiting out a better economy and housing prices.
Why in the world do you think I continue to stay in Florida?????? Selling either my house or condo. I am not going to sell my condo for price of a new car. I cannot just up and leave and abandon what I own without SELLLING IT. I would be long gone from HERE if not for REAL ESTATE.
Another point. New York does NOT have a HIGH BIRTH RATE. Geesch.
You only see what you WANT to see. I suppose you also don't agree with this article that Florida is losing population. Of course not.
As a New Yorker (YOU), I simply cannot understand your prejudice against New York.
In breathe, you talk about the City, and the next you are talking about the State. If people cannot sell their houses for a decent price, Mr. Real Estate Agent, they are just going to take any price just to LEAVE? Come on. Also, if they have a job, think they are going to quit it and just leave and go to another state without one? People are STAYING PUT and waiting out a better economy and housing prices.
Why in the world do you think I continue to stay in Florida?????? Selling either my house or condo. I am not going to sell my condo for price of a new car. I cannot just up and leave and abandon what I own without SELLLING IT. I would be long gone from HERE if not for REAL ESTATE.
Another point. New York does NOT have a HIGH BIRTH RATE. Geesch.
You only see what you WANT to see. I suppose you also don't agree with this article that Florida is losing population. Of course not.
As a New Yorker (YOU), I simply cannot understand your prejudice against New York.
Uh, didn't you just try to be clever and post an article to back a claim where it was obvious you either didn't read the article or weren't literate enough to understand it disagreed with your claim ("You only see what you WANT to see", I guess)? Shouldn't he (MIKE) be the ornery one right now instead of you (YOU)?
Uh, didn't you just try to be clever and post an article to back a claim where it was obvious you either didn't read the article or weren't literate enough to understand it disagreed with your claim ("You only see what you WANT to see", I guess)? Shouldn't he (MIKE) be the ornery one right now instead of you (YOU)?
is the sole reason for the population increase. Fewer people leaving is the theme of the article.
Mr. Peterson is claiming that births ALONE is increasing the population. If you live in NY, do you SEE a Baby Boom occuring?
One more thing which I am not going to post stats on. Look it up. It's well documented. We boomers right now not only cannot sell our houses, we also cannot RETIRE. To Mr. Peterson, my sister-in-law and brother-in-law live in Queens. She is 64 and he is 69. They own their own house in Queens and also a condo in Florida. They WANT to retire and move to Florida, but they cannot afford to quit their jobs, sell the house in Queens, and move to Florida. They will not be able to get jobs in Florida. He is a doorman in Manhattan. Got doormen in Naples? She works for an airline in La Guardia and does shift work. Can she commute to Ft. Myers all different hours of the day and night at her age? She says she is STUCK there until who knows when.
Multiply this not only in NY and Florida, but across the country. People may WANT to move (like me and my sister-in-law), but right now with this economy and housing situation we can't. We are STUCK where we are. THAT is the theme of this NY Times article. People stuck where they are due to employment and housing.
Do a google sesarch. You will find a lot of articles supporting our situations.
is the sole reason for the population increase. Fewer people leaving is the theme of the article.
Mr. Peterson is claiming that births ALONE is increasing the population. If you live in NY, do you SEE a Baby Boom occuring?
I was hoping you'd put out a post like the one I quoted. This is disappointing and no fun.
Anyhow, yes, net domestic migration is generally at a negative for NYC, there is a baby boom occurring (which is really weird because the increase of kids in trendy parts of the city has been REALLY apparent), and I'm pretty sure foreign immigration to NYC is actually a larger component of the increase than births (minus deaths).
I was hoping you'd put out a post like the one I quoted. This is disappointing and no fun.
Anyhow, yes, net domestic migration is generally at a negative for NYC, there is a baby boom occurring (which is really weird because the increase of kids in trendy parts of the city has been REALLY apparent), and I'm pretty sure foreign immigration to NYC is actually a larger component of the increase than births (minus deaths).
lot of Koreans moving in NYC, especially Queens. Does Mr. Peterson know this? He doesn't give immigration a second though, either in NY, or in FLORIDA.
Immigration has always been a key comopnent of population in NYC, and always will be. Didn't that NY Times article even mention Asians?
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,985,810 times
Reputation: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I was hoping you'd put out a post like the one I quoted. This is disappointing and no fun.
Anyhow, yes, net domestic migration is generally at a negative for NYC, there is a baby boom occurring (which is really weird because the increase of kids in trendy parts of the city has been REALLY apparent), and I'm pretty sure foreign immigration to NYC is actually a larger component of the increase than births (minus deaths).
You would be correct.
Population Estimates (http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/CBSA-est2009-comp-chg.html - broken link)
New York City Metro 2000-2009
Number of natural increase (Births minus Deaths): 1,067,418
Number of new International immigrants: 1,116,151
Number of resident population that left the area in the same period: 1,962,055
Adjusted population increase: 746,357
Now just who is leaving we won't know for sure until next year when the Census is released. I'm willing to bet though that many of those who are leaving are immigrants who come in to the country via NYC and then relocate elsewhere once they are established.
lot of Koreans moving in NYC, especially Queens. Does Mr. Peterson know this? He doesn't give immigration a second though, either in NY, or in FLORIDA.
Immigration has always been a key comopnent of population in NYC, and always will be. Didn't that NY Times article even mention Asians?
The article, and I believe the discussion in general, is about domestic migration, so I don't know if he is considering international migration as part of the discussion. The article mentions Asians, but in the scope of domestic migration as Asians can be Americans, too. Well, at least American residents.
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.
My dear sir
