• 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
            ·
            1 day 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
              1 day 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
                ·
                1 day 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