Residents Increasingly Fleeing New York, Los Angeles & Chicago

[DePaul Bunyan]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Also, doesn't Illinois have some terrible budget issues and is increasingly becoming bad for business?

Possibly leading to businesses looking elsewhere.

Illinois is circling the drain and has very nearly the highest combined tax-burden in the nation, with more tax increases on the horizon as the state now has over $200,000,000,000 in unfunded pension and healthcare obligations, not to mention $16,000,000,000 in unpaid bills, which are accruing obscene amounts of interest and late payment penalties. This is primarily due to corruption and cronyism when it comes to the contracts that were "negotiated" between our politicians and their benefactors, the public sector union lobby. Illinois' politicians only say no to spending initiatives if they involve ethics reform or consolidation and streamlining of government.

I certainly will not be staying around much longer or buying a property in the state.

Chicago's downtown is pretty so that's cool for some people. Not enough for me though.

[dave8721]

Does the article make a case that they are "increasingly" fleeing those cities? People have always left NYC and LA. They are gateway cities. Immigrants enter the US in those cities then eventually over a generation or two fan out into the rest of the US.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

Illinois is circling the drain and has very nearly the highest combined tax-burden in the nation, with more tax increases on the horizon as the state now has over $200,000,000,000 in unfunded pension and healthcare obligations, not to mention $16,000,000,000 in unpaid bills, which are accruing obscene amounts of interest and late payment penalties. This is primarily due to corruption and cronyism when it comes to the contracts that were "negotiated" between our politicians and their benefactors, the public sector union lobby. Illinois' politicians only say no to spending initiatives if they involve ethics reform or consolidation and streamlining of government.

New Jersey is exactly the same. Everyone I know who is retiring is leaving. No way in hell I'm buying a house here, the taxes are as high as the whole mortgage most anywhere else.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by CIA

I'm surprised Houston is no longer on the list. And I would not be surprised to see Chicago's migration number decline further if the city and state don't get their fiscal houses in order soon. The demographics in Chicago appear to be changing in tat wealthy households are moving in and the middle to lower middle class are moving out (those with the resources to relocate).

Just because Houston wasn't featured in Bloomberg's story doesn't mean it's not experiencing strong positive net migration (very hard to believe for the 2nd fastest growing city in the country).

The article clearly only picked and chose a handful of cities in their story to discuss, out of the 150 cities in the Census report.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Does the article make a case that they are "increasingly" fleeing those cities? People have always left NYC and LA. They are gateway cities. Immigrants enter the US in those cities then eventually over a generation or two fan out into the rest of the US.

The article does not make this claim. The migration total is by MSA, not by city.

In the case of NYC, I'm almost certain there is still net migration inward (albeit propped up by immigration - which has been the case almost throughout NYC's history). The problem is that large portions of NYC suburbia are stagnating or outright declining in population.

NYC suburbia - even upscale suburbia - is caught in a weird place. Schools are often still top notch, but enrollment is dropping rapidly. Basically snob zoning ensures that new mixed-used areas where immigrants and lower-income people could move won't happen. But property values are still relatively high, even if they didn't recover fully from the Great Recession. When you factor in the urban bent of some young professionals these days, and the choice of many others to move to lower-cost metros, virtually no one youngish wants to move to these suburbs before, which means they're aging rapidly. The local residents by and large like this, because declining school enrollment means tax increases are held down.

The whole thing will likely come crashing down in another 10-20 years when too many of the boomers die off to maintain the housing values at their current rate, but it's going to be a hell of a transition.

[dc_denizen]

I wouldn't want to own in north country greenwich, or outer bergen county, or suffol county.

conversely the areas with transit access to NYC are doing great (and the schools are a huge draw vs the private system in the city)

[mhays]

MSA is only one definition of "city," and can be misleading, so yes it's important to put this in context.

[LAsam]

Interestingly, there was an article about this very topic in the LA Times recently:

Who moves to California? The wealthier and better educated, mostly

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-...221-story.html

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

NYC suburbia - even upscale suburbia - is caught in a weird place. Schools are often still top notch, but enrollment is dropping rapidly. Basically snob zoning ensures that new mixed-used areas where immigrants and lower-income people could move won't happen. But property values are still relatively high, even if they didn't recover fully from the Great Recession. When you factor in the urban bent of some young professionals these days, and the choice of many others to move to lower-cost metros, virtually no one youngish wants to move to these suburbs before, which means they're aging rapidly. The local residents by and large like this, because declining school enrollment means tax increases are held down.

The whole thing will likely come crashing down in another 10-20 years when too many of the boomers die off to maintain the housing values at their current rate, but it's going to be a hell of a transition.

Yes, all this. Upscale fringe or non-railroad suburbia in NYC metro (and some other old-school metros) is in a very weird place. The boomers still control everything, and want their "rural" zoning, property values have dropped, but not much to really hurt (these folks are mostly comfortable with seven figures in bank and few are panicking when paid-off homes go from $1.5 to $1.25).

Of course, the Millennials who can afford these places generally don't want to live there. The close-in railroad suburbs are stronger than ever (lower Westchester is the archetypical example) but the fringe is hurting, and the hurt is growing, even in good times. My best guess is that a lot of these places will transition to upscale weekend areas, bought with equity from booming urban real estate. They make no sense for M-F living.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The article does not make this claim. The migration total is by MSA, not by city.

In the case of NYC, I'm almost certain there is still net migration inward (albeit propped up by immigration - which has been the case almost throughout NYC's history). The problem is that large portions of NYC suburbia are stagnating or outright declining in population.

NYC suburbia - even upscale suburbia - is caught in a weird place. Schools are often still top notch, but enrollment is dropping rapidly. Basically snob zoning ensures that new mixed-used areas where immigrants and lower-income people could move won't happen. But property values are still relatively high, even if they didn't recover fully from the Great Recession. When you factor in the urban bent of some young professionals these days, and the choice of many others to move to lower-cost metros, virtually no one youngish wants to move to these suburbs before, which means they're aging rapidly. The local residents by and large like this, because declining school enrollment means tax increases are held down.

The whole thing will likely come crashing down in another 10-20 years when too many of the boomers die off to maintain the housing values at their current rate, but it's going to be a hell of a transition.

That's not just a suburban NY problem. It pretty much defines the Sun Belt vs non-Sun Belt.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Leveled

Let’s see it by income.


People moving to Dallas to man call centers ain’t something to brag about.

"everything is fine because we will become cities of ultra-elite with massive plebian underclasses"

Im sure that will work out fine!

But that being said the migration to Texas is across the board, Arizona is fairly middle of the road, Vegas is low wage and Oregon/Colorado is high wealth.

Based on the last article that analyzed it. That I saw**

[Obadno]

Prediction: Thread full of myopic urban high wealth individuals making excuses as to why normal average Americans must flee their hyper expensive enclaves.

No need to read it.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

My best guess is that a lot of these places will transition to upscale weekend areas, bought with equity from booming urban real estate. They make no sense for M-F living.

Clearly none of the absolute top-of-the market areas are going to go downscale entirely. It is possible that once you get outside of the mansion set however everything moves a half-step downward in terms of desirability though. So areas like Greenwich/New Canaan become more similar to say Westport or Fairfield, and so on down the line.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's not just a suburban NY problem. It pretty much defines the Sun Belt vs non-Sun Belt.

This is true.

Basically, there are only three ways in which population grows: domestic migration, births outpacing deaths, and immigration.

There is basically no place in the Northeast or Midwest with positive domestic migration, save for a handful of exurban counties here and there. This is almost entirely migration within the state/metro however, thus it doesn't help push growth at a wider level.

Birth rates in the U.S. for the most part are related to the average age of the area and to a small extent the SES of a region. Once you have an aging population and a relatively low birth rate there seems to be little that can be done to increase the birth rate, either domestically or internationally.

That leaves international immigration - which is basically the only reason that established cities outside of the Sun Belt have continued to grow. Unfortunately due to the combination of Trump-era policies intended to slow down the movement of immigrants to the U.S., this last cylinder in the engine of population growth has stopped firing predictably as well.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

Illinois is circling the drain and has very nearly the highest combined tax-burden in the nation, with more tax increases on the horizon as the state now has over $200,000,000,000 in unfunded pension and healthcare obligations, not to mention $16,000,000,000 in unpaid bills, which are accruing obscene amounts of interest and late payment penalties. This is primarily due to corruption and cronyism when it comes to the contracts that were "negotiated" between our politicians and their benefactors, the public sector union lobby. Illinois' politicians only say no to spending initiatives if they involve ethics reform or consolidation and streamlining of government.

I certainly will not be staying around much longer or buying a property in the state.

Chicago's downtown is pretty so that's cool for some people. Not enough for me though.

A fair sentiment.

I think the prevailing mindset has long been that Chicagoland will grow its way out of this mess brought about by such corruption.

How we deal with this is crucial, I would personally prefer a Constitutional Amendment. Unfortunately, the dumb ass voters of this State keep voting for the same clowns, so we're probably just headed for something akin to bankruptcy.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by eschaton

There is basically no place in the Northeast or Midwest with positive domestic migration, save for a handful of exurban counties here and there. This is almost entirely migration within the state/metro however, thus it doesn't help push growth at a wider level.

Hennepin County (Minneapolis) has positive net migration.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Prediction: Thread full of myopic urban high wealth individuals making excuses as to why normal average Americans must flee their hyper expensive enclaves.

Except normal, average people have always fled hyper expensive enclaves, basically since humanity began.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's not just a suburban NY problem. It pretty much defines the Sun Belt vs non-Sun Belt.

I think you're right, though it's magnified in the NY area because there are a ton of high-wealth, super-NIMBY enclaves that play pretend rural.

I can't think of any places in, say, Metro Detroit, where you have upscale 10 acre properties in the forest, with well water and septic, 10 miles from the nearest retail.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

the dumb ass voters of this State keep voting for the same clowns, so we're probably just headed for something akin to bankruptcy.

I believe cities can go bankrupt but states cannot.

Current law doesn’t let states go bankrupt… yet

If the law should change and a state actually tried to file for bankruptcy, creditors would immediately file constitutional objections under the contracts clause and the 10th Amendment.

Some legal scholars think those barriers can be overcome. The argument would go to the Supreme Court and probably take years to be resolved.

Passing such a controversial law for Congress could be quite difficult. There are good reasons to prevent state bankruptcies. The fact that they aren’t eligible for bankruptcy allows states to borrow money at lower interest rates.

Lenders assume states will always figure out some way to repay their debts. But will they?

In 1933, debt-plagued Arkansas unilaterally restructured and extended maturities on a series of highway and other bonds. Nowadays, we call that a default.

Bondholders sued, of course. The next year the state and its creditors reached a compromise refunding. Creditors exchanged their old bonds for new ones funded by a 6.5 cent per gallon gasoline tax.

In today’s dollars that would be about $1.16 per gallon, so this was a hefty tax on Arkansas drivers. I’m sure they complained. That deal fell apart, and after more twists and turns, the federal Reconstruction Finance Corporation (predecessor to the FDIC) bought the new bonds . . . .

You can debate whether the Arkansas episode was a “bailout” or just a refinancing, but it is one of the few precedents we have for a state default.

That leaves us in a very murky situation with regard to state and local pensions . . . .

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmau.../#461fb9d82f2d

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

How we deal with this is crucial, I would personally prefer a Constitutional Amendment. Unfortunately, the dumb ass voters of this State keep voting for the same clowns, so we're probably just headed for something akin to bankruptcy.

Pensions need to be cut ASAP. There's really no other way out. You can't raise taxes enough because these states already have very high taxes so significant additional increases are going to send all of the desirable workers (AKA: the majority of the tax base) scurrying like rats from a sinking ship.

[SIGSEGV]

We should just tax pensions of people who leave the state.