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.
As a branch off another thread, this became tangent to the original query and deserving of its own thread.
Are some states more desirable places to live? What metrics (eg, land prices, population growth) best represent desirability?
In that other thread, I suggested that "desirability" of a state could be settled by looking at state population changes. So, I took a look, found some data and made a spreadsheet.
Name | % Pop. change as % of overall US growth
Alabama 1.22%
Alaska 0.30%
Arizona 4.62%
Arkansas 0.89%
California 12.38%
Colorado 2.66%
Connecticut 0.62%
Delaware 0.42%
District*of*Columbia 0.11%
Florida 10.32%
Georgia 5.49%
Hawaii 0.54%
Idaho 1.00%
Illinois 1.51%
Indiana 1.48%
Iowa 0.44%
Kansas 0.60%
Kentucky 1.09%
Louisiana 0.24%
Maine 0.20%
Maryland 1.75%
Massachusetts 0.73%
Michigan -0.20%
Minnesota 1.41%
Mississippi 0.45%
Missouri 1.44%
Montana 0.32%
Nebraska 0.42%
Nevada 2.57%
New Hampshire 0.30%
New Jersey 1.38%
New Mexico 0.88%
New York 1.47%
North Carolina 5.44%
North Dakota 0.11%
Ohio 0.67%
Oklahoma 1.10%
Oregon 1.50%
Pennsylvania 1.54%
Rhode Island 0.02%
South Carolina 2.24%
South Dakota 0.22%
Tennessee 2.40%
Texas 15.71%
Utah 1.94%
Vermont 0.06%
Virginia 3.38%
Washington 3.04%
West Virginia 0.16%
Wisconsin 1.18%
Wyoming 0.26%
United States 100.00%
It should be noted, however, that Texas and California have the benefit of being so large as to have a plurality of major population centers, such that by sheer geographic size they make up a large chuck of overall growth. Pop. growth vs. national growth, then, might not be the best representation of a state's desirability.
I don't think you can use population change alone to determine which states are more desirable. After all, some population growth is due to more births than deaths. At least on a neighborhood level an area can be desirable and increasing in price while having negative natural population growth.
Therefore, I would guess we need to look at the changes to the number of households, not the changes to total population.
Is McDonald's the most desirable restaurant in the US because it serves the most hamburgers? Easiest metric? Price. Expensive? It's desirable. Cheap? It's not.
I don't think you can use population change alone to determine which states are more desirable. After all, some population growth is due to more births than deaths. At least on a neighborhood level an area can be desirable and increasing in price while having negative natural population growth.
Therefore, I would guess we need to look at the changes to the number of households, not the changes to total population.
Migration is also included in population growths and declines.
I don't think you can use population change alone to determine which states are more desirable. After all, some population growth is due to more births than deaths. At least on a neighborhood level an area can be desirable and increasing in price while having negative natural population growth.
Therefore, I would guess we need to look at the changes to the number of households, not the changes to total population.
"Desirability" is in the eye of the beholder. Lots of people like the mountains of Idaho, the skiing, plus the proximity to the west coast. Lots like New Mexico's more laid-back atmosphere, its warm sunny climate, the Hispanic culture.
Last edited by nei; 10-14-2013 at 08:35 PM..
Reason: off topic for thread
You have to look at variables. Some of them:
Cost of living. Would include housing, taxes, etc.
Jobs.
Overall economy of the state.
Age of in-migrators (is the state a "retirement haven?"). Some states are attractive for the career minded while others are attractive to the retired due to low COL or taxes or climate.
Climate.
MD is one of the highest increase. Why? Proliferation of jobs. That outweighs the COL.
Some of the higher ones like TN are known as retirement havens due to taxes. PA gets a lot of people from the DC area due to lower cost of housing and taxes combined wit better schools (and I know what some folks have rated MD as in education).
"Desirability" is in the eye of the beholder. Lots of people like the mountains of Idaho, the skiing, plus the proximity to the west coast. Lots like New Mexico's more laid-back atmosphere, its warm sunny climate, the Hispanic culture.
As to this thread, desirability may be a squishy concept, but it can be measured. If a lot of people are moving to a state, that state is desirable. If, as with Michigan, it has net negative population growth, it is clearly not a popular place to be.
Last edited by nei; 10-14-2013 at 08:35 PM..
Reason: editted quote
You have to look at variables. Some of them:
Cost of living. Would include housing, taxes, etc.
Jobs.
Overall economy of the state.
Age of in-migrators (is the state a "retirement haven?"). Some states are attractive for the career minded while others are attractive to the retired due to low COL or taxes or climate.
Climate.
MD is one of the highest increase. Why? Proliferation of jobs. That outweighs the COL.
Some of the higher ones like TN are known as retirement havens due to taxes. PA gets a lot of people from the DC area due to lower cost of housing and taxes combined wit better schools (and I know what some folks have rated MD as in education).
Cost of living isn't a particularly great metric. It's not a free-floating measure; it's bound up in context. COL can be arbitrarily defined by local politics as much as by population.
... In that other thread, I suggested that "desirability" of a state could be settled by looking at state population changes. So, I took a look, found some data and made a spreadsheet....
Bad assumption, imho. Population growth does NOT equate to desirability. Often it's just the opposite. Boom towns are not that desirable unless you get there first and buy land.
I'm also curious what dates were used for these figures. Your list has Wyoming toward the bottom, but for July 2011-July 2012 it ranked 4th in the country for growth percentage. And that brings up another point: population growth is fairly sporadic. In one year (or decade) it may be very high and the next fairly low. That certainly doesn't mean it went from a desirable place to live to less desirable. Sorry, your assumption is way off.
Is McDonald's the most desirable restaurant in the US because it serves the most hamburgers? Easiest metric? Price. Expensive? It's desirable. Cheap? It's not.
Cost is a better metric IMO but it has its issues, too. Price = Demand and Supply. Let's saying political factors (anti-development legislation) or physical factors have been development difficult or impractical. If there's still demand to live there, housing prices will be much higher than a similar place with less factors blocking development. Doesn't mean its necessarily more desireable.
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.
