4 ms·

Net migration includes immigration (legal and illegal). So no they are not trying to explain net migration, as their data apparently excludes immigration (altho

by hristov 15y ago

Net migration includes immigration (legal and illegal). So no they are not trying to explain net migration, as their data apparently excludes immigration (although one cannot say for sure, they are very vague and misleading about what the data says). They have a very specific metric: "net migration to/from other states," and even for that I am not sure their data is correct. Even if it is true, there is a much more logical explanation. Note that California is the most populous state in the nation, and is surrounded by many much less populous states. There is always a natural tendency for some people to go from populated areas to less populated areas. This is why America got settled in the first place for Pete's sake. Were the initial 13 colonies dysfunctional? No, but they got crowded and people started looking for opportunities elsewhere. Naturally with higher population densities, real estate and certain other resources will be more expensive. Naturally, people that prefer to have more space will look for places where those things are cheaper. So there is a perfectly logical reason why 'some' people will tend to leave higher density states, not because they are dysfunctional but because they are higher density. And since the WSJ statistics apparently include only 'some' people, than that is a much more logical explanation than assuming all kinds of dysfunctions.

bhauer 15y ago
The Census data I cited is net interstate migration. Review the last page of the PDF I linked. The title of Appendix Table A-1 from which I quoted is "Domestic Inmigration, Outmigration, and Net Migration: 1995 to 2000." It's simply the first link I found and as such it's not the same time period as the WSJ article's subject. But I figured it was a data point that at least superficially corroborated their admittedly-unknown underlying data. By that, I mean that it provided sufficient credibility to their discussion and confirmed it was a matter of migration and not population. From there, I considered their conclusions at least plausible. You say, "There is always a natural tendency for some people to go from populated areas to less populated areas." According to the 2007 data represented at the URL below (which I have not traced to its source, but I wouldn't be surprised if it too leverages Census data in some fashion), there does not seem to be much correlation between population and migration. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/12/17/u-s-migration-flows/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/12/17/u-s-migration-flow... (Warning: Flash required) The greatest net outmigration is Alaska with a net migration of -60,000 and a population of 683,000. Meanwhile, many states with populations between 5M and 20M had net inmigration. While it seems plausible that there could be a natural tendency to migrate from high population to low population; the reverse seems just as plausible. California had a relatively high population when it had net positive migration. Texas currently has a high population and a net positive migration. It seems clear to me that more significant variables are at play than just a desire to switch density levels. Are those causes dysfunctions? Maybe; I suppose it depends on what you consider dysfunctional. Another poster in this thread pointed out that California's Proposition 13 is a distorting influence. Is it dysfunctional? If you own property, you probably think Proposition 13 is a good thing. If you do not, you probably disagree.

by hristov 15y ago

bhauer 15y ago

The Census data I cited is net interstate migration. Review the last page of the PDF I linked. The title of Appendix Table A-1 from which I quoted is "Domestic Inmigration, Outmigration, and Net Migration: 1995 to 2000." It's simply the first link I found and as such it's not the same time period as the WSJ article's subject. But I figured it was a data point that at least superficially corroborated their admittedly-unknown underlying data. By that, I mean that it provided sufficient credibility to their discussion and confirmed it was a matter of migration and not population. From there, I considered their conclusions at least plausible. You say, "There is always a natural tendency for some people to go from populated areas to less populated areas." According to the 2007 data represented at the URL below (which I have not traced to its source, but I wouldn't be surprised if it too leverages Census data in some fashion), there does not seem to be much correlation between population and migration. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/12/17/u-s-migration-flows/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/12/17/u-s-migration-flow... (Warning: Flash required) The greatest net outmigration is Alaska with a net migration of -60,000 and a population of 683,000. Meanwhile, many states with populations between 5M and 20M had net inmigration. While it seems plausible that there could be a natural tendency to migrate from high population to low population; the reverse seems just as plausible. California had a relatively high population when it had net positive migration. Texas currently has a high population and a net positive migration. It seems clear to me that more significant variables are at play than just a desire to switch density levels. Are those causes dysfunctions? Maybe; I suppose it depends on what you consider dysfunctional. Another poster in this thread pointed out that California's Proposition 13 is a distorting influence. Is it dysfunctional? If you own property, you probably think Proposition 13 is a good thing. If you do not, you probably disagree.