The way the charts are set up, say charts 4 and 5, it looks like people are fleeing places like California and New York, and heading to places like Nevada and South Carolina.
Except the charts are subtracting out-migration from in-migration. California is the most populous state, about 38 million people. New York is the second most populous state, about 19 million people. Nevada went from having 1.2 million to having 2.7 million. South Carolina went from having 3.4 million to having 4.6 million.
Nevada never really had a population base that could have been subtracted in those charts. South Carolina also had a small population base.
What I've seen happen in New York City is large blue-collar families leaving ethnic neighborhoods, and those neighborhoods being replaced by young professionals. Williamsburg is an example - it was a working class ethnic neighborhood, now it is yuppies, hipsters, startups, art galleries, and the like. You can think what you want of it, but it is certainly not a sign of a lack of prosperity.
That's another assumption implicit in the article - that the Duggar family leaving a state, and two yuppie kids moving in is bad economically, because the population decreased. If small populations meant a bad economy then Norway, Denmark, Finland, Singapore, and Uruguay are bad, and Nigeria and Bangladesh are good. Prosperity does not equal population size.
Congratulations, you have the Orwellian language down cold. Things done in other countries are a threat to "national security", if I as a citizen, taxpayer and voter want to go to a park and protest the TARP taxpayer bank bailouts, I'm a potential "threat to civil order".
Also thanks for telling us all the FBI does is sit by and meekly "monitor" groups that "might present some kind of threat to civil order". After Nixon had a bunch of burglars break into the Democratic parties headquarters at the Watergate hotel as part of a much larger spying operation, his FBI appointee, L. Patrick Gray participated in the coverup by destroying documents given to him by John Dean and Ehrlichman - as well as working to dampen the entire Watergate investigation within the FBI. You can't blame a subordinate - the head of the FBI took an active role in secretly sabotaging efforts of the Democratic party.
We don't even have to go into civil rights and peace groups which were part of the Democratic party milieu. The FBI took an active role in this. Hoover sent a memo in 1967 "The purpose of this new counterintelligence endeavor is to expose, distrupt, or otherwise neutralize the activities of black nationalist hate-type organizations". What were the "targets" listen in the memo? Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and SNCC, which organized college student protests against segregation.
I am acquainted with a programmer who worked at Columbia University until he retired recently. In the 1960s he went to Bard College and became involved in the opposition to the war in Vietnam. He also worked as a programmer, and I believe a database administrator at that time for various corporations. The FBI secretly sent letters "misaddressed" to his bosses, trying to defame him and get him fired. This was found out in a lawsuit later.
The court, documentary etc. evidence of FBI abuse is enormous. In fact, the surest way of getting flagged by the FBI - is to attack the FBI. This post is certainly being flagged by the FBI, what I'm typing right now. People criticizing the FBI was one of the top things flagged by the FBI from the 1950s to the 1970s, and why should anything have changed?
Of course the above posted who describes himself as a "libertarian" and people like him seem fine with this, and call this active interference by a political police as "monitoring".
Sorry, this is not yet Gaza where you can just drop a bomb on someone you dislike.
If Israel is a start-up nation, I guess from the Zionist point of view, the newly UN recognized nation of Palestine is a nation to "shut down". Like with Netanyahu's recent shutting off of east Palestine. For daring to show that only nine countries oppose the existence of the Palestinian state - the USA, Israel, and Canada - as well as some US territories in the Pacific with UN votes (Marshall Islands, Palau).
Considering how this posted topic has immediately turned into a flamewar, it is obvious that the "introduction of classic flamewar topics" was done by the original submitter. You start the fire, then point a whiny finger at those who come around - how typical of a Zionist.
Except the charts are subtracting out-migration from in-migration. California is the most populous state, about 38 million people. New York is the second most populous state, about 19 million people. Nevada went from having 1.2 million to having 2.7 million. South Carolina went from having 3.4 million to having 4.6 million.
Nevada never really had a population base that could have been subtracted in those charts. South Carolina also had a small population base.
What I've seen happen in New York City is large blue-collar families leaving ethnic neighborhoods, and those neighborhoods being replaced by young professionals. Williamsburg is an example - it was a working class ethnic neighborhood, now it is yuppies, hipsters, startups, art galleries, and the like. You can think what you want of it, but it is certainly not a sign of a lack of prosperity.
That's another assumption implicit in the article - that the Duggar family leaving a state, and two yuppie kids moving in is bad economically, because the population decreased. If small populations meant a bad economy then Norway, Denmark, Finland, Singapore, and Uruguay are bad, and Nigeria and Bangladesh are good. Prosperity does not equal population size.