I feel like this graphic needs more context to really get much out of it. I want different graphics - American immigration as percentage of state population, international immigration as a percentage of state population, total american immigration, total international immigration. On its own, this graphic is very confusing.
Additionally confusing is that most international immigration to the US is illegal - so statistics could be significantly skewed based on how safe illegal immigrants feel about answering a census survey in their state.
Anyway, my interpretation:
Beige states (Pop Decline) - people are fleeing the high cost of living in LA, SF, Chicago, and NYC, leaving for more mid-tier cities elsewhere. Meanwhile, people are fleeing the low standard of living and lack of job opportunities in Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia - well known as some of the worst states to live in.
Dark red states (100%) - Same as the beige states, but with enough opportunity for under the table jobs that illegal immigrants will move there. Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Ohio fall in the same category of “low standard of living” states. The others are likely splitting the difference between people fleeing HCOL cities and low quality of life rural areas, Pennsylvania being a prime example.
Between these two extremes are states where the American population increased - places where americans are moving to, or at least sticking around and having kids at greater than replacement rate. Unfortunately, we don’t know much beyond that, since we don’t know how many people are really moving into or out of a state. Is Montana at 8% because lots of Americans are moving to Bozeman? Or because there is little demand for migrant labor on open range ranches? But in general, we can assume that at least some parts of these states split the difference between standard of living and cost of living well enough that they aren’t hemmoraging citizens. Denver, for example, has a somewhat high cost of living - but makes up for it with lots of jobs, good weather, and an urban culture oriented towards health and outdoor recreation. Meanwhile, Texas cities are well known as auto-oriented hellholes with ungodly high temperatures and humidity. But they make up for it with a plethora of good paying jobs in the energy sector and a low cost of living.
I feel like this graphic needs more context to really get much out of it. I want different graphics - American immigration as percentage of state population, international immigration as a percentage of state population, total american immigration, total international immigration. On its own, this graphic is very confusing.
Additionally confusing is that most international immigration to the US is illegal - so statistics could be significantly skewed based on how safe illegal immigrants feel about answering a census survey in their state.
Anyway, my interpretation:
Beige states (Pop Decline) - people are fleeing the high cost of living in LA, SF, Chicago, and NYC, leaving for more mid-tier cities elsewhere. Meanwhile, people are fleeing the low standard of living and lack of job opportunities in Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia - well known as some of the worst states to live in.
Dark red states (100%) - Same as the beige states, but with enough opportunity for under the table jobs that illegal immigrants will move there. Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Ohio fall in the same category of “low standard of living” states. The others are likely splitting the difference between people fleeing HCOL cities and low quality of life rural areas, Pennsylvania being a prime example.
Between these two extremes are states where the American population increased - places where americans are moving to, or at least sticking around and having kids at greater than replacement rate. Unfortunately, we don’t know much beyond that, since we don’t know how many people are really moving into or out of a state. Is Montana at 8% because lots of Americans are moving to Bozeman? Or because there is little demand for migrant labor on open range ranches? But in general, we can assume that at least some parts of these states split the difference between standard of living and cost of living well enough that they aren’t hemmoraging citizens. Denver, for example, has a somewhat high cost of living - but makes up for it with lots of jobs, good weather, and an urban culture oriented towards health and outdoor recreation. Meanwhile, Texas cities are well known as auto-oriented hellholes with ungodly high temperatures and humidity. But they make up for it with a plethora of good paying jobs in the energy sector and a low cost of living.