Gannon Member Username: Gannon
Post Number: 14096 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 3:00 pm: | |
I heard this on one of the national NPR shows this afternoon...I think it was right after Craiggy's show. They were quoting some national survey...does anyone have any information on it? That is a spectacular statistic...if I heard right, Detroit was on top of that list as well. |
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 2063 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 3:02 pm: | |
It depends on what the statistic was. "80% of Detroit residents were born here and stayed" is very different from "80% of people born in Detroit stayed" |
Lafayette Member Username: Lafayette
Post Number: 39 Registered: 03-2007
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 3:06 pm: | |
Either way, these are similar enough statistics. Hairsplitting aside, they're spectacular. Now, you were saying, Gannon? |
Gannon Member Username: Gannon
Post Number: 14098 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 3:11 pm: | |
I'm asking for the follow-up if anyone else heard the story, I'm searching for a transcript now but it may be too soon. |
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision
Post Number: 1305 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 3:18 pm: | |
It was mentioned somewhere else. It's 80%+ of the people who live here now were born here. |
Gannon Member Username: Gannon
Post Number: 14100 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 3:23 pm: | |
That's right...I had it backwards...I must be 'conceptually dyslexic' today. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3489 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 3:23 pm: | |
>It's 80%+ of the people who live here now were born here. If that's the case, then statistic not so good. |
Gannon Member Username: Gannon
Post Number: 14101 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 3:24 pm: | |
Why would you say that, Iheart? |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3490 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 3:27 pm: | |
>Why would you say that, Iheart? Because that would suggest that the region isn't attracting many new residents. |
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 2064 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 3:29 pm: | |
Yup, that was my point. |
Lafayette Member Username: Lafayette
Post Number: 40 Registered: 03-2007
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 3:32 pm: | |
There's good and bad to that. It's not all bad. |
J_to_the_jeremy Member Username: J_to_the_jeremy
Post Number: 90 Registered: 03-2007
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 4:01 pm: | |
It also supports the possibility that most of the people still living here can't leave because they don't have the means. |
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 398 Registered: 11-2007
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 4:51 pm: | |
The accuracy of the idea that people can't leave town because they don't have the means depends upon what exactly is meant by that. Dirt-poor Mexican farmers from the Yucatan manage to make it to the US, so I'm pretty sure someone from Detroit could make it to Chicago or New York or Charlotte. More likely, they are unwilling to leave their local support system without any assurance that their situation would improve if they did go somewhere else. Of course, poorer people are more dependent upon those networks than richer people, so if what is meant is that they can't afford to leave their friends and family behind, that could be true. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 5232 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 4:55 pm: | |
It also supports the possibility that most of the people still living here aren't money whores whose sole purpose in life is chasing bigger bucks. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3491 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 4:59 pm: | |
quote:It also supports the possibility that most of the people still living here can't leave because they don't have the means. It's not saying anything about whether people are leaving or not. Hypothetically, if 100% of current Detroit area residents were born there, then people could still very well be leaving every hour by the bus loads. It just means that the people living there now were born there and nobody from anywhere else has moved to Detroit. |
Lafayette Member Username: Lafayette
Post Number: 41 Registered: 03-2007
| Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 10:17 am: | |
Totally agreed, Lilpup. Not everyone is willing to leave the people who are important to them only to boost their own careers. I'm not talking about those who have no choice but to leave. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3318 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 10:19 am: | |
I've often thought that the majority of Detroiters, metro Detroiters and Michiganders were people who were born here. *(Edited to avoid confusion.)* When I lived in New York, it was common to ask people, "Where are you from?" Detroit is not one of those cities you ask people, "Where are you from?" all that much. (Message edited by detroitnerd on September 25, 2008) (Message edited by detroitnerd on September 25, 2008) |
Lafayette Member Username: Lafayette
Post Number: 42 Registered: 03-2007
| Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 10:22 am: | |
You've often thought what, Detroitnerd? I'm not sure what you're referring to. |
Ggores Member Username: Ggores
Post Number: 396 Registered: 10-2007
| Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 10:23 am: | |
So then this means that 20% (+/- 0.1%) of non-born residents did NOT stay? I am thoroughly confused. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3319 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 10:28 am: | |
I take it to mean that 20 percent of Michigan residents were not born in Michigan. |
Detroitmaybe Member Username: Detroitmaybe
Post Number: 193 Registered: 03-2008
| Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 10:47 am: | |
This statistic seems interesting because none of the people in my parents age range that I know (60 and up) were born here! Most of them migrated here from other places when the economy was booming back in the 60's and before!! We all know there is a huge elderly and baby boomer population here. Either way, I think it is true that this area isn't attracting many outsiders...also that many people that are here have never relocated, either from lack of means, separation anxiety, stagnation, or complacency. It is my personal opinion it would benefit us more if more people would leave and get a different perspective, and then come back! This region seems so stifled because I swear alot of people that I know or meet don't have any point of reference to compare to but Michigan and visiting other places for a couple weeks at a time! Detroit is great, and my hometown...but, I left for 10 years and now I'm back! I can see clearly the opportunity, the potential, and also the major issues that need to be addressed!! Many people that have been here and have lived here can't see it! I am always excited in discussing the future of Detroit because I know that a change is coming soon, and all they see is more of the same and continue to complain. People are always asking me why I would ever moe back here...ut I tell them that no other place could compare and it really took me to leave and come back home to appreciate that!! Friends are often amazed that in less that 2 years I have moved back and become active in many progressive organizations that are actively advocating change for this region, and I get inside info about alot of initiatives in the area, while they have been here their entire lives and could'nt begin to tell you what's "really" going on!! |
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 299 Registered: 12-2004
| Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 10:56 am: | |
Here's another statistic in which Detroit is first (or last): The percentage of the population that did not live in that city five years ago. That includes foreign immigrants, people who moved from across the country, and people who moved from an adjacent suburb. The numbers are based on data from 2000. Here is how the 50 largest cities fared: 1. Las Vegas, NV - 38.6% 2. Mesa, AZ - 38.5% 3. Austin, TX - 35.6% 4. Colorado Springs, CO - 35.1% 5. Minneapolis, MN - 35.0% 6. Denver, CO - 31.4% 7. Charlotte, NC - 31.4% 8. Seattle, WA - 31.0% 9. Columbus, OH - 30.4% 10. Phoenix - 30.3% 11. Boston, MA - 30.3% 12. Atlanta, GA - 30.2% 13. Virginia Beach, VA - 29.9% 14. Fort Worth, TX - 29.8% 15. San Diego, CA - 29.3% 16. Long Beach, CA - 28.4% 17. Dallas, TX - 28.2% 18. Oklahoma City, OK - 27.8% 19. Portland, OR - 27.5% 20. Oakland, CA - 26.9% 21. Tucson, AZ - 26.9% 22. Washington, DC - 26.6% 23. Nashville, TN - 26.2% 24. Tulsa, OK - 26.2% 25. San Francisco, CA - 26.1% 26. Kansas City, MO - 25.5% 27. San Jose, CA - 24.1% 28. Albuquerque, NM - 23.9% 29. Sacramento, CA - 23.2% 30. Honolulu, HI - 22.4% 31. Wichita, KS - 22.2% 32. Jacksonville, FL - 22.1% 33. Houston, TX - 21.7% 34. Miami, FL - 21.4% 35. Omaha, NE - 21.3% 36. Los Angeles, CA - 21.1% 37. Fresno, CA - 20.5% 38. St. Louis, MO - 20.0% 39. Indianapolis, IN - 19.7% 40. San Antonio, TX - 18.8% 41. Milwaukee, WI - 18.5% 42. Memphis, TN - 16.7% 43. Cleveland, OH - 16.1% 44. Chicago, IL - 15.9% 45. El Paso, TX - 15.6% 46. Baltimore, MD - 14.7% 47. New Orleans, LA - 14.6% 48. New York, NY - 13.0% 49. Philadelphia, PA - 12.8% 50. Detroit, MI - 10.3% |
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 3625 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 11:10 am: | |
quote:We all know there is a huge elderly and baby boomer population here. The baby boom of the early 90s (2nd generation) may have slowed the population decline in Detroit temporarily (which explains why we only lost no more than 100,000 people in the last 20 year compared to 300,000 in the early 80s). Anyway, I wonder what happened to the remaining 20% of the population who was born here? I'm guessing suburbs, Florida or Chicago. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3493 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 11:24 am: | |
quote:Here's another statistic in which Detroit is first (or last): The percentage of the population that did not live in that city five years ago. That includes foreign immigrants, people who moved from across the country, and people who moved from an adjacent suburb. The numbers are based on data from 2000. That list is a little unfair due to the population differences of the cities. For instance, 13% of New York City is a heck of a lot more people than 35% of Colorado Springs. |
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 300 Registered: 12-2004
| Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 11:25 am: | |
It's not saying 80% of the people who were born in Michigan stayed here, it's saying that 80% of the people who live in Michigan were born here. That means that the other 20% of the population living in Michigan wasn't born here. BTW, I looked on census.gov and this is actually how the states ranked in 2000: 1. Louisiana - 79.4% 2. Pennsylvania - 77.7% 3. Michigan - 75.4% 4. Iowa - 74.8% 5. Ohio - 74.7% 6. Mississippi - 74.3% 7. West Virginia - 74.2% 8. Kentucky - 73.7% 9. Wisconsin - 73.4% 10. Alabama - 73.4% 11. North Dakota - 72.5% 12. Minnesota - 70.2% 13. Indiana - 69.3% 14. South Dakota - 68.1% 15. Missouri - 67.8% 16. Maine - 67.3% 17. Illinois - 67.1% 18. Nebraska - 67.1% 19. Massachusetts - 66.1% 20. New York - 65.3% 21. Tennessee - 64.7% 22. South Carolina - 64.0% 23. Arkansas - 63.9% 24. North Carolina - 63.0% 25. Utah - 62.9% 26. Oklahoma - 62.6% 27. Texas - 62.2% 28. Rhode Island - 61.4% 29. Kansas - 59.5% 30. Georgia - 57.8% 31. Connecticut - 57.0% 32. Hawaii - 56.9% 33. Montana - 56.1% 34. Vermont - 54.3% 35. New Jersey - 53.4% 36. Virginia - 51.9% 37. New Mexico - 51.5% 38. California - 50.2% 39. Maryland - 49.3% 40. Delaware - 48.3% 41. Idaho - 47.2% 42. Washington - 47.2% 43. Oregon - 45.3% 44. New Hampshire - 43.3% 45. Wyoming - 42.5% 46. Colorado - 41.1% 47. District of Columbia - 39.2% 48. Alaska - 38.1% 49. Arizona - 34.7% 50. Florida - 32.7% 51. Nevada - 21.3% |
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 302 Registered: 12-2004
| Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 11:32 am: | |
Any statistic can be viewed as being "unfair". You could argue that smaller cities like Minneapolis and Boston have an unfair advantage over cities with larger boundaries such as Houston and San Antonio. But in any case, if you stopped enough people on the streets in these cities and asked them where they lived five years ago, I'm sure the numbers would be the same. (e.g. you will probably find more "foreigners" in Colorado Springs than you would in New York if you ask a random sample of the population.) It doesn't matter that the number is higher in New York, because the native population is much higher in New York as well. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3321 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 11:41 am: | |
Actually, 1 in 5 New Yorkers isn't from the United States, let alone New York. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3495 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 11:47 am: | |
quote:You could argue that smaller cities like Minneapolis and Boston have an unfair advantage over cities with larger boundaries such as Houston and San Antonio. Not when you're basing the percentage (and thus the argument) on the population count. |
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 303 Registered: 12-2004
| Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 12:25 pm: | |
I'm saying that someone could argue that a city like Minneapolis which has small boundaries and a large population just outside of its borders might have an advantage over a city like San Antonio that has large boundaries and a small population just outside of its borders. And again the point isn't to compare the total number of people who lived in another city five years earlier, but to show how likely you are to find someone who wasn't living in the same city five years ago. You have a much greater chance of finding a newer transplant in Colorado Springs than you are in New York, despite the fact that New York has a much, much higher number of newer transplants. That means if you randomly asked 100 people in Las Vegas if they were living in Las Vegas five years ago, somewhere around 40 would say no. If you did the same for New York you might only find around 13 that will say no. |