Get documents about "Population Of Ohio 2007
W
Shared by: EchoMovement
Categories
Tags
-
Stats
- views:
- 116
- posted:
- 11/2/2009
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 14
Document Sample
Ohio Continues to Lag in Population Growth
And Comments on Prospects for the Future
An Analysis of 2007 State Population Estimates1
January 2, 2008
Mark Salling, Ph.D.
Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs
Cleveland State University
and
The Center for Community Solutions
m.salling@csuohio.edu (216) 687-3716
The following is a brief descriptive analysis of recent population estimates provided by
the Census Bureau. The analysis includes a comparison of Ohio to the nation and
selected other states – Michigan and Indiana. We examine population change, birth
and death rates, and migration and focus on more recent years – 2000 to 2007. An
analysis of changes in the age distribution since 2000 and possible consequences
concerning future population growth for the state is also presented.
Change in Population
Ohio, with an estimated additional 3,404 persons between April 2006 and April 2007 – a
0.03 percent increase, had the third slowest rate of growth in the nation, ahead of only
Michigan and Rhode Island, both of which were estimated to have lost population in that
year (see Figure 1).
The Census Bureau estimated that Michigan lost more than 30,000 persons. As has
been the case for several decades, the states with the greatest growth were again in the
Southwest and South.
Ohio’s net gain in population, from 11,463,513 to 11,466,917, was approximately the
same as West Virginia (3,336) Maine (2,297), New Hampshire (4,007), North Dakota
(2,255), and Hawaii (4,753).
The state remained the seventh most populace state in the nation but has seen a
precipitous drop in its rate of growth in the last few years. Earlier in the decade, Ohio’s
population was estimated to be growing at annual rates much higher – 0.25 percent
from 2000 to 2001, 0.19 percent for the following two years, and 0.15 percent between
2003 and 2004. It dropped to 0.06 percent the following year and has remained at 0.03
percent for two years in a row (see Figure 2).
1
Based on data from the Census Bureau at http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html
2007 State Population Estimates 1
Figure 1: Percent Change in State Population, 2006 to 2007
Percent Change in State Population, 2006 to 2007
3.5
3.0
2.5
Ohio in Red
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.5
-1.0
Figure 2: Ohio’s Annual Rate of Population Growth, 2000 to 2007
Ohio's Annual Rate of Population Growth, 2001 to 2007
0.30
0.25 0.25
0.20
0.19
0.19
Percentage
0.15 0.15
0.10
0.06
0.05
0.03 0.03
0.00
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2007 State Population Estimates 2
Components of Change
Population change results from three factors – births, deaths, and migration. Birth and
death rates, collectively referred to as “natural change”, are relatively stable and low in
developed regions, making migration the most important component of population
change for places like Ohio.
Birth Rate
Ohio’s crude birth rate in 2007 was 13.01 births per 1,000.2
Though it was lower than the nation’s rate, it roughly parallels it from 2001 to 2007 (see
Figure 4). Indian’s birth rate was also higher, while Michigan’s was lower and declining
faster than Ohio’s.
As the population ages out of the child-bearing years we can expect a continued drop in
birth rate.
Figure 3: Crude Birth Rate
Birth Rate for States, 2007
18
Ohio in Red
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
0 10 20 30 40 50
2
The Census Bureau calculates the crude birth rate by dividing the number of birth in the year by the
year’s midpoint population (average of the current and previous years). Unlike a fertility rate it does not
take into account the age distribution of females in child-bearing years.
2007 State Population Estimates 3
Figure 4: Ohio’s Crude Birth Rate, 2001 to 2007
Ohio's Crude Birth Rate, 2001 to 2007
14.5
14.37
14.27 14.25
14.16 14.13
14.09 14.11
14.0 13.99 14.02 13.99 14.01
13.91
13.85 13.83
Ohio
13.58 United States
13.5 13.53
Michigan
Indiana
13.14 13.11
13.09
13.0 13.03 13.01 13.03 13.03
12.93 12.93
12.81
12.70 12.70
12.5
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Death Rate
Ohio’s 2007 crude death rate, 9.46 per thousand persons, was higher than all but eight
other states (see Figure 5).3 Except for Pennsylvania, states with higher death rate in
2007 were in the south, including Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Alabama, and West Virginia.
Ohio’s rate was higher that the nation’s (8.16) and Michigan’s (8.57) and Indiana’s
(8.83) in 2007(see Figure 6). Though death rates are declining they have not been
declining as fast as the national rate.
Crude death rates are likely to be suppressed due to improvements in the population’s
health and longer life expectancy, but will increase as the baby boom population ages
into age cohorts with significantly higher rates.
3
The Census Bureau reports a crude rate which is calculated as the number of deaths in the year,
divided by the mid-year population and multiplied by 1,000.
2007 State Population Estimates 4
Figure 5: Crude Death Rate
Death Rate for States, 2007
12
Ohio in Red
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 6: Ohio’s Crude Death Rate, 2001 to 2007
Ohio's Crude Death Rate, 2001 to 2007
10.0
9.59
9.60
9.51 9.56 9.45
9.5
9.45 9.46
Ohio United States
Michigan Indiana
9.08 9.04 9.04
9.0
8.90 8.93
8.83 8.83
8.77
8.68 8.65
8.62 8.59 8.56 8.57
8.5 8.53
8.48
8.38 8.39
8.26
8.18 8.16
8.0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
2007 State Population Estimates 5
Natural Change
Due to low crude birth rates, the state’s natural growth in population is quite low. The
state has gained about 40,000 persons through births exceeding deaths since 2002.
Figure 7: Rate of Natural Increase
Rate of Natural Increase for States, 2007
14
Ohio in Red
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
2007 State Population Estimates 6
Migration
Migration includes both international migrants and those moving within the United
Stated (“internal migration”). Net migration combines international and internal
migration.
Ohio gained an estimated 12,332 foreign migrants in 2007, for a rate of 1.08 migrants
per 1,000 base population. That rate placed Ohio 13th lowest among all state in
attracting international migration that year (see Figure 8). Ohio’s international migration
rate was only one-eighth that of the nation and was lower that that of neighboring state
Michigan and Indiana.
After a decline in the first two years of the decade, the rate has remained relatively
steady for the last few years (see Figure 9).
Internal migration has had a very negative impact on the state’s population growth. The
state’s negligible population growth has resulted from its losses to other states. It is
among 22 states that lost population to other parts of the country (see Figure 10). Ohio
lost almost an estimated 40,000 persons to other states (and the District of Columbia)
between 2006 and 2007, a similar number to the previous year.
Figure 14 shows all three migration rates – international, internal, and net. Net
migration is most affected by internal migration and internal migration continues to show
large losses of population to other parts of the country.
Figure 8: International Migration Rate
Rate of International Migration for States, 2007
7
Ohio in Red
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
2007 State Population Estimates 7
Figure 9: Ohio’s International Migration Rate, 2001 to 2007
Ohio's International Migration Rate, 2001 to 2007
10
8.53 8.48 8.38 8.39 8.26 8.18 8.16
8
6
Ohio United States
Michigan Indiana
4
2.51 2.41
2.08 1.93 1.94 2.01 2.00
2 1.84 1.75
1.49 1.43 1.41 1.46 1.43
1.34 1.26
1.02 1.08 1.04 1.11 1.08
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Figure 10: Internal Migration Rate
Rate of Internal Migration for States, 2007
20
Ohio in Red
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
-5
-10
-15
2007 State Population Estimates 8
Figure 11: Ohio’s Internal Migration Rate, 2001 to 2007
Ohio's Internal Migration Rate, 2001 to 2007
2
0.95
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.43
0 -0.08
-0.29
2001 2002 2003 -0.60
2004 2005 2006 2007
-1.06
-2 -2.54 -2.01
-2.85 -3.28
-3.27
-3.89
-4 -3.31 -4.64 -4.52
-3.46
-3.24 -3.94
-5.65
-6
-7.19
-8
Ohio United States -9.36
Michigan Indiana
-10
Figure 12: Net Migration Rate
Rate of Net Migration for States, 2007
25
Ohio in Red
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
-5
-10
2007 State Population Estimates 9
Figure 13: Ohio’s Net Migration Rate, 2001 to 2007
Ohio's Net Migration Rate, 2001 to 2007
6
4.55
4.19
3.70 3.45 3.66 3.46
4 3.21
2 1.19 2.41
0.79 0.83 1.84
1.35
-0.03 -0.26
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
-1.05 -1.16 -2.01
-2 -2.86
-1.97 -2.01 -1.83 -3.53 -3.45
-2.20
-4
-3.71
-5.17
-6
Ohio United States -7.36
Michigan Indiana
-8
Figure 14: Ohio Migration Rates, 2001 to 2007
Ohio Migration Rates, 2001 to 2007
2
1.34 1.26
1.02 1.08 1.04 1.11 1.08
1
Migrants per 1,000 persons
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
-1
-1.83
-1.97 -2.01 International
-2.20
-2 Internal
-2.85 -2.86 Net
-3.31 -3.27 -3.28
-3 -3.45
-3.53
-3.89
-4
-4.52
-4.64
-5
2007 State Population Estimates 10
All Three Components of Population Change
Figure 15 shows the estimated numbers of persons in each of these three components
of population change in the state. Population growth through relatively steady birth and
death rates remained at about 40,000 per year between 2002 and 2007. Meanwhile
international migration provided some modest population growth. But losses due to
migration to other parts of the nations prevented any substantial population gains for
Ohio in the first years of the 21st century.
Figure 15: Components of Ohio’s Population Change, 2001 to 2007
Components of Ohio's Population Change, 2000 to 2007
60,000
45,257
40,165 40,673 40,647 41,050 41,765
38,636
40,000
20,000 15,298 14,332
11,700 12,354 11,883 12,723 12,332
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
-20,000
-32,599
-40,000 -37,657 -37,284 -37,518
-44,613
-53,196 -51,842
-60,000
Natural Increase International Migration Internal Migration
2007 State Population Estimates 11
Recent and Future Demographic Change and the Economy
The Census Bureau’s 2005 interim population projections show Ohio’s projected
population at 11,477,557 in 2005, 11,576,181 by 2010, and slow growth through 2020
(to 11,644,058) followed by population lose in 2025 (to 11,605,738) .4 The Ohio
Department of Development’s projections (made in 2003) show population at
11,666,850 by 2010 and continued growth of more about 150,000 or more every five
years through 2030.5
The 2007 estimate by the Census Bureau is only 11,466,917. Clearly, neither the
Census Bureau’s nor the Ohio Department of Development’s projection accounts for the
steep declines in population growth in the last several years. The last three years of
estimated population change show increases in Ohio of 6,968, 3,737, and 3,404 (see
Figure 16). Thus this significantly declining rate of population growth makes the
projections by the Census Bureau’s and Ohio Department of Development highly
unlikely.
Figure 16: Ohio’s Annual Growth in Population, 2001 to 2007
Ohio's Annual Population Growth, 2001 to 2007
35,000
30,000
28,726
25,000
21,947 21,164
20,000
Persons
16,828
15,000
10,000
6,968
5,000
3,737 3,404
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
It must be stressed that it is difficult to confidently predict what population growth will
occur for Ohio in the next several years or longer. Obviously much depends on the
economic conditions that lead to jobs and attraction of labor.
4
See http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/popproj.html
5
See http://www.odod.state.oh.us/research/files/p200/Ohio.pdf
2007 State Population Estimates 12
However, without considering possible additional changes in the economic climate we
review here changes in the age profile of the state’s population and what the
demographics alone suggest about the state’s economy.
Figure 17 shows the change in the age distributions for the state’s and nation’s
population between 2000 and 2006.
Cyclic birth rates over the last century are evident in this graph. The national “baby
boom” population that was born approximately between 1946 and 1963 constitutes the
population increases seen in the 44-to-60 age range. Aging of the population over the
six years explains much of the increases and decreases -- increases resulting from
aging from and thus decreases in the six proceeding years. Thus, following a lag in
births, the children of the baby boom generation are seen in the late teens-through-
twenties ages (the baby boomlet”), and their children are emerging at the youngest
ages of the graph. Lowered fertility rates since the 1960s have limited the impact of the
baby boom population on emerging new generations.
The important differences between the changing age distribution for Ohio and the nation
are seen in the following ways:
• Greater losses in ages 68-to-78 in Ohio than the nation illustrate the state’s retiring
population moving to Florida and other destinations.
• Proportionally greater losses in ages 28-to-44 and those younger than 13 in Ohio
than the nation shows the state has been disproportionately losing families with
young children.
• While Ohio had losses in the 18-to-20 ages, suggesting a loss of college-bound
persons, the state seems to have had comparable increases to the nation in the
young adult ages between 21 and 27.
Loss of the older population could have significant impacts on the economy in that this
population has the greatest wealth. They own homes that will undergo declining value
and investments many of which will migrate from the state with them or their heirs, thus
likely causing losses to the state’s taxable resources.
The loss of population in the 28-to-44 age group is perhaps the most disconcerting
observation since these are important career-advancing years and the loss in this age
group suggests that the state’s economy is not providing enough jobs for them, a fact
that is documented in reports on job losses in the state.6
Contrary to the earlier Census Bureau projections noted above, in the near future the
state is expected to lose population for the first time in history. Furthermore, over the
next decade and more much of the large baby boom population can be expected to be
lost due to retirement moves or death. This will leave a precipitously declining and less
wealthy population - one that is diminished due to the aging of the baby boomer
6
As an example of reports on low job growth in the state see
http://www.communitysolutions.com/images/upload/resources/OhioJobGrowth1207.pdf.
2007 State Population Estimates 13
generation and the migration of families. Losses among the older population, with the
bulk of wealth, and young families, signaling losses of a labor force entering its most
productive ages, could have dire effects on the state and its remaining population.
Figure 17: Age Distribution, 2000 and 2006
Percent Change in Persons by Age, Ohio and US
2000 to 2006
84
80
76
72
68
64
60
56
52
48
44
40
36
United States
32 Ohio
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
-40 -20 0 20 40 60
Percent Change
2007 State Population Estimates 14
Related docs
