53 minutes ago, TBideon said:

Is that true? I'm seeing we either gained 1900 (Google AI) or lost 3900 (worldpopulationreview.com).

 

Don't trust anything that's not actual census-year data from census.gov. Not even census bureau's data is consistent when you look at in-between yearly estimates depending on what source you use.

 

Cuyahoga County:

 

From Census Bureau's data.census.gov

ACS 2023 1-year = 1,233,088

ACS 2023 5-year = 1,249,418

 

From Census Bureau's Vintage 2024 posted by cbussoccer

2023 = 1,238,679

 

Anyways, it's all a mess. All that matters is 2030 actual numbers

 

39 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

has been passed by the Columbus MSA. 

 

Certainly wasn't a part of the original question, but whatever, message received 🙄

3 minutes ago, Geowizical said:

 

Certainly wasn't a part of the original question, but whatever, message received 🙄

 

Ummmm...ok?

Ohio Census / Population Trends & Lists

Sure if nice to see Cuyahoga County green.   And Summit County (Akron) bordering below it, green as well... heck, Stark (Canton) one more below, also green! 

Cincinnati metro continues population growth spurt, closes gap with peer cities
 

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2025/03/13/population-total-growth-census-columbus-nashville.html

If it wasn't for immigrants, Ohio and some of its cities wouldn't be growing

 

5 hours ago, Geowizical said:

 

Don't trust anything that's not actual census-year data from census.gov. Not even census bureau's data is consistent when you look at in-between yearly estimates depending on what source you use.

 

Cuyahoga County:

 

From Census Bureau's data.census.gov

ACS 2023 1-year = 1,233,088

ACS 2023 5-year = 1,249,418

 

From Census Bureau's Vintage 2024 posted by cbussoccer

2023 = 1,238,679

 

Anyways, it's all a mess. All that matters is 2030 actual numbers

 

Y'know what? The numbers are what we have, so I'll take good ones even with all the questionable methods.

 

FWIW, I think we were probably undercounted in 2020 due to the very poor response rate.

6 hours ago, bwheats said:

Census release as of 10am states growth.

 

Super interesting. And I am especially floored to see NJ still growing. The cost of living must not be the deterrent people think it is. 

1 hour ago, surfohio said:

 

Super interesting. And I am especially floored to see NJ still growing. The cost of living must not be the deterrent people think it is. 

Well, it is all relative. NJ is still way cheaper than NYC.

5 hours ago, KJP said:

If it wasn't for immigrants, Ohio and some of its cities wouldn't be growing

 

Perhaps it’s time to start encouraging Ohioans/Americans to have babies. 

From the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

 

Immigrants kept Ohio’s population from shrinking last year: The Wake Up for Friday, March 14, 2025

Updated: Mar. 14, 2025, 6:14 a.m.

|Published: Mar. 14, 2025, 6:03 a.m.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2025/03/immigrants-kept-ohios-population-from-shrinking-last-year-the-wake-up-for-friday-march-14-2025.html

16 hours ago, 646empire said:

Cincinnati metro continues population growth spurt, closes gap with peer cities
 

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2025/03/13/population-total-growth-census-columbus-nashville.html

Just hit 2.3M. The metro really needs to get back to the annual 1% growth range going forward - felt like we were gaining momentum and hit .88% this year. With all the anti-immigration policies now in place next year will be telling.

11 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

Perhaps it’s time to start encouraging Ohioans/Americans to have babies. 

 

Sure, then support better pay, more benefits, cheaper healthcare, better education, etc. There are tons of reasons people choose not to have kids now, and most of those issues are self-inflicted. And you'll never guess by who. 

Even with that, white people and Asians worldwide didn't have enough daughters in the past 40-50 years. They were more likely to stop having kids once they had a boy. Lots of only children that were boys unlike the first half of the 20th century where you had all of those farm girls from big families. That’s hard to recover from.

Edited March 14Mar 14 by GCrites

Good numbers for the Ohio metros.  Really exciting to see the acceleration in Cincy.  Let's hope that keeps up! 

 

12 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

Perhaps it’s time to start encouraging Ohioans/Americans to have babies. 

 

I see this cropping up more and more and it's not like I'm opposed in principle, but it feels like advocating skipping straight to Step 10 in assembly instructions.

 

We have a population that is less healthy, less wealthy, less religious, and less married, and somehow we marvel at the fact that it's producing fewer children.  Then we starting talking about needing more children.  Well, OK.  I'm often a skeptic of drumbeats to look back to "root causes," which are often disguised calls for inaction because root causes are often complex and disputed.  But in this case, the root causes aren't that difficult to identify and the real reason I think people flinch from talking about them is that they're hard to change.

 

I'm in a parish with mostly stable, married, middle-class-and-above Catholic families.  Groups of three and four children are common enough (my four certainly don't stand out here the way they would many other places), and we even have a tiny (but still large in any other setting by comparison) number of families with double-digit kids.  The issue is that that socioeconomic environment that just kind of results in reasonable-sized (or larger) families is increasingly rare.  And the government doesn't exactly have tremendous power to change it.

51 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

I see this cropping up more and more and it's not like I'm opposed in principle, but it feels like advocating skipping straight to Step 10 in assembly instructions.

 

We have a population that is less healthy, less wealthy, less religious, and less married, and somehow we marvel at the fact that it's producing fewer children.  Then we starting talking about needing more children.  Well, OK.  I'm often a skeptic of drumbeats to look back to "root causes," which are often disguised calls for inaction because root causes are often complex and disputed.  But in this case, the root causes aren't that difficult to identify and the real reason I think people flinch from talking about them is that they're hard to change.

 

I'm in a parish with mostly stable, married, middle-class-and-above Catholic families.  Groups of three and four children are common enough (my four certainly don't stand out here the way they would many other places), and we even have a tiny (but still large in any other setting by comparison) number of families with double-digit kids.  The issue is that that socioeconomic environment that just kind of results in reasonable-sized (or larger) families is increasingly rare.  And the government doesn't exactly have tremendous power to change it.

Exactly, many of the reasons for people having fewer children are cultural, not economic. If anything as societies get wealthier they tend to have fewer children. 

 

I do think economics matter, and I do think there's a proper role for the government to incentivize raising children (tax credits etc). That said, most of the analysis I have seen suggest that government interventions that have been tried have either no or minimal effect (<0.3) on the total fertility rate, and in some cases the effect is temporary. 

 

Many cultural trends that most people on this forum would view as a positive probably depress fertility. The real elephant in the room one, at least on this forum, is urbanization... ( https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/10653IIED.pdf )  Urbanization is inversely correlated with fertility.

 

 

I don't think that need be the case, and I think there are ways to mitigate that (see the podcast I posted in gentle density thread), but it's a problem. 

 

While it does sound trite, I actually think cultural elites having more children and encouraging others to do the same might have more of an impact than any governmental program. 

2 hours ago, Ethan said:

Exactly, many of the reasons for people having fewer children are cultural, not economic. If anything as societies get wealthier they tend to have fewer children. 

 

I do think economics matter, and I do think there's a proper role for the government to incentivize raising children (tax credits etc). That said, most of the analysis I have seen suggest that government interventions that have been tried have either no or minimal effect (<0.3) on the total fertility rate, and in some cases the effect is temporary. 

* * *

While it does sound trite, I actually think cultural elites having more children and encouraging others to do the same might have more of an impact than any governmental program. 

Also, once you have a kid and have to start bearing the costs, a lot of families will stop at one or two kids because they just can't afford (both time and money) more kids.  If you need two incomes to produce a living wage, and that wage is devoured by diapers and daycare, you don't have the bandwidth to take on more.  If society wants more children, we should make having kids less of a burden -- subsidize the hell out of early childcare.  Children are our future, and we should be investing in a healthy, happy, well-educated future.  (Unfortunately, a lot of people who think we should be having more children are cutting those "investments" because they see any government/societal spending as an "expense" rather than an investment.)

The thing about birth rates is that there's only one developed, urbanized, democratic country with a birth rate meaningfully above replacement. It's Israel, with 3 births per woman. There are no other countries that meet these criteria. If you sort countries by per capita GDP, the next richest quasi-democratic country with a birthrate meaningfully above replacement is Kazakhstan, which I would consider developing, not developed. 

 

There are a few middle eastern theocracies that have high per capita GDPs and relatively high birth rates, but I'm not counting them because they're not truly industrialized or developed. They're basically traditional societies that struck liquid gold and built cities in the desert with it.

 

So there's something about being in a modern industrialized country that just stops people from reproducing, and the only country that is immune is Israel.

 

You can talk about interventions like free day-care, etc. I think those are great. But the countries that have them usually have lower birthrates than we do, so it's obviously not a solution.

 

EDIT: Also, if you don't like per capita GDP, you can do it by HDI instead. Here's a handy graph showing that. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-vs-human-development-index Israel is the major outlier. 

Edited March 14Mar 14 by LlamaLawyer

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

(Unfortunately, a lot of people who think we should be having more children are cutting those "investments" because they see any government/societal spending as an "expense" rather than an investment.)

 

The expense framing is more accurate for most pro-natalist spending (whether expressly designated as such or not).  If you're going to call it an investment, you'd objectively have to state that the return on investment (if higher TFR is considered the return) is negligible.  Hungary has been throwing money at expressly pro-natalist policies for a long time now with almost no success.  And many more European countries have generous family leave policies, publicly funded or subsidized daycare, shorter working hours, etc. than the US and have worse birthrates than we do.

 

While it's technically true to say that there's a mix of social and cultural factors in play, I don't think that mix is anything close to 50-50.  It's more like 80%+ cultural and beyond the reach of government policy at any level, federal, state, or local.  We can still support pro-family policies, including urban policies that are of considerable interest to many on these forums--land use regulations that won't ultimately require everyone to be earning six figures to afford a starter home, urban design that allows families to live with one or even zero cars, remote-work policies that allow people who have settled into a community to take new jobs by choice or necessity without being forced to uproot families from supportive neighborhood environments, etc.  I'm all for those things, but it's unrealistic to expect those to result in larger families unless they're accompanied by other, much more dramatic changes on the cultural side that public policy has comparatively little ability to influence.  Government can help make nice towns to settle down in, but it can't provide you with a good person to settle down with.

My wife and I have no kids and don’t plan on having any kids. 
 

The main reason is we both don’t want them, for no reason other than not wanting them. 
 

The second reason is financially, we both enjoy what we do and know that we would have to find different jobs to afford a child, and we aren’t willing to do that. 
 

The third reason is that we both think bringing children into a world as broken and messed up as it is, would be incredibly selfish. 
 

Any changes in cost of living, better leave for having kids and any other laws that make it easier, still wouldn’t convince us to have children. 

33 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

The expense framing is more accurate for most pro-natalist spending (whether expressly designated as such or not).  If you're going to call it an investment, you'd objectively have to state that the return on investment (if higher TFR is considered the return) is negligible.  Hungary has been throwing money at expressly pro-natalist policies for a long time now with almost no success.  And many more European countries have generous family leave policies, publicly funded or subsidized daycare, shorter working hours, etc. than the US and have worse birthrates than we do.

While it may be difficult to quantify, better early assistance to poor children (food, safety, education, healthcare) has been shown to be positively correlated with better outcomes for adulthood.  That is an investment work making, even if it doesn't lead to more families having double-digit numbers of kids. 

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

While it may be difficult to quantify, better early assistance to poor children (food, safety, education, healthcare) has been shown to be positively correlated with better outcomes for adulthood.  That is an investment work making, even if it doesn't lead to more families having double-digit numbers of kids. 

 

I think this is true and worthwhile but it won't lead to more kids. We need international migration to grow.

4 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

The thing about birth rates is that there's only one developed, urbanized, democratic country with a birth rate meaningfully above replacement. It's Israel, with 3 births per woman. There are no other countries that meet these criteria. If you sort countries by per capita GDP, the next richest quasi-democratic country with a birthrate meaningfully above replacement is Kazakhstan, which I would consider developing, not developed. 

 

 

Is that yearly. it seems impossible, unless they are all having triplets.

I know all the practical reasons, but if you have the chance bring kids into this world. They will figure all this s**t out and make nice little mirrors. ;)

Edited March 15Mar 15 by Cincy13

5 hours ago, Cincy13 said:

I know all the practical reasons, but if you have the chance bring kids into this world. They will figure all this s**t out and make nice little mirrors. ;)

 

The most humbling experience as a parent is watching your kids act exactly like you--and realizing how annoying it is. 😂 😱

12 hours ago, unusualfire said:

Is that yearly. it seems impossible, unless they are all having triplets.

This is the average lifetime births per woman. In order for a society to sustain itself the average woman must have 2.1 children (the .1 accounts for illness, defects, etc). If the average woman has fewer children than this the total population for the society will shrink exponentially depending on how far below the replacement rate they are. South Korea has a birth rate so low that by the time they reach the great grandchildren of the current generation they will have about 4% of their current population. At a certain point this is an existential crisis, it puts tremendous stress on retirement services (more old people than working) and de-densifies the country.

 

The problem with immigration as a solution is that it appears to be unsustainable in that it doesn't actually solve the problem, and it seems to exacerbate many of the problems that create low birthrates in the first place. Certainly the economic ones. Every country that has tried the high immigration strategy has either depressed their birth rate further (certainly in the non immigrant population), or made no difference. It creates a loop where more and more immigrants are needed just to sustain the population; it's not a sustainable solution, and everywhere it's been tried it has moved the country towards the far right of the political spectrum. We need a real solution that recognizes low birth rates are the problem, not the declining population. Something is wrong if people aren't having children, whether it's their choice or an economic issue there is a problem in the future or economy that needs addressed. If not the society will wither and die. As has happened to many societies before. 

 

Realistically, I think the solution needs to come from both a cultural shift, and from government promotion of strong families. That means we have to make marriage and having children cool again. We need big families to be viewed as a sign of success. The rich aught to be having 5+ kids. It aught to be viewed as a duty to bring the children you can afford into this world. 

 

To the extent the issue is actually affording children the government should help out where they can, the problem is that children are expensive, and while government can soften their burden, there's no way the government can subsidize children enough to change that fact. Meaningful subsidies for child rearing would be untenably expensive, perhaps we could do so at the expense of other social welfare programs, but at a certain point it starts to seem like you are punishing the childless. Which seems ethically dubious given how many childless people wanted to have children and found they couldn't for one reason or another. 

 

That's a whole another angle to this issue, physically people are on average less fertile than they used to be, at least that has been the trend as far back as we have data. Lots of hypothesis have been suggested that I've seen, micro plastics, obesity, etc, but there isn't a consensus on the cause. 

 

The point is that it's a multifaceted problem and anyone who says it's as simple as subsidizing raising children or bringing in more immigrants is oversimplifying the problem. You simply can't meaningfully address this issue without addressing culture, economics, and health. 

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

This is the average lifetime births per woman. In order for a society to sustain itself the average woman must have 2.1 children (the .1 accounts for illness, defects, etc). If the average woman has fewer children than this the total population for the society will shrink exponentially depending on how far below the replacement rate they are. South Korea has a birth rate so low that by the time they reach the great grandchildren of the current generation they will have about 4% of their current population. At a certain point this is an existential crisis, it puts tremendous stress on retirement services (more old people than working) and de-densifies the country.

 

The problem with immigration as a solution is that it appears to be unsustainable in that it doesn't actually solve the problem, and it seems to exacerbate many of the problems that create low birthrates in the first place. Certainly the economic ones. Every country that has tried the high immigration strategy has either depressed their birth rate further (certainly in the non immigrant population), or made no difference. It creates a loop where more and more immigrants are needed just to sustain the population; it's not a sustainable solution, and everywhere it's been tried it has moved the country towards the far right of the political spectrum. We need a real solution that recognizes low birth rates are the problem, not the declining population. Something is wrong if people aren't having children, whether it's their choice or an economic issue there is a problem in the future or economy that needs addressed. If not the society will wither and die. As has happened to many societies before. 

 

Realistically, I think the solution needs to come from both a cultural shift, and from government promotion of strong families. That means we have to make marriage and having children cool again. We need big families to be viewed as a sign of success. The rich aught to be having 5+ kids. It aught to be viewed as a duty to bring the children you can afford into this world. 

 

To the extent the issue is actually affording children the government should help out where they can, the problem is that children are expensive, and while government can soften their burden, there's no way the government can subsidize children enough to change that fact. Meaningful subsidies for child rearing would be untenably expensive, perhaps we could do so at the expense of other social welfare programs, but at a certain point it starts to seem like you are punishing the childless. Which seems ethically dubious given how many childless people wanted to have children and found they couldn't for one reason or another. 

 

That's a whole another angle to this issue, physically people are on average less fertile than they used to be, at least that has been the trend as far back as we have data. Lots of hypothesis have been suggested that I've seen, micro plastics, obesity, etc, but there isn't a consensus on the cause. 

 

The point is that it's a multifaceted problem and anyone who says it's as simple as subsidizing raising children or bringing in more immigrants is oversimplifying the problem. You simply can't meaningfully address this issue without addressing culture, economics, and health. 

So I don’t have the solution but I think there is another way to look at this problem.  Given the vast increase in productivity, we actually need way fewer people to produce the same standard of living.  The problem is one of distribution rather than a lack of people to do the work, especially if AI ends up as disruptive as feared.  Technology could be the solution if the benefits of productivity growth are more equitably shared.  
 

Focusing on that problem instead might be better for us and the planet.  

Maybe the problem isn't low birthrates.  Maybe the problem is a society and economy that is built to only work when constant growth can be assumed.  Maybe we need to restructure society such that low birthrates won't cause a collapse.  The planet will thank us.

On 3/13/2025 at 5:02 PM, KJP said:

If it wasn't for immigrants, Ohio and some of its cities wouldn't be growing

 

We'll have to wait for more detailed releases to find out where the immigrants are from.  About 50% Ukrainian?

18 hours ago, unusualfire said:

Is that yearly. it seems impossible, unless they are all having triplets.

No, lol. It’s TFR.

8 hours ago, Dougal said:

We'll have to wait for more detailed releases to find out where the immigrants are from.  About 50% Ukrainian?

 

Nah. Top groups are probably India, Mexico, and China. A bunch of others like Guatemala, Bhutan, and Haiti are probably higher than Ukraine too.

Edited March 16Mar 16 by DEPACincy

Eh … probably only Cuyahoga County on the Ukrainians specifically.  
 

https://www.freshwatercleveland.com/features/Ukrainian_Refugees_032023.aspx

 

Safe haven: 5,000 Ukrainians have arrived in NEO over the past year

 

Which basically accounts for Cuyahoga County showing a gain finally in back to back years. 

47 minutes ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

Eh … probably only Cuyahoga County on the Ukrainians specifically.  
 

https://www.freshwatercleveland.com/features/Ukrainian_Refugees_032023.aspx

 

Safe haven: 5,000 Ukrainians have arrived in NEO over the past year

 

Which basically accounts for Cuyahoga County showing a gain finally in back to back years. 

Although Cleveland and Cuyahoga County might get these gains taken away!  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/15/trump-administration-tps-ukraine-cleveland

 

Trump threats to revoke status unsettle Ohio’s Ukrainians: ‘The stress is real’

 

Thousands of Ukrainians who call Cleveland home are in limbo as fate of temporary protected status remains murky

And:

 

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/we-follow-through/clevelanders-share-their-concerns-for-ukrainians-they-helped-through-a-now-paused-sponsorship-program

 

Clevelanders share their concerns for Ukrainians they helped through a now-paused sponsorship program

Edited March 16Mar 16 by MuRrAy HiLL

half the people in the usa live in only 142 counties —

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/DIS_7I0MhHH/?igsh=MTl6MXQyemF1OXpvMQ==

Overwhelming majority of Ohio homebuyers not looking out of state

 

With Ohio becoming a top state for business, residents are content to stay put rather than seek a new life across the country. In two states, Ohio was also listed as a top destination for those looking to move.

...

The study found 90.5% of Ohioans seeking to purchase a home are looking in-state - making it the No.4 state for most loyal residents. Only 9.5% are looking to buy out of state with the top destination being Florida.

 

For every 100 Ohioans looking to buy out of state, Ohio attracted 88 out-of-state buyers.

 

Holding its own in retaining its current residents, Ohio was also listed as the “top destination” state for residents in:

• West Virginia – 19.6% of buyers are looking to buy out of state with Ohio listed as the top destination
• Kentucky – 12.9% of buyers looking out of state with Ohio listed as the top destination.

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/news/2025/04/23/ohio-residents-are-no4-most-loyal-in-the-country.html

 

^

40 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

With Ohio becoming a top state for business, residents are content to stay put rather than seek a new life across the country. In two states, Ohio was also listed as a top destination for those looking to move.

 

that article reads like Sponsored Content

9 hours ago, Enginerd said:

^

that article reads like Sponsored Content

Missing in those analyses are the fact that most of West Virginia's population lives on the Ohio border; it's like saying 20% of Chicagoans are considering a move to Indiana, not because it's Indiana, but because it's right next door. Likewise Kentuckians - probably also willing to move to New Albany. 

55 minutes ago, westerninterloper said:

Missing in those analyses are the fact that most of West Virginia's population lives on the Ohio border; it's like saying 20% of Chicagoans are considering a move to Indiana, not because it's Indiana, but because it's right next door. Likewise Kentuckians - probably also willing to move to New Albany. 

 

Not true. About 22% of West Virginians and 11% of Kentuckians live in Ohio border counties. There's some density along the Ohio River, but the densest places in WV are Charleston and the Clarksburg to Morgantown corridor. For Kentucky, the Ohio River adjacent counties are overshadowed by Louisville and Lexington. Kenton and Boone Counties do have some population density though. Those two make up about 60% of Kentuckians living on the Ohio border.

21 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

For every 100 Ohioans looking to buy out of state, Ohio attracted 88 out-of-state buyers.

 

This is not good. 

13 hours ago, Rustbelter said:

This is not good. 

That number will probably only get worse. The more laws this government tries to pass, that weakens education, healthcare or personal rights will be another family leaving, or trying to leave. 

On 4/23/2025 at 10:14 PM, ColDayMan said:

For every 100 Ohioans looking to buy out of state, Ohio attracted 88 out-of-state buyers.

 

How many of these 100 are Florida-bound and retired?   The folks moving into Ohio are probably more productive and likely to reproduce. 

2 hours ago, VintageLife said:

That number will probably only get worse. The more laws this government tries to pass, that weakens education, healthcare or personal rights will be another family leaving, or trying to leave. 

I'm as opposed to these laws as the next guy, but I'm skeptical they make much of a population difference. Here's a map of current population trends. The biggest winners are not exactly progressive havens.

 

2 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I'm as opposed to these laws as the next guy, but I'm skeptical they make much of a population difference. Here's a map of current population trends. The biggest winners are not exactly progressive havens.

 

It would be interesting to see what political party those moving to mor red states are and what states they are coming from. Are there a bunch of republicans leaving California and going to Texas, is the red Ohio population going to Florida? In the end people move where they can afford to live, so you’re probably right that it doesn’t always matter. 

Then you've got Miami, which isn't so much of a Red destination, pulling people in as well.

On 4/23/2025 at 10:54 PM, Enginerd said:

^

that article reads like Sponsored Content

 

I got banned from commenting on clecom and all its affiliates, apparently for pointing this out on another article.

41 minutes ago, GCrites said:

Then you've got Miami, which isn't so much of a Red destination, pulling people in as well.

 

Dade County went 55% for DJT and other GOP candidates did well there.   DeSantis carried it in 2022 as well.

 

9 hours ago, VintageLife said:

That number will probably only get worse. The more laws this government tries to pass, that weakens education, healthcare or personal rights will be another family leaving, or trying to leave. 

Not trying to get into a political discussion, but the exact opposite of what you're saying is happening. I doubt many people are moving for political reasons. They're moving where they can get the best job/house/neighborhood/weather for their needs. 

 

https://www.resiclubanalytics.com/p/net-domestic-migration-which-states-are-gaining-and-losing-americans

 

Link to map: Net domestic migration: Which states are gaining—and losing—Americans

 

 

Edited April 25Apr 25 by Rustbelter

31 minutes ago, Rustbelter said:

 

Not trying to get into a political discussion, but the exact opposite of what you're saying is happening. I doubt many people are moving for political reasons. They're moving where they can get the best job/house/neighborhood/weather for their needs. 

 

https://www.resiclubanalytics.com/p/net-domestic-migration-which-states-are-gaining-and-losing-americans

 

Link to map: Net domestic migration: Which states are gaining—and losing—Americans

 

 

Yeah, I did say that in a later comment, in the end people are moving to where they can afford to live.