Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it's important to distinguish (although sadly, the census doesn't) between people who retire to the Southeast and Southwest and people who move down there to work and have a family.
Retirees aren't looking for jobs (at least full time jobs). They're most likely only going to be alive around twenty years or so, and if they get infirm, they'll probably need to move close to next of kin sooner than that. And their kids (if they had any) aren't moving down with them. They contribute to the local economy, sure. But they aren't a permanent fixture. In more isolated areas where retirees move like parts of the southern Appalachians, the job market is poor enough that if the area became unfashionable for retirees, the population would begin declining again in short order.
The flow of younger people is different. In my experience while some younger people who grow up in the Northeast move to the "sun belt" they tend to locate in the metros of major cities in North Carolina, Texas, Colorado, or Arizona. But IMHO more young people these days (at least those with college degrees) who grow up in the Northeast are drawn to live in the cities, at least for awhile, so they move to New York, Boston, or DC.
I think it's important to distinguish (although sadly, the census doesn't) between people who retire to the Southeast and Southwest and people who move down there to work and have a family.
Retirees aren't looking for jobs (at least full time jobs). They're most likely only going to be alive around twenty years or so, and if they get infirm, they'll probably need to move close to next of kin sooner than that. And their kids (if they had any) aren't moving down with them. They contribute to the local economy, sure. But they aren't a permanent fixture. In more isolated areas where retirees move like parts of the southern Appalachians, the job market is poor enough that if the area became unfashionable for retirees, the population would begin declining again in short order.
The flow of younger people is different. In my experience while some younger people who grow up in the Northeast move to the "sun belt" they tend to locate in the metros of major cities in North Carolina, Texas, Colorado, or Arizona. But IMHO more young people these days (at least those with college degrees) who grow up in the Northeast are drawn to live in the cities, at least for awhile, so they move to New York, Boston, or DC.
That's what I did right after college. I started my career and moved to NYC from CT. After two years, I couldn't take it anymore and moved back to CT. I realized that I am not a big city person, unless it's suburban in character. In NYC, you can't even see the sun.
That's what I did right after college. I started my career and moved to NYC from CT. After two years, I couldn't take it anymore and moved back to CT. I realized that I am not a big city person, unless it's suburban in character. In NYC, you can't even see the sun.
There's plenty of suburban-esque parts of NYC in Staten Island, Queens, and even parts of Brooklyn and the Bronx. But generally they have bad transit access and are expensive to rent in, defeating the whole purpose of living in a city.
I think it's important to distinguish (although sadly, the census doesn't) between people who retire to the Southeast and Southwest and people who move down there to work and have a family.
I was going to say something similar to this. The answer to the OP's question is obvious. I'm more interested in the profile of migrants moving from the Southeast or Southwest to the Northeast.
I was going to say something similar to this. The answer to the OP's question is obvious. I'm more interested in the profile of migrants moving from the Southeast or Southwest to the Northeast.
I know there was a thread recently which showed the percentage of domestic migrants with college degrees was highest to the northeastern states and California. This suggests both that they are younger and from a higher economic class than the people leaving.
I know there was a thread recently which showed the percentage of domestic migrants with college degrees was highest to the northeastern states and California. This suggests both that they are younger and from a higher economic class than the people leaving.
Yeah, that's completely unsurprising. I didn't think there were too many guys leaving Alabama trailer parks to go work on construction sites in Manhattan.
There's plenty of suburban-esque parts of NYC in Staten Island, Queens, and even parts of Brooklyn and the Bronx. But generally they have bad transit access and are expensive to rent in, defeating the whole purpose of living in a city.
Queens, Brooklyn and Bronx are all too urban for me. Even Staten Island is pushing it. Heck, even Westchester County is too urban for me.
It's true except for Staten Island, these aren't representative of the borough as a whole. But everywhere but Manhattan has plenty of non-dense neighborhoods.
Of course people do, you might have more people moving down south, but there are still hundreds of thousands that do the reverse. I have many friends who moved to Chicago from Florida, Texas, California and Georgia. 3 of the 5 people who sit right near me at work happened to have moved here from Florida or Texas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.