Migration sentences to ponder

As Table 3 shows, eight of the nation’s 12 largest metropolitan areas have lost domestic migrants since 2010. These areas are either pricey coastal regions, or are located in the industrial Midwest. New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have led the nation in domestic out migration for more than three decades. However, because each also receives substantial numbers of international migrants, their overall migration loss for 2010-2016 is minimized. This is also true for other domestic migration losers on the list.

In contrast, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta registered significant domestic in-migration gains.

That is from William H. Frey, there is much more at the link.  The pointer is from Amy Liu.


Low-wage foreign immigrants are literally, physically displacing citizens from the most desirable cities and climates in the USA-- with the eager connivance of corrupt government at all levels, from LA's policy of impounding the cars only of citizen drunk drivers, not illegal aliens, to the Federal government policy of deporting immigrant computer programmers and even shepherds who ask their employer-"sponsors" for raises, but refusing to deport illegal-alien muggers who are convicted of felonies in State courts.

to the Federal government policy of deporting immigrant computer programmers and even shepherds who ask their employer-“sponsors” for raises


And it wasn't clear if you approved or disapproved of this.

The most desirable places in LA (and SoCal in general) are close to the coast (probably a 3-5 mile stretch), and when I used to live there (most of the 2000s), it was (or seemed to me to be) overwhelmingly white. Interior LA (including the SF Valley) can get pretty hot, so I'd say whites have the best of the climate to themselves.


And it wasn’t clear if you approved or disapproved of this.

Displacement from high demand real estate via low wages?

Cities tend to be populated by the rich and the poor with a transient class of younger, childless adults earning middle range incomes. Trades and other mid-class looking for good school districts and higher trust living get priced out.

Your first claim is false. L.A. impounds cars driven by drunk drivers regardless of citizenship or immigration status. What it doesn't do is impound cars if the driver's only offense is driving without a license and, again, that policy applies regardless of citizenship or immigration status.

In short, Americans are moving from non-American America to American America.

Non-Americans are moving from points of first arrival to elsewhere.

+10. This trend is also true in the Netherlands. The places where immigrants go to, are also losing a lot of native people, who move to other places which are more "dutch"-like.

I'm guessing that none of you (with some doubt about the captain, and less doubt about Millian) are American.

Though it is certainly true that a minority of Americans think that American citizens are only created at birth by being the children of American citizens, the vast majority of Americans have never believed this.

Do note that a certain son of an immigrant has yet to move to American America, even though as president, he claims to represent many of those who believe in exactly that concept.

Most nations broadly consider citizens to be born, not made. This has never been true of the U.S., though I make no predictions concerning the following centuries. And of course, a child born overseas to American citizens may not actually have a claim to be considered an American citizen. Blood is not what makes an American citizen, as noted here - https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1130.html

'Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is governed by Federal statutes. Only insofar as Congress has provided in such statutes, does the United States follow the traditionally Roman law principle of “jus sanguinis” under which citizenship is acquired by descent (see 7 FAM 1111 a(2)).'

And in more detail, here - 'Since 1790, there have been two prerequisites for transmitting U.S. citizenship at birth to children born abroad:

(1) At least one biological parent must have been a U.S. citizen when the child was born. The only exception is for a posthumous child.

(2) The U.S. citizen parent(s) must have resided or been physically present in the United States for the time required by the law in effect when the child was born.'


Do note that a certain son of an immigrant

Shouldn't that be "grandson"?

The great thing about America (great to me at least) is that anyone who is born there OR takes the oath is considered an "American" by his/her fellow citizens, without qualification. In most countries around the world, this kind of acceptance is rare.

The idea that everybody on the planet is either an American or a potential American has resulted in quasi-imperialist governance.

'Shouldn’t that be “grandson”?'

Well, also, but Trump's mother was Scottish - 'Trump's ancestors originated from the German village of Kallstadt, Palatinate on his father's side, and from the Outer Hebrides isles of Scotland on his mother's side. All his grandparents, and his mother, were born in Europe. His mother's grandfather was also christened "Donald".

Trump's paternal grandfather, Friedrich Trump, first emigrated to the United States in 1885 at the age of 16, and became a citizen in 1892. He amassed a fortune operating boom-town restaurants and boarding houses in the Seattle area and the Klondike region of Canada, during the gold rush. On a visit to Kallstadt, he met Elisabeth Christ and married her in 1902. The couple settled in New York definitively in 1905. Friedrich died from influenza during the 1918 pandemic.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

'In most countries around the world, this kind of acceptance is rare.'

Exactly, which is why so many non-Americans have an extremely hard time understanding this part of being American. Of course there are always those Americans that reject that idea, but they minority essentially scorned by their fellow citizens.

Thanks for the correction. (I was just thinking about Trump's paternal ancestry, which I had read something about. Completely missed the fact that his mother was born Scottish.)

It could actually be that low marginal product workers are moving from high marginal product centers. Then, they could claim, as a political movement, that they are the real Americans.

See Steve Bannon, the man President-elect Donald Trump has chosen to be his chief strategist, express dismay at the number of tech execs who are immigrants from Asia.


Apparently, according to dearieme, I live in non-America America. Which leads me ask, can I get a refund on my income taxes? Maybe just a discount?

Housing. Or the cost of housing. That's the standard explanation given at this blog for people moving from high wage areas to low wage areas, a migration pattern that is contrary to the historical migration pattern and, well, irrational. All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia.

My explanation for why so many people are moving to Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta is that it's because so many people are moving to Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta. No, that's not a line from Abbott and Costello. Housing. Or more accurately, the construction of housing. So many people are moving to these places because there are so many construction jobs. It's a variation in supply creates its own demand. And no, that's not a line from Abbott and Costello.

Consider the ramification of the US being a nation of construction workers. For one, housing construction is highly inefficient: houses today are built pretty much like houses built yesterday, but with lower quality materials used today. Adding to the stock of housing does little to increase productivity (as compared to plant and equipment used to make widgets); low wage construction jobs today yield low wage construction jobs tomorrow. But there are a few winners in the drive to construct housing. Good friends moved to a high growth area. She was a stay-at-home mom when they moved, but she saw an opportunity: somebody had to sell all those newly constructed houses. So she did. She has earned more than enough to pay for the college education of their three children. One can quibble about the value of a real estate broker, but for her family there's little doubt about that value. Since the US has an economy built on housing, it's logical that our president would be a real estate huckster, I mean developer.

By that logic, the smart money would plant a flag in the cheapest available land, and start developing. Cheap construction costs, cheap land, and your effort creates your customers. More likely, relatively easy permitting/zoning, low taxes, ease of business creation, and flat, expansive geographies attract inflows, which induces construction.

I caught a bit of Masters in Business with Marc Andreessen and Barry Ritholtz. Andreessen expressed continued amazement at the human capital in Silicon Valley. Do a startup, and people just show up who know how to do everything from R&D to HR to every role.

Certain kinds of "distance have been destroyed" but certain kinds have not.

Why do so many line up to get a job in the next big thing in Silicon Valley? Why do a third of Princeton grads seek jobs in finance? Why does Marc Andreessen invest in companies that only produce losses and are projected to only produce losses? Duh. Whatever one might think of finance, at least the financial sector produces profits. Lots of profits. As for Silicon Valley, never in history has so much capital been invested in so many to produce so little. I mean, really, is advertising one's idea of "tech"? In the immortal words of Glenn Turner, Dare to be Great. Owners of capital even line up to invest in the hobbies of the Silicon Valley billionaires. What's next flying cars and spaceships to Mars. Oh, wait!

Don't be an idiot. If SV had produced nothing you'd be reading a paper magazine and maybe writing a letter to the editor. Probable turnaround, 30 days.

(Andreesen was literally talking about the fast ramp-up at Netscape, that made this medium possible.)

Silicon Valley is about a lot more than "advertising." Apple is there, Netflix is now a major entertainment and production company and companies like Salesforce, Dropbox and even Google provide fee-based services for businesses.

Netscape is a fascinating case study about Silicon Valley. Andreesen co-founded the company and rewrote software he had already written a year earlier at the University of Illinois. That technology was licensed to a company called Spyglass. Even though Spyglass had a head start, it was based in Illinois and Netscape was able to tap into Silicon Valley's deeper pockets and expertise and ultimate became an order of magnitude more valuable.

Normally, I'd think that the micro spatial segregation in cities would prevent this from having a big social impact or social driver -
but media markets are at a larger spatial structure, as are some school systems; and the changes in Democrat demographics suggest
that all this may be part of the non-communication (cocoon) spiral.

Social media is in its infancy. I think there is reason to be optimistic, that it can be improved, just because it can't stay the same. Nothing ever does.

Humans aren't plants. They move. They change their location for all kinds of reasons, work, education, marriage, climate, etc. Attempting to quantify the phenomenon is another example of the great social sciences inferiority complex that's "physics envy".

Attempting to quantify the phenomenon is another example of the great social sciences inferiority complex that’s “physics envy”.

Remarks like this are yet more examples of the status games played by the innumerate.

Except, oddly, the greatest economists, though not innumerate, were not really interested in mathematics - Adam Smith, for example. And economists only started to become seriously interested in mathematics some time after Veblen, seemingly because engineering and the hard sciences seemed to be eclipsing the importance of clarity in writing and thought by considering themselves to represent empirical reality. A framework that still exists, of course, as we deride things like moral philosophy, dismissing the very idea that a moral philosopher has anything to add to the self-proclaimed science of economics.

Whatever the case may be for why so many current economists seem to feel that using numbers makes them equal to scientists, the fact remains that economics is about human beings, not math. Leaving aside the blurred lines between accounting, finance, and economics.

"The wild beasts of Italy have their caves to retire to, but the brave men who spill their blood in her cause have nothing left but air and light. Without houses, without settled habitations, they wander from place to place with their wives and children; and their generals do but mock them when, at the head of their armies, they exhort their men to fight for their sepulchers and the gods of their hearths, for among such numbers perhaps there is not one Roman who has an altar that has belonged to his ancestors or a sepulcher in which their ashes rest. The private soldiers fight and die to advance the wealth and luxury of the great, and they are called masters of the world without having a sod to call their own." - Tiberius Gracchus

These trends are continuously in flux. I have lived in cities such as Knoxville, Chattanooga, and Pittsburgh where revitalization is restoring once decaying areas. From my current perch in rural America I miss the dynamism, but I appreciate the perspective gleaned from the experience. I recommend spending time in a place fundamentally different from your hometown.

I welcome the culture brought by both domestic migrants and immigrants. Unfortunately many do not.

"I welcome the culture brought by both domestic migrants and immigrants."
I am sure some Romans said the same while the Barbarians were invading.

Depends on the migrant and the immigrant, does it not?

"I welcome the culture brought by both domestic migrants and immigrants. Unfortunately many do not."

Lotta people say that. Revealed preference on the other hand.....

When you know what it is like to live in liberal hell holes you leave. When you are out of the country and hear the lies about how great it is to live in liberal hell holes you go there, instead of the better parts of America.

Whatever they live, most Americans live worse today than their grandparents lived in the late 60's. There is no Eatern Roman Empire to survive the general fall of the American Empire.

Just a matter of time before Thiago starts hobnobbing with us on iSteve.

Never! I am not a racist. I believe in national identity, not in racial superiority. Like Rome at is height, we Brazilians are from all races and creeds, united by the glory of the past and the hopes of the future. Suffices to say, Preaident Temer is from Arab stock. Who cares?

International migration in and domestic migration out is a trend seen in US metropolitan areas now especially among the areas on the coasts. These areas are desirable to higer educated International immigrants because of the economic opportunities and higher quality of living these areas offer. Also these areas tend to be more liberal and more accepting of immigrants making it more appealing to international migration.
This type of migration has been seen before in the urbanization of Europe during the industrious & Industrial Revolution when people migrated from rurals areas to towns & cities to better their economic situation.
The problem with urbanization & the brain gain of higher educated International immigrants is it's causing overcrowding which is incressing the demand & the price of housing. Domestic residents that are not as highly educated are having trouble keeping up with the increasing cost of housing. This is causing the displacement & gentrification of domestic residents and their communities.
This can be seen very well in the San Francisco Bay Area. The tech industry has been attracting high educated International immigrants on H1B1 Visa that have increased the demand and skyrocketed the housing market. This has led to many local residents no longer be able to afford housing in the Bay Area. That's has cause the displacement & gentrification of many Bay Area communities. Although the migration of higher educated International immigrants is good for the Redevelopment and economy of Bay Area cities, it has caused the increase of domestic migration out of the Bay Area because of the locals not being able to afford the high cost of living in their communities no more & are forced to look for affordable living outside the Bay Area & start over in a new community.
I recommend looking at UC Berkeley's & UCLA's case studies on displacement & gentrification in San Francisco & Los Angeles areas to go into more depth on topic at http://www.urbandisplacement.org.

Comments for this post are closed