Wikinvest Wire

California tops list of biggest losers

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Residents of the Golden State continue to vote with their feet, at least based on this CNN/Money report on domestic migration where California's net loss leads the nation.

#1 California
Net loss: 98,798 residents

For years more people have fled the Golden State than have arrived. In the year ended July 1, California was the country's biggest loser, with nearly 100,000 more residents leaving than moving in.

Still, that was an improvement over earlier losses: In 2006 the net decline was 313,081.

Much of that improvement came from the housing bubble bursting. Homes became harder to sell as thousands of foreclosures sat on the market. As a result, many Californians stayed on rather than sell their homes at a loss.

Mobility in the weak economy has declined in general, according to demographer Greg Harper of the Census Bureau. There's no point in moving to find work if few jobs are available in most parts of the country.
New York was just a hair behind California, followed by Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio. Not surprisingly, Texas leads the U.S. in net inward migration and Wyoming has the fastest growth rate, albeit starting at a very low base, its current population just 533,000. By the way, the Census Bureau provides a wealth of population data online via QuickFacts.

Bookmark and Share


Ted S. said...

I heard that money flows from the U.S. to Mexico reversed sometime last year as more Mexican families sent funds north instead of south. Does anyone know if this has continued or if population flows between the U.S. and Mexico have reversed?

Anonymous said...

I would like to move out of Calif and into Gitmo. Does anyone know how to apply for residency?

Anonymous said...

A little misleading; e.g., CA has 3.5 times the population of MI, and FL's pop. is nearly twice that of MI. Still, the trends are correctly identified -- populations follow jobs, and the the rust belt and coastal blue states cannot compete with the sun belt for the latter, unless you're talking about gov't workers.

Tim said...

Yes, it is misleading - they should have provided a figure as a percentage of the population.

bevo said...

Another issue concerning this report is who are the people who moved. Are these people with children or in child bearing years (20s and 30s) or are these middle age workers (40s and 50s) who are easily re-trainable or hire-able.

I work at a college in a state that is losing population. Given our over reliance on in-state students, are we losing our future students?

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't worry about a shortage of students in CA, especially as the universities are already packed and admissions have been drastically cut due to state budget issues (with no end in sight). And everyone wants a degree. Actually you need more than a degree. For anything more than base survival in a place as expensive as CA, you need at rather high paying job.

  © Blogger template Newspaper by 2008

Back to TOP