People come for jobs.

Remember what happened to Detroit? Cleveland?

People will always follow the jobs. Cities like NYC, Boston, DC etc. are big for a reason and expensive---it's where the $ is.

Anonymous wrote:I moved to DC in 1996 because at that time it was sort of a gay Mecca. It was cheap compared to other East Coast cities (!), and had beautiful architecture and parks.

Now I'm in my fifties, and can't stand it here. Everyone around me is half my age and they (gay or straight) basically look through me. The place is full of Type A personalities, and the lovely historical neighborhoods are getting torn apart for condos and popups. Also the crime situation is starting to worsen again. And the traffic...

So my partner and I are headed for a 2nd tier city - maybe Richmond, Charlottesville, or Providence.

Isn’t everyone being half your age and looking through you more about getting older and true for any city? I’ve also been here since the 90s and my life is not the same as when I was in my 20s but it’s not dc’s fault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Much of the discussion about millennial migration tends to focus on high-cost, dense urban regions such as those that dominate New York, Massachusetts and, of course, California. Yet the IRS data tells us a very different story about migrants aged 26 to 34. Here it’s Texas in the lead, and by a wide margin, followed by Oregon, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, Maine, Florida and New Hampshire. Once again New York and Illinois stand out as the biggest losers in this age category.

Perhaps more important for the immediate future may be the migration of people at the peak of their careers, those aged 35 to 54. These are also the age cohorts most likely to be raising children. The top four are the same in both cohorts. Among the 35 to 44 age group, it’s Texas, followed by Florida, South Carolina and North Dakota. Among the 45 to 54 cohort, Texas, followed by South Carolina, Florida and North Dakota.

Perhaps with the influx of educated high-earners, these states will stop voting against their own interests and turn blue.

Texan here. We've seen a massive influx of Californians to our state...who proceed vote for the exact same policies/types of politicians that caused them to flee CA in the first place.

I don't get it.

Anonymous wrote:Much of the discussion about millennial migration tends to focus on high-cost, dense urban regions such as those that dominate New York, Massachusetts and, of course, California. Yet the IRS data tells us a very different story about migrants aged 26 to 34. Here it’s Texas in the lead, and by a wide margin, followed by Oregon, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, Maine, Florida and New Hampshire. Once again New York and Illinois stand out as the biggest losers in this age category.

Perhaps more important for the immediate future may be the migration of people at the peak of their careers, those aged 35 to 54. These are also the age cohorts most likely to be raising children. The top four are the same in both cohorts. Among the 35 to 44 age group, it’s Texas, followed by Florida, South Carolina and North Dakota. Among the 45 to 54 cohort, Texas, followed by South Carolina, Florida and North Dakota.

Perhaps with the influx of educated high-earners, these states will stop voting against their own interests and turn blue.

this thread seems silly. Is everyone supposed to live in the DMV? Millennials are the largest generation

Much of the discussion about millennial migration tends to focus on high-cost, dense urban regions such as those that dominate New York, Massachusetts and, of course, California. Yet the IRS data tells us a very different story about migrants aged 26 to 34. Here it’s Texas in the lead, and by a wide margin, followed by Oregon, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, Maine, Florida and New Hampshire. Once again New York and Illinois stand out as the biggest losers in this age category.

Perhaps more important for the immediate future may be the migration of people at the peak of their careers, those aged 35 to 54. These are also the age cohorts most likely to be raising children. The top four are the same in both cohorts. Among the 35 to 44 age group, it’s Texas, followed by Florida, South Carolina and North Dakota. Among the 45 to 54 cohort, Texas, followed by South Carolina, Florida and North Dakota.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/realestate/the-new-boomtowns-why-more-people-are-relocating-to-secondary-cities/2018/11/07/f55f96f4-d618-11e8-aeb7-ddcad4a0a54e_story.html

Just one in a long line of recent articles pointing to a mass exodus of young people from cities like DC. Despite the groupthink here, I think it’s safe to say that prices can only go so high when young families have more options than they once did (you can move anywhere with telework and good jobs can be had basically anywhere). Also, the whole “____ is too conservative/southern” argument is losing steam because secondary cities are all flipping to blue zones.

The facts I've read on this state the opposite. In fact, more and more people are moving to the cities. By 2030 it's something like 10% more than today.

Yes, but NOT cities like NY/SF/Bos/DC. Millenials are flocking to the "second tier" cities like Denver, Richmond, etc.

If you look at state-to-state migration patterns, it's the blue, mainly northeastern (plus Illinois), states that are hemorrhaging their populations.

AND overall, many of these states are the ones hemorrhaging high-income earners the most rapidly. As in overall migration, New York sets the standard, with the highest outmigration of high income earners (defined as annual income over $200,000) relative to in-migrants (attraction ratio: 53). New York is followed closely by Illinois, the District of Columbia and New Jersey, which are the top states losing the over-$200,000-a-year crowd.

The big winners in terms of affluent migration tend to be mainly in the Sun Belt and the Intermountain West. Florida has an attraction ratio for people earning over $200,000 a year of 223, the highest in the nation, followed by South Carolina, Montana, Idaho and North Carolina. Four of the states with the highest attraction rate among the highest income earners were in the top five in net in–migration of seniors, many of whom are taking nice nest eggs with them. South Carolina scored the highest, followed by Delaware, Idaho, North Carolina and Florida.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/realestate/the-new-boomtowns-why-more-people-are-relocating-to-secondary-cities/2018/11/07/f55f96f4-d618-11e8-aeb7-ddcad4a0a54e_story.html

Just one in a long line of recent articles pointing to a mass exodus of young people from cities like DC. Despite the groupthink here, I think it’s safe to say that prices can only go so high when young families have more options than they once did (you can move anywhere with telework and good jobs can be had basically anywhere). Also, the whole “____ is too conservative/southern” argument is losing steam because secondary cities are all flipping to blue zones.

The facts I've read on this state the opposite. In fact, more and more people are moving to the cities. By 2030 it's something like 10% more than today.

Yes, but NOT cities like NY/SF/Bos/DC. Millenials are flocking to the "second tier" cities like Denver, Richmond, etc.

If you look at state-to-state migration patterns, it's the blue, mainly northeastern (plus Illinois), states that are hemorrhaging their populations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/realestate/the-new-boomtowns-why-more-people-are-relocating-to-secondary-cities/2018/11/07/f55f96f4-d618-11e8-aeb7-ddcad4a0a54e_story.html

Just one in a long line of recent articles pointing to a mass exodus of young people from cities like DC. Despite the groupthink here, I think it’s safe to say that prices can only go so high when young families have more options than they once did (you can move anywhere with telework and good jobs can be had basically anywhere). Also, the whole “____ is too conservative/southern” argument is losing steam because secondary cities are all flipping to blue zones.

The facts I've read on this state the opposite. In fact, more and more people are moving to the cities. By 2030 it's something like 10% more than today.

By then the flyover red states will all be empty wastelands, but great for filming post-apocalyptic sci-fi flicks.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/realestate/the-new-boomtowns-why-more-people-are-relocating-to-secondary-cities/2018/11/07/f55f96f4-d618-11e8-aeb7-ddcad4a0a54e_story.html

Just one in a long line of recent articles pointing to a mass exodus of young people from cities like DC. Despite the groupthink here, I think it’s safe to say that prices can only go so high when young families have more options than they once did (you can move anywhere with telework and good jobs can be had basically anywhere). Also, the whole “____ is too conservative/southern” argument is losing steam because secondary cities are all flipping to blue zones.

The facts I've read on this state the opposite. In fact, more and more people are moving to the cities. By 2030 it's something like 10% more than today.

Anonymous wrote:DC is so expensive due to demand and low inventory that a lot of people can't afford to live there, so they buy where they can afford to live. That's pretty much the opposite of "over." What a strange argument.

I know. It reminds me of the late Yogi Berra, "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded".

I don't know if DC is over or not, but it's just so blah and cookie cutter anymore. I recently had visitors from out of town who used to live in DC in the 80's-90's and they were so disappointed. In so many neighborhood establishments there was not a minority in sight. They said it felt like they were in Clarendon!

Anonymous wrote:Being 'over' for one segment of the population doesn't mean 'over.'

lol if it's the young it does! you dinosaurs are soon going to die off.

I am happy for it. Turn those cities blue!

Anonymous wrote:We are a young decent/highish earning couple (HHI north of 200k) and never considered DC for reasons in this article. Mainly the price. DC is too expensive, not enough space, and doesnt offer a good commute at all. If our jobs werent central do the DC area we would not live here. I love visiting the city, but would never live there.

Same here!