Over Washinton by half a point! Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/2013-moving-map-2014-1#ixzz2q7yimTVR
There are some flaws in this map. First, it only regards United Van Lines customers. Second (and related), it does not provide any meaningful information about actual population vectors.
They mention that and link to another moving company map. Vectors, like people moving to favorites and whatnot?
Vectors meaning direction and volume of movement in this case. So, for example, not a lot of college kids come to a state via a moving company's services. So there's an inflow not accounted for by this data. Many of these college students will stick around for a while after graduation, then leave, at which point they have enough stuff to require the moving company. So the out flow is counted. There could be a net of zero generated by student moves, but it would show on the map as a net out flow. Hence, a state with a growing population can, on this map, present as one with a declining population.
Yeah! We're no longer #1! We're no longer #1! Oh, and whichever United Van Lines marketing person came up with the idea of compiling and releasing this index is a PR genius. You can't buy the kind of advertising they get from it.
That only shows domestic migration where as states like California and New York get a hell of a lot of international migration. I'd also note that the vast, vast majority of the people leaving California are poor, don't have college degrees, and have simply been priced out of the housing market. They've figured out their $12 per hour job as a manager at Burger King isn't going to ever allow them to buy a house in a highly desirable place where people with more money keep bidding up the price. So they have opted to move to less desirable, less in demand places where they actually can afford to buy a house. There is nothing wrong with this but let's not pretend we're not talking about young, poor people who generally are lacking higher education and job skills. The other big segment of the people leaving are elderly retirees (again not a group known for their economic dynamism or ability to earn lots of money) who are simply cashing out their homes in high demand areas in an attempt to finance their retirements to some where cheap.
Oregon sucks. Don't come here. OK. It doesn't suck, but there are no jobs here. And pretentious hipster douchebags have killed everything that made Portland cool.
Even census data shows that states like NY are bleeding residents where as States like FL and TX are gaining population
Yes, it's all burger flippers fleeing the Golden State. Yes, there is nothing on how many companies might move to California, or tech start ups in the state, but let's not pretend that everyone leaving the state is a low wage fast food flunkie. Or if we are going to, let's get some stats to back it up.
Only one state out of fifty lost population in the 2010 census. That's the real data, so let's not get confused by marketing gimmicks or politically motivated claims.
If you want go to City Data Forum's California subform and you'll find multiple big long threads on this very topic including lots of links to hard numbers. They had profiles of the average people leaving the state; they really do fall into two categories: Young married couples with kids but lacking college educations over half earning less than 1/3rd of the state's median household income, and, the other big group is elderly people selling their homes to finance their retirement which means they need to buy new homes some where cheaper. The net flow of jobs out of state vs into state was an absolutely trivial amount something like 300,000 in a 12 year period (and the vast majority of them were low paid jobs which were labor intensive in low margin industries, exactly the kind of jobs you'd expect to go from developed places to less developed places) so that's ~25,000 per year in a state of 38 million people. We lose far more jobs to offshoring to Asia so movement between the states is trivial and practically balanced. You also have to factor in that California produces a hell of a lot of jobs and by far the most start ups in the country. So much of this is just the background noise of any large dynamic and diversified economy also in 2013 there were several months where California was producing 40%-50% of the new jobs in the entire country. We got hit really hard by the realestate bubble and when it popped millions of jobs were lost and that's a big hole to dig yourself out of but it took Japan a decade to do so and California seems to be recovering faster than Japan did. It will take time but the numbers are all up at this point plus the jobs created tend to be better paying with benefits while the jobs created in places like Texas tend to be at or near minimum wage without benefits so the quality produced is better too.
This is why Fox and other right wing "news" outlets like Brettbart only look at net domestic migration and frequently only white domestic migration because it plays well with their base and allows them to lie by omission and ignore the very real facts of international migration, natural population growth, and even non-white domestic migration. It fits their political narative though so they lie and only look at the one small section they want to talk about while ignoring everything else including the big picture which doesn't fit their chosen political talking points.
http://www.businessweek.com/article...-money-move-to-a-wealthy-state-not-a-poor-one Want to move up the social ladder? Move to the wealthy states and not to the poor states as that's where the good paying jobs are and most of the real economic opportunity. Businessweek also finds that taxes really don't effect where the wealthy live very much as the wealthier people get the more likely they're stay or relocate to expensive places which offer amenities you just can't find in fly over country (notice how Mitt Romney moved to San Diego after losing the election despite his claims that rich people should leave the state? Can it be any more obvious they don't believe their own bullshit?). This is an interesting quote from the article which I think most of WF can agree with: They can't afford a $500,000 40 year old house much less an $800,000 new house in California so they're moving to less desirable, less in demand places where they actually can afford to buy a house. They've been priced out. I would like to see zoning laws loosened in some ways but certainly not eliminated though the guy is spot on that densely populated areas do need more mass transit to move people around more efficiently.
Do you seriously think the people you're talking about would hire a moving company instead of renting a U-haul?
It depends on the cost. Some of them aren't all that expensive and if the wife is pregnant the husband can't move it all himself so a moving company quickly becomes the best option.
The correct answer would be, "Almost certainly not." Do you know how much crap you'd have to have to make it worth hiring a moving company? I've moved several times as a non-burger flipper and have always used U-Haul. I'd say a big chunk of the times that a moving company is involved, it's because one of the mover's employer is flipping the bill.
I have to admit I always used U-hauls myself so I don't know how much a moving company costs. It can't be that much though pay them to transport your boxes. A quick google search shows "Top Moving Company" will move you any where in the Continental US for $499. I imagine many of them would put that on a credit card and call it a day.
Are you talking about topmoving.com? Because that says it will move you for as low as $499. That's a whole lot different from what you're saying.
@Dinner is correct that most of California's internal migration was due to housing costs. Hell Pheonix is basically a California housing costs refugee camp. It's also important to note that the numbers can be deceiving. Say a middle class family of four sells their house and moves to Atlanta and get's replaced with a power couple from Omaha that just finished up PhDs at UW and got jobs earning 3x the other families income but have no kids. In that household the population was cut in half, but does that really tell us anything useful?* Which gets back to what @gul said earlier, you gotta dig into the numbers. There is a big difference between people being pushed out of highly desirable areas like California and people fleeing wastelands like Mississippi or Michigan. *It does to me b/c I think a strong middle class is important, also b/c California living is some of the most efficient in the nation, and their people some of the most productive. We need as many people as possible to live there. We should stop siphoning away money from Cali to help prop up inefficient, less productive areas and invest in housing affordability/transportation in California.
I don't doubt that he is. On the other hand, I don't think you have to be poor to think half a million dollars for a three bedroom house is too high.
This isn't that surprising. As baby boomers get older, they retire and move somewhere warmer. If you're 65 and you're not working, why live in expensive and cold in the winter New York when you could go live in Florida and get a lot more house for your money and some decent temperatures.
Shoes is right about movers. They are expensive. I have only used them once, and it was mainly because I had a narrow window of time between availability of the new house and having to be out of the old. To be clear, the service they provided was reasonably priced, but paying for 4 guys, two trucks, times 10 hours is a lot of money. There just isn't any way to get around that math, especially when you also price in insurance and other overhead. As I argued earlier, I think this is largely a case of people arriving in the state by u-haul, and leaving by movers. That's young families and retirees primarily. If a place has high housing costs, then the place is desirable in spite of that fact. Otherwise slack demand would cause prices to decline.
