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.
Care to share some data with us that shows the majority of northerners move south because of a job relocation.
I don't have any evidence to back up my claim, just my opinion. I believe the population of the west coast, Northeast and Midwest is shrinking because companies can operate cheaper in the South. When companies move to the south, their current employees are required to make a choice. Their two choices are moving to the new location in the south and keeping their job or declining the transfer and go jobless. The majority is going to accept the job transfer.
Last edited by HudsonCounty; 09-19-2009 at 05:28 AM..
I don't have any evidence to back up my claim, just my opinion. I believe the population of the west coast, Northeast and Midwest is shrinking because companies can operate cheaper in the South. When companies move to the south, their current employees are required to make a choice. Their two choices are moving to the new location in the south and keeping their job or declining the transfer and go jobless. The majority is going to accept the job transfer.
There may be some doing that but it is a minimal amount of the overall numbers.
Now you fall back to wordplay/semantics while ignoring the crux of my argument and that of others? How convenient, and quite frankly, lame.
Here is the short version:
NYC is STILL growing in population because its birth rate plus in-migration is greater than its death rate plus out-migration.
Florida, if currently experiencing a net population loss, has been suffering a death rate plus out-migration that's higher than its birth rate plus in-migration.
So, NYC is still growing in population while Florida, right now, probably isn't.
Now you fall back to wordplay/semantics while ignoring the crux of my argument and that of others? How convenient, and quite frankly, lame.
Here is the short version:
NYC is STILL growing in population because its birth rate plus in-migration is greater than its death rate plus out-migration.
Florida, if currently experiencing a net population loss, has been suffering a death rate plus out-migration that's higher than its birth rate plus in-migration.
So, NYC is still growing in population while Florida, right now, probably isn't.
There is no wordplay or semantics.
It's quite simple and I can't help if you can not comprehend it.
The posters I replied to stated that NYC was seeing many transplants coming into the area.
If your births minus deaths is adding 80,000 people to the population and your net gain is 53,000 then it should be quite obvious that more people are leaving the area than coming in.
If you took away the births and deaths you would have a loss in population of 27,000.
Even though Florida was not part of the conversation a few of you brought it up.
When CENSUS figures become available that show Florida is losing population then it can be discussed but it really had nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Dude, I've long understood your argument but you apparently don't understand mine's (or more likely, just pretending you don't).
Yes, there is a net outmigration coming of NYC, BUT as I've said over and over again, this net outmigration is countered by NYC's massive birth rate, resulting in an overall net population increase.
You choose to look at only one half of the story while neglecting the other.
And this is a true statement. There are certainly many transplants coming into the area, although there are even more people leaving. I don't deny this but talking only about inmigration/outmigration tells only half of the story.
Only because you enjoying talking about NYC's population "decreases" (and conveniently downplaying the net population increase due to high birth rates) while hypocritically ignoring the worse situation in your beloved Florida.
And I'd love to see those figures and how they compare to,say, 2007 Florida pop estimates.
Dude, here is what I first posted on the population subject.
"Thats funny, seems to me if it wasn't for a gain from births minus deaths NYC would have lost population just about every year over the last 10 years or more.
If you have about 125,000 births a year and 45,000 deaths a year for a net of about 80,000 and your population only increases by 40,000 or so, does that not mean more people are leaving than coming in. (Rough numbers off the top of my head but close enough)
How do these transplants you speak of fit into the eqaution?"
In your post above you agree with me. It was you and others that started putting other variables into it to fit your line of reasoning. Don't tell me that I am using wordplay and semantics or that I am only looking at half the story.
And then you say I enjoy talking about NYC's population losses?
Oh, that's right I said, hooray NYC lost population. Wait a minute, no I didn't, I STATED FACTS. THAT IS ALL.
And not talking about a subject is not ignoring it, if you took the time to search for threads on the subject of Floridas population you would have noticed I have quite a few posts in them. Floridas population was not brought up in this thread until someone saw they were wrong and then tried to deflect.
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.
