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 think it might significantly affect Florida's and Arizona's numbers but not Texas, NC or GA.
I would be curious to see the differences between these states when it comes to retirees. I know AZ attracts retirees, but the Phoenix metro is one of the youngest (median age), so it has definitely attracted younger people.
This is misleading, as it doesn't show migration into states. NY State hasn't lost that many people in terms of population, as it shows an increase in population since 1990. So, there is more to this.
Also, with NY, many people just move to adjacent states. NYC has suburbs in NJ and CT. So, many people just move to those states, along with PA.
Can't forget that many estimates were off for the last decade.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 02-28-2012 at 01:02 PM..
This is misleading, as it doesn't show migration into states. NY State hasn't lost that many people in terms of population, as it shows an increase in population since 1990. So, there is more to this.
Also, with NY, many people just move to adjacent states. NYC has suburbs in NJ and CT. So, many people just move to those states, along with PA.
Can't forget that many estimates were off for the last decade.
Well, this measure doesn't show population growth (which would be this measure + natural increase [births-deaths] + foreign immigration). It merely measures the aggregate difference between the number of people who migrate out of the state between the number of people who migrate in a state
For a state like California, for example, American born Californians are moving out of the state, but has shown an increase of population because of foreign migration (high) and natural increase (because most of those foreign migrants have a lot of kids)
What this measure does fail to show though, is people who move out of a state then move back into the state. For example, I know plenty of New Yorkers who moved down to Florida then returned.
What this measure does fail to show though, is people who move out of a state then move back into the state. For example, I know plenty of New Yorkers who moved down to Florida then returned.
This doesn't matter because it shows the total balance between those who come from other states (no matter what their prior arrangement was before) vs. people who leave. Though I agree with the rest of your post.
So it could be that 3 million of those New Yorkers left and came back, but those coming back would be reflected in the domestic inmigration statistics coming from another state, while still losing domestic migrants.
It's essentially the good old Rust Belt exodus, and guess what ... CA is now a Rust Belt state! A late comer but a Rust Belt state nonetheless. Old antiquated 20th century Fabian POV.
This doesn't matter because it shows the total balance between those who come from other states (no matter what their prior arrangement was before) vs. people who leave. Though I agree with the rest of your post.
So it could be that 3 million of those New Yorkers left and came back, but those coming back would be reflected in the domestic inmigration statistics coming from another state, while still losing domestic migrants.
NY has never lost people in any census though. So, it isn't like NY State has lost that many people in terms of population since 1990.
NY has never lost people in any census though. So, it isn't like NY State has lost that many people in terms of population since 1990.
Yeah, but this isn't measuring population growth..for the 1000th time. Here's a definition of DOMESTIC MIGRATION to remind you
Quote:
The process of moving within a given country, but across subdividing boundaries, with the intent of establishing a new permanent or semi-permanent residence. In the United States, domestic migration generally refers to movement from one state to another
I don't get what you're trying to drive at for the second time in this thread? I think everyone KNOWS that New York didn't lose people. Hell, California since 1990 grew by 8 million people. It's just where American born people are moving to. That's all. Nothing sinister behind it.
I don't get what you're trying to drive at for the second time in this thread? I think everyone KNOWS that New York didn't lose people. Hell, California since 1990 grew by 8 million people. It's just where American born people are moving to. That's all. Nothing sinister behind it.
Never said that there was anything sinister behind it. I think people have been over the topic a bunch of times.
Another thing is that the estimates before the 2010 census have been shown to be off in regards to some states and areas. Considering the year that the information goes up to, I'd say that some of the information that you posted is off to some degree.
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.
