4 ms·

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 prope

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.

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.