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.
Isn't that mostly due to the population loss of Illinois? PA grew but by less than 10k wasn't it?
Pennsylvania grew by +1,067 and all of that was natural increase.
Starting next year, PA's natural increase will go negative and that's when things really get ugly.
Illinois is the opposite. It has a healthy natural increase of +34,000, but loses 100,000 people to other states, which is insane. PA only loses 20,000 (which is offset by +20,000 in international immigration).
If Illinois can reverse domestic outmigration, it can actually become of the healthier states demographically.
Pennsylvania is more stable, but has a more predictive decline. Natural increase will continue to trend downward with gradually increasing population declines. Basically the Japan trajectory.
Illinois has a higher ceiling than PA, but a lower floor due to outmigration.
Im not concerned about the slower number of immigrants coming in because there is a logical explanation for it. Our biggest contributor of immigrants has always been Mexico but things are going much better there right now economically. There hasnt been as big a need to come here. Its not a political issue either since the decline in Mexican immigration started around 2012.
Im not concerned about the slower number of immigrants coming in because there is a logical explanation for it. Our biggest contributor of immigrants has always been Mexico but things are going much better there right now economically. There hasnt been as big a need to come here. Its not a political issue either since the decline in Mexican immigration started around 2012.
A lot of places don't rely on Mexico much if at all and never have. Slow growth an population loss in the urban northeast is not a good sign as it is the most economically powerful part of the country.
A lot of places don't rely on Mexico much if at all and never have. Slow growth an population loss in the urban northeast is not a good sign as it is the most economically powerful part of the country.
I was speaking just of the international immigration numbers.
As far as the Northeast is concerned, I still contend that weather (for all age groups) is a big factor. People just seem to like warm and moderate climates overall. Its not the economy as job creation is going quite strong in the Northeast. COL is part of it as well, but I actually the the weather is more a part of it.
I was speaking just of the international immigration numbers.
As far as the Northeast is concerned, I still contend that weather (for all age groups) is a big factor. People just seem to like warm and moderate climates overall. Its not the economy as job creation is going quite strong in the Northeast. COL is part of it as well, but I actually the the weather is more a part of it.
no no no. Massachusetts was booming for most of the decade CT had a few years with gains. NYC was booming from 2010-2015. Philly is growing. Even Rhode Island has some growth. Michigan is on its 8th straight year of population growth. Weather hasn't changed-that's not why people are leaving. And International immigration up far north liek that has never been about Mexico.
The top states with net domestic migration loss were California (-203,414), New York (-180,649), Illinois (-104,986), New Jersey (-48,946), Massachusetts (-30,274) and Louisiana (-26,045). It isnt all about cold. Someone in the Boston thread said it more concisely:
"NY, CA, MA, and NJ are all in a similar predicament.. Exceedingly high cost of living, stagnant wages, and a growing delta between upper and lower class (or just total gentrification)."
Thee are very very serious issues that need to be addressed on a federal level not just be hot fodder for conversation in life and on these boards.
Im not concerned about the slower number of immigrants coming in because there is a logical explanation for it. Our biggest contributor of immigrants has always been Mexico but things are going much better there right now economically. There hasnt been as big a need to come here. Its not a political issue either since the decline in Mexican immigration started around 2012.
International immigration was +1,111,283 as recently as two years ago. It's now +595,000.
The collapse is absolutely not a "2012" phenomenon.
no no no. Massachusetts was booming for most of the decade CT had a few years with gains. NYC was booming from 2010-2015. Philly is growing. Even Rhode Island has some growth. Michigan is on its 8th straight year of population growth. Weather hasn't changed-that's not why people are leaving. And International immigration up far north liek that has never been about Mexico.
The top states with net domestic migration loss were California (-203,414), New York (-180,649), Illinois (-104,986), New Jersey (-48,946), Massachusetts (-30,274) and Louisiana (-26,045). It isnt all about cold. Someone in the Boston thread said it more concisely:
"NY, CA, MA, and NJ are all in a similar predicament.. Exceedingly high cost of living, stagnant wages, and a growing delta between upper and lower class (or just total gentrification)."
Thee are very very serious issues that need to be addressed on a federal level not just be hot fodder for conversation in life and on these boards.
I do believe weather is a big issue, just not the only issue. For California, its more about the high taxes and COL. For Louisiana, the economy is awful and there arent many opportunities. For the Northeast and the Midwest, weather is a big reason. Its not the only reason of course, but its one of them.
Why is this a disaster? Isn't ~330 million people enough? The disaster is the lack of 21st century job skills among the bottom 50%. The smart/educated/motivated ones move to the high cost of living regions with the economic opportunities. The disaster is the states and counties where most of those people have fled.
I agree. More people equals more traffic, loss of habitat and wild places, stress on infrastructure and ecosystems, etc. And, as GeoffD said, the disaster is that so many citizens lack training and education to compete in the 21st century. Why do we need more immigration? We especially do not need those who are unskilled, illiterate, uneducated. If those who bemoan the decrease in immigration want more people then look to India and China to see our future.
Weather is obviously a part of the issue. I mean Florida basically sold itself as NY’s sunny retirement home and has been riding the wave for a century. Obviously a bit more complicated, but not much.
no no no. Massachusetts was booming for most of the decade CT had a few years with gains. NYC was booming from 2010-2015. Philly is growing. Even Rhode Island has some growth. Michigan is on its 8th straight year of population growth. Weather hasn't changed-that's not why people are leaving. And International immigration up far north liek that has never been about Mexico.
The top states with net domestic migration loss were California (-203,414), New York (-180,649), Illinois (-104,986), New Jersey (-48,946), Massachusetts (-30,274) and Louisiana (-26,045). It isnt all about cold. Someone in the Boston thread said it more concisely:
"NY, CA, MA, and NJ are all in a similar predicament.. Exceedingly high cost of living, stagnant wages, and a growing delta between upper and lower class (or just total gentrification)."
Thee are very very serious issues that need to be addressed on a federal level not just be hot fodder for conversation in life and on these boards.
It’s because international migration was halved.
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.