Destination? Center for Economic Development Carnegie Mellon University Center for Economic Development Regional Enterprise Tower 425 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1110, PA 15219 Phone: 412.765.0280 Fax: 412.765.0290 www.smartpolicy.org Smart Policy for Innovative Regions June 2003
Destination? Page 1 Destination? By Lena Andrews has lost half of its population since 1950, and with an aging resident population, policymakers and residents worry that there will not be enough residents of working age to meet future labor demand. These concerns have brought retaining and attracting talent to the forefront as a key policy issue. In 2000, the Center for Economic Development issued a series of reports examining migration trends in the region. These reports found that contrary to popular belief, was not losing people so much that it was not attracting people. In-migration and out-migration were both extremely low. 1 The difficulty of further reducing out-migration required a focus on in-migration. This report focuses on the in-migration half of the equation. Figure 1 In-Migration Rates for Select MSAs and PMSAs, 2001 9% 8% 7% In-Migration Percentage 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 2.3% New York Nassau--Suffolk Cleveland--Lorain--Elyria Chicago Philadelphia Los Angeles--Long Beach Detroit Boston Houston Miami Newark Dallas Orange County Seattle--Bellevue--Everett Oakland Denver Riverside--San Bernardino Tampa--St. Petersburg--Clearwater Austin--San Marcos Metropolitan Area Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey, Movers in Metro Areas in the Previous 12 Months, May 20, 2003. 1 Gradeck, Bob, Are Young People Really Fleeing in Droves, March 2000, http://www.smartpolicy.org/pdf/pitmigration.pdf. Gradeck, Bob and Jerry Paytas, Migration and Regional Growth, March 2000 http://www.smartpolicy.org/pdf/mig&growth.pdf.
Destination? Page 2 According to recent data from the American Community Survey the situation has not improved. has the second lowest in-migration rate of all metropolitan areas with more than one million residents. The chart above shows the in-migration rate (the ratio people moving to a city over the total population) for a peer group of cities. s rate of 2.7% is lower than all cities except for Buffalo. Setting down roots ers tend to stay where they are; the trouble is getting them here. The 2000 Census examined place of residence in 1995 and place of residence in 2000. In total, only 8% of MSA residents in 2000 were not living in the region in 1995. Seven percent had been living elsewhere in the United States, and 1% had been living abroad. Ninety-two percent of residents that lived in in both 1995 and 2000; the majority (66% of all residents) were living in the same house, and the rest (26% of all residents) were living in a different house in the MSA. Figure 2 Residents in 2000 by Place of Residence in 1995 Different House, Outside of (in US) 7% Different House, Abroad 1% Different House Within 26% Same House 66% Source: United States Census 2000. Table P25: Residence in 1995 for the Population 5 Years and Over MSA/PMSA Level.
Destination? Page 3 Figure 3 Percentage of Residents Residing in the Same House in 1995 and 2000 Percentage of Residents Residing in the Same House 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 66% Philadelphia New York Cleveland--Akron Providence--Fall River--Warwick Boston--Worcester--Lawrence Detroit--Ann Arbor--Flint Chicago--Gary--Kenosha Minneapolis Cincinnati--Hamilton Washington--Baltimore Los Angeles--Riverside--Orange County Tampa Miami--Fort Lauderdale Houston--Galveston--Brazoria Metropolitan Area (MSA/CMSA) Seattle--Tacoma--Bremerton Portland Dallas--Fort Worth Phoenix--Mesa Austin Las Vegas Source: United States Census 2000. Table P25: Residence in 1995 for the Population 5 Years and Over MSA/PMSA Level. In fact, more residents of stayed in the same house between 1995 and 2000 than in any other large metropolitan area. s demographic make-up, with its large elderly population, contributes to this inertia. The percentage of population over sixty-five is correlated with staying put. The correlation between these two factors for the period 1995 to 2000 for the forty-eight largest metropolitan areas is 67%. 2 This means that places with high percentages of elderly residents tend to have high percentages of people that do not move. Figure 4 shows the relationship between percentage of population in the same house in 1995-2000 and the percentage of the population over age 65; discarding the two outliers, has the highest rankings in both categories. 2 Tampa and West Palm Beach were excluded from correlation calculations because they have substantial retirement communities, which consist of residents mainly over the age of 65 and transient. Both MSAs appear as outliers in Figure 4.
Destination? Page 4 Figure 4 Correlation between Non-Moving Population and Population over 65 for 50 largest MSAs/CMSAs, 2000 7 Percentage of Residents in the Same House, 1995 and 2000 6 5 4 3 2 1 Austin Las Vegas Tampa West Palm 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25% Percentage of Residents over 65 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, analysis by the Center for Economic Development. The Chicken or the Egg Immigration from abroad has provided the fuel for population growth across the country. How has fared as a destination for foreigners moving to the United States compared to other metropolitan areas?
Destination? Page 5 Figure 5 Percentage of In-Migration from Abroad, 2001 7 6 Foreign Percentage of In-Migration 5 4 3 2 1 7% Cleveland--Lorain--Elyria Riverside--San Bernardino Tampa--St. Petersburg--Clearwater Nassau--Suffolk Dallas Denver Austin--San Marcos Newark Metropolitan Area Philadelphia Boston Detroit Orange County Oakland Seattle--Bellevue--Everett Houston Los Angeles--Long Beach Chicago New York Miami Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey, Movers in Metro Areas in the Previous 12 Months, May 20, 2003. A 1-2 Punch The MSA, already one of America s least diverse regions in terms of foreign population, is not an initial destination for foreign immigrants. Of the new residents from 2000-2001, only 7% came from abroad (Figure 5). suffers a migration 1-2 punch our rate of in-migration is very low and we have one of the smallest proportions that come from abroad. Many foreign residents move to coastal and border cities with better access to their home countries but other cities with geographic constraints similar to, such as Detroit and Denver, were able to attract high numbers of foreign immigrants in 2001. One reason that more immigrants do not move to is because the region lacks a substantial immigrant population. Foreigners tend to move to cities where there are already established communities of people from their countries. Data from the American Community Survey shows that immigration in the United States tends to be concentrated in certain areas; the six states with the most immigrants are home to 68% of all foreignborn residents, despite having only 4 of the population. 3 If someone is moving from 3 Camerota, Steven A., Immigrants in the United States 2002, Center for Immigration Studies, November 2002.
Destination? Page 6 Venezuela to the United States, they will feel much more comfortable moving to where they can find a familiar and supportive network that can help them to find housing, schools, Spanish language issues, immigration issues, etc. Unfortunately, has a lower share of foreign residents than all metropolitan areas except for Cincinnati (Figure 6). Figure 6 Foreign-Born Percentage of Population, 2000 45% 4 Foreign Born Population (%) 35% 3 25% 2 15% 1 5% 2.64% Cincinnati--Hamilton Cleveland--Akron Philadelphia--Wilmington--Atlantic City Detroit--Ann Arbor--Flint Minneapolis--St. Paul Tampa--St. Petersburg--Clearwater Metropolitan Area Portland--Salem Seattle--Tacoma--Bremerton Providence--Fall River--Warwick Boston--Worcester--Lawrence Washington--Baltimore Phoenix--Mesa Dallas--Fort Worth Chicago--Gary--Kenosha Houston--Galveston--Brazoria New York--Northern New Jersey--Long Island Los Angeles--Riverside--Orange County Miami--Fort Lauderdale How can encourage more migration? Research shows that people move for several reasons. The majority of moves from one county to another between 1999 and 2000 occurred for housing-related (32%) and work-related (31%) reasons 4. People with higher levels of education are much more likely to undertake an inter-county move for work-related reasons than people with lower educational attainment; 42% of people with a bachelor s degree and 47% of people with a Master s or professional degree or doctorate who moved between counties between 1999-2000 relocated for work-related reasons, primarily because of a new job or job transfer. 5 Next Release The Center for Economic Development examines the region s gateway neighborhoods that host the most foreign-born residents. 4 Center for Economic Development analysis of data from the Current Population Survey. 5 Schachter, Jason, Why People Move: Exploring the March 2000 Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, May 2001.