Maricopa County Added Over 222 People Per Day in 2016, More Than Any Other County

[Omaharocks]

^ Well, I'd say anecdotally that evidence of the divergent economies of U.S. cities is supported by all the obnoxious skyscraperpage posts coming out of NY, SF etc that have dominated the discussion boards in recent years, with bloated posturing about bullshit like millionaires per capita and where all the luxury units are being built.

[Crawford]

The Census has household income data by City/MSA/CSA. The share of high end wealth has actually grown in the high-cost metros.

At least for those of working age, the losses to the Sunbelt are overwhelmingly working class households. And, again, this isn't my conjecture, it's Census data.

Just look at the counties that gained in the high-cost metros, and they're the most expensive, wealthy counties, and those that lost are the cheapest, working class counties. The idea that people are moving to Sunbelt sprawl to escape high costs doesn't appear to be supported by the data.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Census has household income data by City/MSA/CSA. The share of high end wealth has actually grown in the high-cost metros.

At least for those of working age, the losses to the Sunbelt are overwhelmingly working class households. And, again, this isn't my conjecture, it's Census data.

Just look at the counties that gained in the high-cost metros, and they're the most expensive, wealthy counties, and those that lost are the cheapest, working class counties. The idea that people are moving to Sunbelt sprawl to escape high costs doesn't appear to be supported by the data.

What? Census data exactly supports the conclusion that people are moving to the sunbelt to escape high costs for the very reasons you stated in your own post.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Census has household income data by City/MSA/CSA. The share of high end wealth has actually grown in the high-cost metros.

At least for those of working age, the losses to the Sunbelt are overwhelmingly working class households. And, again, this isn't my conjecture, it's Census data.

Just look at the counties that gained in the high-cost metros, and they're the most expensive, wealthy counties, and those that lost are the cheapest, working class counties. The idea that people are moving to Sunbelt sprawl to escape high costs doesn't appear to be supported by the data.

???

I agree with urban. Thats exactly what the data is showing.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

What? Census data exactly supports the conclusion that people are moving to the sunbelt to escape high costs for the very reasons you stated in your own post.

Crawford loves to contradict himself, or maybe he only considers the wealthy as "people".

The ones moving to the sunbelt must be subhumans.

[YSL]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

???

I agree with urban. Thats exactly what the data is showing.

Perhaps he made a typo because that is precisely what the data shows.

[Leo the Dog]

I was amazed to find that LA County experienced overall negative growth from 2015 to 2016, losing 32k. Doesn't seem accurate, but it's on the census website, which I'm not super familiar with.
2015: 10,170,292
2016: 10,137,915

Orange County was pop growth was basically flat, gaining under 3k
2015: 3,169,776
2016: 3,172,532

San Diego County +18k
2015: 3,299,521
2016: 3,317,749

Maricopa County has a higher percentage in the 0-18 age group than all 3 southern CA counties, which again goes against what is commonly believed.

Census.gov

On a side note, I could see Riverside County exploding with growth over the next 5-10 years. I've driven through Menifee, Hemet, Temecula and there are huge swaths of empty farmland with arterial roads in place, alongside freeways and rail connections. 2010-2016 it grew by 9%, it's still relatively cheap and within striking distance to SD/LA/OC.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I was amazed to find that LA County experienced overall negative growth from 2015 to 2016, losing 32k. Doesn't seem accurate, but it's on the census website, which I'm not super familiar with.

It didn't. LA County grew fairly robustly. I don't think there's been a year in modern history when LA County didn't grow.

LA County has massive net domestic outmigration, but that's expected. Gateway cities with tons of immigrants almost always have net domestic outmigration.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

Crawford loves to contradict himself, or maybe he only considers the wealthy as "people".

The ones moving to the sunbelt must be subhumans.

Yes, because citing Census data means that people are subhumans. Welcome to Alternative Facts, SSP version.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It didn't. LA County grew fairly robustly. I don't think there's been a year in modern history when LA County didn't grow.

LA County has massive net domestic outmigration, but that's expected. Gateway cities with tons of immigrants almost always have net domestic outmigration.

That's what I thought and was 99.99% sure of, but what is it I'm looking at on the census site that makes it appear as if it had a 32k drop from 2015-2016 at the county level? The drop was overall population, not just domestic migration.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

That's what I thought and was 99.99% sure of, but what is it I'm looking at on the census site that makes it appear as if it had a 32k drop from 2015-2016 at the county level? The drop was overall population, not just domestic migration.

Yes it does look like the census estimates has LA County losing population. Interesting. I am the only one who has noticed that the first census estimates to come out under the new administration has certain liberal Counties losing population all of the sudden or growth slowing after the opposite was happening under the previous administration? I was expecting the big census fight to come in 2020 with a strong push to undercount immigrants in large cities.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, because citing Census data means that people are subhumans. Welcome to Alternative Facts, SSP version.

Except that not what I said at all HAHAHA.

This was a feeble attempt rebuttal or you just suck at reading comprehension.

[Hamilton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Just look at the counties that gained in the high-cost metros, and they're the most expensive, wealthy counties, and those that lost are the cheapest, working class counties. The idea that people are moving to Sunbelt sprawl to escape high costs doesn't appear to be supported by the data.

The complete opposite is true. In fact, even *within* NYC, affordability correlates perfectly with population growth. The Bronx gained the most, followed by Queens, followed by Brooklyn, and Manhattan had the slowest growth. And Hudson County beat all four. Yes, the suburban counties fared worse, but that's another story. People appear to be looking for an urban lifestyle, but within their budgets. And if they can't get that (increasingly the case because there isn't enough new housing), they move to the Sunbelt.


As the increased desirability of urban living has come up against the constrained housing supply, the resultant soaring housing costs have finally started to take a bite out of urban growth. Growth slowed in all the cities with insanely restrictive growth policies in the past year, including SF and NYC, and accelerated in places with cheap housing.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Census.gov

On a side note, I could see Riverside County exploding with growth over the next 5-10 years. I've driven through Menifee, Hemet, Temecula and there are huge swaths of empty farmland with arterial roads in place, alongside freeways and rail connections. 2010-2016 it grew by 9%, it's still relatively cheap and within striking distance to SD/LA/OC.

I think Riverside/San Bernadino was one of the fasting growing counties before the real estate bust in the mid 2006. makes logical sense for LA folks to move there if they decide to stay in the state and don't mind the horrendous commute to LA.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I think Riverside/San Bernadino was one of the fasting growing counties before the real estate bust in the mid 2006. makes logical sense for LA folks to move there if they decide to stay in the state and don't mind the horrendous commute to LA.

I know a guy that commutes from Temecula (Riverside County) to Downtown SD 5 days/week - approx. 60 miles each way. Typical commute is about 1.5 hours each way, although on Friday it's can be well over 2 hours.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

Except that not what I said at all HAHAHA.

This was a feeble attempt rebuttal or you just suck at reading comprehension.

No, that's exactly what you wrote.

If you intended to write something different, then tell us. But I cited Census data, and you responded that citing of Census data means people are subhuman, which is beyond bizarre.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I think Riverside/San Bernadino was one of the fasting growing counties before the real estate bust in the mid 2006. makes logical sense for LA folks to move there if they decide to stay in the state and don't mind the horrendous commute to LA.

In CA there are also climatic issues to consider. The "Inland Empire", as the 2 counties at issue are known, is desert and HOT as opposed to the moderate Mediterranean climate one experiences closer to the ocean. That not only matters to the enjoyment of life outdoors but also heating and cooling bills. Rent may be a lot higher by the water, but you hardly ever need to artificially control the temperature for upwards of $100/month.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Yes it does look like the census estimates has LA County losing population.

Where are you seeing this? LA County grew in the last estimates, as it has grown in every estimate since forever.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

The complete opposite is true. In fact, even *within* NYC, affordability correlates perfectly with population growth.

I don't know what you're talking about. First all of NYC is unaffordable, so it makes no sense to compare within a city that is 100% expensive. There is no place, anywhere, within NYC limits that is remotely affordable for typical American standards. The whole city should be losing population according to your theory.

Second, Manhattan has the highest population growth in NYC, and is most unaffordable, while Staten Island has the slowest population growth and is least unaffordable.

Yes, within NYC, affordability generally correlates well with population growth. The least affordable areas generally have the fastest growth (except for rich landmarked areas, which can't grow). But that's irrelevent, because the entire city is unaffordable.

Originally Posted by Hamilton

As the increased desirability of urban living has come up against the constrained housing supply, the resultant soaring housing costs have finally started to take a bite out of urban growth. Growth slowed in all the cities with insanely restrictive growth policies in the past year, including SF and NYC, and accelerated in places with cheap housing.

This is all nonsense. The cities with the cheapest housing had the worst population numbers, and the cities with the most expensive housing had the best population numbers.

Among the older U.S. cities, the biggest gainers are all expensive, NIMBY cities: NYC, DC, Boston, SF. The biggest losers are all cheaper, pro-development cities: Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Chicago (though a somewhat different type of city than the others), etc.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Where are you seeing this? LA County grew in the last estimates, as it has grown in every estimate since forever.

Gained a lot of population since 2010 but it shows a tiny loss between 2015 - 2016.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ta...45215/06037,06