The Midwest vs. South in Regional Domestic Migration in 2016




regional domestic migration in 2016

For years, if not decades, we’ve been hearing a familiar tale- that anyone and everyone is moving from the Midwest and Northeast to the South and West. This trend began during and after the collapse of Northern manufacturing, and as higher cost of living began to make the lower-cost South more attractive in particular. However, a lot of the South’s growth over the years- indeed a majority- never had anything to do with region-to-region migration. Instead, it was due largely to natural growth (births vs. deaths) and international migration, particularly from Central America. What received all the attention, though, was the belief that people were packing up and moving to the South from places like Ohio and other struggling Northern states. While that may have been true for a while, that is increasingly looking like it is no longer the case.

The Midwest, especially, has been derided as the region no one wants to live in. Despite its growing population approaching 66 million people, the common refrain was that its colder winters, flailing economies and questionable demographic future meant that it was simply a region being left behind by the booming Southern states.

Recently, the US Census released estimates for 2015-2016 geographic mobility, and they tell a very different story altogether. Regional domestic migration in 2016 may have actually bucked the trends.

First, let’s look at the total domestic migration moving to the Midwest from other regions.
South to Midwest: +309,000
West to Midwest: +72,000
Northeast to Midwest: +61,000
Total to Midwest: +442,000

And then compare that to the total that the Midwest sends to other regions.
Midwest to South: -254,000
Midwest to West: -224,000
Midwest to Northeast: -34,000
Total from Midwest: -512,000

Net difference by region.
Midwest vs. South: +55,000
Midwest vs. West: -152,000
Midwest vs. Northeast: +27,000
Total Net: -70,000

So while the Midwest is seeing an overall net domestic migration loss, it is entirely to the Western states.

This could just be an off year, as almost all recent years showed losses to the South, but then again, maybe not. The South has been in a boom for several decades now, and in that time, the region still lags the other 3 in almost every quality of life metric used. All booms end eventually, and the South’s 2 biggest perceived advantages, low cost of living and business-friendly climate, have been gradually eroding over time. As Census surveys show, people don’t actually move for a change in weather, so it’s the economic factors that are going to make the biggest impacts long-term. The Midwest now has many cities and several states that are doing well economically, including Columbus, and perhaps they are becoming more attractive than they have in many years. Time will tell, but last year, the narrative of an unattractive Midwest vs. South was at least temporarily shelved.

Columbus’ Peer Foreign-Born Comparison




The Census just came out with 2015 demographic numbers for all places with at least 65,000 people. Given that half the decade is over, it’s a good point to look at where Columbus stands relative to its national/Midwest peers in a foreign-born comparison. A few days ago, I gave numbers for GDP. In the next few posts, I will look at the people that make up the populations of these places.

First up, let’s take a look at foreign-born populations. I have looked at this topic some in the past, but I have never done a full-scale comparison for this topic.

Total Foreign-Born Population Rank by City 2000, 2010 and 2015
2000—————————————-2010———————————-2015

1. Chicago, IL: 628,903———–1. Chicago: 557,674—————1. Chicago: 573,463
2. San Jose, CA: 329,750——–2. San Jose: 366,194————-2. San Jose: 401,493
3. San Antonio, TX: 133,675—-3. San Antonio: 192,741———-3. San Antonio: 208,046
4. Austin, TX: 109,006————4. Austin: 148,431——————4. Austin: 181,686
5. Las Vegas, NV: 90,656——-5. Las Vegas: 130,503————-5. Charlotte: 128,897
6. Sacramento, CA: 82,616—–6. Chalotte: 106,047—————6. Las Vegas: 127,609
7. Portland, OR: 68,976———7. Sacramento: 96,105————-7. Sacramento: 112,579
8. Charlotte, NC: 59,849——–8. Columbus: 86,663—————-8. Columbus: 101,129
9. Minneapolis, MN: 55,475—–9. Portland: 83,026—————–9. Nashville: 88,193
10. Columbus: 47,713———–10. Indianapolis: 74,407———–10. Portland: 86,041
11. Milwaukee, WI: 46,122—–11. Nashville: 73,327—————11. Indianapolis: 72,456
12. Detroit, MI: 45,541———–12. Minneapolis: 57,846———–12. Minneapolis: 70,769
13. Providence, RI: 43,947—–13. Milwaukee: 57,222————-13. Milwaukee: 58,321
14. Nashville, TN: 38,936——-14. Providence: 52,926————14. Providence: 53,532
15. Indianapolis, IN: 36,067—-15. Orlando: 43,747—————-15. Orlando: 50,558
16. Virginia Beach, VA: 28,276–16. Virginia Beach: 40,756—–16. Omaha: 48,263
17. Orlando, FL: 26,741———17. Omaha: 39,288—————–17. Detroit: 39,861
18. Omaha, NE: 25,687———18. Kansas City: 35,532———18. Virginia Beach: 38,360
19. Kansas City, MO: 25,632—19. Detroit: 34,307—————-19. Kansas City: 37,787
20. Cleveland: 21,372————20. St. Louis: 23,011————–20. Pittsburgh: 28,187
21. Grand Rapids, MI: 20,814–21. Pittsburgh: 18,698————21. St. Louis: 21,802
22. St Louis, MO: 19,542——-22. Cleveland: 17,739————-22. Grand Rapids: 19,176
23. Pittsburgh, PA: 18,874—–23. Grand Rapids: 16,615——–23. Cleveland: 18,830
24. Cincinnati: 12,461———–24. Cincinnati: 16,531————-24. Cincinnati: 16,896
25. Toledo: 9,475—————–25. Toledo: 11,559—————–25. Akron: 10,024
26. Akron: 6,911——————26. Akron: 8,524——————–26. Toledo: 9,257
27. Dayton: 3,245—————-27. Dayton: 5,102——————-27. Dayton: 7,381
28. Youngstown: 1,605———28. Youngstown: 3,695————28. Youngstown: 1,058

Here’s the 2000-2015 total change.
foreign-born comparison

And the 2000-2015 change by %.

So Columbus has an above average total and growth compared to its peers nationally.