Michigan is listed as number 1, mostly because Michigan has lost a greater share of its population. However, the Michigan population is nearly 10 million but the article says that Michigan lost 12,000 persons.
The state has lost more than 12,000 people, or 2% of its population, since 2005.
From the comments, by Thomas:
The math in the Michigan example is so far from possible, let alone believable, that the rest of this article lacks credibility. “12,000 people leaving Michigan since 2005 is 2% of the state population?????” I had to do a gut check on that! If this were true, it means that the ENTIRE population of Michigan is 600,000 – according to the author. Well, there must have been a mass exodus since November, since over 3 million registered voters participated in the gubernatorial election.My point….Don’t blindly believe what you read just because you read it online or in the paper, or hear it on the news. If the story sounds interesting, do the research because the lazy, agenda-driven media are more focused on the negative spin than getting teh facts right.
Maybe 12,000 folks did leave the state. I didn’t look for support for that or any other number. But even if it is accurate, it would represent more like a 0.12% drop in population – based on 2010 census data, which is roughly one sixteenth (rounded way down) of the number that the author would have us believe.
I only had to get to the first example, Michigan, to doubt that the author did their homework. Reading further was pointless!