A net 338,000 people who resided in California on July 1, 2022 had left the state by July 1, 2023, according to population estimates released by the Census Bureau last week. This follows a loss of 625,000 residents in the two years prior to July 1 2022, indicating that the pandemic-related forces that led to this migration out of the state are still at work.
More U.S. residents moved to green and yellow states than left those states, with darker colors representing greater in-migration. More residents moved out of red and orange states than moved to those states, with darker colors representing greater out-migration.
International migration plus net birth rates (births minus deaths) meant that California’s overall population declined by only 75,000 people in 2023. This was exceeded by New York, which lost 102,000 people. A net of only about 217,000 New York residents migrated out of the state in 2023, but New York didn’t have as many international immigrants to make up for this loss, so its overall population decline was bigger than California’s.
The overall populations of eight states — New York, California, Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Hawaii, and West Virginia — declined in the last year. But 23 states plus the District of Columbia saw net domestic out-migrations. These ranged from North Dakota, which lost 9 residents to out-migration, to California at -338,371.
High housing prices are an important reason why people are leaving many of these states. Prices are particularly high in the six states that lost the most residents to domestic migration (CA, IL, MA, MD, NJ, and NY), as well as several more states that lost residents (WA, HI, VA, and OR). But housing prices don’t explain why people are leaving some states. Prices aren’t particularly high in at least six states (IA, KS, MI, MS, NE, or PA) that saw net domestic out-migrations.
Some states gained because they have a combination of moderate housing prices and a beautiful natural environment, which has made them attractive to remote workers. Arizona and Idaho certainly fall into this category, as do Maine, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming. However, Alabama and Oklahoma gained more net residents than Idaho yet few would say they are as scenically attractive. I’d put Louisiana ahead of Oklahoma and rate Alabama and Mississippi about equally, yet Louisiana and Mississippi lost domestic residents while Alabama and Oklahoma gained.
The state that perplexes me the most is New Mexico, which is affordable, gorgeous, and whose median family incomes are only 16 percent lower than Arizona’s and 14 percent less than Texas’. Yet New Mexico not only lost residents to domestic out-migration in each year since 2020, it lost in seven of the ten years of the 2010s. Domestic out-migration was so great that the state’s overall population dropped in 2014 and 2015. For some reason, more people are attracted to neighboring Arizona, Colorado, and Texas, even though in Colorado’s case housing isn’t as affordable.
I suspect the trends in Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Mexico reflect a third factor after housing prices and scenic attractiveness: jobs. The high-tech industries that have powered growth in Colorado, Texas, and other states simply haven’t moved to New Mexico or these other states in great numbers, and the states’ intrinsic attractions haven’t been enough to make up for this. After all, only 20 percent of Americans are working remotely, so job locations are going to influence moves of the other 80 percent.
Progressives: First they flee the cesspools their ideology manufactures, then whine about the conditions.
They’re not fleeing progressivism they’re also fleeing demographic holocaust. Because blacks and Latinos largely occupy lowest tax brackets.
You can’t incorporate a hominin population that has spent 50,000 years as a hunter-gatherer skipping the Copper, Bronze and Iron age. Nor effortlessly integrate a demographic with abysmally high school dropout rate or makes up 96% nations gun violence; Into agricultural/industry laden civilization, regardless of any amount of white guilt or virtue signaling. Once a city becomes a White minority they economically/socially collapse after 2-4 generations.
LazyReader,
I have to disagree with your facts. First, Africa had several bronze and possibly iron crafting civilizations before they were crushed by European colonialists. Second, there is no way that Latinos can be described as hunter-gatherers.
Third, several human populations have rapidly advanced from relatively primitive to modern with appropriate education and assistance from other groups. Japan and Korea are examples. If there is a problem with low-income people in this country, it is that most of our education system has given up on them.
Regarding your being perplexed about NM population stats, 90 years of single party Dem rule at the state level has scared away private business. In most part of the country, population growth follows job growth. For those who don’t know, the last time Republicans held a majority in both houses of the NM legislature at the same time was 1930, and the last time Republicans held a majority on the NM Supreme Court was in the 1920s. In the Governor’s office, Dems have “only” held the office for about 62 of the last 90 years. The business climate is so bad in NM, that many businesses won’t come unless bribed to do so with taxpayer money in the form of incentives (Spaceport and film industry).
I believe it comes down to several different factors which is why there are oddities in migration patterns. Housing prices is the main factor, but not the only factor. (Disclaimer: I moved from a high-cost area to a low-cost area in 2016, but went against the tide to one that is negative today).
1) There appears to be a large migration of retirees and near-retirees to warmer states with lower taxes and more conservative political cultures which match their political views. Florida is the BIG winner in that group (it makes up a very large percentage of those moving there), but the Carolinas – particularly the coastal counties – are also increasingly popular (not quite as warm, but still warmer than the Northeast or Midwest and much lower taxes) and a little less expensive. Most of Alabama’s gains are along the coast as well. Mississippi and Louisiana don’t have as much in the way of coastal resorts, so they wouldn’t be gaining in that group (and neither does Georgia, for that matter). They are likely coming from all the Midwest and Northeast states.
2) Technology hubs are a big factor for those in their 20s and 30s, but at the same time Millennial and Gen-Z workers don’t want to spend the fortune that they would be paying in Silicon Valley (you’d be CRAZY to move to the Bay Area today). That is where Texas comes big, with Georgia probably the second biggest winner. Cities like Atlanta and Dallas (and, to a lesser extent, Austin) provide all the amenities and more space for less money. North Carolina has also gained in Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham from that demographic. Higher cost states in the Northeast, as well as California (and increasingly the rest of the West Coast) are losing as a result. Illinois is also a loser due to their poor business climate unique to the state, despite not being too expensive.
3) California residents who want to sell their overpriced homes have been the ones moving to other western states. However, I suspect that has slowed down some as those other states – AZ, CO, ID, and especially OR and WA (now negative) have become more expensive themselves. Yes, they can make money from them, but not as much as in the peak pandemic era. More of California’s losses now have been due to factors 1 and 2 I suspect.
4) The other states in positive territory in the Midwest and Plains are probably fairly small, and due to local factors. Could they be a function of movement between adjacent states (such as from the DC area to the eastern WV Panhandle, or from Chicago to southern Wisconsin?). I know much of the movement to New Hampshire has traditionally been from the Boston area outwards. Likewise, I suspect a lot of those light-orange states are marginal loses.
5) Why are other states not gaining yet are affordable? I think it comes down to location and history. Michigan has a long history of negative growth and struggles the last 50 years, and it likely is still in the minds of many people (plus the weather doesn’t help). Same in Pennsylvania, although Pittsburgh does have promise despite the same weather issues. Mississippi has a long negative reputation, which has hurt it for so long (despite much of it being overblown) – it could be one of the hidden gems in the future though. Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska currently lack a major hub to attract business, although Omaha, Des Moines or Wichita might become that in the future as other cities increase in price. After all, you’re seeing more significant growth in places like NW Arkansas and Oklahoma City now as they are starting to be discovered more, despite their prices remaining very reasonable.
Those are just my thoughts.