Upload
sheri
View
38
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The Recent Migration Slowdown and America’s Changing Regional Demographics. William H. Frey The Brookings Institution www.frey-demographer.org. US: Population by Race: 2000 and 2050. 46.3%. 69.1%. US: Population by Age: 2000 and 2050. 20.2%. 12.4%. New Demographic Regions. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
William H. FreyWilliam H. Frey
The Brookings InstitutionThe Brookings Institution
www.frey-demographer.orgwww.frey-demographer.org
The Recent Migration SlowdownThe Recent Migration Slowdown and America’s Changing Regional and America’s Changing Regional
DemographicsDemographics
Source: William H. Frey analysis
US: Population by Race: 2000 US: Population by Race: 2000 and 2050and 2050
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
2000 2050
White
Black
Asian
HispanicOther
69.1%
46.3%
Source: William H. Frey analysis
US: Population by Age: 2000 US: Population by Age: 2000 and 2050and 2050
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
2000 2050
65+
45-54
20-44
Under 20
12.4%
20.2%
Source: William H. Frey analysis
New Demographic New Demographic RegionsRegions
Melting Pot AmericaMelting Pot America
The New SunbeltThe New Sunbelt
The HeartlandThe Heartland
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Melting Pot, New Sunbelt and Heartland States
New SunbeltMelting PotHeartland States
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Foreign Born Foreign Born 70%70%
Asian Language at Home Asian Language at Home 68%68%
Spanish at Home Spanish at Home 76%76%
Mixed MarriagesMixed Marriages 51%51%
Native BornNative Born 37%37%
English at HomeEnglish at Home 34%34%
Share of U.S. in Melting Share of U.S. in Melting Pot StatesPot States
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Demographic Components, Demographic Components, 2000-20092000-2009
(Rates per 1000)(Rates per 1000)
30
16
-19
66
-15
45
-30-20-10
01020304050607080
Melting Pot New Sunbelt Heartland
ImmigrationDomesticMigration
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Domestic Migration Magnets, 2000-09
11 PhoenixPhoenix 530,579530,579
22 Riverside, CARiverside, CA 457,430457,430
33 AtlantaAtlanta 412,832412,832
44 Dallas Dallas 307,907307,907
55 Las VegasLas Vegas 299,027299,027
66 TampaTampa 254,650254,650
77 CharlotteCharlotte 243,399243,399
88 HoustonHouston 242,573242,573
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Greatest Domestic Out-Migration, 2000-09
11 New YorkNew York -1,920,745-1,920,745
22 Los AngelesLos Angeles -1,337,522-1,337,522
33 ChicagoChicago -547,430-547,430
44 DetroitDetroit -361,632-361,632
55 San San FranciscoFrancisco -343,834-343,834
66 New OrleansNew Orleans - 298,721- 298,721
77 MiamiMiami -284,860-284,860
88 San JoseSan Jose -233,133-233,133
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Immigrant Magnet Metros, 2000-09
11 New YorkNew York 1,079,0161,079,016
22 Los AngelesLos Angeles 803,614803,614
33 MiamiMiami 506,423506,423
44 ChicagoChicago 363,134363,134
55 DallasDallas 323,941323,941
66 Washington DCWashington DC 310,222310,222
77 HoustonHouston 289,648289,648
88 San FranciscoSan Francisco 257,318257,318
Source: William H. Frey analysis
US County Growth 2005-6US County Growth 2005-6
Source: William H. Frey analysis
US County Growth 2008-9US County Growth 2008-9
Source: William H. Frey analysis
CA, West Growth 2005-6 vs CA, West Growth 2005-6 vs 2008-92008-9
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Florida Growth, 2005-6 vs Florida Growth, 2005-6 vs 2008-92008-9
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Annual Population Growth, 2000-9
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-05 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9
Nevada Arizona Florida Texas
Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Texas
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Annual Population Growth, 2000-9
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-05 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9
Los Angeles New York
Los Angeles Metro, New York Metro
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Annual Population Growth, 2000-9
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-05 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9
Urban Suburban Exurban
Urban, Suburban, Exurban
Source: William H. Frey analysis
0
5
10
15
20
25
1948
-194
919
50-1
951
1952
-195
319
54-1
955
1956
-195
719
58-1
959
1960
-196
119
62-1
963
1964
-196
519
66-1
967
1968
-196
919
70-1
971
1975
-197
619
80-1
981
1982
-198
319
84-1
985
1986
-198
719
88-1
989
1990
-199
119
92-1
993*
1994
-199
519
96-1
997
1998
-199
920
00-2
001
2002
-200
320
04-2
005
2006
-200
720
08-2
009
Migration Slowdown 1947-8 to 2008-9
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Migration between States by AgeMigration between States by Age2000-1 versus 2008-92000-1 versus 2008-9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Age <
59-M
ay
14-O
ct15
-1920
-2425
-2930
-3435
-3940
-4445
-4950
-5455
-5960
-64 65+
2000-2001 2008-2009
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Reasons for Moving Between Reasons for Moving Between StatesStates
2004-5 versus 2008-92004-5 versus 2008-9
22 14
34 46
30 25
13 15
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2004-5 2008-9
Other
Family Related
Jobs Related
HousingRelated
Source: William H. Frey analysis
California versus Mountain WestAnnual Net Domestic Migration 2000-9
-400000.0
-300000.0
-200000.0
-100000.0
0.0
100000.0
200000.0
300000.0
400000.0
2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-05 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9
California Mountain West
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Nevada: Greatest Net Migration Nevada: Greatest Net Migration Origins: Origins: 2000-82000-8
Net Mig. Net Mig. MigratioMigratio
nn
Share of Share of
totaltotal
CaliforCaliforniania 192,382192,382 69%69%
New New YorkYork 15,23715,237 5%5%
IllinoisIllinois 14,73414,734 5%5%
HawaiiHawaii 10,35810,358 4%4%
MichigMichiganan 10,12510,125 4%4%
Source: William H. Frey analysis
California Net Migration by California Net Migration by Education: Education:
2004-5 versus 2007-82004-5 versus 2007-8
-70,000
-60,000
-50,000
-40,000
-30,000
-20,000
-10,000
0
10,000
Less Than HS HS grad Some College College Grad
2004-5 2007-8
Source: William H. Frey analysis
New York versus FloridaAnnual Net Domestic Migration 2000-9
-300000.0
-200000.0
-100000.0
0.0
100000.0
200000.0
300000.0
2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-05 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9
New York Florida
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Top Metro Net Migration Gainers, Top Metro Net Migration Gainers, 2004-52004-5
RankRank MetroMetro Net MigNet Mig
11 PhoenixPhoenix 98,78998,78922 RiversideRiverside 72,34172,34133 TampaTampa 51,98551,98544 OrlandoOrlando 51,82651,82655 AtlantaAtlanta 51,30551,30566 Las VegasLas Vegas 39,33139,331
Source: William H. Frey analysis
New and Old Net Migration New and Old Net Migration Gainers, 2008-9Gainers, 2008-9
RankRank MetroMetro Net MigNet Mig
11 HoustonHouston 49,66249,662
22 DallasDallas 45,24145,241
33 AustinAustin 25,65425,654
44 RaleighRaleigh 20,09520,095
55 DenverDenver 19,83119,831
66 CharlotteCharlotte 19,21119,211
99 AtlantaAtlanta 17,47917,479
1313 PhoenixPhoenix 12,44112,441
3030 TampaTampa 4,6634,663
279279 RiversideRiverside -616-616
306306 Las VegasLas Vegas -1,256-1,256
346346 OrlandoOrlando -4,279-4,279
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Florida Metro Areas Florida Metro Areas Annual Net Migration Annual Net Migration 2000-2009
-10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-05 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9
Orlando Tampa Jacksonville
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Texas Metro Areas Texas Metro Areas Annual Net Migration 2000-2009Annual Net Migration 2000-2009
-20,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-05 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9
Dallas Houston Austin
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Metro Las Vegas Domestic and International Migration
2000-2009
-10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-05 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9
Domestic International
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Metro Phoenix Metro Phoenix Domestic and International Migration Domestic and International Migration
2000-20092000-2009
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-05 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9
Domestic International
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Metro Riverside, CADomestic and International Migration
2000-2009
-20,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-05 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9
Domestic International
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Metro Los Angeles, CADomestic and International Migration
2000-2009
-300,000
-250,000
-200,000
-150,000
-100,000
-50,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-05 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9
Domestic International
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Race Composition of Regions 2008
68%
15%
3%3%
11%
White Black Asian Other Hispanic
79%
12%
2%2% 5%
Melting Pot New Sunbelt Heartland
53%
11%
7%
2%
27%
25% and above
10.0% to 24.9%
5.0 to 9.9%
Under 5%
Hispanic Hispanic ConcentrationsConcentrations
Data source: William H. Frey, US Census Estimates
Percent of County Population
Asian ConcentrationsAsian Concentrations
10% and above
5.0% to 9.9%
2.0% to 4.9%
Under 2%
Percent of County Population
Data source: William H. Frey, US Census Estimates
Black ConcentrationsBlack Concentrations
Percent of County Population25% and above
10.0% to 24.9%
5.0% to 9.9%
Under 5% Data source: William H. Frey, US Census Estimates
White ConcentrationsWhite Concentrations
Percent of County Population95% and above
85.0% to 94.9%
70.0% to 84.9%
Under 70%Data source: William H. Frey, US Census Estimates
Source: William H. Frey analysis
CA and MT West: Race Change CA and MT West: Race Change 1990-20081990-2008
-2,000,000
-1,000,000
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
California MT West
White BlackAsianHispanic
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Race Ethnic Profile: 1990, Race Ethnic Profile: 1990, 20082008
5742
6751
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1990 2008 1990 2008
Whites Blacks Hispanics Asians Others
MOUNTAIN WESTCALIFORNIA
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Annual Hispanic Growth Rates, 2000-8: Selected West Metros
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0
10.0
2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-05 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8
Las Vegas Phoenix Riverside Los Angeles
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Growth 5% and overGrowth under 5%Decline under 5%Decline 5% and over
State Growth in Child Population*, State Growth in Child Population*, 2000-20102000-2010
Under age 18
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Percent Non White Children*, Percent Non White Children*, 20152015
GT 50%40% - 50%30% - 40%20% - 40%Under 20%
* Under age 15
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Percent Children with Immigrant ParentsPercent Children with Immigrant Parents
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
CA NY NV AZ FL NJ TX US
Ist Gen 2nd Gen
51%
35% 35% 34% 32% 31% 31%
23%
Source: William H. Frey analysis
US Growth by Age 2000-10
310
4
-9
19
49
16 14
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0- 5 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Age 65 + Growth, 2000-10, US States
25% & above20% -24%10% -19%under 10%
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Greatest 65+ Growth, 2000-8Metros over 500,000
11 ProvoProvo 131.4131.422 RaleighRaleigh 38.638.633 AustinAustin 36.836.844 AtlantaAtlanta 36.236.255 Boise CityBoise City 35.735.766 OrlandoOrlando 33.333.377 Las VegasLas Vegas 32.432.488 DallasDallas 28.628.699 TucsonTucson 28.428.4
1010 HoustonHouston 28.128.1
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Percent 65+ population for States, 2005
13.4% & above12% -13%11% -11.9%under 12%
Source: William H. Frey analysis
140% & above100% -139%70% -99%under 69%
Projected Age 65+ Growth 2000-30, US States
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Projected Age 65+ Growth, 2000-40
02468
101214161820
2005
-10
2010
-15
2015
-20
2020
-25
2025
-30
2030
-35
2035
-40
2000
-05
2005
-10
2010
-15
2015
-20
2020
-25
2025
-30
2030
-35
2035
-40
2000
-05
2005
-10
2010
-15
2015
-20
2020
-25
2025
-30
2030
-35
2035
-40
Florida California New York
perc
ent g
row
th
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Race for Age Groups: US
55.5 60.371.6
80.4
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Age Under15
Age 15-39 Age 40-64 Age 65+
White Black Asian Other Hispanic
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Race for Age Groups: California
29.4 36.050.7
63.3
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Age Under15
Age 15-39 Age 40-64 Age 65+
White Black Asian Other Hispanic
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Race for Age Groups: Nevada
42.9 51.066.2
76.9
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Age Under15
Age 15-39 Age 40-64 Age 65+
White Black Asian Other Hispanic
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Race for Age Groups: Arizona
42.150.8
68.482.9
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Age Under15
Age 15-39 Age 40-64 Age 65+
White Black Asian Other Hispanic
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Race for Age Groups: Minnesota
76.4 81.690.7 95.6
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Age Under15
Age 15-39 Age 40-64 Age 65+
White Black Asian Other Hispanic
Source: William H. Frey analysis
United StatesUnited StatesProjected Race Compositions,
2025
Under Age 18Under Age 18
52 %
white black Indian Asian Hispanic
62 %
Age 18 -64Age 18 -64
76 %
Age 65+Age 65+
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Projected State Population Growth 2000-2010
15% and above
10% to 15%
5% to 10%
Under 5%
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Projected Changes in Congressional Seats after 2010
Census
4
11
1
1
11
1
-1
-1-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
- 2
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Fast-Growing Purple States, 2008
Purple-Dem
Purple-Rep
All Other
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Slow-Growing Purple States, 2008
Purple-Dem
Purple-Rep
All Other
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Source: William H. Frey analysis of CPS November 2004, 2008 supplements
“Fast-Growing” vs “Slow-Growing”
Purple State Growth, 2004-8
7.8
36.8
28.0
41.8
8.3 8.3
-1.7
12.6
-505
101520253035404550
Whites Blacks Hispanics Asians,Other
Fast Growing Slow Growing
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Source: William H. Frey analysis
2008 Blue States: Won by Whites and Minorities
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Nevada, New Mexico Voters: Nevada, New Mexico Voters: 2004, 20082004, 2008
8073
56 55
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2004 2008 2004 2008
Whites Blacks Hispanics Asians Others
Nevada New Mexico
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Nevada – Democratic Margins
-3-12
73
2112
-8
89
54
-40-30-20-10
0102030405060708090
100
Total Whites Blacks Hispanics
2004 2008
Source: William H. Frey analysis
New Mexico – Democratic Margins
-1
-13
1215
-14
39
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Total Whites Hispanics
2004 2008
Source: William H. Frey analysis
Useful WebsitesUseful Websites
www.brookings.edu/metrowww.brookings.edu/metro
www.frey-demographer.org www.frey-demographer.org