October 25, 20213 yr 16 minutes ago, DEPACincy said: It is a fact that young people tend to be more liberal, especially socially. I don't disagree with that. Migration data suggests that they are willing to overlook that, however, for things like a good job and better weather/nature. Otherwise, many states that are growing wouldn't be growing. Edited October 25, 20213 yr by TH3BUDDHA
October 25, 20213 yr 8 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said: Well, Pugu, which is who I was originally replying to with the definition, was directly doing that. But: But, if you aren't suggesting that state level GOP politics affects interstate migration, then we have nothing else to discuss because we aren't really disagreeing on anything. I'm certainly not making the argument that people seek out conservative politics. I think the migration data suggests that there isn't really much of a correlation at all, which is why I don't think it's really a valid argument. People move for jobs, nature, and weather, which you agreed with with your comment on the weather in Texas and Florida. However, I don't really think the weather argument holds up as well in states like Tennessee and Georgia. We're just going past one another. Conservative politics alone don't control migration, but they don't help, and the exclusive focus on them comes at the expense of useful policy. Basically, I'm saying that the GOP, aside from being morally reprehensible, just suck at their jobs. Regressive states can grow because they offer more than just regressive politics. Ohio isn't even trying to offer more than that right now, even as the only places growing in the state at least give the perception that they do. Edited October 25, 20213 yr by jonoh81
October 25, 20213 yr 41 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: We're just going past one another. I really don't think we are. I think we just heavily disagree on this: 41 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: but it doesn't help I don't really think it matters in any statistically meaningful amounts, at all, and you seem to think it does. Are there anecdotes from a politically vocal minority? Absolutely. In fact we see these anecdotes from both sides. Personally, I think the data agrees with me that there isn't a really strong correlation between state level politics and which states young people migrate to, as we see both rapidly growing red states and rapidly growing blue states. You seem to disagree with this. But, I personally don't feel you have made a compelling argument for how you KNOW that state GOP politics are definitely playing a role in preventing people from coming here in relevant numbers. Sure, you may FEEL they do, but that doesn't hold up. I DEFINITELY don't believe that there is a "ploy" to actively prevent young people from moving here as you originally commented. Edited October 25, 20213 yr by TH3BUDDHA
October 25, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, jonoh81 said: he's kind of ignoring that even if conservative social positions aren't preventing people from moving to Ohio, state government focusing on divisive social issues rather than creating conditions to make Ohio more attractive absolutely does. I think it's unfair to say this, as I literally brought up Senate Bill 39, a bill introduced by Republicans to accomplish exactly this. Just because you don't agree that it's "enough" or "will work" doesn't invalidate it as an attempt. I think we need to wait and see how it does before you can say those things, anyway. Maybe it will be quite successful. How would you know? Edited October 25, 20213 yr by TH3BUDDHA
October 26, 20213 yr 56 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said: I think it's unfair to say this, as I literally brought up Senate Bill 39, a bill introduced by Republicans to accomplish exactly this. Just because you don't agree that it's "enough" or "will work" doesn't invalidate it as an attempt. I think we need to wait and see how it does before you can say those things, anyway. Maybe it will be quite successful. How would you know? Well, if Ohio starts being flooded with young people from other states based on a single bill not specifically designed to attract people from other states, I will concede the point.
October 26, 20213 yr Ohio Republicans certainly aren't great, but they're not totally regressive either. Republican Ohio Lawmakers Announce Marijuana Legalization Bill, Reflecting Recent Bipartisan Shift On Issue Published October 12, 2021 By Kyle Jaeger For years, Democratic lawmakers have mostly led the charge in pushing for marijuana legalization—but that seems to be changing of late. The latest example comes from a pair of Ohio Republican lawmakers who announced a new bill to legalize cannabis on Tuesday, a move that comes as activists are collecting signatures to put a cannabis initiative on the state’s ballot next year. While polling has shown that marijuana reform is increasingly a bipartisan issue with voters, that attitude hasn’t been largely reflected in state legislatures across the U.S., or in Congress. But this month alone, new legalization legislation is being championed by GOP lawmakers in Pennsylvania and now Ohio. There have also been a handful of Republican-led pushes to enact cannabis policy changes earlier in 2021 sessions, everywhere from New Hampshire to Missouri, with GOP members either sponsoring their own legislation or joining Democrats on bipartisan reform bills. On Tuesday, Ohio Rep. Jamie Callender (R) held a press conference to unveil his new proposal, which would allow adults 21 and older to purchase and possess marijuana. The bill, whose chief cosponsor is another Republican lawmaker, Rep. Ron Ferguson, would provide regulations for the licensing of cannabis growers, distributors and retailers. Adults “should be able to make decisions for themselves, and that’s what this bill does,” Callendar said at Tuesday’s press conference. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/republican-ohio-lawmaker-announces-marijuana-legalization-bill-reflecting-recent-bipartisan-shift-on-issue/
October 26, 20213 yr 12 hours ago, jonoh81 said: single bill not specifically designed to attract people from other states Here's how the state hopes a new tax credit program will transform Ohio downtowns "This is something that will incentivize development in downtowns," Schuring said. "If it is a mega-project that would have a ripple effect on a large swath of area around it, it's a good thing to invest in. This is not just about one building, but transforming an entire area." ... "We think this program will really help improve downtowns all over the state," Werkman said. ... "Office buildings with a parking structure are not transformational," Werkman said. "We want to create economic improvement and economic opportunities by helping these projects come to fruition. We want to help cities make place more of a sense of place, which people are really looking for now." https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2021/09/29/transformational-tax-credit.html Attempting to build better urbanism in our cities by encouraging taller, denser mixed use projects and attempting to promote economic development seem like things you do to attract people. But, maybe I'm wrong. In your opinion, what is this bill designed to do if not to make our cities more attractive to new workers?
October 26, 20213 yr 9 hours ago, surfohio said: Ohio Republicans certainly aren't great, but they're not totally regressive either. Republican Ohio Lawmakers Announce Marijuana Legalization Bill, Reflecting Recent Bipartisan Shift On Issue Published October 12, 2021 By Kyle Jaeger For years, Democratic lawmakers have mostly led the charge in pushing for marijuana legalization—but that seems to be changing of late. The latest example comes from a pair of Ohio Republican lawmakers who announced a new bill to legalize cannabis on Tuesday, a move that comes as activists are collecting signatures to put a cannabis initiative on the state’s ballot next year. While polling has shown that marijuana reform is increasingly a bipartisan issue with voters, that attitude hasn’t been largely reflected in state legislatures across the U.S., or in Congress. But this month alone, new legalization legislation is being championed by GOP lawmakers in Pennsylvania and now Ohio. There have also been a handful of Republican-led pushes to enact cannabis policy changes earlier in 2021 sessions, everywhere from New Hampshire to Missouri, with GOP members either sponsoring their own legislation or joining Democrats on bipartisan reform bills. On Tuesday, Ohio Rep. Jamie Callender (R) held a press conference to unveil his new proposal, which would allow adults 21 and older to purchase and possess marijuana. The bill, whose chief cosponsor is another Republican lawmaker, Rep. Ron Ferguson, would provide regulations for the licensing of cannabis growers, distributors and retailers. Adults “should be able to make decisions for themselves, and that’s what this bill does,” Callendar said at Tuesday’s press conference. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/republican-ohio-lawmaker-announces-marijuana-legalization-bill-reflecting-recent-bipartisan-shift-on-issue/ To be clear, this is a couple of GOP legislators who support legalization. But no way would it get through the Republican-controlled legislature. Those two are very much in the minority.
October 26, 20213 yr 15 hours ago, TH3BUDDHA said: I don't disagree with that. Migration data suggests that they are willing to overlook that, however, for things like a good job and better weather/nature. Otherwise, many states that are growing wouldn't be growing. Does it? If you dig into who is moving to places like Texas and Florida it is mostly retirees and low wage workers. California, for example, has net positive migration from Texas among folks with advanced degrees and folks making six figures. And here's the list of states with the highest percentage of residents with a bachelor's degree or higher, color coded by 2020 election vote: Washington Mass Colorado New Jersey Maryland Connecticut Virginia Vermont New York New Hampshire And here's the bottom 10, starting with 50: West Virginia Mississippi Arkansas Louisiana Kentucky Nevada Oklahoma Alabama Indiana New Mexico Now the top ten in median household income: Maryland New Jersey Hawaii Mass Connecticut California New Hampshire Alaska Washington And the bottom ten, starting with 50: West Virginia Mississippi Arkansas New Mexico Louisiana Alabama Kentucky Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee Edited October 26, 20213 yr by DEPACincy
October 26, 20213 yr 31 minutes ago, DEPACincy said: Does it? If you dig into who is moving to places like Texas and Florida it is mostly retirees and low wage workers. California, for example, has net positive migration from Texas among folks with advanced degrees and folks making six figures. And here's the list of states with the highest percentage of residents with a bachelor's degree or higher, color coded by 2020 election vote: Washington Mass Colorado New Jersey Maryland Connecticut Virginia Vermont New York New Hampshire And here's the bottom 10, starting with 50: West Virginia Mississippi Arkansas Louisiana Kentucky Nevada Oklahoma Alabama Indiana New Mexico Now the top ten in median household income: Maryland New Jersey Hawaii Mass Connecticut California New Hampshire Alaska Washington And the bottom ten, starting with 50: West Virginia Mississippi Arkansas New Mexico Louisiana Alabama Kentucky Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee As far as people moving to Texas being mostly retirees, I will definitely need to look into that a bit more, as that would be news to me. As far as the "low income worker" argument, you've brought this up before and, still, I think this is a bit weird. You seem to be putting a "worth" on people moving to states and low income workers don't count as much in your opinion? This is curious to me as this argument seems to only come up as a hit against rapidly growing red states but people on UO gush when Ohio brings in low income refugees from other countries because it is increasing our population, despite their economic "worth." Do you have this same "low income" pushback in those conversations? This seems to be just another inconsistency in the arguments of people on here. As for your data on degrees, I'm not sure how that is relevant in a discussion on population migration and nothing more than a weird d*ck swinging contest. Also, I think it's a bad metric without any other context when determining the "success" of an area. An electrician that has done years of trade school won't show up in your metric, but a person with a gender studies degree working in a coffee shop will. Not all bachelor's degrees are equal and not all "good" careers require them. Edited October 26, 20213 yr by TH3BUDDHA
October 26, 20213 yr 17 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said: As far as people moving to Texas being mostly retirees, I will definitely need to look into that a bit more, as that would be news to me. Retirees to Florida. Low wage workers to Texas. 17 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said: As far as the "low income worker" argument, you've brought this up before and, still, I think this is a bit weird. You seem to be putting a "worth" on people moving to states and low income workers don't count as much in your opinion? I'm not doing this at all. I'm just stating a fact about migration. The original conversation was about policies to attract folks with a choice. Those folks tend to be higher income/high education. We need workers at the lower end of the income spectrum (although we should pay them more!) but we also need workers with higher levels of education. It's the latter that we are lacking in Ohio. 17 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said: This is curious to me as it seems to only come up as a hit against red states but people on UO gush when Ohio brings in low income refugees from other countries because it is increasing our population. Refugees does not necessarily mean low income, to start. But we should accept refugees because it is the right thing to do, not just because it increases our population. In the realm of immigration generally, immigrants in Ohio tend to be more highly educated than native born citizens. 17 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said: As for your data on degrees, I'm not sure how that is relevant in a discussion on population migration and nothing more than a weird d*ck swinging contest. Degrees are a good proxy for people with a choice on where they are going to live. It is well-established in demography and economics that people with degrees move more, and are more likely to move to places they want to move. They have more choices. So it is a good proxy on where people with choice want to live to see what the percentage of residents is with a degree. 17 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said: An electrician that has done years of trade school won't show up in your metric, but a person with a gender studies degree working in a coffee shop will. Electricians are important, and it is a trade that pays well. But every state has a similar number of electricians per capita and they don't move around a lot. So it isn't really relevant to this conversation. It is revealing that you are accusing me of elitism and you just couldn't help but make a crack at gender studies majors by using a tired stereotype. In fact, the average annual wage for people with a gender studies degree is $83k. The average annual wage for electricians is $59k, by the way. And just to further this point, I provided data on median household income as well, so I'm not sure why you ignored that? Edited October 26, 20213 yr by DEPACincy
October 26, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, TH3BUDDHA said: Here's how the state hopes a new tax credit program will transform Ohio downtowns "This is something that will incentivize development in downtowns," Schuring said. "If it is a mega-project that would have a ripple effect on a large swath of area around it, it's a good thing to invest in. This is not just about one building, but transforming an entire area." ... "We think this program will really help improve downtowns all over the state," Werkman said. ... "Office buildings with a parking structure are not transformational," Werkman said. "We want to create economic improvement and economic opportunities by helping these projects come to fruition. We want to help cities make place more of a sense of place, which people are really looking for now." https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2021/09/29/transformational-tax-credit.html Attempting to build better urbanism in our cities by encouraging taller, denser mixed use projects and attempting to promote economic development seem like things you do to attract people. But, maybe I'm wrong. In your opinion, what is this bill designed to do if not to make our cities more attractive to new workers? The intent of the bill is to encourage downtown development, not specifically to attract out-of-state relocations. It would be a positive if it does, but you're essentially arguing a possible tangential outcome that hasn't happened yet is the heart of the bill. Internal relocations of existing Ohio residents are much more likely, and even without this bill, Census results show this kind of shift to more urban areas has been ongoing for years. And I have my doubts this bill would've happened at all if a rich donor group- developers- didn't directly benefit. Republicans don't exactly have a long, storied history of giving a crap about the condition of cities beyond using them as convenient scapegoats for fear-mongering about crime and liberal politics. Even if their intentions are entirely altruistic, given all their other actions, this is more akin to the broken clock theory and it's going to take a far more focused effort to change the state's overall direction.
October 26, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, DEPACincy said: Does it? If you dig into who is moving to places like Texas and Florida it is mostly retirees and low wage workers. California, for example, has net positive migration from Texas among folks with advanced degrees and folks making six figures. And here's the list of states with the highest percentage of residents with a bachelor's degree or higher, color coded by 2020 election vote: Washington Mass Colorado New Jersey Maryland Connecticut Virginia Vermont New York New Hampshire And here's the bottom 10, starting with 50: West Virginia Mississippi Arkansas Louisiana Kentucky Nevada Oklahoma Alabama Indiana New Mexico Now the top ten in median household income: Maryland New Jersey Hawaii Mass Connecticut California New Hampshire Alaska Washington And the bottom ten, starting with 50: West Virginia Mississippi Arkansas New Mexico Louisiana Alabama Kentucky Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee The irony is that Alaska is only in the top 10 because it functions as a socialist kind of oil state.
October 26, 20213 yr 3 hours ago, DEPACincy said: Electricians are important, and it is a trade that pays well. But every state has a similar number of electricians per capita and they don't move around a lot. So it isn't really relevant to this conversation. It is revealing that you are accusing me of elitism and you just couldn't help but make a crack at gender studies majors by using a tired stereotype. In fact, the average annual wage for people with a gender studies degree is $83k. The average annual wage for electricians is $59k, by the way. And just to further this point, I provided data on median household income as well, so I'm not sure why you ignored that? People that trash humanities majors as "poor" because they don't make a lot of money early career but always ignore how they zoom past technical fields mid-to-late career since most technical fields have pay ceilings.
October 26, 20213 yr 22 hours ago, DEPACincy said: In fact, the average annual wage for people with a gender studies degree is $83k. For somebody that claims not to use income to determine the "worth" of people, you certainly bring up income to determine the "worth" of people quite often. A quick google search for me showed hilariously low numbers, and even projections out to 10-15 years into career were not at that. I also believe you've already lowered your amount from $89k to $83k since you first posted, so you must have also realized that was a bit high. That being said, even if you are right, what does it matter? I'm talking about "benefit to society", not income. I never once mentioned a comparison in income between those professions. Jake Paul makes more than your average doctor by making stupid youtube videos and now fake boxing matches. Are you going to tell me society would be better off with more Logan Pauls over doctors simply because they have more income? How often do you see government pushes to encourage people to get gender studies degrees over STEM degrees? Quote folks with a choice You continue to mention this "folks with a choice" argument as a way to say you aren't using income to determine the "worth" of a move. I don't disagree with your premise that "folks with a choice" may tend to be higher income or have more education. But, in the case of our discussion on Texas, we are talking about people that have already moved. So, their "likelihood to move" is irrelevant in that discussion. Regardless of their income, they clearly were "folks with a choice", were likely to move, and chose Texas. Pointing out their income after the fact is nothing more than an attempt to devalue that move that already happened, whether you will ever admit it or not. We will never see eye to eye on this, so we will continue going round and round. Edited October 27, 20213 yr by TH3BUDDHA
October 27, 20213 yr This is a bunch of gobbledygook and I actually have no idea what you are trying to say, but I guess I'll try to respond: 17 hours ago, TH3BUDDHA said: For somebody that claims not to use income to determine the "worth" of people, you certainly bring up income to determine the "worth" of people quite often. We were talking about people choosing to move to Ohio. I already explained to you why income and education were meaningful indicators. I have zero idea what you are trying to get at. My parents are both auto workers with a high school education. They are the most wonderful people with the highest "worth" I know. But they aren't likely moving anywhere, because like other people in their socioeconomic group they are highly tied to place. Stating this is not elitist. It is just a fact. 17 hours ago, TH3BUDDHA said: A quick google search for me showed hilariously low numbers, and even projections out to 10-15 years into career were not at that. I also believe you've already lowered your amount from $89k to $83k since you first posted, so you must have also realized that was a bit high. That being said, even if you are right, what does it matter? I'm talking about "benefit to society", not income. I never once mentioned a comparison in income between those professions. I used BLS data. And no I did not change it from $89k to $83k. I have no idea where you got that idea. And you're the one who tried to make some weird point about gender studies majors working as baristas. I simply pointed out your bias. As far as benefit to society, are you saying that gender studies majors do not benefit society? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. 17 hours ago, TH3BUDDHA said: Jake Paul makes more than your average doctor by making stupid youtube videos and now fake boxing matches. Are you going to tell me society would be better off with more Logan Pauls over doctors simply because they have more income? Umm, what? 17 hours ago, TH3BUDDHA said: How often do you see government pushes to encourage people to get gender studies degrees over STEM degrees? I actually never see this. Do you? As a society we push STEM from a very young age. Our entire K-12 curriculum is built around it. Colleges invest in those degree programs much more heavily too. Many colleges don't even have a gender studies program, and among ones that do it is usually a very small department. I feel like you're living in some weird alternate "super woke" reality. 17 hours ago, TH3BUDDHA said: You continue to mention this "folks with a choice" argument as a way to say you aren't using income to determine the "worth" of a move. I don't disagree with your premise that "folks with a choice" may tend to be higher income or have more education. The entire conversation was about policies that would make people CHOOSE not to move to Ohio. Are we actually talking about something else? 18 hours ago, TH3BUDDHA said: Regardless of their income, they clearly were "folks with a choice", were likely to move, and chose Texas. Pointing out their income after the fact is nothing more than an attempt to devalue that move that already happened, whether you will ever admit it or not. I read this five times and I still have no idea what point you are trying to make. 18 hours ago, TH3BUDDHA said: We will never see eye to eye on this, so we will continue going round and round. On that we can agree.
October 27, 20213 yr 12 minutes ago, DEPACincy said: This is a bunch of gobbledygook and I actually have no idea what you are trying to say, but I guess I'll try to respond: We were talking about people choosing to move to Ohio. I already explained to you why income and education were meaningful indicators. I have zero idea what you are trying to get at. My parents are both auto workers with a high school education. They are the most wonderful people with the highest "worth" I know. But they aren't likely moving anywhere, because like other people in their socioeconomic group they are highly tied to place. Stating this is not elitist. It is just a fact. I used BLS data. And no I did not change it from $89k to $83k. I have no idea where you got that idea. And you're the one who tried to make some weird point about gender studies majors working as baristas. I simply pointed out your bias. As far as benefit to society, are you saying that gender studies majors do not benefit society? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Umm, what? I actually never see this. Do you? As a society we push STEM from a very young age. Our entire K-12 curriculum is built around it. Colleges invest in those degree programs much more heavily too. Many colleges don't even have a gender studies program, and among ones that do it is usually a very small department. I feel like you're living in some weird alternate "super woke" reality. The entire conversation was about policies that would make people CHOOSE not to move to Ohio. Are we actually talking about something else? I read this five times and I still have no idea what point you are trying to make. On that we can agree. yikes
October 28, 20213 yr It's impressive how few facts there are in such a long discussion. Here's one, If you look at the top 10 States for interstate migration, 8/10 are red or purple States. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration This doesn't demonstrate that red or purple policies are preferable, or whether or not they make a difference, but it definitely doesn't bolster the theory that people are actively avoiding red States based on policy. If anything, it suggests the opposite or that it makes no difference. In terms of policies people might prefer? It mostly comes down to (lower) taxes. You can see this in polling. Ask people if they support a certain popular policy, and it will have large support, but if instead, you ask, would you be willing to pay x more in taxes in exchange for such a policy? Support always drops significantly. Frequently the amount people would be willing to pay is comically low, it's worth looking into, but I digress. Personally, I don't think policies matter much to Most people, with the possible exceptions of those that will affect their pocketbook. Neighboring and nearby blue States are also suffering from net negative domestic migration. Meanwhile, Sunbelt cities are gaining. Weather seems to be the strongest factor if one is looking at it statistically.
October 29, 20213 yr 14 hours ago, Ethan said: It's impressive how few facts there are in such a long discussion. Here's one, If you look at the top 10 States for interstate migration, 8/10 are red or purple States. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration This doesn't demonstrate that red or purple policies are preferable, or whether or not they make a difference, but it definitely doesn't bolster the theory that people are actively avoiding red States based on policy. If anything, it suggests the opposite or that it makes no difference. In terms of policies people might prefer? It mostly comes down to (lower) taxes. You can see this in polling. Ask people if they support a certain popular policy, and it will have large support, but if instead, you ask, would you be willing to pay x more in taxes in exchange for such a policy? Support always drops significantly. Frequently the amount people would be willing to pay is comically low, it's worth looking into, but I digress. Personally, I don't think policies matter much to Most people, with the possible exceptions of those that will affect their pocketbook. Neighboring and nearby blue States are also suffering from net negative domestic migration. Meanwhile, Sunbelt cities are gaining. Weather seems to be the strongest factor if one is looking at it statistically. Weather and taxes are huge issues to the mass of baby boomers currently retired or about to retire. This demographic alone is helping the south. Using my family as a sample, I have my parents and most of my aunts and uncles moved to North Carolina and Tennessee within the last 5 years from Ohio.
October 29, 20213 yr I wouldn’t put much stock in estimates anymore, decennial census showed they were wildly off.
October 29, 20213 yr 15 hours ago, Ethan said: It's impressive how few facts there are in such a long discussion. Here's one, If you look at the top 10 States for interstate migration, 8/10 are red or purple States. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration This doesn't demonstrate that red or purple policies are preferable, or whether or not they make a difference, but it definitely doesn't bolster the theory that people are actively avoiding red States based on policy. If anything, it suggests the opposite or that it makes no difference. In terms of policies people might prefer? It mostly comes down to (lower) taxes. You can see this in polling. Ask people if they support a certain popular policy, and it will have large support, but if instead, you ask, would you be willing to pay x more in taxes in exchange for such a policy? Support always drops significantly. Frequently the amount people would be willing to pay is comically low, it's worth looking into, but I digress. Personally, I don't think policies matter much to Most people, with the possible exceptions of those that will affect their pocketbook. Neighboring and nearby blue States are also suffering from net negative domestic migration. Meanwhile, Sunbelt cities are gaining. Weather seems to be the strongest factor if one is looking at it statistically. This has actually been discussed extensively here. The most recent conversation was not about total migration but migration of higher income, higher education workers. A category that many refer to as "high skilled", though I don't like that term. And also discussed here many times is the fact that research indicates taxes have very little to do with people's decisions on where to move. Lower income folks tend to move based on family connections mostly. People with more money and education tend to move based on amenities (and yes one of those is weather). But political culture is also an amenity. And policy decisions have a ripple effect on amenities. Like, if City A invests in a robust public transit system and City B is focusing instead on banning abortion.
October 29, 20213 yr I'll throw in my owner personal story to this. Not myself, who has never had any desire to leave Cleveland except for when I tried to get into the University of Toronto, but my mom. She moved to Nashville about 6 years ago - wooed by the promise of lower taxes, southern hospitality, and her own desire to be closer to the mountains. She actually took a pay cut to move there, as there was trouble finding any jobs there that paid what she made in Cleveland. That was ok though, because she was promised left and right that the "lower taxes" would offset the lower pay. It sure wasn't anything like she expected. Sure, there's no state income tax, but they tax everything else down there. The sales tax is much higher, and is on everything including food and services. She was shocked when she got her first utility bills and found all the taxes included on them. Eating at restaurants is more expensive too because of additional taxes we don't have up here. She rented, so not sure what the property tax situations would have been. The whole southern hospitality thing is nothing but a sham for tourists too. Throw in the terrible traffic and yes, the red state politics, and she had enough after only a few years. Happy to say she's now accepted a new job in Cleveland which pays more than she made when she left here and will be moving back next week.
October 29, 20213 yr America loves "hidden taxes" as a way to lie to people to make them think they're not paying taxes.
October 29, 20213 yr 31 minutes ago, GCrites80s said: America loves "hidden taxes" as a way to lie to people to make them think they're not paying taxes. Yes the 49% rate in Germany is really not that much higher than all the taxes we pay....with excellent healthcare included.
November 30, 20213 yr I came across this website with demographic/population data from the 2020 census. It includes data for State/County/City/Township/MSA/CSA etc. I thought it may be of interest, enjoy. https://data.burlingtonfreepress.com/census/total-population/total-population-change/ohio/040-39/
November 30, 20213 yr ^^thanks, that's fascinating how the west side of Cleveland is far more diverse than the east side, yet when comparing the nearby suburbs of east and west, it's the reverse. http://www.mainstreetpainesville.org/
December 1, 20213 yr 20 hours ago, westakron1 said: I came across this website with demographic/population data from the 2020 census. It includes data for State/County/City/Township/MSA/CSA etc. I thought it may be of interest, enjoy. https://data.burlingtonfreepress.com/census/total-population/total-population-change/ohio/040-39/ The U.S. map. Very Stable Genius
December 1, 20213 yr 20 hours ago, GCrites80s said: ^Man Appalachia is emptying out. A had a geopolitics prof who said, "West Virginia is beautiful. It should be a national park; but it has no viable business being a state." Maybe we're getting to that point of view. Remember: It's the Year of the Snake
December 2, 20213 yr On 12/1/2021 at 10:39 AM, DarkandStormy said: The U.S. map. That map is highly misleading- most people would expect green spectrum is growing, red/orange is shrinking, with maybe yellow as the midpoint. In fact 0% is split between orange and orange-ish red. Honestly, I am amazed how many GIS mapmakers are just awful at making their maps readable.
December 2, 20213 yr On 11/30/2021 at 2:48 PM, GCrites80s said: ^Man Appalachia is emptying out. It's hard to reproduce if your cousin has moved away.
December 2, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, X said: That map is highly misleading- most people would expect green spectrum is growing, red/orange is shrinking, with maybe yellow as the midpoint. In fact 0% is split between orange and orange-ish red. Honestly, I am amazed how many GIS mapmakers are just awful at making their maps readable. Sorry, I meant to include the map key. Very Stable Genius
December 2, 20213 yr 13 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said: Sorry, I meant to include the map key. No problem, the key would help, but the map's color coding is the base problem. It's nearly impossible to look at that map, even with the key, and get an overall picture of what's growing and what's shrinking.
December 2, 20213 yr Yea, the USA Today tool has a lot of great data in an easy to use format. Glad you shared. Their maps are a mess though.
December 2, 20213 yr The US has a whole grew 7.4%. I guess their logic was to index the data around that point, so they colored areas with 6% to 9% growth the middle ground, mustard yellow. It makes sense but still counter-intuitive. Illinois and Mississippi barely shrank, to the point that they could be a rounding error, but the map makes it look like they are just as bad as West Virginia, which shrank by 3.2%.
December 2, 20213 yr On 12/1/2021 at 11:30 AM, Dougal said: A had a geopolitics prof who said, "West Virginia is beautiful. It should be a national park; but it has no viable business being a state." Maybe we're getting to that point of view. yeah not a bad idea and worth a bit of thought for fun -- hasn't dc and the capitol district residents been basically making wv into an exurban/suburban park or getaway area for awhile now? wv national park with the morgantown welcoming center? hmm.
December 2, 20213 yr WV has a completely different perception by DC area residents than Ohioans, I can tell you that.
December 3, 20213 yr 3 hours ago, jdm00 said: I love West Virginia. Absolutely beautiful and wonderfully wild. Hmm, that would make a great slogan on a license plate or something.
December 29, 20213 yr New estimate is Ohio lost about 10,000 people from July 2020 to July 2021. Not sure how accurate this is, as it seems to be based on 2020 estimates as opposed to actuals. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2021-population-estimates.html
December 29, 20213 yr 2 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said: New estimate is Ohio lost about 10,000 people from July 2020 to July 2021. Not sure how accurate this is, as it seems to be based on 2020 estimates as opposed to actuals. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2021-population-estimates.html Probably not accurate whatsoever. They are heavily biased towards old trends (or assumed trends), particularly when it comes to Northern vs Southern state growth rates. Most of the Sun Belt grew more slowly than predicted the last decade, and most of the Midwest/North grew faster than predicted. The new estimates simply revert back into the old assumption of the opposite. Estimates and projections from the Census have been trying to shrink Ohio's population for decades. Maybe it'll eventually happen, but there's no reason to expect it in any given year, especially based on numbers that continuously get it wrong. Another thing to consider is that they show literally the slowest national growth rate since... well, 1776. Covid is surely playing a role in things, so even if there was very slow to even negative growth the past year, as things improve, so will migration trends. It basically can't get much worse than that. Edited December 29, 20213 yr by jonoh81
March 10, 20223 yr Oops "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
March 11, 20223 yr @KJPto piggyback. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/10/2020-census-undercount-black-people-hispanics-native-americans-00016138 I did some math and based on the undercount rates by demographic, my back of napkin math says Cleveland was probably undercounted by 8,000-10,000….
March 11, 20223 yr This makes me wonder if narrow attempts at gerrymandering will fail halfway through the cycle.
March 12, 20223 yr On 3/10/2022 at 6:32 PM, KJP said: Oops This tweet is inaccurate. They did not miss 19 million people. They overcounted some and undercounted others. From the NYT-which is what was posted and what was being referred to: Quote WASHINGTON — Saddled with daunting logistical and political obstacles, the 2020 census seriously undercounted the number of Hispanic, Black and Native American residents even though its overall population count was largely accurate, the Census Bureau said on Thursday. They overcounted white and Asian and undercounted black and others. See the NYT article. Suggesting they "missed" 19 million people can make people think the actual total was way off, when it was not. In other words, we do not have around 350 million people, but still around the 331 million mark.
March 24, 20223 yr US Census Bureau Ohio Counties Population Change Estimates 2020-2021 https://t.co/upC45ggnSm
March 24, 20223 yr Apparently 2021 was the slowest year of US population growth on record-.01%. There were huge losses in New York, Chicago, San Francisco and LA. Combined about a 700,000 loss. Any growth was in the south with Atlanta being a biggy.
March 24, 20223 yr Yeah not buying this one. Especially with the census showing how much the estimates undercounted urban counties. Yes, COVID definitely affected things but not by this much IMO. Edit: Based on what Htsguy said maybe it is believable. Edited March 24, 20223 yr by cle_guy90
Create an account or sign in to comment