"According to the report, Detroit's regional population growth may be partially attributed to millennials and foreign-born residents moving to the area.
"Between 2013 and 2017, metro Detroit saw the second highest growth among peer cities for populations between the ages of 24 and 35, with positive growth of 9.7 percent. Although Detroit trailed Seattle's millennial growth of 13.5 percent, it outpaced the national average of 5.5 percent."
https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits...ding-to-report
The article did not make it clear nor do I ever receive a consistent answer to where does “metro” start and stop?
That's hardly the only issue with the study.Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyS
It also doesn't go into detail as far as what type of millennials Detroit is attracting, although everything seems to suggest it's not high quality growth of educated and skilled millennials [[thus isn't something to brag about), as only those with no or limited colllege would find the low COL and cheap housing costs most attractive above all else given their limited income and career growth potential.
Not to mention, the study is sponsored by the Detroit area itself, so there's already an implicit bias in its results.
This Chamber of Commerce report states that they are analyzing an 11 county region in southeast Michigan. This is much larger than the traditional three county metropolis.
Where is there stated evidence of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
I happen to know a good number of millennials from out-of-state working in a professional environment [[engineering) that joined within the window cited in the study. To be fair, that's just my personal experience. But based upon the STEM job demand in this area over the last few years, I can't be alone in this.
Not everything has to be spun to be negative.
Thst's exactly how I feel about this study. It's missing a lot of details.Quote:
Originally Posted by wazootyman
It would be a lot more useful if it showed the growth amongst those who are college educated between the ages of 25 and 34 [[prime working years for millennials). Without that information, the study is extremely flawed, because I find it very hard to believe Detroit is seeing biggers gains of people who are young/skilled/educated than cities [[Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, etc.) who have a bigger corporate presence, a more diverse economy and a larger availability of professional jobs.
And with all due respect, while I don't doubt your personal experience, it is merely anecdotal and not the same as empirical evidence.
All I'm doing is providing constructive criticism about the study cited in the OP, as it should be taken with a grain of salt.