Nymeria said:
"Our current growth, about 300,000 persons a year Births minus deaths, dubbed “natural increase,” still account for more than two-thirds of California’s population growth, but as the gap narrows, it slows growth." Thank you for posting. Some good data in there. I think context is important to review how staggering California's increase in population has been over the past 100 years. I know people who moved there, love it, but do talk about how expensive it is due to high population density in the coastal cities. It's an old joke "Nobody goes there, it's too crowded!" I did mention Texas and Florida as the other destination states. California has problems, but among the 50 states I'd argue it is one of the more successful ones. |
So there are two statistics here. Absolute growth rate (births + foreign immigration + domestic immigration - deaths - total emigration) vs. net domestic migration (domestic immigration - domestic emigration.)
For California, the first statistic is positive because most of its population growth is due to births (2/3rds) with another 1/3rd being due to total immigration, but a sizable portion of that total immigration is foreign.
When we look at the domestic immigration vs. domestic emigration, more people whom live in the United States already are leaving California than going to California. The net domestic migration is negative, despite the growing population.
The trends seem to point at it becoming increasingly negative as California continues to become poor-unfriendly due to increasing costs of living and wealth inequality.
Florida is a big retirement state, so its statistics are very skewed. Old boomers from other parts of the country are moving there for the warm weather.
Texas is in an economic boom, so it makes sense that they're getting many people from other states.
