Jokes aside, I would venture to guess it has more to do with people moving out of city limits and into the suburbs than moving out of the state all together.
I think there's a lot to that. Also the way cities are defined: My understanding is that Columbus draws the map to include suburbs, while Cleveland is just Cleveland proper. So the whole area is losing jobs, people move to the suburbs, the map (and tax base I assume) doesn't include suburbs, city loses more money plus more people etc.
Neoliberal policy, rendering capital footloose (and increasingly able to seek low wages, non-/anti-unionization, limited regulatory standards, etc.), and also including municipal tax policies allowing neighbourhoods to incorporate and contract expensive services rather than create them on their own. Add in the subsidization of suburbanization in a host of ways, not least the creation of freeways.
I'm a native Ohioan, born and raised an hour from Youngstown. The state, especially the eastern half, was built largely around the auto industry and steel mills. When Goodyear Tire left Akron in 1978 and Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel filed bankruptcy in 1985 and again in 1990 (and never truly recovered), places like Akron, Youngstown, Cleveland, Dayton, and Toledo fell much in the way of Detroit, albeit less dramatically. Most of those cities are also ravaged by drug abuse, which raises their crime and poverty rates. This, of course, causes many to flee to other areas that are safer and more stable job-wise. Thankfully, Columbus is still thriving!
Agreed. Also a native Ohioan, an hour south of Cleveland. Sad to see so many Ohio cities on this list. We've lost some major employers in our city. Hoover (bought out by Maytag then dismantled/moved), Ford Motor Co (moved), and AEP (most of the local jobs went to Columbus in the '90s) are a few that come to mind. More employers are moving out of the cities to townships, where taxes are lower and there is space to expand business. Residents are following the trend out of the city - nicer housing, lower taxes,better schools, safer environment. There are big hopes and dreams in the NFL Hall of Fame Village project ... "If you build it, they will come" ... but the jury is still out as to whether tourism will be a real help or not. Many of us just don't see this city and all its problems as a major tourist hotspot. Having said that - Ohio is a beautiful state, with a lot of good things to attract people.
People want to believe "Detroit is falling apart, but the suburbs are strong". Sadly, this isn't true. Far more people are leaving the state than are moving in. Globalization has absolutely gutted the Midwest.
Actually, I think it makes perfect sense. Without globalization, the United States would still rely on internal manufacturing in order to supply most of the country, but with the shift towards importing manufactured goods, the Midwest has faced significant decay as they have lost their main economic source. It’s cheaper to import international goods than to make them at home where we have minimum wages and manufacturing regulations.
Arguably, the Midwest suburbs and small cities have some of the best quality of life in the United States.
Houses are very affordable, crime is low, and people are nice. I grew up in that environment, and I can tell you that it's probably a better place to raise a family than my current residence (Seattle).
But there is not much economic opportunity either.
Just wondering QM (if you don't mind sharing), why do you live in Seattle? Most of the comments on this quiz suggest you aren't particularly happy there.
In can only speak about southwest Ohio, but from 2000 to 2010 the greater Cincinnati area population increased by over 100,000 people. While people moved from the city proper during that time period, the outlying suburbs grew and continue to grow.
You should check this out. It seems like the suburbs that are further out are more favorable. For example, from what I've heard by word of mouth, places such as Liberty Township and Mason are the "nice" places to live. Both of these are outside Hamilton County.
This still doesn't explain the total population decrease in Ohio. My guess is that a lot of Ohioans are moving to the suburbs from the city and from smaller surrounding cities, while a lot of people are also leaving those cities for other states.
Right? I keep seeing people asking these questions like they've never heard of the "Rust Belt." I guess the auto industry decline over the last several decades was not big enough historical news? I mean, that's what I used to start basing my answers.
All but 4 of the 18 cities lost less than 40,000 people over 17 years. No city likes negative growth but that's hardly a mass exodus. That said, New Orleans was completely devastated by a natural disaster which explains a lot of their population loss. Manufacturing jobs being lost or moved internationally probably explains quite a bit of the rest.
And several of those cities are under 100,000 people. Many have halved since the 1950s. Youngstown has lost 2/3 of it's population. St. Louis 856,000 in 1950 and soon to be in the 200s.
It would have been good to include the populations being counted as a city. Saginaw seldom makes these lists because it is too small, so I didn't even consider it.
Prediction: By 2030, Chicago will be atop this list by a wide margin (and New York will possibly make an appearance as well). The combination of bad weather, high prices, congestion, and outrageous taxes makes the situation in those places untenable. Bankruptcy is on the horizon for Chicago/Illinois unless they get a bailout from the feds. Just please don't all move to Seattle. We're full.
It's sort of cruel twist that a lot of the outrageous taxes are to pay for the pensions and health care of former state employees who have retired and moved to Florida and Arizona. So all those taxes are leaving Illinois and subsidizing those Florida and Arizona's economies.
I had this great idea a few years ago. States should apply state income tax to pensions before they give them out. This would penalize the freeloaders who flee to another state. Turns out, this has been tried, and the courts ruled it illegal.
My other idea is kind of wicked. States should only mail pension checks to people who live in the state and pay taxes. Others would have to pick up the checks in person. Wahahahaha...
Seattle is now a cesspool and no go zone that looks like Mad Max in the CHAZ zones. I don't know how much longer you will want to stay there, especially if you value independent liberty, free speech, low taxes, etc. Best of luck...
Doubt NY will ever make this list. When you have a city that is so interconnected with the world, has great public transportation (one of the few in the country), pays good salaries, and has tons housing available outside of manhattan, it would be implausible to make that sort of prediction.
It's cruel that once, thriving, cities became a graveyard of houses. Especially Detroit, since they used to have 1.85 million people living there. Now, only about a little over 600,000 people live there.
Just curious, is this a measure of just loss, or net loss? I'm guessing either way it doesn't make much of a difference since most of these places aren't drawing a lot of new residents, but still would be nice to know.
As with many of these, going by city proper only doesn't give you an accurate picture of the health of a metropolitan area. For example, Detroit's city proper encompasses most of the metropolitan area, where St. Louis' city proper encompasses only a small fraction of the entire metropolitan area. If looking at crime statistics alone, you get an inaccurate picture of St. Louis. The metro area is far larger than the city proper. Yes people are moving out of the city, but then again the city only has about 300,000 people. The entire metro area has more then 3,000,000 people.
NAFTA, high taxes, no gun rights, people who hate free speech and individual liberties, etc. I don't know why anyone would live in NY or California at this point.
You answered your own question. Decent taxes hopefully leads to social security , gun regulation, fighting spreading hate speech and misinformation, all good things. Unlike you I DO understand why people with different political views wouldn't want to live there, just as how I would never want to live in a deep red state.
Lots of things wrong with that. Higher state taxes don't somehow increase social security for starters. Twelve states tax some/all of your social security and politically they're split 50-50 red-blue. Also, having political figures with an agenda deciding what counts as "misinformation/hate speech" is not a good idea, also strict gun regulations have absolutely failed to stop crime in big cities like Chicago, NYC or Detroit.
Gun regulation can only go so far when the Supreme Court curbs it. Also, there are no comparison cities with Republican-run governments to see if Republican gun policies are better or worse than Democratic ones.
In fact, eight out of the top ten cities measured by homicide rates are in red states.
I would not go so far as to give Democrats a prize for lowering homicide rates as after the top ten on both lists, Democratic/Republican states are split fairly evenly.
Michigan as a whole has a stagnant population. Cities like Detroit and Flint had population booms in the early 1900's due to big companies like Ford and General Motors. When those companies closed their big factories, people had to move to other cities to find work. This left many neighborhoods in Detroit to look like ghost towns. With a few exceptions (Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo areas...) the state is deteriorating. Most of the midwestern states have similar stories.
Surprised no Texas cities are on here. With the rising crime rates and the state getting hotter and hotter each year due to global warming, I’d think many people would flee from the state.
We’ve lived in AZ for 8 years and the stretches of days over 100 degrees has gotten longer and longer. Maybe everyone will move back to Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin when the climate there becomes warmer.
Most people leaving Cleveland are just going to the suburbs, they can’t build houses fast enough. There’s developments popping up all over the far west side. Not sure about the rest of Ohio.
As a matter of fact, if you take a look at the final table in that page under demographics, you can see how the population has grown the last 10 years and that the population has shifted quite heavily towards surrounding counties. Interesting.
This obviously doesn't mean the same applies since 1970, but the trend definitely holds over the last ten years.
Birmingham is a little surprising but Santa Ana is the true head scratcher. Orange County is generally doing quite well and grew about 18% from 2000 to 2020. One theory out there is that 21st Century gentrification of Santa Ana reduced downtown population densities, thereby reducing overall population. I did not know that Orange County could gentrify but ok ....
Several cities in Puerto Rico should be included. Based on Census data from 2000 to 2020, Bayamon lost 38,857 residents, Carolina 31,261, Toa Baja 18,842, Mayaguez 25,357, and Ponce, 48,984, all of which are more than Saginaw, the current lowest city listed here. Given that all of these cities are decreasing in population, the numbers for 2021 to match up with the quiz would likely be slightly higher than the ones I have listed. These cities should be included, as Puerto Rico is experiencing the most significant population loss of anywhere in the United States, and arbitrarily excluding it because it is a territory doesn't make much sense.
To everyone who tries to make this a political point: Nigeria has a rapid population growth rate, while Japan's population is shrinking. Does this mean Nigeria is better run, freer and wealthier than Japan?
You're right that the cheap shots about American politics amount to nothing more than rhetoric. However, your counter-example is woefully falacious. Those basic facts may be true, but they utterly fail to account for the immense differences in culture and underlying circumstances between Japan, Nigeria and, for that matter, the US. There are innumerable variables that explain population trends in those places that have nothing to do with the reasons the cities on this list have shrunk.
Houses are very affordable, crime is low, and people are nice. I grew up in that environment, and I can tell you that it's probably a better place to raise a family than my current residence (Seattle).
But there is not much economic opportunity either.
This still doesn't explain the total population decrease in Ohio. My guess is that a lot of Ohioans are moving to the suburbs from the city and from smaller surrounding cities, while a lot of people are also leaving those cities for other states.
Interesting how Gary is still shrinking so much, I was just there and it's already so hollowed out. Such an interesting, historic city.
But seriously, Illinois is screwed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_violent_crime_rate
Gun regulation can only go so far when the Supreme Court curbs it. Also, there are no comparison cities with Republican-run governments to see if Republican gun policies are better or worse than Democratic ones.
In fact, eight out of the top ten cities measured by homicide rates are in red states.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/57/
I would not go so far as to give Democrats a prize for lowering homicide rates as after the top ten on both lists, Democratic/Republican states are split fairly evenly.
Step 1. Open factories
Step 2. Import vast numbers of low skilled workers for factories
Step 3. Close factories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Cleveland
This obviously doesn't mean the same applies since 1970, but the trend definitely holds over the last ten years.