why are texans moving to colorado? (Houston, Dallas: place to live, pine, relocation)

[EDS_]

This whole thread seems to posit something of a false dilemma. The lay of the land is that net migration between TX and CO is in CO's favor but not by a lot.

1). Generally speaking both TX and CO. are part of the "growth belt".
2). TX is growing faster, several times faster, than CO in nominal terms and in percent growth terms the two states are virtually tied.
3). Over the last ~8yrs. TX's population has grown by ~2.5 million people. Contrary to a claim above and obviously it's simply not possible that intrastate migration accounts for that.
4). Another mistake above..........someone claimed/implied that neighboring states account for much of TX population growth. That's wrong too. Over time net migration to Oklahoma for example has been flat to slightly in OK's favor some years. NM, LA, and AR are only small net contributors to TX population most years. The largest net population donors to TX have been CA, FL and IL.

[Trainwreck20]

Some interesting maps re: native born vs out-of-state residents (doesn't specific from where out of state):
https://www.governing.com/gov-data/c...by-county.html

From the NYT based on 2012 data, 42% of the residents of CO were born in CO, and 3% were born in Texas - tied with Illinois and New York, but only half of the 6% from CA. Those are the top three states represented in CO. Doesn't deal with 'born in state X, moved to Texas, then moved to CO'.

61% of Texas residents were TX born. 3% are from CA and less than 1% are from CO originally.

So, in CO, you are at least 3X more likely to run into a Texan than you are to run into a Coloradan in Texas.

Only 18% of Summit County residents were born in Colorado....

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by EDS_

This whole thread seems to posit something of a false dilemma. The lay of the land is that net migration between TX and CO is in CO's favor but not by a lot.

1). Generally speaking both TX and CO. are part of the "growth belt".
2). TX is growing faster, several times faster, than CO in nominal terms and in percent growth terms the two states are virtually tied.
3). Over the last ~8yrs. TX's population has grown by ~2.5 million people. Contrary to a claim above and obviously it's simply not possible that intrastate migration accounts for that.
4). Another mistake above..........someone claimed/implied that neighboring states account for much of TX population growth. That's wrong too. Over time net migration to Oklahoma for example has been flat to slightly in OK's favor some years. NM, LA, and AR are only small net contributors to TX population most years. The largest net population donors to TX have been CA, FL and IL.

This isn't an economics exercise.

I'm not talking about net migration. We could be trading residents at a 1:1 Ratio with California and people would still b**** and moan about being invaded.

I'm talking about the actual number of people moving here and from where....from that standpoint it doesn't matter at all where the people who leave Texas move to, what matters is the kind of people who are moving here.

It doesn't matter to people in Texas how Texans leaving the state affect the demographics of other states, they care about who is moving here.

I bring this up because of the "Rich Californian" narrative that Californians are make up the majority of the people coming here and are overpaying for houses with cash or whatever.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04...stic-migrants/

Most of the people moving to Texas are not from "Rich" California. Most are moving from poorer states where Texas is an increase in COL+ Opportunity, not lower COL.

Most of the people moving to the big cities in Texas are not either. A large % of the people moving to the big cities in Texas are doing so from smaller cities in Texas, a trend that is true in nearly all states as people leave smaller towns and cities for the big cities in their respective states.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Some interesting maps re: native born vs out-of-state residents (doesn't specific from where out of state):
https://www.governing.com/gov-data/c...by-county.html

From the NYT based on 2012 data, 42% of the residents of CO were born in CO, and 3% were born in Texas - tied with Illinois and New York, but only half of the 6% from CA. Those are the top three states represented in CO. Doesn't deal with 'born in state X, moved to Texas, then moved to CO'.

61% of Texas residents were TX born. 3% are from CA and less than 1% are from CO originally.

So, in CO, you are at least 3X more likely to run into a Texan than you are to run into a Coloradan in Texas.

Only 18% of Summit County residents were born in Colorado....

Sure, and this is why lots of Native Coloradans feel more threatened. Lots of Texans would lose their minds if only 42% of the state was native.

[Mark Senior]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Some interesting maps re: native born vs out-of-state residents (doesn't specific from where out of state):
https://www.governing.com/gov-data/c...by-county.html

From the NYT based on 2012 data, 42% of the residents of CO were born in CO, and 3% were born in Texas - tied with Illinois and New York, but only half of the 6% from CA. Those are the top three states represented in CO. Doesn't deal with 'born in state X, moved to Texas, then moved to CO'.

61% of Texas residents were TX born. 3% are from CA and less than 1% are from CO originally.

So, in CO, you are at least 3X more likely to run into a Texan than you are to run into a Coloradan in Texas.

Only 18% of Summit County residents were born in Colorado....

Data SEVEN years old, I'm sure there is likely a significant or at least noticeable change since 2012.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

This isn't an economics exercise.

I'm not talking about net migration. We could be trading residents at a 1:1 Ratio with California and people would still b**** and moan about being invaded.

I'm talking about the actual number of people moving here and from where....from that standpoint it doesn't matter at all where the people who leave Texas move to, what matters is the kind of people who are moving here.

It doesn't matter to people in Texas how Texans leaving the state affect the demographics of other states, they care about who is moving here.

I bring this up because of the "Rich Californian" narrative that Californians are make up the majority of the people coming here and are overpaying for houses with cash or whatever.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04...stic-migrants/

Most of the people moving to Texas are not from "Rich" California. Most are moving from poorer states where Texas is an increase in COL+ Opportunity, not lower COL.

Most of the people moving to the big cities in Texas are not either. A large % of the people moving to the big cities in Texas are doing so from smaller cities in Texas, a trend that is true in nearly all states as people leave smaller towns and cities for the big cities in their respective states.

All this is tightly related to economics. People don't move from the Bay Area or LA to places like Prosper for the beaches.

I really don't care if people are moving here from lower COL states or not. But I haven't seen anything that backs up your claim about poor states v. California. According to the state demographer's office CA has been the largest contributing state by far. And there can be no claim that CA has overall lower COL than TX.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by EDS_

All this is tightly related to economics. People don't move from the Bay Area or LA to places like Prosper for the beaches.

I really don't care if people are moving here from lower COL states or not. But I haven't seen anything that backs up your claim about poor states v. California. According to the state demographer's office CA has been the largest contributing state by far. And there can be no claim that CA has overall lower COL than TX.

This just shows you misunderstand my point.

I never said California had a lower COL, no need to set up straw men to address your unrelated point that I never made.

My point was about the people moving here, not where people who leave here move to.

This matters when you are talking about the typical native Texan narrative that the majority of people moving here are wealthy Californians who pay cash. That is simply false, though they make up a large minority share.

Most people who move here do so for the opportunity, not because it is cheaper than where they live. Texas is only cheap compared to a handful of expensive states. Anyone who already lives here and owns a home has a huge advantage over most transplants.

The majority of Transplants are not Californians. Most More Transplants move here from OK, LA, and NM than from California. People born in California still only make up like 3% of the population in Texas.

I'm not looking at this as a demographic "Hand Measuring" contest the way you are.

I'm looking at the actual number of people moving here.

Again, from a "Cultural change" perspective or a "Screw the Transplants" perspective, Texans don't care at all where people who leave the state move.

That isn't important for the point I am making because it isn't a math or state level economics problem.

When we are talking about people moving here you can't say "5 people moved from Texas to California and 10 people from California moved to Texas, therefore, 10-5=5, so 5 people moved to Texas from California. That is wrong. 10 people moved.

You can't say 10 people moved from Texas to NM, and 11 People moved from NM to TX, therefore 11-10=1 so 1 person moved to Texas from New Mexico. Again, wrong, there are 10 more people originally from NM in Texas.


Does that make sense?

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

This matters when you are talking about the typical native Texan narrative that the majority of people moving here are wealthy Californians who pay cash. That is simply false, though they make up a large minority share.

Most people who move here do so for the opportunity, not because it is cheaper than where they live. Texas is only cheap compared to a handful of expensive states. Anyone who already lives here and owns a home has a huge advantage over most transplants.

The majority of Transplants are not Californians. Most More Transplants move here from OK, LA, and NM than from California. People born in California still only make up like 3% of the population in Texas.

1. I've never offered the narrative you wrote about. Not once. But your point is taken.

2. I agree that people who've lived here for a while do have an advantage and should be enjoying the spoils instead of crying about traffic and taxes.

3. Per the states California sends the largest number of transplants to TX by far. The last data I could easily find shows that CA sends more than NM + LA + OK combined - can't find anything re: Arkansas though it must be a smallish number.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by Mark Senior

Data SEVEN years old, I'm sure there is likely a significant or at least noticeable change since 2012.

Quite possibly. OTOH, the percent native born for the counties is only two years old.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by EDS_

3. Per the states California sends the largest number of transplants to TX by far. The last data I could easily find shows that CA sends more than NM + LA + OK combined - can't find anything re: Arkansas though it must be a smallish number.

The Data I just posted showed 78K from OK+LA+NM and 62K from California. Do you have more recent Data?