Domestic migration trends
Les has a chart broken out by blue and red states. Looks like we’re being invaded.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:16 am
Didnt I just call this in the previous post? Omg psychic for the win. In my experience everyone is simply voting with their feet. The killer was a case where they ruled that you could move to Florida (no state income tax) and not pay tax on a CA pension, but still receive the full pension.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:32 am
Ugh. I hate the “RedState/BlueState” distinction. New York State (by this I mean upstate) is emptying out like a just-farted-in elevator. This part of New York is NOT “Blue.” In geography there is a classic problem that cannot be solved with any other approach than brute-force algorithms. It is called the modifiable areal unit problem.
http://www.geog.ubc.ca/courses/geog516/talks_2001/scale_maup.html
Make a chloropleth map with the areal unit set to voting precincts nationwide and the US looks purple. Set the areal unit to counties and you start seeing a “divide.” Set it to states and the whole representation is clearly divided AND meaningless.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:00 pm
I sort of hate the blue state/red state thing, too, and understand what you’re saying, but for purposes of electoral votes, it doesn’t matter whether the voters are leaving the city or country. And according to that Census Bureau study, metro NYC did lose population:
“Among the 25 largest metropolitan areas, 18 had more people move out than move in from 2000 to 2004. New York, Los Angeles and Chicago – the three biggest metropolitan areas – lost the most residents to domestic moves. The New York metropolitan area had a net loss of more than 210,000 residents a year from 2000 to 2004.”
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Les: “The New York metropolitan area had a net loss of more than 210,000 residents a year from 2000 to 2004.”
NY MSA
—————
2000: 18,323,002
2004 est: 18,709,802
210,000 people may have left, but people also immigrate, have babies, etc.
Also, 210000 is only ~1.12%. With numbers that big that could be within the standard error of the sample.
Also the link you cite is not the Census Bureau. It is a newspaper report.
See http://www.census.gov/popest/metro.html
Another misunderstood part of the NY metro area is that people commute from Albany/Philly/Trenton/Hartford to work there and also move to those places and STILL commute back. Considering the NY MSA as defined by the Census, misses a lot of people. My boss drives to work in Newark (12 miles from NYC) from near Allentown, PA. Everyday. Considering that property is not that much cheaper there than in, say Jersey City, I don’t understand it.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:57 pm
“Net loss” means more people left than came. The paper’s numbers are based on the Census Bureau study, which is right here. Relevant data is on page 8:
For the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA metro area the average annual outmigration was 190,939 for 1999-2000, and 211,014 for 2000-2004.
The Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD metro area is the fourth biggest net population loser in the country after LA and Chicago.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
What matters is the distribution of electoral votes afterwards and whether the conservative states stay that way. Many of the other questions are moot, from a political perspective.
May 4th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Les: see my comment about the numbers being within the error of the model.