3 ms·

Not familiar with the author's agenda, but: 1) is this just showing retirement patterns? (I.e make lots of money in a state with higher income /cost of living

by cozzyd 9y ago

Not familiar with the author's agenda, but: 1) is this just showing retirement patterns? (I.e make lots of money in a state with higher income /cost of living then move somewhere cheaper/warmer once you stop making money? The reverse probably doesn't happen?) 2) Is this just mapping relative state incomes? I think people moving between states randomly would produce this pattern given income differences. I'm also not sure what the point is from a policy perspective. Even if the pattern is true doesn't necessarily mean that states should change their policies.

tzs 9y ago
> is this just showing retirement patterns? That's certainly a part of it, but there seems to be quite a bit more going on. For example, look at King County, Washington (Seattle's county). It has the biggest gain from Los Angeles County, CA. No way is that from people in Los Angeles deciding that Seattle is where they want to retire. The next biggest gain for King Country is from Leon County, FL (the country of Tallahassee). That too seems unlikely to have a significant retirement component. That's closely followed by Cook County, IL, which may actually be dismal enough climate-wise that someone might retire from there to Seattle. Rounding out the top 5 for King County are Santa Clara and San Mateo in CA, both which seem unlikely to be due to retirement. The biggest losses from King County are the four nearest counties that are on Puget Sound (Snohomish, Pierce, Kitsap, and Island), and the southernmost Washington county, Clark, which is on the Oregon border across from Portland. These probably aren't retirements. I wonder how much of the Clark thing is people who have realized that if they live there they can easily shop in Portland (no sales tax) while living in Washington (no income tax)? Looking across Puget Sound to Kitsap, we do some some signs of retirement. Of the top 5 Kitsap had losses to, there are three adjacent counties, one that is one away, and Maricopa County, AZ. That last one is probably retirement.
- cozzyd 9y ago
  Yeah, this is a strange pattern at the metro level. Same seems to hold true for my county (Cook County). I wonder if somehow the web site is counting income generated by commuters from collar counties as income lost by the main city. EDIT: No, I'm wrong. The statistics are starting in 1992, so mostly it's just showing the growth of suburbs. It's more obvious if you click on population mode.

by cozzyd 9y ago

tzs 9y ago

> is this just showing retirement patterns? That's certainly a part of it, but there seems to be quite a bit more going on. For example, look at King County, Washington (Seattle's county). It has the biggest gain from Los Angeles County, CA. No way is that from people in Los Angeles deciding that Seattle is where they want to retire. The next biggest gain for King Country is from Leon County, FL (the country of Tallahassee). That too seems unlikely to have a significant retirement component. That's closely followed by Cook County, IL, which may actually be dismal enough climate-wise that someone might retire from there to Seattle. Rounding out the top 5 for King County are Santa Clara and San Mateo in CA, both which seem unlikely to be due to retirement. The biggest losses from King County are the four nearest counties that are on Puget Sound (Snohomish, Pierce, Kitsap, and Island), and the southernmost Washington county, Clark, which is on the Oregon border across from Portland. These probably aren't retirements. I wonder how much of the Clark thing is people who have realized that if they live there they can easily shop in Portland (no sales tax) while living in Washington (no income tax)? Looking across Puget Sound to Kitsap, we do some some signs of retirement. Of the top 5 Kitsap had losses to, there are three adjacent counties, one that is one away, and Maricopa County, AZ. That last one is probably retirement.

cozzyd 9y ago
Yeah, this is a strange pattern at the metro level. Same seems to hold true for my county (Cook County). I wonder if somehow the web site is counting income generated by commuters from collar counties as income lost by the main city. EDIT: No, I'm wrong. The statistics are starting in 1992, so mostly it's just showing the growth of suburbs. It's more obvious if you click on population mode.