the Huntsville market · Data as of · ALEX Intelligence
| # | County | Households (change against the earlier vintage) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jefferson County, AL | 179 |
| 2 | Baldwin County, AL | 89 |
| 3 | Lauderdale County, AL | 88 |
| 4 | Tuscaloosa County, AL | 77 |
| 5 | Rutherford County, TN | 70 |
| 6 | Mobile County, AL | 70 |
| 7 | Lincoln County, TN | 63 |
| 8 | Cullman County, AL | 63 |
| 9 | Shelby County, AL | 59 |
| 10 | Marshall County, AL | 52 |
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/countyinflow1718.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.