Neat graphic to show net migration

[upstater]

http://vizynary.com/2013/11/18/restless-america-state-to-state-migration-in-2012/

Overall migration is very down, and stagnant. And when you see the net in the tens of thousands for the big states, you have to extrapolate how many are college football fans. 10% tops. This literally means that yearly, the big southern states are maybe gaining several hundred football fans.

 

[billybud]

Sooo?

Let's look at that.

Florida is, based on the 2012 data illustrated, netting about 110,000 migration entrants a year. That would be about 440,00 over four years. Over a million every ten years...which is slower than any ten year growth in Florida since 1950. And about 1/3 of the grwoth between 2000-2010.

But even that rate, over time, creates a tremendous population growth since the population of the state will continue to grow by having children.

There are only three factors in population growth..birth, death, and migration. And the additive effect over several decades can be significant.

Although to you young guys, 1970 sounds like a story from long, long ago, in a galaxy far away...I was in college still. And Florida was a sleepy little state with 1/3 of the population that it has now.

The import of this is..that in this year or next, Florida's population will surpass that of New York.

And between 2000-2010 censuses...who is growing?

Of the 15 most populous states in 2010:

Growth 2000-2010
Texas...20.6%
Florida...17.6%
Georgia...18.3%
N. Carolina...18.5%
Virginia...13%
California...10%
Washington...14.1%

Michigan... -.06%
New York...2.1%
Illinois...3.3%
Pennsylvania...3.4%
New Jersey...4.5%
Massachusetts...3.1%
Indiana...6.6%
Ohio...1.6%

The OP's premise that the growth does not result in a proportionate sheer number of fans is correct...but I assume that the numbers of fans will increase at the same rate as the population....thus Texas sports fans have probably increased 21% in the decade of 2000-10, etc.

 

[upstater]

Sooo?

Let's look at that.

Florida is, based on the 2012 data illustrated, netting about 110,000 migration entrants a year. That would be about 440,00 over four years. Over a million every ten years...which is slower than any ten year growth in Florida since 1950. And about 1/3 of the grwoth between 2000-2010.

But even that rate, over time, creates a tremendous population growth since the population of the state will continue to grow by having children.

There are only three factors in population growth..birth, death, and migration. And the additive effect over several decades can be significant.

Although to you young guys, 1970 sounds like a story from long, long ago, in a galaxy far away...I was in college still. And Florida was a sleepy little state with 1/3 of the population that it has now.

The import of this is..that in this year or next, Florida's population will surpass that of New York.

And between 2000-2010 censuses...who is growing?

Of the 15 most populous states in 2010:

Growth 2000-2010
Texas...20.6%
Florida...17.6%
Georgia...18.3%
N. Carolina...18.5%
Virginia...13%
California...10%
Washington...14.1%

Michigan... -.06%
New York...2.1%
Illinois...3.3%
Pennsylvania...3.4%
New Jersey...4.5%
Massachusetts...3.1%
Indiana...6.6%
Ohio...1.6%

The OP's premise that the growth does not result in a proportionate sheer number of fans is correct...but I assume that the numbers of fans will increase at the same rate as the population....thus Texas sports fans have probably increased 21% in the decade of 2000-10, etc.

I don't think immigrants or the children of immigrants have the same ties to college sports, but that's just an anecdotal guess (as an immigrant). My father took a while just to figure out baseball and football, never mind paying attention to what the colleges were doing.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Another key factor is jobs, it's why CT residents continue to migrate to NY or the rest of New England heads to Mass (Boston), especially after college. Chicago serves the same purpose in the Midwest. That trend somewhat reverses when people get married and have kids, i.e. Mass to NH, NY to NJ & CT, etc.
CA is interesting because I believe most of their migration into the state are from immigrants and their high birth rate while many 'native' California’s from what I have heard are heading for AZ, OR, CO, UT, NV, and TX. The impact of so many CA folks moving to TX politically (and in terms of CR) could be interesting down the road.

 

[woomba]

I looked into the migration numbers a few months back to see if it was possible to drill down into the age groups who are migrating from state to state and didn't see anything definitive.

There is data that shows the number of children under 18 in each state and despite all the theories about all the Florida migrants being retirees the numbers show that most Southern states have the same number of children as a % of the state population as non-Southern states.

Unfortunately this can be interpreted both ways:
1)There is a fairly even distribution in migration between retirees and non-retirees to Southern states
2)The numbers look even BECAUSE of all the old folks moving down South and there would've been a larger skew towards larger family sizes in the South if this migration didn't occur.

 

[billybud]

I don't think immigrants or the children of immigrants have the same ties to college sports, but that's just an anecdotal guess (as an immigrant). My father took a while just to figure out baseball and football, never mind paying attention to what the colleges were doing.

Could be....our Cuban immigrants of 1958-61, and the Marielito's of 35 years ago, probably have not developed into sports fans. But their kids and grandchildren have.

Some are early adopters...most aren't. Just like, when I was a kid, the fans of of Miami, Florida, and Florida State (all together) might have filled the end zone seats at Michigan or Ohio State. Nobody is from Florida going back three generations...everyone's family originates somewhere else. The original immigrants bring with them their loyalty to, say a Michigan (my dad), but the kids and grandkids move to what is relevant in their life...a local team or their alma mater.

My son, the product of a midwestern family on his paternal side, is a huge FSU fan. My mom's side were southern from Wilcox county, Alabama, through Bedford, Virginia. Thus my uncle, sister, brother, and brother in law, and a nephew are Auburn grads and fans. Although I was born in Alabama, I was the black sheep and went to FSU...thus changing my family's sports interests maybe into several generations.

 

[upstater]

I looked into the migration numbers a few months back to see if it was possible to drill down into the age groups who are migrating from state to state and didn't see anything definitive.

There is data that shows the number of children under 18 in each state and despite all the theories about all the Florida migrants being retirees the numbers show that most Southern states have the same number of children as a % of the state population as non-Southern states.

Unfortunately this can be interpreted both ways:
1)There is a fairly even distribution in migration between retirees and non-retirees to Southern states
2)The numbers look even BECAUSE of all the old folks moving down South and there would've been a larger skew towards larger family sizes in the South if this migration didn't occur.

I wonder if these numbers look at residents or permanent residents? You know how the census workers scour very hard to see if there's anyone else living at a residence. Seems to me they are not at all involved in tax residencies. There are a lot of northerners who maintain primary residence in Florida.

 

[billybud]

Florida does receive more in-migration from older people then most states...but, still, the majority of entrants to Florida from other states are under 35.

Our population demographics have been changing...the percentage of hispanic population has been decreasing...the populations of central and north Florida increasing as a percentage of South Florida...and blacks are growing in population through having more offspring.

 

[billybud]

I wonder if these numbers look at residents or permanent residents? You know how the census workers scour very hard to see if there's anyone else living at a residence. Seems to me they are not at all involved in tax residencies. There are a lot of northerners who maintain primary residence in Florida.

Don't know it is applied..but the rule:


Planners of the first U.S. decennial census in 1790 established the concept of "usual residence" as the main principle in determining where people were to be counted. This concept has been followed in all subsequent censuses and is the guiding principle for the 2010 Census. Usual residence is defined as the place where a person lives and sleeps most of the time. This place is not necessarily the same as the person's voting residence or legal residence.

Determining usual residence is easy for most people. Given our Nation's wide diversity in types of living arrangements, however, the usual residence for some people is not as apparent.A few examples are people experiencing homelessness, snowbirds, children in shared custody arrangements, college students, live-in employees, military personnel, and people who live in workers’ dormitories.

Applying the usual residence concept to real living situations means that people will not always be counted at the place where they happen to be staying on Thursday, April 1, 2010 (Census Day). For example, people who are away from their usual residence while on vacation or on a business trip on Census Day should be counted at their usual residence. People who live at more than one residence during the week, month, or year should be counted at the place where they live most of the time. People without a usual residence, however, should be counted where they are staying on Census Day.

 

[billybud]

People who live at two or more residences (during the week, month, or year), such as people who travel seasonally between residences (for example, snowbirds) - Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If there is no residence where they live and sleep most of the time, they are counted where they live and sleep more than anywhere else. If time is equally divided, or if usual residence cannot be determined, they are counted at the residence where they are staying on Thursday, April 1, 2010 (Census Day).

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Cool graph but I couldn't quite tell where that guy from Delaware moved to. Anybody know?

 

[IMind]

You know why population growth looks so dramatic in the south and the southeast... because 40 years ago NO ONE duck_KING LIVED THERE... you know why population growth in the northeast and in large cities looks stagnant... BECAUSE EVERYONE ALREADY duck_KING LIVES THERE...

The whole population movement thing is so overplayed it's ridiculous... the entire midwest and the northeast is not Detroit and Buffalo.

 

[SubbaBub]

You know why population growth looks so dramatic in the south and the southeast... because 40 years ago NO ONE duck_KING LIVED THERE... you know why population growth in the northeast and in large cities looks stagnant... BECAUSE EVERYONE ALREADY duck_KING LIVES THERE...

The whole population movement thing is so overplayed it's ridiculous... the entire midwest and the northeast is not Detroit and Buffalo.

It's all due to the invention of air conditioning.

 

[billybud]

I don't think it is necessarily overplayed....a lot has changed within my lifetime....the population is shifting. The death of manufacturing in the rust belt has contributed.

.....Florida was ranked lower in population then Kentucky in the first census after my birth.

New Orleans was the only city south of Mason Dixon line to be in the top 20 population wise.

Now Florida has overtaken New York as a populous state..and Miami and Atlanta are in the top 10 MSA's.

 

[billybud]

It's all due to the invention of air conditioning.

YES....prior to 1965, the gates had not opened (90% of homes still not air conditioned as of 1965).