2020 was pretty much a wash for Michigan in terms of population growth, according to one study. The 2020 United Van Lines National Movers Study found that Michigan was a balanced state with about the same percentage of people moving out (50.2%) as moving in (49.8%). Retirement was the top reason for pulling up stakes in the Great Lakes State. Find out what it costs to retire comfortably in every state.
Nevertheless, Michigan, which took the 20th spot on United Van Lines list of most moved-out states in 2020, improved from the previous survey. It’s outbound relocations plunged 6.6 percentage points, dropping it 13 spots from 2019.
However, North American Moving Services’s 2020 U.S. Migration Report estimated that the percentage of the state’s outbound residents (60%) exceeded the incoming (40%). The ups and downs of the state’s auto industry likely haven’t helped the state retain its workforce. Find out where Michigan ranks on this list: the states with the best and worst economies.
The outflow migration from Michigan mirrors a pattern seen in other Midwestern and Northeastern states — that is, a search for the sun. Residents wishing for a more hospitable climate are fleeing to Sunbelt states. In the case of Michiganders, they’re flocking to Florida and Texas — No. 1 and 3 on the list, respectively.
Interestingly, No. 2 on the list is neighboring Ohio, a state similar to Michigan in weather and industrial base. Rounding out the top five are two more closeby Midwestern states — Illinois and Indiana. Apparently, people moving out of Michigan prefer not to move too far from their home state.
To identify where people from Michigan are moving to most, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed state-to-state migration flows from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Migration flow figures show the estimated number of people living in other states (or Washington D.C.) in 2019 who had lived in Michigan the previous year. State population and population change figures are based on one-year estimates from the ACS (five-year estimates for Washington D.C.)
“Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error … The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.”