Section 4 • Economics & Demographics


South Portland, Maine; Topeka, Kan.; Hudson, N.H.; Worcester, Mass.; Springfield, Va.; and Raleigh, N.C. Meanwhile in September, the U.S. Census Bureau and the


U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development jointly announced new single-family home sales in August were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,011,000.


This is 4.8 percent above the revised July rate of 965,000


and is 43.2 percent above the August 2019 estimate of 706,000. DEMOGRAPHICS


Baby Boomer Generation Drives American Migration Patterns A United Van Lines study revealed more baby boomer genera- tion Americans moved than any other age group in 2019, as those 55 to 74 years old accounted for more than 45 percent of all inbound United moves for the year.


   


1 Houston, TX 2 3


Las Vegas, NV San Antonio, TX


4 Chicago, IL 5 Orlando, FL 6 Austin, TX 7 Charlotte, NC 8 Philadelphia, PA 9 Brooklyn, NY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19


Phoenix, AZ


Columbus, OH Tampa, FL


San Diego, CA Jacksonville, FL


20 Nashville, TN 21 22


Atlanta, GA Miami, FL


23 Portland, OR 24 25


St. Louis, MO Ft. Worth, TX


44 Self-Storage Almanac 2021   Key factors driving the baby boomer generation relocation


upon reaching retirement age included states’ economic perfor- mances and housing costs.


The United Van Lines’ National Movers Study, which tracks


customers’ state-to-state migration patterns over a calendar year, showed Idaho with the highest percentage of inbound migration among states experiencing more than 250 moves. This is Idaho’s first time leading the list of inbound states in more than 25 years. Oregon followed Idaho as the second most popular moving des- tination nationally. States in the Mountain West and Pacific West regions, including Arizona, Washington, and New Mexico, contin- ued to see high percentages of inbound moves.


In the Southeastern region of the United States, several


states—including South Carolina and North Carolina—were popular moving destinations in 2019. The study revealed major reasons for moving south were retirement (24 percent) and job change (46 percent).


 


   1 3 4 2 5 7


10 8 6 9


12 11 14 13


Los Angeles, CA 15 Indianapolis, IN Sacramento, CA Dallas, TX Tucson, AZ


17 18 16 19 22 20 21 20 28 25


Source: U-Haul International * Not Ranked Last Year Following this trend, Florida  


26 Colorado Springs, CO 26 27 Plano, TX 28 Raleigh, NC 29 Bronx, NY 30 31


Denver, CO Cincinnati, OH


32 Richmond, VA 33 34 35


Knoxville, TN Washington, DC


San Francisco, CA 24 Kansas City, MO


36 Overland Park, KS 37 37 38 39 40


41 Durham, NC 42 42 44 45 46 47 48


49 Fresno, CA 50


Bakersfield, CA Seattle, WA Reno, NV


Pittsburgh, PA Memphis, TN San Jose, CA Tulsa, OK


Vancouver, WA


34 31 23 32 33 27 30


35 36


Oklahoma City, OK 38 Louisville, KY Columbia, SC


43 40 *


46 48 47 39 49 42 45 50 *


joined the list of top 10 inbound states for the first time since 2015, ranking seventh. More residents flocked to Florida for retirement and for lifestyle change than any other state. The District of Columbia and South Dakota also made the top 10 inbound list.


The 2019 survey disclosed that,


across all regions, a major driver of migration is a career change, as approximately one out every two United customers moved for a new job or company transfer.


An exodus persists among


Northeastern states, as New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut were among the top 10 outbound states for the fifth consecutive year. Pri- mary reasons cited for leaving the Northeast were retirement (26.8 percent) and new job/company transfer (40.1 percent).


Top Growth Areas In the annual U-Haul migration trends survey, Florida took over the top position in the company’s rank- ing of top growth states for 2019, unseating Texas, which was No. 1 from 2016 to 2018. See Table 4.4 on page 43.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152