Massachusetts: Gateway to somwhere else
Anywhere else, apparently.
The United States Census Bureau has released migration statistics for the periods 1990-2000 and 2000-2004. Note that these numbers only cover net movement within the United States, not immigration to or emigration from the Republic.
It is no surprise that Massachusetts had a negative migration, that is, more people moved out of the state than moved to it. Perhaps somewhat more surprising is that while all other states in New England experienced improved net migration in 2000-2004 compared to 1990-2000, Massachusetts’ worsened.
| Average annual migration rate (per 1,000 people) | ||
| State | 1990-2000 | 2000-2004 |
| Connecticut | -6.9 | -1.2 |
| Maine | -0.4 | 6.3 |
| Massachusetts | -4.1 | -6.6 |
| New Hampshire | 3.3 | 6.1 |
| Rhode Island | -6.1 | 1.3 |
| Vermont | 1.2 | 1.5 |
The overall trend in America is that people are moving from the Northeast, from the Midwest and from California to the South (especially the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida) and the Mountain West. Migration in general seems to have abated somewhat compared to the 1990’s, which saw, among other things, a massive exodus of Anglo-whites from California, but it is still significant. The annual average number of net migrants to Nevada actually incresed in 2000-2004 compared to 1990-2000, but the state’s population is now so large that it amounted to a decrease of the migration rate. A map that compares states according to their net migration status in 1990-2000 and 2000-2004 gives a pretty good overview.
Living and loving it in Boston, I care mostly about what happens up here, so I’d like to bring to your attention a letter to the editor in daily freebie newspaper Metro Boston from April 18, 2006:
The fact that the cost of housing is pushing the young out of Boston is nothing new globally. Many see prices in Boston as high, when in fact compared to cities around the world, they are cheap. I moved from London, where I had a 75-minute commute, and now have a 14 minute commute and a bigger apartment. Cities like Hong Kong, Tokyo, London and many others with financial sectors are significantly more expensive, with salaries not so dissimilar. I manage a search firm here in Boston and we are seeing tremendous growth in the financial services, pharmaceutical and technology industries locally, attracting top talent to the area from inside and outside the United States. These people will buy houses or rent and continue to drive up prices levels similar other major cities globally.
Housing within an hour’s commute of Boston is exceptionally cheap compared to most comparable cities around the world. In the age of globalization, Boston should start comparing itself to its global peer group. It may shock some.
One of my cousins worked for a Swedish multinational company in Hong Kong for a couple of years, where he lived in an outrageously expensive apartment in a massive complex. On the other hand, he did have a live-in maid, something he could never have afforded in Sweden. A couple of other cousins of mine worked as waitresses in London for a while, where they literally time-shared a bed in a crowded but centrally located apartment. Life can be hard in those glitzy world-class cities.
I’m not convined that Boston has much business comparing itself to London, Hong Kong, or New York, but the letter writer has a valid point in that the upscale newcomers drive up housing prices. It’s similar to a more expansive point I’ve made before: Native-born members of the middle class are squeezed from both below - by unskilled, low-income immigrants - and above - by high-salary, highly-educated immigrants. The immigrant upper-class probably has more use for the immigrant lower-class (with its maids, security guards, dry cleaners and so on) than for the natives.
Something has to give. Boston cannot continue to attract newcomers, hold on to its native borns and remain as low-dense as it currently is. Something has to give, and right now it is the native middle class. An alternative approach would be to drastically expand housing through carefully planned and pretty much subsidized housing for both middle class and lower-class people (though not mixed with each other, because then you’ll just end up with a lot of under class). A higher-density city would of course also require a dramatically expanded T service, among other things.
I don’t even know if that’s a particularly attractive option and I doubt it could win much support.
Until external factors change, expect Boston and the rest of Massachusetts to continue their demographic bleeding and social stratification.
