• Skua@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      No, it isn’t. Florida and Pennsylvania are some of the most populous states but have pretty small numbers on the map. Washington has a bigger number than Texas despite having a quarter of the population

        • Skua@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Wait, were you saying that the current map is just a population heatmap, or that the proposed per-capita one would be that?

          • resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            24 hours ago

            The OP is effectively a heatmap since it isn’t relative to population.

            California is the most populous state. Having the largest number of anything isn’t informative.

            58,000 people leaving California is insignificant. 58,000 people leaving Wyoming is.

            It’s also misleading since it’s net interstate migration. California has (or at least had) an immigration surplus when counting foreign migration.

            Oh, and it’s only GenZ. You know, the people most squeezed-out of owning a home that are now having children. Who might be forced to move from a VHCOL area to a LCOL one.

            This is a map made by someone with a hateboner for California.

            • Skua@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              24 hours ago

              Okay, but while I agree that it’d be good to get the per capita numbers, it’s still definitely not close to a population heatmap. The examples I gave should illustrate that