Replies

This study doesn't take into account foreign immigration, birth rates or death rates. It's possible that many of the metropolitan areas and states with net domestic outmigration are sill growing, but that more Americans are moving out of those areas than moving in. For example, according to the census bureau, Utah has net outmigration for the 2000-2004 period, but is still growing faster than the rest of the U.S. due to relatively high birth rates and foreign immigration.

By the way, the Census Bureau changed the way they defined metropolitan areas for the 2000 census, divorcing many of the exurban parts of the largest metropolitan areas (like New York and L.A.) from the larger Metro. For example, Orange and Dutchess County, NY (which are a growing exurban area north of NYC) are no longer part of the larger NYC metro area, and San Bernadino-Riverside was removed from the L.A. Metro area. Comparisons between 2000 and 1990 metro area numbers aren't necessarily accurate unless the 1990 numbers have been adjusted to reflect the new metro area definitions. I assume that the census bureau has done so for the purposes of the study on their website.

I think that was wrong to drop them from the metropolitan areas, as that makes the assessments far more difficult - and deceiving.

Immigration from other countries (mainly the third world) is the only thing sustaining these ultra-liberal cities.

Good analysis. If someone lives in Northeastern Pennsylvania and commutes to NYC or NJ, they're still a part of the New York "region" in the wider sense, but may not be part of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. Connecticut cities and towns also aren't included in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island SMSA.

My guess is some people left to escape urban problems and they'll remember what they left and try to avoid recreating anything resembling it. Others weren't driven out by the same things. Seeing empty spaces will inspire them to recreate what they left behind, including all the old problems of the cities they left.

Human nature's involved, and some transplanted urbanites aren't going to adopt rural ways. Those who felt out of place in the cities and older suburbs when they left may adapt and assimilate well enough, though.

What you say is true. It seems unlikely that the birth rate in the cities with the leading outmigration rates is especially high (perhaps excepting LA). The numbers cited are not a comparison with migration in the ninties--though your comment suggests there maybe more suburban shifting going on than would be guessed by comparison with historic data. In general the migration rates have declined in the new century. The "take home" message in the study is not what the population trend is, but how current residents are voting with their feet. Migrants decision can be affected by both positive and negative factors. The authors do not try to enumerate or assign weight to those factors.