Age distributions by state in the US--interactive graphic (states, retirees, older)
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.
Equally surprising to me was that of the 10 states with 7% population of 75-plus year olds, all of them except Florida were states with varying degrees of cold winters: Vermont, Penn., OR, Ohio, NY, MI, MA, Maine, and Iowa!
Part of it is that those states don't attract a lot of immigrants. The 'native' population has a much lower birth rate so the overall population tends to be older even with the more affluent retirees becoming snowbirds. Most retirees can't afford to be snowbirds and stay in place.
Part of it is that those states don't attract a lot of immigrants. The 'native' population has a much lower birth rate so the overall population tends to be older even with the more affluent retirees becoming snowbirds. Most retirees can't afford to be snowbirds and stay in place.
And since the manufacturing base of those states are largely in decline, young people are moving elsewhere leaving behind an older population.
And since the manufacturing base of those states are largely in decline, young people are moving elsewhere leaving behind an older population.
For the very rural states like Vermont, you're probably right. However, I have several friends I grew up with in Tennessee who moved to Michigan for work. Michigan's/Ohio's economy seems to be a lot better than that of most of the South now.
You also need to remember that the very "hip" cities where Millenials are flocking are often horribly expensive, congested, and IMO not great places to live. Our HQ is in Boston and I personally couldn't stand living there. Driving through the open farmland and woods of Michigan is a major relief compared to that.
Part of it is that those states don't attract a lot of immigrants. The 'native' population has a much lower birth rate so the overall population tends to be older even with the more affluent retirees becoming snowbirds. Most retirees can't afford to be snowbirds and stay in place.
Actually, that's not true. NY still attracts millions of immigrants, especially the NYC area. You may not realize it because there are so many foreign-born people living in NYS and the NYC area in particular. I would say that MA, MI, and PA are much like NY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlawrence01
And since the manufacturing base of those states are largely in decline, young people are moving elsewhere leaving behind an older population.
Actually, that trend is reversing as cities like Pittsburgh and Buffalo reinvent themselves. Young blue collar workers may be leaving but young college educated workers can find plenty of opportunity in places like Pittsburgh and Buffalo.
For the very rural states like Vermont, you're probably right. However, I have several friends I grew up with in Tennessee who moved to Michigan for work. Michigan's/Ohio's economy seems to be a lot better than that of most of the South now.
You also need to remember that the very "hip" cities where Millenials are flocking are often horribly expensive, congested, and IMO not great places to live. Our HQ is in Boston and I personally couldn't stand living there. Driving through the open farmland and woods of Michigan is a major relief compared to that.
This is very true. The economies of the Northeastern and Great Lakes states seem to have recovered from the Great Recession much more quickly and robustly than the economies in the South. My guess is that it might have something to do with the fact that the Recession forced many of these older northern cities to reinvent themselves and their states to take different means of developing/attracting new industries whereas Southern states and their cities are still waiting for widespread development like that which took place during the 1990s and 2000s to revive. The problem is that today the Southern metros are already well developed, so new development is going to be limited.
Many Millenials are also finding out that many of the cities in the Northeast and the Great Lakes offer the same kinds of life-style they can find in Boston, NYC or SF at a fraction of the price. Many of these older cities also have housing units and infrastructure built for much larger populations, so commutes are easier and housing much cheaper. It's why cities like Albany, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc are starting to attract serious numbers of younger people.
This is very true. The economies of the Northeastern and Great Lakes states seem to have recovered from the Great Recession much more quickly and robustly than the economies in the South. My guess is that it might have something to do with the fact that the Recession forced many of these older northern cities to reinvent themselves and their states to take different means of developing/attracting new industries whereas Southern states and their cities are still waiting for widespread development like that which took place during the 1990s and 2000s to revive. The problem is that today the Southern metros are already well developed, so new development is going to be limited.
Many Millenials are also finding out that many of the cities in the Northeast and the Great Lakes offer the same kinds of life-style they can find in Boston, NYC or SF at a fraction of the price. Many of these older cities also have housing units and infrastructure built for much larger populations, so commutes are easier and housing much cheaper. It's why cities like Albany, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc are starting to attract serious numbers of younger people.
For Millenials in the finance sector at least, basically your only choices are the high priced coastal metros, maybe the big Texas cities, and Chicago. Some industries are like that.
I live in Indy and work for a software company that makes a product for the investment banking industry. We have had several candidates (mostly H-1Bs from Chicago) turn down offers to work in Indy and demand to work at our Boston HQ for the better career opportunities, but these are people on the top end of the labor force.
If you're just an average person, you're generally going to have a higher quality of life in a less prestigious place in flyover country.
I found a really interesting data viewer for age distribution in the US (2013). There is a map, with the states, and you can choose which age group to view. Interestingly, the states with the highest percentage of 0-18 yr olds are utah, idaho, and alaska(!). The greatest percentage of 65+ is in Vermont (18%) with several more states at 17%. In the west the two biggies are New Mexico and Oregon.
The leading edge (aka "Aquarian") Boomers are being highly selective regarding their retirement locations. A lot of them seem to be exiting the Western US (or, at least, are not exiting the Eastern US East of the Mississippi). As expected CA is a lousy place to retire and it shows in these stats.
Actually the area of SE OH, the WV panhandle, and SW PA are a mini retiree haven. One of those upstart zones.
I guess it's cheap. Good mountain/hill views? I haven't found much in OH and WV I liked. Never been to the panhandle of WV or to eastern OH though.
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.
