Shopping at Amazon?
Wait! If you click this link
Open predictions
Our local book authors
User login
Who's online
There are currently 9 members and 152 guests online.
Currently online
Recent Recommendations
Wait! If you click this link
NJ is a high outbound state and prices have gone through the roof the last 5 years. i like your creativity in comparing home prices to migration but we should be selective in how to interpret the data. after all, you don't want to get caught in the prices never go down due to migration argument!
CR,
Now overlay that map with the housing bubble map.
You will find that immigration has provided the new service community for the well-healed.
Richard, I thought this might be interesting, but I definitely don't want to read too much into the data. The Northeast is a good example (as you noted) - prices have been strong, yet NY, NJ and PA all have experienced high outbound migration. Maybe we need to compare 5 year graphs.
Best to all.
I know from Atlanta's perspective, low land costs and over 2,000 subdivisions being built have kept the price of real estate down.
Where you are seeing huge appreciation is inside the perimeter as traffic is enticing gentrification for Atlanta.
Maybe Allied's map would be better.
The first time I remember seeing mention of this report, California was found to be losing residents - sometime in the 1980s. Then it was observed many of the people moving into California don't hire moving companies. California's own data shows a rise in population. Migration data based on hiring moving vans would catch only moves by those who have the need and the wherewithall to hire a moving company.
Of course, it is mostly people who can afford to own a home who can afford, and in many cases need, a mover.
Interesting high-inflow data for DC. I always understood from Census data that DC was experiencing a slow and steady decrease in population.
From the report:
"Rounding out the list of high-inbound states is Washington, D.C. (61.4%), which has remained inbound since the first year of the study."
This finding must be an artifact of the data, and not detecting true migration trends. While I don't have data for 2005, I can confirm that the population of DC declined steadly during much of the timeline of their study.
How accurate is this report? I don't know much market share they have in each state but for this to be a fairly good study I would assume they would have to have a huge market share(>50%) for this to have some meaning.
Not sure the point is to show that outbound migration can stop a bubble (it didn't in calif. either), but perhaps migration issue can indicate how unrealistic the bubble market has become, and how vulnerable a state might be once the party's over
Barry, I live in Nashville and while greater TN may have seen 5-10% appreciation, I can assure you that Nashville itself is booming almost out of control. My home has doubled in price since 2003.
I wonder if there is anything to take into account as regards a rural/urban differential (I think values in rural areas may even be falling as people start to head for cities (not unlike China?))
Sorry, said "Barry"... My mistake!!
the northeast has been in a downtrend for years hasn't it? I think we've lost congressfolk to the south and west in the last two congressional reapportionments.
There's another chart you might be interested in comparing to the migration chart.
I'm interested in the Louisiana outflow and wonder what the pre-Katrina outflow was like.
But then, with the good possibility of an earthquake, soon, in Cal, and more and more hurricanes in Florida, there may be other reasons.
I would say that some of the higher outbound migration is a result of the higher home price appreciation.
I have a several friends who are cashing out their high value California homes and moving to where they can live mortgage free with the proceeds (Georgia and Washington).
Anecdotal stuff... but my friends in the financial planning biz tell me that the number of folks selling their homes in CA and retiring in other states is growing. Mostly to get the equity premium on CA real estate and to avoid CA taxes on their pensions/IRAs, so I'm told.
With the #s of baby boomers hitting retirement, it'll be interesting to see how much wealth leaves states like CA.
Migration data based on hiring moving vans would catch only moves by those who have the need and the wherewithall to hire a moving company.
Ya there are a lot of people migrating who only need the trunk of their car... and not a very big one at that.
the way i see dc migration is that a lower class family of 6 moves out and a professional couple or single moves in. gentrification and condos are an example. while lack of affordable housing is another. thus it would seem plausible that you could still have net out migration but high rates of people using moving companies.
CA retirees have long been moving to AZ communities such as Sun Stroke City, little more than God's Waiting Room, which rely on a constant influx of the near-dead to replace the daily ouflow of DNA.
As far as the pattern not happening in the southeast... perhaps it is the difference in zoning laws. Western states may have stricter zoning laws, restricting development to a higher degree and making the cost of land higher.
The next step would probably be to look at the price of land. My hypothesis is that more of the value of the homes in the west are tied up in the value of the land vs. the cost of construction/ quality of home. In the southeast they have looser restrictions and just build out... my sister-in-law just bought a new 4-bedroom house in Nashville that is half the cost of a 2-bedroom condo in the D.C. area. Land is cheap.