During
the late 1990s, the Internet bubble was expanding
like a party balloon, Hollywood
and
Silicon
Valley
were minting multimillionaires by the dozens, and
the California
budget
was actually running surpluses. But there was
trouble in paradise. In the midst of the greatest
wave of wealth creation in the universe, thousands
of people were leaving.
While
Mexicans and other foreign immigrants flooded the Golden
State,
native residents were bolting. Between 1995 and
2000, according to recently published U.S. Census
figures on “domestic” migration, 775,000 more
people moved out of
California
than moved in. Less than five percent were retirees;
the overwhelming number consisted of working-age
people and their children. The state was
hemorrhaging human capital – an early warning
signal of the economic debacle to come.
Years
before Californians decided upon a recall election,
citizens were voting with their feet. Moving to
another state is expensive and disruptive,
but thousands of people were doing it, presumably in
search of better employment opportunities or a more
fulfilling quality of life.
California
was one of the big losers in the late 1990s, but not
the only one. New
York
exported 874,000 citizens,
Illinois
343,000, and New
Jersey
182,000. The greatest beneficiaries of the internal
migration within the
United
States
were
the South
Atlantic
states - Florida,
Georgia
and the
Carolinas,
which collectively pulled in 1.4 million more
residents than
they lost.
In
the knowledge
economy, human capital is the fundamental building
blocks.
By tracking a measure of how people act on their
opinions, "domestic immigration" reflects the collective
judgment on a state's economic
vitality and quality of life more accurately than
any opinion poll or magazine survey. By this measure, Virginia
performed respectably, netting nearly 76,000
additional citizens through domestic immigration –
good enough to rank it 16th nationally as a
proportion of the population. Such a ranking
qualifies as a solid "better than
average," though it douses any pretensions of
national leadership. It also raises the question:
Can we do better?
The
Census Bureau released its domestic
immigration reports last week. The numbers do not
include foreign immigration, which replenished the
populations of states like California and New York.
Hence, domestic migration is only one indicator
tracking the flow of
human capital. However, I would contend, it is a
superior measure. Most foreign immigrants tend to
settle in a handful of "gateway" states where existing communities of their
nationality are already in place. An ethnic support
system, not broader economic
opportunity and quality of life, are the decisive
factors. By contrast, domestic immigration reflects
the behavior of people who, native born or foreign,
have been residing in the U.S. and are acting
upon more informed opinions about where they want to
live.
Domestic
Immigration, Outmigration |
(by
state, in 000s, 1995-2000) |
|
Inflow |
Out-
flow |
Net
Gain
|
Rate
(1)
|
1 |
|
Nevada |
466.1 |
232.2 |
233.9 |
151.5 |
2 |
|
Arizona |
796.4 |
480.3 |
316.1 |
74.3 |
3 |
|
Georgia |
965.6 |
624.9 |
340.7 |
48.6 |
4 |
|
North Carolina |
919.3 |
581.5 |
337.8 |
48.4 |
5 |
|
Florida |
1,860.7 |
1,253.7 |
607.0 |
44.0 |
6 |
|
Colorado |
643.8 |
481.2 |
162.6 |
43.8 |
7 |
|
South Carolina |
442.4 |
310.2 |
132.2 |
37.2 |
8 |
|
Idaho |
182.9 |
149.1 |
33.8 |
29.6 |
9 |
|
Tennessee |
568.0 |
421.7 |
146.3 |
28.7 |
10 |
|
New Hampshire |
162.3 |
134.3 |
27.9 |
25.0 |
11 |
|
Delaware |
101.5 |
84.1 |
17.4 |
24.9 |
12 |
|
Oregon |
399.3 |
324.6 |
74.7 |
24.6 |
13 |
|
Arkansas |
252.1 |
210.0 |
42.1 |
17.4 |
14 |
|
Washington |
618.4 |
543.1 |
75.3 |
14.3 |
15 |
|
Utah |
242.2 |
216.9 |
25.3 |
13.1 |
16 |
|
Virginia |
821.7 |
746.0 |
75.7 |
11.9 |
17 |
|
Mississippi |
226.8 |
199.9 |
26.9 |
10.4 |
18 |
|
Kentucky |
318.6 |
284.5 |
34.1 |
9.2 |
19 |
|
Missouri |
473.4 |
427.3 |
46.1 |
9.0 |
20 |
|
Texas |
1,362.8 |
1,214.6 |
148.2 |
8.1 |
21 |
|
Minnesota |
355.3 |
326.1 |
29.2 |
6.5 |
22 |
|
Alabama |
326.2 |
300.0 |
25.8 |
6.3 |
23 |
|
Oklahoma |
322.5 |
305.6 |
16.9 |
5.4 |
24 |
|
Vermont |
69.7 |
67.5 |
2.3 |
4.0 |
25 |
|
Indiana |
451.4 |
429.7 |
21.6 |
3.9 |
26 |
|
Rhode Island |
97.0 |
93.7 |
3.2 |
3.4 |
27 |
|
Maine |
108.0 |
104.4 |
3.6 |
3.1 |
28 |
|
Wisconsin |
338.1 |
330.8 |
7.3 |
1.5 |
29 |
|
Kansas |
276.8 |
284.6 |
-7.8 |
-3.2 |
30 |
|
Maryland |
495.2 |
514.9 |
-19.7 |
-4.1 |
31 |
|
Montana |
111.5 |
116.7 |
-5.2 |
-6.1 |
32 |
|
West Virginia |
138.5 |
149.2 |
-10.7 |
-6.3 |
33 |
|
Massachusetts |
446.8 |
501.6 |
-54.7 |
-9.4 |
34 |
|
Nebraska |
154.0 |
169.4 |
-15.4 |
-9.7 |
35 |
|
Michigan |
467.6 |
559.6 |
-91.9 |
-10.0 |
36 |
|
Ohio |
588.6 |
705.6 |
-116.9 |
-11.0 |
37 |
|
Pennsylvania |
668.8 |
800.0 |
-131.3 |
-11.4 |
38 |
|
Iowa |
214.8 |
247.8 |
-33.0 |
-12.1 |
39 |
|
South Dakota |
72.5 |
85.0 |
-12.5 |
-17.6 |
40 |
|
Louisiana |
253.5 |
329.3 |
-75.8 |
-18.1 |
41 |
|
New Mexico |
205.3 |
235.2 |
-29.5 |
-19.8 |
42 |
|
Connecticut |
260.8 |
325.4 |
-64.6 |
-20.5 |
43 |
|
New Jersey |
534.6 |
717.4 |
-182.8 |
-23.7 |
44 |
|
California |
1,449.0 |
2,204.5 |
-755.5 |
-24.6 |
45 |
|
Wyoming |
72.8 |
85.4 |
-12.5 |
-26.6 |
46 |
|
Illinois |
665.1 |
1,007.7 |
-342.6 |
-29.7 |
46 |
|
North Dakota |
60.3 |
85.5 |
-25.2 |
-40.6 |
48 |
|
New York |
726.5 |
1,600.7 |
-874.3 |
-48.8 |
49 |
|
Alaska |
95.6 |
126.0 |
-30.5 |
-51.0 |
50 |
|
Hawaii |
125.2 |
201.3 |
-76.1 |
-65.4 |
51 |
|
D.C. |
113.0 |
158.4 |
-45.3 |
-81.7 |
Source:
U.S.
Census.
(1)
Migration rates: the number of people who left
between 1995 and 2000 expressed as a proportion of
the 1995 population.
When
analyzing domestic migration numbers, it is helpful
to distinguish between people who are actively
participating in the workforce, or who will when
they become old enough to do so, and those who have
retired from it. The Census thoughtfully calculates separate
numbers for people aged 65 and older. By deducting
these from the domestic migration flows, we obtain a
number for whom we might call "economically
productive" citizens.
Interestingly,
the state rankings do not change significantly. Most
elderly people tend to retire in the same
communities where they spent most of their lives;
those who leave tend to go to the same places that
younger people go. Remarkably, even when retirees
are excluded, Florida remains the top destination in
the U.S.
Domestic
Immigration, Outmigration
(Under
65, by state, in 000s, 1995-2000)
|
|
Total
Inflow
|
Over
65
Inflow
|
Under
65
Inflow
|
1 |
|
Florida |
607.0 |
149.4 |
457.6 |
2 |
|
Georgia |
340.7 |
13.9 |
326.8 |
3 |
|
North Carolina |
337.8 |
20.9 |
316.9 |
4 |
|
Arizona |
316.1 |
53.2 |
262.9 |
5 |
|
Nevada |
233.9 |
22.2 |
211.7 |
6 |
|
Colorado |
162.6 |
2.0 |
160.6 |
7 |
|
Tennessee |
146.3 |
10.5 |
135.8 |
8 |
|
Texas |
148.2 |
18.0 |
130.2 |
9 |
|
South Carolina |
132.2 |
15.8 |
116.6 |
10 |
|
Washington |
75.3 |
1.2 |
74.1 |
11 |
|
Oregon |
74.7 |
1.3 |
73.4 |
12 |
|
Virginia |
75.7 |
6.9 |
68.8 |
13 |
|
Missouri |
46.1 |
0.5 |
45.6 |
14 |
|
Arkansas |
42.1 |
2.5 |
39.6 |
15 |
|
Kentucky |
34.1 |
-1.4 |
35.5 |
16 |
|
Minnesota |
29.2 |
-6.0 |
35.2 |
17 |
|
Idaho |
33.8 |
2.8 |
31.0 |
18 |
|
Indiana |
21.6 |
-6.3 |
27.9 |
19 |
|
New Hampshire |
27.9 |
0.7 |
27.2 |
20 |
|
Mississippi |
26.9 |
2.4 |
24.5 |
21 |
|
Utah |
25.3 |
2.1 |
23.2 |
22 |
|
Alabama |
25.8 |
3.0 |
22.8 |
23 |
|
Oklahoma |
16.9 |
1.1 |
15.8 |
24 |
|
Delaware |
17.4 |
2.7 |
14.7 |
25 |
|
Wisconsin |
7.3 |
-4.0 |
11.3 |
26 |
|
Rhode Island |
3.2 |
-0.1 |
3.3 |
27 |
|
Vermont |
2.3 |
-
|
2.3 |
28 |
|
Maine |
3.6 |
1.7 |
1.9 |
29 |
|
Montana |
-5.2 |
0.9 |
-6.1 |
30 |
|
Kansas |
-7.8 |
-0.4 |
-7.4 |
31 |
|
West Virginia |
-10.7 |
-0.9 |
-9.8 |
32 |
|
South Dakota |
-12.5 |
-0.2 |
-12.3 |
33 |
|
Wyoming |
-12.5 |
-
|
-12.5 |
34 |
|
Nebraska |
-15.4 |
-1.9 |
-13.5 |
35 |
|
Maryland |
-19.7 |
-4.4 |
-15.3 |
36 |
|
North Dakota |
-25.2 |
-1.5 |
-23.7 |
37 |
|
Iowa |
-33.0 |
-4.9 |
-28.1 |
38 |
|
Alaska |
-30.5 |
-1.4 |
-29.1 |
39 |
|
New Mexico |
-29.5 |
2.5 |
-32.0 |
40 |
|
D.C. |
-45.3 |
-5.2 |
-40.1 |
41 |
|
Massachusetts |
-54.7 |
-14.4 |
-40.3 |
42 |
|
Connecticut |
-64.6 |
-9.5 |
-55.1 |
43 |
|
Michigan |
-91.9 |
-22.0 |
-69.9 |
44 |
|
Louisiana |
-75.8 |
-2.5 |
-73.3 |
45 |
|
Hawaii |
-76.1 |
-1.0 |
-75.1 |
46 |
|
Ohio |
-116.9 |
-18.6 |
-98.3 |
46 |
|
Pennsylvania |
-131.3 |
-15.9 |
-115.4 |
48 |
|
New Jersey |
-182.8 |
-23.1 |
-159.7 |
49 |
|
Illinois |
-342.6 |
-43.1 |
-299.5 |
50 |
|
California |
-755.5 |
-34.2 |
-721.3 |
51 |
|
New York |
-874.3 |
-114.2 |
-760.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source:
U.S.
Census
Note:
Negative numbers indicate an outflow of
population.
|
The
recently published Census report did not break down
domestic migrants by occupations or income levels,
but I would hypothesize that they tend to be better
educated and more economically productive than
stay-at-homes.
According
to the Census, migration peaks in the 18 to 30 age
range. There are several reasons to think that
migrants within this cohort are better educated than
their peers who stay put. First, the group includes
a significant number of students who attend
out-of-state college. Secondly, college-educated
students enjoy greater financial resources to
undertake the risk of an out-of-state move. And
thirdly, college graduates are more likely to seek
employment with corporations and that require them
to relocate.
If
I am correct, states suffering from out-migration
are experiencing a very real "brain
drain." Conversely, states gaining domestic
migrants are accumulating human capital.
As
noted in my last column ("Blundering
in the Dark," July 28, 2003), neither
Virginia nor any of its regions have articulated
coherent strategies for recruiting and retaining
their best and brightest. Virginia invests billions
of dollars annually in K-12 and higher education
without a clue as to where students go when they
graduate or what their motives are or moving or
staying. If Virginia is a net gainer from the
migration of millions of American move from state to
state, it is the result of pure happenstance, not
public policy.
Even
a casual perusal of the state-level data reveals
some fascinating trends. Washington, D.C., for
instance, suffered heavier losses than any of the 50
states, shedding 45,300 domestic residents in only
five years. Remarkably, Washingtonians moved to
Maryland over Virginia by a nearly three-to-one
ratio (64,000 to 24,000).
But
when Marylanders chose to bail from "the old
line state," they didn't move to the district.
No, they moved en masse to Virginia. Maryland, it
turns out, was the biggest source of migrants to
Virginia, supplying 79,200 new residents to the Old
Dominion over the five-year period. Indeed, were it
not for the influx of Marylanders, Virginia would
have suffered a net loss in domestic migration!
Where
did Virginians go when they decided to leave? South of the border. The hottest
destination was North Carolina. More than 89,000
Virginian residents moved to the piney land of the
Tarheels in the late 1990s. (That number does not
account for the number of Carolinians who moved to
Virginia -- the Census report did not provide that
information -- but the migratory trend assuredly
worked in North Carolina's favor.)
Other
curiosities: Virginia was the seventh most popular
destination for out-migrating New Yorkers. And,
defying all the odds, the Commonwealth proved the
fifth most common destinations for Hawaiians leaving
their islands!
The
Census Bureau's domestic migration data are
indispensable for understanding one of the most
critical forces underpinning the economic
performance of Virginia and every one of its
regions. The movements, flows and counter-currents
of human capital deserves greater scrutiny than we
Virginians have been willing, so far, to give them.
If
any readers are working in this area, please contact
me. In the meantime, I will drill deeper into the data
to see what patterns emerge at the city and county
level within the state.
I'll be back in two weeks with a follow-up
report.
--
August 11, 2003
|