We await the April 1, 2020 census datapoint, but so far it looks like the 2010s will go down in U.S. history as the decade with the slowest population growth. In the years between April 1, 2010 and July 1, 2019, the U.S. population grew by just 6.3 percent, according to the Census Bureau's newly released population estimates for 2019. When the April 1, 2020 census count is released next year, the growth rate of the 2010s is likely to remain below the current record low of 7.3 percent recorded in the 1930s.
U.S. population growth by decade has been slowing since the 1950s. During the 1950s, the population grew by 18.5 percent—more than double the growth of the 1930s—coinciding with the birth of the baby-boom generation. In every decade since, population growth has been slower than in the previous decade with the exception of the 1990s...
Percent change in U.S. population by decade
2010 to 2019: 6.3% (incomplete data)
2000 to 2010: 9.7%
1990 to 2000: 13.1%
1980 to 1990: 9.8%
1970 to 1980: 11.4%
1960 to 1970: 13.4%
1950 to 1960: 18.5%
1940 to 1950: 14.5%
1930 to 1940: 7.3% (record low)
Note: Percent changes by decade are calculated using April 1 census counts except for 2010 to 2019, which is the percent change from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019.
There are two reasons for the slow rate of population growth during this decade. The ongoing baby bust is one reason, with the fertility rate at a record low. The annual rate of natural increase (births minus deaths) fell from 4.7 to just 2.9 per 1,000 population from 2010 to 2019. The number of people added to the population each year through natural increase fell from 1.5 million between 2010 and 2011 to just 957,000 between 2018 and 2019.
Falling net migration (immigrants minus emigrants) is the other factor that has resulted in what is likely to be the slowest decade of population growth in U.S. history. The annual rate of net migration fell from 2.5 to 1.8 per 1,000 population from 2010 to 2019. The population gain from net migration during this decade peaked at more than 1 million in 2015 and 2016. But between 2018 and 2019, a net of only 595,000 migrants were added to the population.
Source: Census Bureau, National Population Totals and Components of Change: 2010—2019
Showing posts with label migration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label migration. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Monday, February 04, 2019
State-to-State Student Migration
Among high school graduates who enroll in a four-year institution within 12 months of receiving their high school diploma, most enroll in a school in their home state. Fully 74 percent of students choose an in-state school, according to 2016 data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics. But the rate ranges from lows of 39 percent in New Hampshire and 42 percent in Connecticut to highs of 89 percent in West Virginia and 90 percent in Utah.
The net migration of first-year four-year college students also varies greatly by state. Most states gain from student migration, but 13 states lose more students to other states than they attract to their schools. Here are the five states with the biggest net migration streams, both positive and negative...
States with the biggest net gain of first-year college students
Pennsylvania: 15,525
Indiana: 9,656
Alabama: 8,532
Arizona: 7,361
Iowa: 7,358
States with the biggest net loss of first-year college students
New Jersey: –27,262
Illinois: –19,171
California: –14,164
Texas: –12,059
Maryland: –8,564
Other states that lose more first-year four-year college students than they gain are Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington, and Wyoming.
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2017
The net migration of first-year four-year college students also varies greatly by state. Most states gain from student migration, but 13 states lose more students to other states than they attract to their schools. Here are the five states with the biggest net migration streams, both positive and negative...
States with the biggest net gain of first-year college students
Pennsylvania: 15,525
Indiana: 9,656
Alabama: 8,532
Arizona: 7,361
Iowa: 7,358
States with the biggest net loss of first-year college students
New Jersey: –27,262
Illinois: –19,171
California: –14,164
Texas: –12,059
Maryland: –8,564
Other states that lose more first-year four-year college students than they gain are Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington, and Wyoming.
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2017
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Migration Fuels Urban County Growth
The nation's most urban counties grew by a substantial 6.0 percent between 2010 and 2016, faster than any other type, according to a Demo Memo analysis of the Census Bureau's 2016 county population estimates by Rural-Urban Continuum (RUC). Counties in smaller metros grew at a slower rate, and those in rural areas lost population. Both international and domestic migration contributed to the faster growth of big-city counties...
International migration is greater in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2016, the rate of net international migration was 2.6 percent in counties ranking 1 on the Rural-Urban Continuum. Although international migration was positive in every type of county, the rate was lower in less urban counties and lowest (only 0.3 percent) in the most rural counties—those ranking 8 or 9 on the RUC.
Domestic migration is positive only in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2016, the rate of net domestic migration was positive only for counties ranking 1 or 2 on the Rural-Urban Continuum. Nonmetropolitan counties (those ranking 4 or higher on the RUC) had a negative rate of net domestic migration, meaning they lost more people than they gained.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural-Urban Continuum Codes and Census Bureau, County Population Totals Datasets: 2010–2016
International migration is greater in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2016, the rate of net international migration was 2.6 percent in counties ranking 1 on the Rural-Urban Continuum. Although international migration was positive in every type of county, the rate was lower in less urban counties and lowest (only 0.3 percent) in the most rural counties—those ranking 8 or 9 on the RUC.
Domestic migration is positive only in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2016, the rate of net domestic migration was positive only for counties ranking 1 or 2 on the Rural-Urban Continuum. Nonmetropolitan counties (those ranking 4 or higher on the RUC) had a negative rate of net domestic migration, meaning they lost more people than they gained.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Rural-Urban Continuum Codes and Census Bureau, County Population Totals Datasets: 2010–2016
Tuesday, January 03, 2017
10 Questions for 2017 (Part 1)
As demographic trends unfold, questions arise. This is the first of a two-part post with 10 vital questions about ongoing demographic trends. The fresh data to be released in 2017 may answer these questions. (Click here for Part 2.)
1. When will the baby bust end? Population growth in the U.S. has slowed to a crawl because of the ongoing baby bust. The annual number of births fell 8 percent between 2007 (the peak year) and 2015. The fertility rate is at an all-time low, and most childless women say they don't expect to have children anytime soon. How long will they wait?
2. Why is life expectancy declining? Life expectancy fell in 2015 for the first time since 1993, and death rates rose for 8 of the 10 leading causes of death. The experts are wondering what's going on. With so many focused on this troubling trend, we might get some answers in 2017.
3. Will homeownership make a comeback? The homeownership rate fell to 63.7 percent in 2015, the lowest since 1967 and 5.3 percentage points below the 2004 peak. Among 30-to-44-year-olds, the decline exceeded 10 percentage points. After waiting more than a decade for home buying to stage a comeback, will 2017 be the year we throw in the towel and declare lower rates to be the new normal?
4. What will save small town and rural America? We're in the midst of an urban renaissance. The population of the nation's most urban counties grew faster than others between 2010 and 2015, while rural counties lost population. Economic growth, too, is occurring disproportionately in large metro centers. Outside these hubs of activity, there's a male employment crisis. What can small town and rural residents do to get back in the game?
5. When will Millennials marry? The median age at first marriage is at a record high for both men and women as Millennials remain single longer than any other generation in history. The economic consequences are huge and include the urban renaissance, the baby bust, and the decline of homeownership. The Millennial generation, more than any other, will determine what we will be talking about this year.
1. When will the baby bust end? Population growth in the U.S. has slowed to a crawl because of the ongoing baby bust. The annual number of births fell 8 percent between 2007 (the peak year) and 2015. The fertility rate is at an all-time low, and most childless women say they don't expect to have children anytime soon. How long will they wait?
2. Why is life expectancy declining? Life expectancy fell in 2015 for the first time since 1993, and death rates rose for 8 of the 10 leading causes of death. The experts are wondering what's going on. With so many focused on this troubling trend, we might get some answers in 2017.
3. Will homeownership make a comeback? The homeownership rate fell to 63.7 percent in 2015, the lowest since 1967 and 5.3 percentage points below the 2004 peak. Among 30-to-44-year-olds, the decline exceeded 10 percentage points. After waiting more than a decade for home buying to stage a comeback, will 2017 be the year we throw in the towel and declare lower rates to be the new normal?
4. What will save small town and rural America? We're in the midst of an urban renaissance. The population of the nation's most urban counties grew faster than others between 2010 and 2015, while rural counties lost population. Economic growth, too, is occurring disproportionately in large metro centers. Outside these hubs of activity, there's a male employment crisis. What can small town and rural residents do to get back in the game?
5. When will Millennials marry? The median age at first marriage is at a record high for both men and women as Millennials remain single longer than any other generation in history. The economic consequences are huge and include the urban renaissance, the baby bust, and the decline of homeownership. The Millennial generation, more than any other, will determine what we will be talking about this year.
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
North Dakota's Reversal of Fortune
North Dakota is experiencing a reversal of fortune. It had been the nation's fastest growing state thanks to the oil boom. Between 2010 and 2015, its population grew 12.2 percent, far outpacing other fast-growing states such as Texas (8.7 percent), Nevada (6.7 percent), and Utah (7.8 percent). But between 2015 and 2016, North Dakota's population came to a screeching halt. Well, almost. The state registered a minuscule 0.1 percent population gain as falling oil prices turned its net domestic migration from a plus to a minus—North Dakota lost 6,259 residents to other states.
North Dakota is not alone in losing the domestic migration sweepstakes. Most (31) states lost more domestic migrants than they gained between 2015 and 2016. The five biggest losers were New York, Illinois, Connecticut, North Dakota, and New Jersey. At the other extreme, the five biggest winners were Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Florida, and South Carolina.
Utah had the 10th highest rate of net domestic migration, but that's not the only reason it became the fastest-growing state in 2015-16. Another reason is Utah's high rate of natural increase (births minus deaths), triple the national average.
Fastest growing states, July 2015 to July 2016 (percent increase)
Utah: 2.03
Nevada: 1.95
Idaho: 1.83
Florida: 1.82
Washington: 1.78
Oregon: 1.71
Colorado: 1.68
Arizona: 1.66
District of Columbia: 1.61
Texas: 1.58
Source: Census Bureau, Population Estimates
North Dakota is not alone in losing the domestic migration sweepstakes. Most (31) states lost more domestic migrants than they gained between 2015 and 2016. The five biggest losers were New York, Illinois, Connecticut, North Dakota, and New Jersey. At the other extreme, the five biggest winners were Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Florida, and South Carolina.
Utah had the 10th highest rate of net domestic migration, but that's not the only reason it became the fastest-growing state in 2015-16. Another reason is Utah's high rate of natural increase (births minus deaths), triple the national average.
Fastest growing states, July 2015 to July 2016 (percent increase)
Utah: 2.03
Nevada: 1.95
Idaho: 1.83
Florida: 1.82
Washington: 1.78
Oregon: 1.71
Colorado: 1.68
Arizona: 1.66
District of Columbia: 1.61
Texas: 1.58
Source: Census Bureau, Population Estimates
Friday, August 12, 2016
Population Change, 2014 to 2015
The U.S. population grew by 2.5 million between July 1, 2014 and July 1, 2015, according to the Census Bureau. International migration accounted for 46 percent of the gain. Natural increase (births minus deaths) accounted for 54 percent.
Population change, 2014-15
Total increase: 2,511,419
Natural increase: 1,360,891
Net migration: 1,150,528
Source: Census Bureau, Population Estimates, National Characteristics: Vintage 2015
Population change, 2014-15
Total increase: 2,511,419
Natural increase: 1,360,891
Net migration: 1,150,528
Source: Census Bureau, Population Estimates, National Characteristics: Vintage 2015
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Big-City Counties Continue to Attract Migrants
The nation's most urban counties grew by a substantial 5.3 percent between 2010 and 2015, faster than any other type, according to a Demo Memo analysis of the Census Bureau's 2015 county population estimates by Rural-Urban Continuum. Counties in smaller metros grew at a slower rate, and those in rural areas lost population. Every component of population change is driving the growth of the most urban counties...
Natural increase is greater in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2015, the rate of natural increase (defined as births minus deaths) was 2.8 percent in counties ranking 1 on the Rural-Urban Continuum (in metro areas with populations of 1 million or more). This was a higher rate of natural increase than any other type of county on the continuum. Counties ranking an 8 or 9 (the most rural) had a negative rate of natural increase, with deaths outnumbering births.
International migration is greater in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2015, the rate of net international migration was 2.3 percent in counties ranking 1 on the Rural-Urban Continuum. International migration was positive in every type of county, but the rate was lower in less urban counties and was lowest (0.2 percent) in counties ranking 8 or 9.
Domestic migration is greater in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2015, the rate of net domestic migration was positive only for the most urban counties, ranking 1 or 2 on the Rural-Urban Continuum. Less urban and rural counties lost more domestic migrants than they gained.
Natural increase is greater in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2015, the rate of natural increase (defined as births minus deaths) was 2.8 percent in counties ranking 1 on the Rural-Urban Continuum (in metro areas with populations of 1 million or more). This was a higher rate of natural increase than any other type of county on the continuum. Counties ranking an 8 or 9 (the most rural) had a negative rate of natural increase, with deaths outnumbering births.
International migration is greater in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2015, the rate of net international migration was 2.3 percent in counties ranking 1 on the Rural-Urban Continuum. International migration was positive in every type of county, but the rate was lower in less urban counties and was lowest (0.2 percent) in counties ranking 8 or 9.
Domestic migration is greater in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2015, the rate of net domestic migration was positive only for the most urban counties, ranking 1 or 2 on the Rural-Urban Continuum. Less urban and rural counties lost more domestic migrants than they gained.
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
State Migration, 2010 to 2015
Americans aren't moving as much as they once did, but those who move are having a big impact on some state populations. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia gained more domestic migrants than they lost between 2010 and 2015, while 29 states lost more than they gained. Here are the five states with the highest and lowest rates of net domestic migration during the past five years...
Highest rates of net domestic migration
1. North Dakota
2. District of Columbia
3. Colorado
4. Florida
5. South Carolina
Lowest rates of net domestic migration (losses)
1. New York
2. Illinois
3. Alaska
4. New Jersey
5. Connecticut
Highest rates of net domestic migration
1. North Dakota
2. District of Columbia
3. Colorado
4. Florida
5. South Carolina
Lowest rates of net domestic migration (losses)
1. New York
2. Illinois
3. Alaska
4. New Jersey
5. Connecticut
Source: Census Bureau, State Totals: Vintage 2015
Tuesday, June 09, 2015
Why Some People Return to Small Towns
"How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree?" That question, posed in song lyrics nearly a century ago as migration from rural to urban areas picked up steam, is the same one asked by the USDA's Economic Research Service in a study of what brings people back to rural communities they had fled as young adults.
To answer the question, USDA researchers interviewed 300 attendees at high school reunions in remote rural communities. The communities studied were a distinct type: geographically disadvantaged nonmetropolitan counties that are losing population because of net out-migration. Far from urban centers, these counties also lack scenic amenities, and more people are moving out than moving in. You've seen these places when you drive from point A to point B— the ones where you ask yourself, why would anyone in their right mind want to live here?
That's what the researchers wanted to know. To find out, they traveled to high school reunions in 21 remote rural communities and interviewed attendees, identifying those at the reunion who had left their community as young adults and then returned. Why did they come back? Family turned out to be the primary motivation. Most returnees had parents living in the community, and they wanted to raise their children in a small town surrounded by family. Being able to find a job facilitated the return move. For high school reunion attendees who had not moved back, low wages and the lack of jobs were big factors. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic between those who had returned and those who would never return was the value they placed on small-town life. Returnees valued knowing everyone. Those who had no desire to return valued urban amenities and the anonymity of city life.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Factors Affecting Former Residents' Returning to Rural Communities
To answer the question, USDA researchers interviewed 300 attendees at high school reunions in remote rural communities. The communities studied were a distinct type: geographically disadvantaged nonmetropolitan counties that are losing population because of net out-migration. Far from urban centers, these counties also lack scenic amenities, and more people are moving out than moving in. You've seen these places when you drive from point A to point B— the ones where you ask yourself, why would anyone in their right mind want to live here?
That's what the researchers wanted to know. To find out, they traveled to high school reunions in 21 remote rural communities and interviewed attendees, identifying those at the reunion who had left their community as young adults and then returned. Why did they come back? Family turned out to be the primary motivation. Most returnees had parents living in the community, and they wanted to raise their children in a small town surrounded by family. Being able to find a job facilitated the return move. For high school reunion attendees who had not moved back, low wages and the lack of jobs were big factors. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic between those who had returned and those who would never return was the value they placed on small-town life. Returnees valued knowing everyone. Those who had no desire to return valued urban amenities and the anonymity of city life.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Factors Affecting Former Residents' Returning to Rural Communities
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
What's Behind the Gains for Big-City Counties?
The nation's most urban counties grew by a substantial 4.2 percent between 2010 and 2014, faster than any other type, according to a Demo Memo analysis of the Census Bureau's 2014 county population estimates by Rural-Urban Continuum. Counties in smaller metros grew at a slower rate, and those in rural areas lost population. Every component of population change is driving the growth of the most urban counties...
Natural increase was greater in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2014, the rate of natural increase (defined as births minus deaths) was 2.4 percent in counties ranking 1 on the Rural-Urban Continuum (in metro areas with populations of 1 million or more). This was a higher rate of natural increase than any other type of county on the Continuum. Counties ranking an 8 or 9 on the Continuum (the most rural) had a negative rate of natural increase between 2010 and 2014—deaths outnumbered births in those areas.
International migration was greater in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2014, the rate of net international migration was 1.8 percent in counties ranking 1 on the Rural-Urban Continuum. While net international migration was positive in every type of county, the rate fell with declining urbanity to a low of just 0.1 to 0.2 percent for counties ranking an 8 or 9.
Domestic migration was greater in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2014, the rate of domestic migration was positive only for the most urban counties—those ranking a 1, 2, or 3 on the Rural-Urban Continuum. Less urban counties lost more migrants than they gained.
Natural increase was greater in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2014, the rate of natural increase (defined as births minus deaths) was 2.4 percent in counties ranking 1 on the Rural-Urban Continuum (in metro areas with populations of 1 million or more). This was a higher rate of natural increase than any other type of county on the Continuum. Counties ranking an 8 or 9 on the Continuum (the most rural) had a negative rate of natural increase between 2010 and 2014—deaths outnumbered births in those areas.
International migration was greater in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2014, the rate of net international migration was 1.8 percent in counties ranking 1 on the Rural-Urban Continuum. While net international migration was positive in every type of county, the rate fell with declining urbanity to a low of just 0.1 to 0.2 percent for counties ranking an 8 or 9.
Domestic migration was greater in big-city counties. Between 2010 and 2014, the rate of domestic migration was positive only for the most urban counties—those ranking a 1, 2, or 3 on the Rural-Urban Continuum. Less urban counties lost more migrants than they gained.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
States with Highest Domestic Migration Rates, 2013-14
Here are the 10 states with the highest rates of net domestic migration (meaning more U.S. residents are moving into the state than out of the state per 1,000 population) between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014...
1. North Dakota
2. Nevada
3. South Carolina
4. Colorado
5. Florida
6. Arizona
7. Texas
8. Oregon
9. Delaware
10. Idaho
Will the decline in the price of oil and the loss of oil field jobs topple North Dakota from its number-one position on this list? Stay tuned.
Source: Census Bureau, State Totals: Vintage 2014
Thursday, January 23, 2014
States with Highest Domestic Migration Rates, 2012-13
The mobility rate of Americans has plunged over the past few decades, falling to historic lows in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Nevertheless, Americans are still moving and some states are attracting more of those movers than others. Here are the 10 states with the highest rates of net domestic migration (meaning more U.S. residents are moving into the state than out of the state per 1,000 population) between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013...
1. North Dakota
2. District of Columbia
3. Colorado
4. South Carolina
5. South Dakota
6. Montana
7. Florida
8. Nevada
9. Wyoming
10. Texas
Overall, 21 states and the District of Columbia had positive net domestic migration rates between 2012 and 2013. The five states with the largest negative net domestic migration rates were New Mexico, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, and Alaska.
Source: Census Bureau, Population Estimates
Monday, November 18, 2013
Mobility Rate Falls Again
Fewer Americans moved in 2012-13 than in 2011-12, and the mobility rate also fell. With the housing market awaiting the return of the mobile American, the numbers released by the Census Bureau today are not good news.
Only 11.7 percent of people aged 1 or older moved between March 2012 and March 2013, a mobility rate that is close to the all-time low of 11.6 percent recorded in 2010-11 and below the 12.0 percent of 2011-12. The number of people who moved fell by 430,000 between 2011-12 and 2012-13. Here are geographical mobility rates since 2006-07, before the start of the Great Recession…
2012-13: 11.7%
2011-12: 12.0%
2010-11: 11.6%
2009-10: 12.5%
2008-09: 12.5%
2007-08: 11.9%
2006-07: 13.2%
Source: Census Bureau, Geographical Mobility: 2012 to 2013
Only 11.7 percent of people aged 1 or older moved between March 2012 and March 2013, a mobility rate that is close to the all-time low of 11.6 percent recorded in 2010-11 and below the 12.0 percent of 2011-12. The number of people who moved fell by 430,000 between 2011-12 and 2012-13. Here are geographical mobility rates since 2006-07, before the start of the Great Recession…
2012-13: 11.7%
2011-12: 12.0%
2010-11: 11.6%
2009-10: 12.5%
2008-09: 12.5%
2007-08: 11.9%
2006-07: 13.2%
Source: Census Bureau, Geographical Mobility: 2012 to 2013
Monday, June 03, 2013
Smartphones in Demographic Research
Will mobile phones transform the study of human migration? That's what researchers asked in a recent Demography article, New Approaches to Human Mobility: Using Mobile Phones for Demographic Research ($). The article describes a pilot project to test the concept of using smartphones for tracking migration. The results suggest that the study of human migration may be on the brink of radical change, and it's no surprise that a researcher from Google was one of those involved in the project.
Migration data typically come from censuses and surveys, which record where people live but not where they work or the extent of their travels on a daily basis. The mobile phone pilot project tracked volunteers for days and even weeks, examining their range of movement, the frequency with which they visited various locations, and how weekday differed from weekend traveling.
The researchers did more than plot points on a map, however. They knew the demographics of their volunteers and collected information on their subjective well-being. Every now and then, the volunteers would receive a message on their phone asking them, on a scale of 1 to 5, to rate their happiness at that moment. An intriguing finding from the (admittedly small) pilot project sample is that men's happiness declines the farther they are from home, while women's happiness is unchanged by distance. The success of this pilot project suggests that smartphones could become an important tool for demographic research in the years ahead.
Migration data typically come from censuses and surveys, which record where people live but not where they work or the extent of their travels on a daily basis. The mobile phone pilot project tracked volunteers for days and even weeks, examining their range of movement, the frequency with which they visited various locations, and how weekday differed from weekend traveling.
The researchers did more than plot points on a map, however. They knew the demographics of their volunteers and collected information on their subjective well-being. Every now and then, the volunteers would receive a message on their phone asking them, on a scale of 1 to 5, to rate their happiness at that moment. An intriguing finding from the (admittedly small) pilot project sample is that men's happiness declines the farther they are from home, while women's happiness is unchanged by distance. The success of this pilot project suggests that smartphones could become an important tool for demographic research in the years ahead.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Most Boomers Staying Put
Only 18 percent of the oldest boomers (born in 1946 and aged 66 in 2012) plan to move sometime in the future, down from the 25 percent who planned to move when MetLife surveyed the cohort in 2007.
Source: MetLife Mature Market Institute, The MetLife Report on the Oldest Boomers--Healthy, Retiring Rapidly and Collecting Social Security
Source: MetLife Mature Market Institute, The MetLife Report on the Oldest Boomers--Healthy, Retiring Rapidly and Collecting Social Security
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Nonmetro Counties Are in Decline
A record number of nonmetropolitan counties are losing population, according to the USDA's Economic Research Service. Between 2010 and 2012, fully 1,261 nonmetropolitan counties lost a combined 302,000 people. The decline is occurring in nearly two-thirds of the nation's nonmetropolitan counties.
Behind the decline is ongoing outmigration to metropolitan areas and the baby bust. In many nonmetropolitan counties, deaths now exceed births. Coupled with outmigration, the consequence is population loss. About 300 counties experienced "natural decrease" for the first time during the 2010-12 time period. For a map of these counties, click on the link.
Source: USDA Economic Research Service, Recent Population Change
Behind the decline is ongoing outmigration to metropolitan areas and the baby bust. In many nonmetropolitan counties, deaths now exceed births. Coupled with outmigration, the consequence is population loss. About 300 counties experienced "natural decrease" for the first time during the 2010-12 time period. For a map of these counties, click on the link.
Source: USDA Economic Research Service, Recent Population Change
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)