Why People Move Where? An Analysis based on Demographic Trends

[Heel82]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

What can we infer from the numbers in the original post?

1) Very few metro areas are well rounded in number of domestic and international residents they receive. There seems to be a bias one way or the other. Metro areas that are bleeding domestic residents are receiving large numbers of international residents and metro areas receiving large numbers of domestic born residents are not really on the radar for international residents. There are some exceptions to this of course.

2) The number of metro areas that receive significant international immigration but smaller numbers of domestic residents was much smaller than I anticipated. I was also surprised at the few number of immigrant/migrant balanced metro areas.

3) I think a fair assumption is that Americans dont like to be in places where there are large number of international residents.

4) Domestic migrants seem to favor one or more of the following things: 1) few numbers of international immigrants, 2) warm weather destinations, 3) mountain destinations, 4) affordability, 5) suburban lifestyle. Most of the destinations that have the highest number of domestic migrants have at least four of the five things mentioned above.

5) The South and Mountain West/Southwest seem to be the only regions in the US booming with domestic migrants.

6) Cities international immigrants favor have remained steady over the last 10 years with change only in how many not which cities. LA has lost prominence and Boston, Seattle, and Houston have gained on it, but other than that there is little change. My guess is that affordability is playing a larger role with international immigrants as well, albeit to a lesser degree. Community size for specific ethnicity is still probably the biggest driver there.

Bottom line: affordability, warm or mountain (or both) climates, economy, access to suburban lifestyle, and the need to be in communities that are mostly American seem to be the drivers for domestic migration.

Please let me know if you guys have any thoughts you wish to contribute!

Good overall look at numbers, but I think you are missing the boat with #3. 100 years ago the economic forces pulled migrants and immigrants to the same cities. Now those legacy cities have both the highest international profile but also the deepest roots for many ethnic communities which allows them to maintain their international appeal. However economic and cultural shifts have made those same legacy cities less desirable for domestic migrants. Basically there is now a split in goals for the two very different groups.

I think it’s telling that the list of 11 largest cities in 1950 include NYC, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, DC, San Francisco, and Boston. That is basically a carbon-copy of cities with negative domestic turnover and high immigration gains. Urban America remains the gateway for most international immigrants even when ports have become outmoded.

It’s likely you’ll see some cities of the significant domestic/minimal international transition into the Dallas/Atlanta/Orlando tier at some point as the economic engine drives immigrants to look beyond the well-worn path.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by CuriousNerd92

.

3) I think most folks who move to metro areas look for neighborhoods they can afford in close proximity to places they want to or need to go such as work, schools, religious institutions, cultural institutions, etc. Unfortunately, injustices of the past continue to force historically marginalized individuals to remain in certain areas of cities, but I do think there is a greater recognition that this is wrong and needs to change because everyone deserves equality of opportunity. Specific to what we are discussing here, I think we are still a segregated country at the neighborhood/census tract level, but less segregated than we once were in terms of overall metropolitan areas. An example of this would be Boston. It's the 18th most segregated city, yet the population has become more diverse; it's roughly 50% white today, compared to 70% in 1970. While bigotry and racism still exist and need to be condemned, I also think those who are moving to metro areas are more likely to be tolerant and welcoming of all people.

Caveat Boston was 80% white in 1970, not 70%. It was 69% white in 1980.

It was 50% white in 2000. It’s 44% white today.