Don't include us X'ers in this shitshow. We were forgotten in this whole charade and no one wrote articles about where 20-something X'ers were moving to. This little lover's spat is between Boomers and Millennials with us X'ers and Z'er watching from the sides. Laughing.

^ there was PLENTY of ink spilled on gen-X hand-wringing back in the 90s.

"the slacker generation", etc.

then theres the overlord or whatever that's laughing at the human population :D

we are so easy to control with money.

Ok, I'll explain the "net" concept.

Net population growth counts the people moving in, minus the people moving out.

It would also include deaths, a relatively small factor in this case.

See above re: the "net population growth" concept.

Okay, we're all slow then because none of us get your point. We all seem to understand that this is counting net change in population. Since no millennials have been born in the past five years, then places with positive growth must be seeing increases because of higher inbound migration. It is possible that the negative growth is due to mortality, but that's irrelevant. Again, 100% of the positive growth is due to more millennials coming in than going out.

i'm also not understanding your beef. the list in the article very clearly says "Millennial Population Change" and the article defines Millennials (M's) as folks born between 1981 and 1996. I only skimmed the article but I assume

Millennial Population Change = 100% * (# M's moving in during X – # M's moving out during X) / (# M's at start of X)

where X is the period from 2012 to 2017 and ignoring the admittedly inconsequential Millennial death rate. The Millenial birth rate is 0 by definition of "Millennial". What are we all missing?

Because the headline writer only suggested inbound growth, not net growth. The title was "Where are millennials moving?"

Outbound growth is a huge factor in this stuff.

I get what you're saying. I once read an article about Colorado's population growth that listed the top states from which people are moving. The writer managed to create a narrative in which the only catalyst for growth was migration, and most of the migration was due to a mass exodus of cost-of-living refugees from California.

What the writer failed to mention was that the number of people moving from California to Colorado was approximately equal to the number of people moving from Colorado to California. An even exchange of population is not an exodus. The writer also failed to explain why Texas was the 2nd state on the list (a state with a generally much lower cost of living).

The fact is, because California is by far the most populous state, it would be first on the list of states from which people are moving, for most states (if not all of them), and likewise, first on the list of states for which people are leaving.

I guess what I'm saying is, I get the sentiment behind your criticism. Nevertheless, I think you're being a little too hard on the writer of this headline. It's perhaps a bit lazy, but idiotic is a stretch. It does create a narrative that omits the fact millennials are moving both ways, but it also accurately ranks cities in terms of which are seeing the greatest net migration of millennials - which gives credence to the narrative, even if the methodology cuts some corners.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine...900716_400.jpg

Frankly, Generation Z are the weirdos..... not drinking and having sex in high school.

It's 'cause of what they be putting in their Juuls.

The article is fine, as far as I've noticed. It's the headline that's false.

The headline writer's job was to create clicks, not to accurately portray the content of the article. Maybe their boss directed them to say whatever was necessary. In any case, I have no respect for untrue crap.

It's probably worth mentioning that headlines are typically written by someone different from the main article. Reporters in fact often feel screwed by headline writers. (Famous example...Zoolander.)

^ the headline is not false. any rational reader realizes that "moving" implies leaving one place and going to another. it's just silly to insist that the author spell out "Where are millennials moving TO AND WHERE ARE THEY MOVING FROM?" when the implication is obvious and the numbers in the article accurately reflect this.

They are a strange generation (Z'ers)..it's like they rather deal with technology than fellow humans. Millenials really aren't that different from my own generation. They just grew up with shittier music and didn't grow up with Fraggle Rock.

We did grow up with Fraggle Rock. I was born in 82 and watched it all the time along with Heman, Smurfs, etc. :yes:

Suer, let's say zero people moved to St. Louis last year. Makes sense to me.

I think a lot of it might have to do with most Z'ers in the United States grew up not knowing of a time when we weren't dealing with the after-effects of 9/11, financial/political instability and mass shootings. They seem to be (or want to be?) a hell of a lot more active politically (look at the survivors of Sandy Hook and Parkland shootings) than Millennials, most of us (I was born in 1983) just sort of react to what's happened as it happens without thinking about the long-term implications and don't seem to be nearly as tired of it as our younger brethren.

Millennials had the opportunity to do something, anything and we didn't. We're the ones who bitch incessantly on here and in social media without taking any meaningful action to change it. I see Z'ers as being a lot more active in the long-term.

Like what?

What do you think?

Not sure. Maybe change the prism through which western society views how the economy should work and force future politicians (from mayor to president) to address growing economic disparity at a level not seen for generations? Hell, even Fox News is on the the bandwagon these days. Kind of a huge deal when you think about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement

but what else?