4 ms·

What you are describing has been happening in New York and New Jersey for literally decades- -so much so that we have lost electoral seats in Congress because

What you are describing has been happening in New York and New Jersey for literally decades- -so much so that we have lost electoral seats in Congress because of our population shrinkage, while Florida has gained.

moorhosj 8y ago
Are you saying this sentiment has existed for decades or the population loss has existed for decades? New York and New Jersey each recorded their highest population levels ever in the 2010 census.
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  Ah, apologies. I thought the population was shrinking. What is actually happening is that the "population growth rate" in NY and NJ is not as high (anymore) compared to the population growth rate in other states. This isn't due to babies being born in Florida but not New York-- it's due to older, existing humans moving from NY to FL. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/nyregion/22nycensus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/nyregion/22nycensus.html headline: New York will lose 2 of its 29 seats in the House, while New Jersey will lose 1 of its 13 seats, because of population shifts reported by the Census Bureau on Tuesday.
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    Yes, western and southern states are growing faster than northeastern states, this isn't new information. It's almost like that part of the country was settled first and then saw two Great Migrations in the 20th century. When those migrations ended in the 1970s, the population began re-orienting towards the south and west and away from the northeast and midwest.
    - anoncoward111 8y ago
      I am becoming confused. 1) Do you believe people are leaving NY/NJ despite overall population rising? 2) Do you believe that of those people who are leaving, they are leaving because it's too expensive and crowded here? 3) Do you believe that of those people who are staying/moving here, do you think they are moving here because it is NOT crowded?
      - moorhosj 8y ago
        Huh? I corrected your initial statement that population was falling. I never mentioned crowing or cost-of-living. I was simply explaining why other states are growing faster than NY/NJ and the rest of the northeast.
- autokad 8y ago
  Both New Jersey (-1) and New York (-2) lost electoral seats. Just because their population rises, doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't rise faster.
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    Sure, but that wasn't at all what the comment said.
roel_v 8y ago
That's a different issue (assuming you're implying NY/NJ are 'emptying out' because people find it too crowded there - maybe you're not, in which case, ignore this comment :) ). Congressional seats are divided based on relative population (i.e., population in a state over total population), what I was referring to is related to density. As the other poster notes, NY and NJ's populations have been rising pretty much continuously for decades. Yes Florida's (and other Southern/Western states) population has risen more in absolute numbers, but they are much bigger, so the population density there hasn't gone up as much as in NY/NJ. And I would argue that there is a threshold density for 'being too busy' becoming a factor when deciding on where to live, one that apparently hasn't even been reached in NY/NJ - given that the absolute numbers of inhabitants are still going up. (ninja edit: it looks like me writing this comment overlapped with you writing another one to another comment, I think we agree here)
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  Hmm, this is interesting to think about :) As someone who has lived in NY, NJ, NC, FL, MA, NH over the past 20 years, and has evaluated job prospects and propety taxes and so on, I can assure you that we have quantitative and qualitative data that NYC, Long Island, Hoboken, Boston, and so on are quite crowded. They are so crowded, in fact, that there is a material difference between a $60,000 salary in NYC vs New Hampshire. We're talking about $10,000 or so in terms of additional income taxes, property taxes, rent, so on. The only people who stay in NY and NJ are staying because they have kids in school, an irreplaceable job, or maybe they just don't care. But the data shows that people are leaving for less dense areas.
  - roel_v 8y ago
    "The only people who stay in NY and NJ are staying because they have kids in school, an irreplaceable job, or maybe they just don't care." But it's not just about staying - it's also about new people moving in, looking for better job opportunities. As was linked elsewhere in this thread, total population for NY and NJ is at an all time high. "But the data shows that people are leaving for less dense areas." Maybe where we're talking past each other here is that you're referring to people within states? Because as said, people aren't leaving high-density states. Also (although I don't know details of these specific trends), consider that e.g. population increase in Florida is not wholly because people want to live in less dense areas - other socio-economic drivers (e.g. Florida being attractive to Hispanic immigrants, who then also have higher than average birth rates, and retirees moving to warmer climates) explain just as much or more of the effect. And then there is the difference between 'moving to low density' vs 'moving away from high density', etc. It's too big a topic to hash out here. My main point is that I don't think the statement 'in the aggregate, people are dispersing' is correct. In fact, all data and reports about it show it's not. But maybe that's not the point you're making anyway, and my whole argument is moot. And I'm sure that some people do the math and conclude that their purchasing power is greater in less dense areas. But across the world the trend is that people concentrate in ever-denser areas.
yasp 8y ago
Ditto for Connecticut.

moorhosj 8y ago

Are you saying this sentiment has existed for decades or the population loss has existed for decades? New York and New Jersey each recorded their highest population levels ever in the 2010 census.

anoncoward111 8y ago
Ah, apologies. I thought the population was shrinking. What is actually happening is that the "population growth rate" in NY and NJ is not as high (anymore) compared to the population growth rate in other states. This isn't due to babies being born in Florida but not New York-- it's due to older, existing humans moving from NY to FL. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/nyregion/22nycensus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/nyregion/22nycensus.html headline: New York will lose 2 of its 29 seats in the House, while New Jersey will lose 1 of its 13 seats, because of population shifts reported by the Census Bureau on Tuesday.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  Yes, western and southern states are growing faster than northeastern states, this isn't new information. It's almost like that part of the country was settled first and then saw two Great Migrations in the 20th century. When those migrations ended in the 1970s, the population began re-orienting towards the south and west and away from the northeast and midwest.
  - anoncoward111 8y ago
    I am becoming confused. 1) Do you believe people are leaving NY/NJ despite overall population rising? 2) Do you believe that of those people who are leaving, they are leaving because it's too expensive and crowded here? 3) Do you believe that of those people who are staying/moving here, do you think they are moving here because it is NOT crowded?
    - moorhosj 8y ago
      Huh? I corrected your initial statement that population was falling. I never mentioned crowing or cost-of-living. I was simply explaining why other states are growing faster than NY/NJ and the rest of the northeast.
autokad 8y ago
Both New Jersey (-1) and New York (-2) lost electoral seats. Just because their population rises, doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't rise faster.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  Sure, but that wasn't at all what the comment said.

roel_v 8y ago

That's a different issue (assuming you're implying NY/NJ are 'emptying out' because people find it too crowded there - maybe you're not, in which case, ignore this comment :) ). Congressional seats are divided based on relative population (i.e., population in a state over total population), what I was referring to is related to density. As the other poster notes, NY and NJ's populations have been rising pretty much continuously for decades. Yes Florida's (and other Southern/Western states) population has risen more in absolute numbers, but they are much bigger, so the population density there hasn't gone up as much as in NY/NJ. And I would argue that there is a threshold density for 'being too busy' becoming a factor when deciding on where to live, one that apparently hasn't even been reached in NY/NJ - given that the absolute numbers of inhabitants are still going up. (ninja edit: it looks like me writing this comment overlapped with you writing another one to another comment, I think we agree here)

anoncoward111 8y ago
Hmm, this is interesting to think about :) As someone who has lived in NY, NJ, NC, FL, MA, NH over the past 20 years, and has evaluated job prospects and propety taxes and so on, I can assure you that we have quantitative and qualitative data that NYC, Long Island, Hoboken, Boston, and so on are quite crowded. They are so crowded, in fact, that there is a material difference between a $60,000 salary in NYC vs New Hampshire. We're talking about $10,000 or so in terms of additional income taxes, property taxes, rent, so on. The only people who stay in NY and NJ are staying because they have kids in school, an irreplaceable job, or maybe they just don't care. But the data shows that people are leaving for less dense areas.
- roel_v 8y ago
  "The only people who stay in NY and NJ are staying because they have kids in school, an irreplaceable job, or maybe they just don't care." But it's not just about staying - it's also about new people moving in, looking for better job opportunities. As was linked elsewhere in this thread, total population for NY and NJ is at an all time high. "But the data shows that people are leaving for less dense areas." Maybe where we're talking past each other here is that you're referring to people within states? Because as said, people aren't leaving high-density states. Also (although I don't know details of these specific trends), consider that e.g. population increase in Florida is not wholly because people want to live in less dense areas - other socio-economic drivers (e.g. Florida being attractive to Hispanic immigrants, who then also have higher than average birth rates, and retirees moving to warmer climates) explain just as much or more of the effect. And then there is the difference between 'moving to low density' vs 'moving away from high density', etc. It's too big a topic to hash out here. My main point is that I don't think the statement 'in the aggregate, people are dispersing' is correct. In fact, all data and reports about it show it's not. But maybe that's not the point you're making anyway, and my whole argument is moot. And I'm sure that some people do the math and conclude that their purchasing power is greater in less dense areas. But across the world the trend is that people concentrate in ever-denser areas.

yasp 8y ago

Ditto for Connecticut.