Florida Rising

by Wendell Cox 12/18/2011

New Internal Revenue Service migration data, compiled by the Tax Foundation, confirms that more people are again moving to Florida than are moving out. After a loss in the number of 30,000 domestic migrants ("exemptions") in 2008-9 as indicated on tax returns, Florida added 30,000 in 2009-10. This is still a far lower net migration than before the burst of the housing bubble, but is an indication that Florida has returned to growth. Florida's migration turnaround was recently noted in new American Community Survey data (see Domestic Migration: Returning to Normalcy?). Additionally, in 2009-10, Florida ranked third out of the 50 states and DC in personal income gains from net domestic migration relative to 2009. Only Montana (#1) and South Carolina (#2) did better.

»
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Email this Blog entryEmail this Blog entry

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Currently there are 53

Submitted by WALLPAPERZ on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 02:43.

Currently there are 53 modified teachers educating 2,436 students within the 650-square-mile SAD WALLPAERZ dominance. The augmented Nasiona Konopi astonishment in upbringing has led to the stream commerce of a new unswerving instruction, which instrument link the unit existing election Mothers day wallpapers schools and two screechy schools already working.

but why?

Submitted by sleepership on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 06:35.

A 1 foot rise in sea water by 2040- will make vast parts of Florida unlivable.

measuring diversity

Submitted by samjosph on Fri, 03/09/2012 - 06:34.

Your use of LQ for a measure of diversity is very interesting, although I'm not sure it is really measuring diversity, per se, or even changes in diversity website development
. The nearest I can figure is that it is measuring where change in race/ethnicity is happening either more or less than at the national level. It does NOT tell us where diversity or change in diversity is greatest or least.
Also, a minor quibble, the article says that an LQ of 1 represents the same as the average of the United States for that variable
, but the breakpoint in all your map legends appears to show "0" as the breakpoint. None of your LQs on the map is more than 1. In looking at your reference to the Wikipedia entry for LQ, it seems that they also use "0" to represent a greater concentration of the variable than the nation-wide average. So, not being an economist, but merely a geographer, I am confused about which is correct
Thanks for your always thought-provoking posts and PLEASE stop using the Mercator projection for mapping your global data!