![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On the move
Mar. 18th, 2009 11:09 amFrom Kottke comes a pointer to this set of maps of inter-state migration.
The local, anti-California angle: About 140,000 people moved from California to Washington, yes. But about 91,000 moved from Washington to California, so the net increase from California was fewer than 50,000.
The big eye-opener, completely unexplained:
9% of the population of Alaska -- net -- left the state in the years studied, 2005-2007. This was the largest population loss among the fifty states plus DC shown, and significantly greater than Louisiana's 6.4% net loss post-Katrina in the same period. In fact, while Louisiana had 13% of its population leave, Alaska had 25% leave (169K of 683K residents). Only people moving in offset that huge number.
My immediate thought is the people who left Alaska were oil workers rotating in and out of the state -- but that's only speculation.
The local, anti-California angle: About 140,000 people moved from California to Washington, yes. But about 91,000 moved from Washington to California, so the net increase from California was fewer than 50,000.
The big eye-opener, completely unexplained:
9% of the population of Alaska -- net -- left the state in the years studied, 2005-2007. This was the largest population loss among the fifty states plus DC shown, and significantly greater than Louisiana's 6.4% net loss post-Katrina in the same period. In fact, while Louisiana had 13% of its population leave, Alaska had 25% leave (169K of 683K residents). Only people moving in offset that huge number.
My immediate thought is the people who left Alaska were oil workers rotating in and out of the state -- but that's only speculation.
