the Triangle · Data as of · ALEX Intelligence
| # | County | Households (change against the prior vintage) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mecklenburg County, NC | 172 |
| 2 | Alamance County, NC | 170 |
| 3 | Cumberland County, NC | 108 |
| 4 | Orange County, FL | 105 |
| 5 | Wayne County, NC | 97 |
| 6 | Harnett County, NC | 92 |
| 7 | Carteret County, NC | 66 |
| 8 | Lee County, NC | 63 |
| 9 | Iredell County, NC | 63 |
| 10 | Craven County, NC | 55 |
Read this carefully: Only counties the IRS disclosed in both vintages, under the same FIPS code and above a minimum flow in each, are compared, because disclosure thresholds move between years and a flow that appears or vanishes at the margin is not evidence that anybody's behaviour changed. Connecticut is excluded throughout: its counties were replaced by planning regions, so no Connecticut geography is comparable across the change. The IRS withholds county-to-county flows below its disclosure threshold, so a county missing from this table is one whose flow was too small to publish, not one nobody moved from. Every total here is a total of disclosed flows and is therefore a floor.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/countyinflow2223.csv https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/countyinflow2122.csvEvery figure on this page is computed directly from the dataset named above by ALEX Intelligence. No figure on this page was written by hand or by a language model. The query is stated so that anyone can re-run it and obtain the same table.