Why are people leaving big cities?

[lawrocket 3]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/where-americans-are-moving-205531313.html?page=1

Quote

How about the biggest losers? From 2000-09, the metropolitan areas that suffered the biggest net domestic migration losses resemble something of an urbanist dream team: New York, which saw a net outflow of a whopping 1.9 million citizens, followed by the Los Angeles metro area (-1,337,522), Chicago, Detroit, and, despite recent improvements, San Francisco-Oakland. The raw numbers make it clear that California has lost its appeal for migrants from other parts of the U.S., and has become an exporter of people and talent (and income).
And despite the cheap money Bernanke-Geithner policies of the past few years that have benefited giant banks centered in the bluest big cities, people continue to leave these areas. The 2010-11 numbers show the deck chairs on the migratory titanic have stayed remarkably similar, with New York still ranking first among the 51 biggest metro areas for net migration losses, followed by Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit and Philadelphia. In most of these cases only immigration from abroad, and children of immigrants, have prevented a wholesale demographic decline.

I've got my ideas of why people are leaving...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

Housing crash resulting in exurban/suburban homes being more affordable would be my first guess.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

"When we said Obama should stop illegal immigration, we didn't mean for him to make the country suck so bad that they'd want to leave."

I've been waiting to use that quote for a while now. Not totally appropriate, but it fits.

Jobs are going away, costs are going up, conditions are deteriorating.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

affordable

This is my answer. It's not just homes being affordable. It's anything being affordable. Note that the five cities on top are from Texas and Florida - where there are no personal state income taxes. Washington (where Seattle is) also has no state income tax. Only Washington DC has an income tax of that list, but federal employment also has its perks.

The less the tax burden, the more affordable things are. Look at the tax burdens where people are leaving. The cost of living, even aside from housing. People are going from places that have less manufacturing and professional jobs (due, in my opinion, to the high cost of operating) and moving to places where taxes and the cost of doing business are lower.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Housing crash resulting in exurban/suburban homes being more affordable would be my first guess.

Are the suburbs not generally within the MSA of these cities? If so such moves would not count as out-migration.

[airdvr 197]

I can only speak about Chicago. Long weekend there this summer...holy crap is it expensive there.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kelpdiver 2]

frankly, I think the article (and you) are making an unfounded conclusion. The New York Metro area may have lost 2 million people (I'm skeptical), but NYC is booming with a hipster infestation. And while the article says the SF-Oakland is a loser, it said that SF is a grower. Try finding an apartment (or even a house/flat/condo) in The City...it's not trivial nor cheap. No shortage of people trying.

Now if you go back to the beginning of the decade when the dotbomb occurred, there was definitely outflow to places with more employment. But the overall trend is still towards big cities, not away, thanks to the awful commute and growing tendency of DINKs.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

NYC is booming with a hipster infestation

Yep. Not as much as last year's OWS Fleabaggers, though.

Quote

nd while the article says the SF-Oakland is a loser, it said that SF is a grower

Right. It bottomed out with the dot.com bubble and is not stabilized and growing a bit. But who lives in San Francisco? The very wealthy and the homeless.

Quote

But the overall trend is still towards big cities

The trend is toward other cities. It's not moving back to the rural. It isn't even flight to suburbia. It seems that people are finding that opportunities aren't in many cities (NY, LA, Chi-town) that match the costs of living there.

So they are going to other big cities where the costs are low and opportunities are available. I'm noting these to be places where taxes and regulation are low (DC aside).

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

nd while the article says the SF-Oakland is a loser, it said that SF is a grower

Right. It bottomed out with the dot.com bubble and is not stabilized and growing a bit. But who lives in San Francisco? The very wealthy and the homeless.

A lot more people than that. The aforementioned hipsters, other youngsters willing to share an apartment for $1000 each, and all the people who got in awhile ago when home prices and rents (controlled) were lower. I don't know how the 20somethings are doing it- I hear them talking on muni about their non job situations.

I had long thought that it was much more expensive to buy than to rent, but with the current interest rates, it's really about putting together a 20% down.

[base698 1]

When I lived and worked in the city this year it was common for 23 year olds with little experience to ask for 130k. The tech scene is booming.

[diverborg 0]

As a small towner that has to travel to NYC several times a year for business, its a no-brainer to me. I can't imagine how bad it would suck to have live in that city for so many reasons.

My total commute to work in a smaller town both ways combined is 20 minutes. I've got a 2,000 square foot house that I paid 120,000 for. Ten minute drive and I'm in the great wide open. I can buy a bottle of water less than $5. A Friday dinner date cost me only $30. I could go on and on. And I haven't even touched the "taxes" issue.

There's no way my wage increase for living in that area could come close to compensating for the expense of living their. I've looked into it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As a small towner that has to travel to NYC several times a year for business, its a no-brainer to me. I can't imagine how bad it would suck to have live in that city for so many reasons.

My total commute to work in a smaller town both ways combined is 20 minutes. I've got a 2,000 square foot house that I paid 120,000 for. Ten minute drive and I'm in the great wide open. I can buy a bottle of water less than $5. A Friday dinner date cost me only $30. I could go on and on. And I haven't even touched the "taxes" issue.

There's no way my wage increase for living in that area could come close to compensating for the expense of living their. I've looked into it.

Indeed, it's a different life. But the contrast to consider here is not small town versus big town, it's living in NYC versus living in nearly NJ or Connecticut, and taking a long commute in. I live on the western side of San Francisco and my commute on a bus to the eastern most point of Downtown can be as low as 18 minutes. (on a bad day for muni, considerably more) I can bicycle in in about 20 minutes as well, but it's a bit slower going home. When I lived in El Cerrito in the East Bay, it was 40-60 minutes.

The east bay offers bigger houses, yards, much lower population density, and (somewhat) lower housing prices. But now you have to drive across a bridge or take BART or a ferry.

As for your life, the biggest downside is typically the lack of options if you want to ditch your current job (or it ditches you). In the last couple months, I've been contacted about work at Apple, Linkedin, Mozilla, and a ton of tiny startups. Salaries are high, but so is cost of living. But one way to leverage that is to move on to the small town later.