Population migration patterns: US cities Americans are abandoning

[bing101]

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/35801453


According to this article the top cities mentioned here that meet the authors criteria are Chicago, Los Angeles and Detroit and they factor in more migration and death birth ratios.

[bandit957]

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/35801453


According to this article the top cities mentioned here that meet the authors criteria are Chicago, Los Angeles and Detroit and they factor in more migration and death birth ratios.

This report is flawed in that they are using raw numbers instead of percentage. The biggest cities are actually growing again if you go by percentage.

[sparker]

Would be a lot more meaningful if accompanied by a list of those places gaining population via inbound migration.  Just laundry-listing metro areas by net outbound migration absent other info seems pointless, particularly in regards to those cities with net population increases.  Noticed that most of the "double-negative" areas (net population loss with high outward migration) seem to be located in the Midwest, Northeast, and the Deep South (with one outlier here in Hanford, CA -- sorry, Max!).  The situation in the so-called "rust belt" is self-evident -- dying heavy industry coupled with less-than-optimal perennial weather patterns -- but the reasons for some of the others (although Bandit is correct; the rankings should have reflected percentage changes rather than simple numbers) might have to do with seasonal/agricultural issues (particularly in the Midwest and South) -- as well as the incidents of nasty weather that have plagued the eastern half of the country in the last couple of years.  Also -- the parsing (and possible statistical "gerrymandering" of metro definitions) might have something to do with some areas' losses; folks might just be moving to the next region down the road for reasons including lower housing costs, possibly escaping neighborhoods with blatant crime, and so forth -- and those regions certainly wouldn't be showing migratory losses! 

It's an interesting piece -- but like most USA Today articles, it's ultimately meaningless and simply intended to provoke a short-term visceral response.  A real study would have such niceties as regression analyses and forecasting of trends, particularly when juxtaposed, like previously suggested, with a corresponding list of places gaining population by inbound migration -- especially if such data showed more migration than "natural" (birth vs. death) population gains. 

[ET21]

Chicagoland per the article:
Population decrease due to migration, 2010-2017: -296,320
Population change, 2010-2017: +0.8% (9,461,541 to 9,533,040)
Natural growth, 2010-2017: 869,178 births, 501,469 deaths
Median home value: $229,900

Biggest reason is the state, Illinois is a shitshow right now. But based on the data, the region technically gained 0.8% unless that doesn't include the migration stat

[Bruce]

The Seattle Times ran some Census data to find some of the fastest-growing metro areas (specifically net domestic migration) a few months ago:

[Pink Jazz]

^

Note that while some of these cities may have had a negative net domestic migration, some of these cities had a positive net international migration.  Miami surely isn't losing population.

[DTComposer]

I feel like all of this is a bunch of hyped-up non-news. The USA Today article continually uses misleading terminology (including the headline). Reading the headline makes it sound like all of these cities are experiencing a Detroit-like exodus. The rest of the article has sentences that are at best misleading and at worst simply false.

There's this sentence: "cities in some parts of the country have lost tens of thousands of residents."
No. Some cities have had negative net domestic migration, but nearly all of them have been more than offset by natural increase and international migration.
Of the 100 largest cities in the US, only 8 have lost population between 2010 and 2017, and 7 of those are the "usual suspects" Rust Belt cities (Detroit, Baltimore, Cleveland, St Louis, Pittsburgh, Toledo, and Buffalo), and other than Detroit, the biggest loss among those is 11,000.

Then:
"The 50 cities where the most people are moving away from can primarily be found in the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast"
Not really. When you add up the cities on the list, it's pretty even, and the South (including Texas) is near the top:
Midwest: 14
South: 13
Northeast: 12
West/Southwest: 11

This kind of reporting is terrible, and seems to want to create a confirmation bias. People move around the country. What's the big deal?

[sparker]

The Seattle Times ran some Census data to find some of the fastest-growing metro areas (specifically net domestic migration) a few months ago:

OK -- looks like the areas showing losses total about 560K, while the gainers only show about 186K (essentially a 3X factor).  So where are 2/3 of the disgruntled former dwellers of the "loser" cities going?  Obviously to areas not specifically delineated by this "study" -- possibly in adjacent metro areas -- e.g.: Riverside is not the only 'burb outside L.A. -- just one of the more populated individual jurisdictions.  Lots of other areas ranging from north to southeast for large numbers to resettle -- while maintaining their general SoCal "roots". 

Ersatz studies such as these tend (or are intended) to reinforce some of the more popular/"populist" presumptions expressed by sociopolitical activists -- the numbers can be framed to either suggest that the more communitarian values of Seattle are attracting disillusioned L.A. or S.F. migrants who are ostensibly looking for such; OTOH, they can be interpreted by other factions as flights from "liberal" metro areas to ones displaying a more conservative face.   Using raw and unanalyzed census data to attempt to reinforce group opinions is, IMO, just plain dishonest and misleading.  Both USA Today and the assemblers of the Seattle Times article should back away from this type of "reportage"; no real good can come from it!

[Bruce]

I imagine there's quite a lot of people fleeing the Bay Area for affordable housing in places like Stockton or the Central Valley, rather than "liberal" policies. And if Seattle is gaining, that's even more evidence to the contrary.

[Road Hog]

Another flaw in the numbers is that cities with heavy military populations (i.e. Fayetteville NC, Lawton OK) are overrepresented. Service members who change stations every 3 to 4 years are going to pump up these figures artificially.

[froggie]

Another flaw in the numbers is that cities with heavy military populations (i.e. Fayetteville NC, Lawton OK) are overrepresented. Service members who change stations every 3 to 4 years are going to pump up these figures artificially.

It depends on how they're counted.  Yes, service members change duty stations every few years, but a given servicemember's position is usually replaced around the same time they depart.  So it's a near-zero-sum-game in terms of military population change.  BRAC has done far more to change military populations than normal duty station rotations as BRAC actually closed, consolidated, and moved duty stations.  And some bases/adjacent-towns actually gained considerable population as a result of BRAC.....Fort Belvoir and Fort Meade in the D.C. area being two of them.

[Duke87]

Don't neglect the impact of demographics as well. Many of the people leaving northeastern cities are likely elderly people retiring. People tolerate the high cost of living during their working lives because they can secure higher salaries to compensate for it, or because finding a similar job elsewhere would be difficult... but then once they retire these are no longer considerations so a lot of people go and move somewhere cheaper. And warmer.

[sparker]

I imagine there's quite a lot of people fleeing the Bay Area for affordable housing in places like Stockton or the Central Valley, rather than "liberal" policies. And if Seattle is gaining, that's even more evidence to the contrary.

Not saying that folks are leaving such places as S.F. and even L.A. because of "liberal" policies, but that certain factions will likely endeavor to frame the situation that way.  Conversely, influx into areas like Seattle could be interpreted in the inverse by both proponents and detractors of the phenomenon.  Although the domestic migration patterns may largely be economically based, some element of sociopolitical self-selection may be present as well -- and certainly will be pounced upon by ideological actors across the spectrum, even though those overtly identifying as such self-selected likely constitute only a miniscule statistical batch.     

[bandit957]

Gentrification isn't exactly a liberal policy.

[sparker]

Gentrification isn't exactly a liberal policy.

No -- it's the (ostensibly) unintended consequences of such policies, which are often enacted in what seems a "vacuum" -- taking care of one issue (density) while failing to address another (housing costs).  Letting developers run rampant and dominate the actual on-the-ground planning is a time-tested recipe for gentrification!

[michravera]

Gentrification isn't exactly a liberal policy.

No -- it's the (ostensibly) unintended consequences of such policies, which are often enacted in what seems a "vacuum" -- taking care of one issue (density) while failing to address another (housing costs).  Letting developers run rampant and dominate the actual on-the-ground planning is a time-tested recipe for gentrification!

You could make a pretty good case that people are running away from areas of high humidity heat in the summer time. The published data would fit the narrative.

Middle Class people will tend to flee high-crime liberal areas, but rich people who live behind gates don't care and poor people will flock to them in hopes of either a fairer shake or a handout. The net changes will depend upon which number dominates. On the other hand, poor people won't come to more conservative, low crime area expecting a better deal and in fact will flee once they see that the choice is between working hard and going to jail. Once again,  the net changes will depend upon which number dominates.

[hotdogPi]

I assume Houston is showing a loss because of Hurricane Harvey, right?

[WR of USA]

I'm quite surprised about the studies. I recently read an article where the smaller towns are losing people compared to the larger cities. I'm very surprised about results of the southern cities like Miami and Houston (which I thought were some of the fastest growing in the US).

[sparker]

I'm quite surprised about the studies. I recently read an article where the smaller towns are losing people compared to the larger cities. I'm very surprised about results of the southern cities like Miami and Houston (which I thought were some of the fastest growing in the US).

Often the central "core" cities such as incorporated Houston or Miami will lose population or possibly "break even" effectively, while the 'burbs arrayed around them will display significant gains.  The establishment of regional/MPO databases often show this in the aggregate -- so the named area (more often than not assuming the name of the core city) would show substantial gain. 

[Flint1979]

I don't see where Houston is losing population. I haven't been in Houston in a few years but from the first time I was ever there to the last time I was there with several other trips in between that city has grown with people quite a bit. It's by far the most extensive of the top 5 or 10 cities in the country at 600 square miles and just over 2.3 million people. In fact Greater Houston went from about 4 million people in 2000 to over 6 million people now.

Sugar Land, The Woodlands, Baytown and Conroe are all pretty populated too. Houston is a huge city and to think that it's losing population doesn't seem right.

[sparker]

I don't see where Houston is losing population. I haven't been in Houston in a few years but from the first time I was ever there to the last time I was there with several other trips in between that city has grown with people quite a bit. It's by far the most extensive of the top 5 or 10 cities in the country at 600 square miles and just over 2.3 million people. In fact Greater Houston went from about 4 million people in 2000 to over 6 million people now.

Sugar Land, The Woodlands, Baytown and Conroe are all pretty populated too. Houston is a huge city and to think that it's losing population doesn't seem right.

Since Houston is actively attempting to increase density in the city core, you're probably correct -- we'll just have to compare the future 2020 census tract figures with the 2015 "midterm" estimates.  But historically the suburbs have outpaced the central city in terms of rates of growth since the early '50's.  All that being said, the Houston area overall has grown significantly faster than the national average and, despite the recent weather-related incidents, will likely continue to do so, but possibly at a somewhat slower pace.  Because of the most flood-related damage in the lower-lying areas, expect some gains in the northern perimeter (possibly along the Toll 249 corridor) that features higher altitudes.

[qguy]

Philadelphia has been seeing a net gain of population every year for the last few years (reversing a lo-o-ong-time trend). So any article that cites population loss in that city is automatically suspect I would think.

[Duke87]

I don't see where Houston is losing population.

It isn't. The map is not depicting overall population change, it is only depicting net domestic migration. In other words, more people moved from the Houston metro area to elsewhere in the US in 2017 than who did the reverse.

This does not consider immigration or emigration (international migration). And it does not consider births and deaths.

It also stands to reason that the domestic migration number for Houston for 2017 is negative because of people who've had to move away on account of their homes being wrecked by Harvey. Betcha the number for 2016 was positive, and the number for 2018 will be.

[slorydn1]

I don't know if any of this is politically motivated, in fact, I doubt it. I'll use my own family's experience as an example (and yes, I know its well before these latest numbers came out, but I believe the reasons are still valid).

I graduated high school in 1988, living in the NW suburbs of Chicago. I did one year of college, got booted because I was too immature and partied to much. I joined the Navy, hurt my knee towards the end of boot camp and took the easy way out (medical).

So, here I was in the Chicago area, 21 years old with a low paying job, and my dad really didn't want me around any more. I can't really blame him, I was quite the immature little prick back then.

The cost of living in the Chicagoland area was, and still is, ridiculously expensive. Couple that with the fact I still didn't know what I wanted to do with myself career wise and I was stuck, looking at the possibility that I would have to live in my car.

I had an aunt that already lived here in New Bern, NC. She was always raving about how cheap everything is here, and also how quiet it is. I asked her if I could come down and stay with her until I got on my feet and she said yes. So, here I am.

She was right. It only took me 6 weeks of delivering pizza's for Dominos before I had my own place. After that I worked at the hospital in the radiology department as a transporter. I wheeled patients from their rooms to radiology for their tests and back again. I was making $5.50 an hour (1994)  and living pretty easily. I ended up taking certification classes to become a volunteer firefighter/EMT, which eventually translated into my current job in 911.

After 21 years I am finally making $40k a year. I have a friend who does the same job in a suburb of Chicago who makes almost 1.5 times as much as me, and he is struggling to get by. Property taxes are eating him alive. Coming here ended up being a cost of living thing for me.

My parents moved down here about 6 months after I did, after my dad retired. They already owned a house that they rented out, and decided to have another one built for them to live in. Heck, for what they sold their house for in Schaumburg, IL they could have had 3 more houses built here if they chose to. My dad decided he didn't want to do the typical all the way to FL retirement because he still wanted change of seasons for whatever reason. It helped out that the cost of living was so low here, too.


No fewer than 10 members of my extended family have moved here from the Chicago and NYC areas since 1984. In pretty much every case it was their wallet that made that decision for them. Weather was secondary in most cases, politics didn't come into play at all.


I suspect that for many people, the reason why they migrate away from where they grew up is that they believe they will have more opportunities at a better life somewhere else.

[bandit957]

I'm not sure. Everywhere I go outside of the Cincinnati area, food is always much cheaper. Last year, I went to a conference in Washington DC, and meals for a week were much cheaper there than they are here. When I went to the Madison WI roadmeet, I stopped in Chicago, and lunch from a 7-Eleven was much cheaper there than food is here. Food is just ridiculously overpriced in Cincinnati.