The Brooklyn Exodus Is Real
But That’s Nothing New
The Economist recently ran a short piece about the alleged “Brooklyn exodus.” The supposed phenomenon is one of Brooklyn being emptied of its hallmark artistic class due to cost-induced migration. The Economist provided the below graph, showing that, in fact, “creative” work is on the rise in Brooklyn.
In other words: no migration problem; the “Brooklyn exodus” is a myth. But there’s two problems with this: first, cost-push migration is real, and a big factor in Brooklyn. Second, there’s no reason that should threaten “creatives.” It may do the opposite.
The Brooklyn Exodus
Recent Net Migration
First, a look at the last several years of Brooklyn’s net migration. Inflows have risen fairly steadily from 2005 to present. Hey, Brooklyn is getting more attractive to outsiders! That doesn’t sound so bad! Inflows have risen from 50,000 people per year to over 70,000 per year. Most inflows come from within the state of New York, but both in-state and interstate inflows have risen with about the same trend.
Outflows, meanwhile, have remained about steady, around 120,000 people per year. From 2007–2010, interstate outflows fell from 66,000 to 46,000, while instate outflows rose from 52,000 to 65,000. Then from 2010 to 2013, these trends reversed. Brooklyn has been losing more people to out-of-state destinations since 2010, even as it loses fewer people to the rest of New York.
But hold on: even with rising inflows and stable outflows, annual net migration has hovered around 50,000 people per year. For a county with 2.5 million people, that’s a pretty substantial 2.1% annual net outflow. That’s not small. That’s actually very big. If it’s persistent over years and years: yeah, I’d call it an exodus.
The Brooklyn Exodus
But… Detroit?
So are Brooklyn “Creatives” moving to Detroit? Well, we can’t check that with as much time precision. But we can get county-to-county flows from 2008–2012. Not quite current up to the alleged “Creative” flight to Motor City, but, still, if nothing shows up from 2008–2012 in terms of special migration flows with regard to Detroit, then we can probably rule that out.
To assess this, I’ll use a replacement ratio. This is just the number of inbound migrants from a given region to Brooklyn divided by the number of outbound migrants to that region from Brooklyn. A number over 100% indicates that Brooklyn has positive net migration from a given region, less than 100% indicates that Brooklyn has negative net migration. The use of a ratio allows us to standardize a given set of bilateral relationships so that the disparate sizes of given partner regions don’t distort our results.
The great thing about replacement ratios is that, because they’re standardized against population, they tend to be really stable with regards to arbitrary geographic speculations. So, for example, there’s a genuinely different relationship between Brooklyn and the other 4Boroughs, and Brooklyn and the remainder of the NYC metro, and Brooklyn and Detroit, or the rest of the US. Brooklyn loses to all of these regions, but it’s much closer to positive versus the the other Boroughs. But for other regions, Brooklyn loses big. Brooklyn’s inflows are less than half of its outflows to most regions.
If Detroit has a unique migration relationship with Brooklyn, it should show up in a unique ratio or amount of inflows and outflows. To begin with, the total flows between Detroit and Brooklyn are less than 1000 people per year summed between both directions. For two high-population areas, you’d actually expect more migration ties, all else being equal. Meanwhile, the replacement ratio between Detroit and Brooklyn is identical to that between Brooklyn and the NYC outer Boroughs, and to that between Brooklyn and the nation on the whole. Detroit’s record isn’t special.
There is a Brooklyn exodus: but it has no ties to Detroit.
The Brooklyn Exodus
All About the Family
The above chart shows net migration rates by age. Now, if you look at it the way I do, you can see basically two two bulges (aside from the jump for college freshmen): for young kids, and for folks in their 30s. In other words, young families.
The big losses in Brooklyn are young families and college kids.
The people leaving can’t pay the rent in Brooklyn: because they need extra bedrooms, and in-unit washer-dryer, and all the other expenses that come with family. Brooklyn migration has something of a lifestyle: sure, out-migration occurs at all ages, but the rate of outmigration is several times higher for some groups than others. In particular, the 3.8% outmigration rate for 30–35 year olds is remarkable: migration rates tend to settle down and get far less volatile by then. The less negative migration rates for 20-somethings, meanwhile, is driven by strikingly high in-migration rates. Brooklyn is relatively attractive to young people.
But when 20-something Brooklynites grow up, get married, have kids, and want to put down roots, they leave.
They take their kids with them. And if they stick around for their kids to finish high school, those kids move away at very high rates: maybe because their upbringing in a wealthier area with a diverse local culture with many school options provides them more college options.
The Brooklyn Exodus
Conclusion
Brooklyn works as a Borough for 20-something “creatives.” Different places have different comparative advantages, and may be good for people at different stages of life. Brooklyn has pervasive out-migration due to foreign immigration, natural fertility, retiree migration: but also the natural life cycle of its 20-something “creative” denizens. This may be an exodus, but it is, in some ways, a sustainable exodus, an exodus always in cycle. There’s nothing new about Brooklyn losing people: that’s old hat. What matters isn’t just net flows, but the composition of migration.
Oh, and the rumored Detroit connection? Nothing to it.
See my previous post on migration life cycles.
See a post on American diasporan demography.
Start my series on migration from the beginning.
If you like this post and want to see more research like it, I’d love for you to share it on Twitter or Facebook. Or, just as valuable for me, you can click the recommend button at the bottom of the page. Thanks!
Follow me on Twitter to keep up with what I’m writing and reading. Follow my Medium Collection at In a State of Migration if you want updates when I write new posts. And if you’re writing about migration too, feel free to submit a post to the collection!
I’m a graduate of the George Washington University’s Elliott School with an MA in International Trade and Investment Policy, and an economist at USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service. I like to learn about migration, the cotton industry, airplanes, trade policy, space, Africa, and faith.
My posts are not endorsed by and do not in any way represent the opinions of the United States government or any branch, department, agency, or division of it. My writing represents exclusively my own opinions. I did not receive any financial support or remuneration from any party for this research. More’s the pity.
