The Mass. Exodus (cont.)

There's yet another article in the Boston Globe today on the continuing decline in the population of Massachusetts. And it brings some bad news, folks. We're no longer #1 in the population loser category.

Bay State exodus 2d only to N.Y.

Massachusetts lost more residents than it attracted in recent years, at a greater rate than any other state but New York, according to Census Bureau estimates released today.

We got beat by New York? I hate when that happens!

The estimates show that between 2000 and 2004, more residents left Massachusetts than moved to the Bay State -- with an average annual exodus of 42,402 people. That amounts to a rate of 6.6 people leaving the state per 1,000, second only to New York's rate of 9.6 residents per 1,000 during that period.

Shocking.

Not.

Naturally, the Democrats - who overwhelmingly dominate the social and political landscape in Massachusetts - will be out in force (again) blaming this on our Republican governor, Mitt Romney. So, how does Romney's office respond?

But nationally, the regions picking up population are in the South and West, with Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and Idaho topping the list. Romney's communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom, noted those centers of population growth and attributed Massachusetts' losses to New England's weather.

Um...

The US Census Bureau report measured how many people are moving in and out of states, and it found that the migration from most of the New England states has slowed in recent years. More people moved into Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont than moved out from 2000 to 2004, while the number of people moving into Connecticut dropped slightly. Nationally, the South remained the primary destination.

Apologies to Natalie Merchant and 10,000 Maniacs, but something tells me it's not about the weather. And, since when is Idaho a "warm state"?

Frey said metropolitan Boston has been losing people since 1990, but in recent years the loss has been occurring at greater rates than at any time since the recession of 1990 and 1991. Today's report found that among large metropolitan areas, Greater Boston trailed only San Francisco and New York City in its rate of loss.

Mayor Menino's office will be issuing a statement later this morning addressing this latest crisis, just as soon as he figures out who to blame it on.

Here's the Boston Globe graphic that accompanies the story.

(click for larger image)

Biggest population losses (per 1,000 residents) for the major metropolitan areas shown:

New York City = -11.4
Boston = -9.5
Los Angeles = -9.3
Chicago = -6.8

Let's play "What do these five places (including San Francisco) have in common?".

Hmmmmm...

I'll close with this "Quote of the Day" from Marc J. Perry, head of the Department of Stating the Bleeding Obvious.

Even with immigration, the population has not kept up because more people are moving out. "When you have that many more people leaving each year than coming in, it makes it that much more challenging to have population growth," said Marc J. Perry, a demographer for the US Census Bureau who handled the latest report.

Bodes real well for our new "free healthcare for any freeloader who puts up a tent in Massachusetts and calls it home" plan.

UPDATE: Per jeremiah's comment, consider Washington D.C. added to the above list of cities, with a population loss of 10+ residents per 1,000 jumping ship (see Boston Globe graphic).

Also, it should be noted, as this Boston Globe article points out, that at least one Boston neighborhood is experiencing a population growth...of sorts.

According to Boston police statistics, every category of major crime in [Mattapan] is up compared with last year, including 100 percent jumps in homicide, robbery, and residential burglary. He said an influx of paroled prisoners and troubled youth is driving the violence.

I blame Wal-Mart, no, wait, Dick Cheney, no that's not it, ummm...Starbucks!, pay phones, global warming, no, wait, I got it...Idaho, umm...HALLIBURTON!