Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays
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.