atlanta technology job

ATLANTA The Young and Restless How Atlanta Competes for Talent THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT ATLANTA Table Of Contents The Inside Story Dramatic Demographic Shifts Will Intensify the Competition for Talent How The Young and Restless View Atlanta Assessing Atlanta’s Progress: A Statistical Portrait Overview of Age Structure and Population Trends Change in the 25 to 34 Year-Old Population 1990-2000 Changing Faces, Changing Places Young Talent Dissecting Change On the Move Coming and Going Metro Patterns Attracting The Young and Restless Tables Data Source and Methodology Credits Page 2 Page 4 Page 8 Page 12 Page 15 Page 17 Page 19 Page 26 Page 30 Page 32 Page 35 Page 37 Page 43 Page 45 Page 55 Page 57 1 ATLANTA Atlanta The Inside Story Insights • The Atlanta metropolitan area’s growth has been fueled by a rapid increase in the 25 to 34 year-old population. At a time when this age group was declining by 8 percent nationally, the number of young adults increased 20 percent in Atlanta. • Young adults in Atlanta are better educated, on average, than those in other U.S. metropolitan areas – 36 percent versus 30 percent respectively with four-year college degrees. • Atlanta’s increase in college-educated young adults greatly exceeds the national trend. The number of 25 to 34 year-olds with a four-year degree increased 46 percent in Atlanta over the past decade, more than four times faster than in the nation as a whole. • There are distinctive patterns to the settlement of different groups of young adults in Atlanta. A disproportionate number of 25 to 34 year-olds live in close-in neighborhoods north and east of the city center; well-educated young adults are also concentrated in the north part of the city and the Northern suburbs. The growth of the young adult African American population has been overwhelmingly outside the beltway. • Atlanta attracts young adults from throughout the United States. Atlanta has a net inflow of young adults from 44 of the 49 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. The largest sources of domestic migrants to Atlanta are New York, Miami, Washington, Los Angeles and Chicago. 2 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT Areas of Opportunity What Atlanta Can Do Our statistical analysis, our interviews and our examination of trends point to a number of opportunities for Atlanta to influence the decisions of the Young and Restless. • Develop the central city as an asset. The lack of a vibrant, 24-hour downtown was one of two complaints we heard in our focus groups. While development progress in downtown is acknowledged, there is more to be done to make downtown Atlanta as exciting as young adults desire. As civic leaders know, providing housing, residential services, retail and entertainment options are key additions for an exciting downtown. Fortunately, downtown has a robust hotel, convention and office base to build from. • The second most frequently voiced complaint was traffic and the lack of a transit system that fully and conveniently serves the community. The traffic complaint was expected, but the complaint about transit in Atlanta was somewhat surprising. Transit seems to be viewed by young adults as a basic building block of the kinds of communities they seek. We heard concerns about lack of transit in many of the focus groups we conducted throughout the country. Atlanta, with MARTA, is certainly better served by transit than most other Southern and West Coast cities, but in the opinion of many focus group participants, it is still inadequate. • While the Chamber offers networking opportunities for young adults, there is an opportunity to increase awareness of these programs. As more young adults become aware of these programs and participate in them, word will spread that Atlanta is a place where you can get “hooked up” quickly to the business world. (These networking opportunities are also important for meeting other young adults – particularly of the opposite sex – who are “on the same path,” especially for those who are not affiliated with a sorority, fraternity or other such built-in network.) Particular emphasis should be placed on entrepreneurs, since so many young adults seem to come to Atlanta to pursue new business start-ups. (One promising model for providing introductions between entrepreneurs, banks, venture capitalists and city services is the Chicagoland Entrepreneurial Center that operates out of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.) • Atlanta has just introduced a new image campaign. An extension of this campaign can be the promotion of Atlanta’s extraordinary performance in attracting educated young adults. This is one place Atlanta is winning – big – compared to most other cities, and it is a unique message for Atlanta to deliver. • As our focus groups pointed out, Atlanta is viewed as the land of opportunity for young adults, particularly African-Americans. That is a huge asset for the city. But the promise of opportunity inevitably attracts people who want to take short cuts to success. As focus group participants put it, the appearance of “success” in Atlanta can be an illusion. City leaders should explore ways to communicate the community’s solidity, its long-term thinking, “things that last generations.” Beware of disposable development, shallow symbols of success. • Affordability attracts young adults to Atlanta. It is an asset to be protected. 3 ATLANTA Dramatic Demographic Shifts Will Intensify the Competition for Talent A demographic wave is sweeping across our nation, and it will be a decisive force in shaping the economic destiny of Atlanta. As cities move increasingly into a knowledge-based economy, the kind of talented people each attracts will determine whether it wins or loses in the campaign for future prosperity. For this reason, the seminal question facing Atlanta is: Will Atlanta catch this wave and prosper or capsize and flounder in its undertow? So far, Atlanta has ridden the leading edge of this demographic wave, but will it continue to be successful in attracting—and retaining—talented young adults? Standing on the beach and watching the movement of the ocean, it is easy to be lulled into the impression that it is rhythmic, synchronous and unchanging. But beneath the undulating surface water are powerful currents and tides that transform course and climate. The same is true for the wave of largely unnoticed demographic trends underway in the United States. The United States is in the midst of a major demographic shift. It will have profound implications on the economic health of cities and metropolitan areas throughout the nation. These shifts would be momentous under any circumstances, but are all the more striking by the advent of the knowledge-based economy. The overall growth of the U.S. population – 28 million more residents to metropolitan America in the 1990s – conceals the decline in a pivotal segment of our population. Almost unnoticed, the number of young adults has declined by 8 percent. Metropolitan U.S. has three million fewer 25 to 34 year-olds in 2000 than it did in 1990. 4 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT This group is the gold standard in the knowledge-based economy, and as a result, they are particularly critical to the long-term economic health of metropolitan areas. Why? Because these young adults, men and women, have completed their formal educations and acquired their initial work experiences, and they are primed to start on their career paths. Statistically, 25 to 34 year-olds are the hardest-working segment of the population. In their mid-20s, they are also at the peak of their mobility and more likely to move across state lines than at any time in their lives. In the time between their 25th and 35th birthdays, these young adults not only start careers, but find mates, start families, and put down roots. Once rooted in place, the likelihood of their moving to another state or metropolitan area will decline precipitously. In recent years, cities have become increasingly aware of the economic importance of talented workers, the people called the “creative class” by professor and author Richard Florida. These talented workers – writers, designers, engineers, architects, researchers, and others – play a key role in creating the new ideas that drive business success and regional economic progress. The greatest opportunity to attract and retain these workers is when they are young and mobile. Indeed, our research shows a strong correlation between places with a significant fraction of the Young and Restless and various indices of the creative workforce. For the nation’s metropolitan areas, then, this shrinking group of young adults is daily making decisions on their personal futures that will, in turn, have profound effects on the future of economic growth for decades to come. And today, the decisions this key group makes will be even more important because of dramatic changes in the U.S. labor market that are already unfolding. For decades, we’ve taken for granted the stimulus that an ever-expanding labor force provides to economic growth. But all of the factors that helped drive U.S. labor market growth over the past four decades are about to come to a grinding halt. For the next couple of decades, the U.S. faces a period of much slower labor market growth. The three decisive trends that drove the growth of the U.S. labor force — the maturing of the baby boom generation, the greatly increased economic role of women and the increase in college attainment — all reverse or flatten out in the next two decades. The baby boom generation, now in its peak earning years will soon begin retiring, depriving the economy of some of its most seasoned workers. Women’s labor force participation, which has doubled since the 1950s and been a key part of growing the U.S. economy, cannot go much higher. And finally, the expansion of college education in the last two generations, which has raised college attainment rates from less than 10 percent of the population to more than 30 percent of young adults, has stopped growing. The combination of baby boom retirements, no net additions of women to the labor force and a constant college attainment rate mean that labor is likely to be in short supply over the next two decades. The importance of the young adult population to metropolitan economic health has been thrown into sharp relief by the major demographic change sweeping the nation — the aging of the baby boom generation. Slightly more than a decade ago, when the 1990 census was conducted, the tail end of the baby boom generation (persons born between 1956 and 1965) was between 25 and 34 years of age. By 2000, these boomers had moved into the 35 to 44 age group. Those who followed — persons born between 1966 and 1975 — were part of a much smaller birth cohort, the so-called baby bust. Even augmented by substantial international immigration, the number of persons ages 25 to 34 in 2000 was far less — nationally nearly 4 million less — than the number of 25 to 34 year-olds a decade earlier. 5 there will be virtually no net addition to the numbers of workers from increased labor force participation of women. The economic value of the labor force has to do with much more than simply the quantity of workers. It has much to do with their quality as well. Over the past half century, the U.S. has made major strides in expanding access to college education, with the result that many more workers have four-year degrees. In the late 1950s, less than one in 10 adults had a college degree. Today, the number is approaching one in three. The nation’s huge investment in higher education and its direct labor market impact are clearly shown in the increased number of persons getting a college degree. In the middle 1960s, only about 3 million 25 to 34 year-olds had attained a four-year college degree. Just 20 years later, the nation had more than tripled this number to 10 million young adults with college degrees. But since then, the number of young adults with college degrees has increased much more slowly. After increasing by about 7 million (300 percent) in the 20 years from 1965 to 1985, the number of 25 to 34 year-olds with a four-year degree increased by less than 2 million (about 20 percent) from 1985 through 2004. The cumulative effect of this increase in collegegoing has been dramatic. Over the past four decades, there has been a huge increase in the number of U.S. adults with a four-year degree. As recently as 1965, fewer than 10 million adult (25 and older) Americans had a four-year college degree. Today, more than 50 million do. While the American population has not quite doubled, the number of persons with a fouryear degree has increased five-fold. This tremendous qualitative improvement in the U.S. workforce has been a major impetus to economic and income growth, both nationally and in the nation’s metropolitan areas. The economic impact of this gain in well-educated population has been accentuated by the fact that nearly 90 percent of those with a college degree are still of working age; in 2000, fewer than 5 million of the nearly 44 million adults with a four-year degree were 65 years of age or older. Over the next 25 years, the Census Bureau predicts that the college graduation rate will rise only 4 to 5 percentage points compared to the 13 point increase between 1960 and 1985. Even these projections The working careers of the baby boomers also coincided with a major shift in the employment status of women. In the late 1950s, women were only about half as likely as men to be involved in paid labor. Since the 1960s, there has been a steady increase in women’s labor force participation rates. In the 1950s and 1960s, women in the 25 to 34 year-old age cohort were less than half as likely as their male counterparts to participate in the labor force. With the rise of feminism, that changed rapidly. Over the next 20 years, women’s labor force participation rates soared. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force participation of young adult women increased from slightly more than one in three to nearly three in four. The outlook for the next two decades is for women’s labor force participation to level off. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that for women ages 25 to 34, labor force participation will peak at about 80 percent, a practical maximum given women’s key role in child-bearing and child-rearing. As a consequence, 6 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT may turn out to be too optimistic. College graduation rates for 25 to 29 year-old men are no higher now than they were in the mid-1970s. All of the increase in college graduate rates in recent years has been due to the improvement in women’s college attainment rates, which may not increase further. According to an analysis by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, the combination of demographic shifts plus the slowing growth in the college attainment rate means that average U.S. educational attainment could actually stagnate or even decline in this century. The net result of these three key changes — the aging of the baby boomers, the leveling off in women’s labor force participation and the much slower growth in the college-educated population — will be a dramatic decline in the rate of growth of the quantity and quality of the U.S. labor force. In this environment of labor shortage, metropolitan areas like Atlanta are, in effect, in active competition for a limited supply of young workers, particularly those in the 25 to 34 year-old age group, the most mobile in the population. Over the five-year period of 1995 to 2000, more than 3 million persons in this group moved among metropolitan areas, and these areas also attracted nearly 2 million more persons from abroad. Most metropolitan areas lost population in the 25 to 34 age group during the 1990s, largely because of the national demographic trends. But some metropolitan areas were big gainers, because they attracted more than their share of this mobile group. The defining question going forward is: How well is Atlanta positioned to compete for this mobile and economically important group? We frame the answer to this question in two parts; first, qualitatively, relating the comments and insights obtained in interviews and focus groups of 25 to 34 year-olds in Atlanta and other regions, and second, quantitatively, looking at the region’s standing and track record in attracting the Young and Restless. 7 ATLANTA How Talented Young Workers View Atlanta Introduction To understand the factors that motivate the migration decisions of the Young and Restless, we undertook a series of detailed interviews and focus groups in Atlanta with assistance from the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce. Participants were young adults – collegeeducated, 25 to 34 years-old – drawn from those who had moved recently from one metropolitan area to another. Most of the participants moved to metro Atlanta from outside of Georgia and many came as far as the West Coast. Focus groups with the Young and Restless were conducted in Atlanta on October 11 and 12, 2005. We found that participants shared many ideas about how they viewed Atlanta. General Themes Atlanta is the land of opportunity. This is expressed primarily in terms of starting a business, but also includes career opportunities, opportunity to afford the home you want, opportunity to meet other people “on the same path” you are on, even cultural opportunities. Atlanta is a city that can “take you places.” Opportunity is definitely the operative word to describe Atlanta. “In Atlanta there is culture of opportunity. But “opportunity” is not as simple as a job. It is about access to capital, ability to hook up with others to start businesses, cultural opportunities.” “But opportunity is not just handed to you. You still have to drive it yourself. I thought people would help you. That’s not true. You have to push the doors open for yourself.” 8 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT “The point that the city is in its growth, a younger person could move here and get involved in business and live out life here. His business could become international from here. He could still buy land, could still get in. There are lots of chances.” (She did note that she didn’t think that would last very long – maybe five more years.) Atlanta is the place for smart, aggressive, young African-Americans. You have to push for what you want, but you can get it if you push and if you are willing to work hard. Atlanta equals “black prosperity.” “You see other people succeeding. People are not surprised by your success. In South Florida, if you drive a nice car or have a nice house, people think you are doing something illegal.” “A lot of smart people congregate in Atlanta. The Cosby Show and Different World perpetuated the image of Atlanta as a place of intellect and success. You hear about professionals in Atlanta. There’s a lot of entrepreneurship, a lot of opportunities. There’s also a diversity of men compared to Jackson, Miss. If you’re trying to move up, come to Atlanta and meet men who are also trying to move up – men who are ‘on the same path.’” “Affordability” was mentioned more often in Atlanta than in any groups we’ve conducted with this demographic. Affordability seems to be a key factor in Atlanta’s attractiveness to this demographic. Participants especially mentioned the appeal of Atlanta’s housing affordability. Atlanta delivers value for the investment you make. “(My husband and I) are doing so much better here than anywhere else we could have moved to. The cost of living is low, salaries are good and there are chances to move up. Plus there is so much opportunity to do and experience things.” “Affordability was not a factor in my coming here, but it is a factor in my staying here.” Due in large part to housing affordability, Atlanta was viewed by many as a good place to raise a family. The desire for affordable housing produces sprawl and sprawl produces congestion and a lack of connectedness. Although focus group participants didn’t connect the two issues, they want the former and complain about the latter. Many participants complained about the lack of good public transit and felt living in Atlanta required a car. Some felt the infrastructure has not kept up with the growth. “I’d make the city more available. And I don’t mean just easier to get around, but more connected to people. A lot of things just feel unavailable or hard to connect with.” “Everything needs to be tied together. There are a lot of people who want Atlanta to be a legitimate city like New York. People expect that a legitimate city will be connected and easy to get around.” “Here I get lost everywhere I go.” “It’s not easy, it’s not simple. It’s complicated and too overwhelming at times.” “Public transportation really needs to happen [in Atlanta]. It’s critical.” The abundance of cultural opportunities, particularly for African-Americans, was also mentioned more often than in other cities. This is a big plus for Atlanta. 9 slow, and close-minded with Atlanta benefiting as being the “least Southern” city – in part, because so few black professionals in Atlanta seem to be from Atlanta or the South. “It’s not very diverse. Or it’s hard to meet non-black people. Atlanta doesn’t promote diversity. It would be hard not to be Christian.” (The respondent told a story about being at a ballgame where a Christian song was played.) “Many people in Atlanta are not from Atlanta. So they don’t act like Southerners. That’s bad because there’s less “Southern hospitality,” but good also, because there are not the typical Southern attitudes of close-mindedness.” “Most professionals here are not from Atlanta. It makes me want to ask questions about the public schools (and what’s happening to local people).” “Everyone has been so helpful, nice and polite. And these people aren’t from the South either. It’s like they adopted the culture of being hospitable.” “I think Atlanta represents the South in a positive way. I mean, it’s like New York and L.A. had a kid. It’s smaller, but still a real city that is sort of scaled back and in the South.” “There is a lot of cultural diversity – something for everybody – symphony, opera, music, sports teams.” “University of Miami students from Atlanta said (Atlanta) was the place to be. It is a cultural city for African-Americans. There is always something to do, free events, not just parties. It’s very different from Miami. Miami is multicultural but doesn’t focus on AfricanAmericans.” “(In Atlanta) you can see Lela Hathaway in the park for free.” “Alvin Ailey comes to Miami, but no one else comes.” “(In Atlanta) there are African-American neighborhoods like Little Five Points.” The fact that Atlanta is a Southern city cuts two ways. On the one hand, some participants associated it with Southern hospitality. But others viewed it as country, “Atlanta personifies the Southern City. If you want city and you want to be in the South because of the weather or whatever, you will come to Atlanta.” “In (other Southern) cities, there is the perception of complacency. They are not forward thinking. I don’t know how they can advance with those attitudes.” “Atlanta is one of the good places in the South for Northern people to live.” Downtown also got mixed reviews. For many, downtown is “dead,” with few things to do beyond work. But some recognized downtown as improving. “Downtown is very convention, conference, sporting events based. You come and you leave and there’s not much else to do.” 10 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT “The fact that downtown is becoming more of a center is really appealing. I hope that continues.” “It is so large and spread out that the downtown is dead on the weekends because you have to get in your car and drive anywhere.” “If we want to do the nightlife in Atlanta, we’d have to make a weekend of it and get a hotel because we couldn’t rely on public transportation.” The number of flights out of Atlanta’s airport is a clear advantage. “One of my favorite things about Atlanta is that you can get anywhere in the U.S. in like two hours.” “You can catch a direct flight from here to anywhere, which is great.” “It’s affordable to live here and travel wherever you want to go.” For some, Atlanta lacks a distinctive identity, in part, due to its “newness,” in part due to its sprawling nature and what is viewed as a less dynamic downtown. “It’s a pretty young, big city and seems to lack a distinctive identity. It doesn’t know what it is.” “When you hear the name Atlanta, it doesn’t really mean anything.” In order to get an idea of the identity of Atlanta, we asked participants to answer the question: “If Atlanta were a car, what kind of car would it be?” The car question evoked very interesting responses that suggested some weaknesses. There seems to be a general feeling that there are two sides to Atlanta. There is the appearance of success but not always the reality of success. As one participant put it, “The shine of Atlanta is somewhat of an illusion.” • “Atlanta is a Kia Sorrento… you know, the car that looks like a Lexus but is cheap, and after you drive it awhile, it falls apart.” • “Atlanta is an Expedition trying to look like an Escalade all rimmed out…” • “Atlanta is an SUV, probably a Lexus because there seems to be a lot of money in Atlanta or people who put up a front that there is a lot of money here.” • “You’d have to saw two together. One half would half a kind of hoopty.” • “A Cadillac… depending hooptified. Atlanta looks things you didn’t expect.” cars in half and put them be a Lexus and the other on the driver, it can be luxury, but you run into On a related note, some participants felt that Atlanta was “oversold,” or is it that some young adults feel it necessary to make an appearance of wealth. But the car responses were not all negative: • “A 300ZX Nissan – it lasts, it’s a sports car, it looks nice and appealing, people (in Atlanta) think fast.” • “A Lincoln Town Car… you can fit a lot of people in, it’s a comfortable ride, and it takes you places.” • “A Lincoln Navigator…it’s a luxury car, it’s comfortable, holds lots of people. It’s about what you put in to it.” • “An Escalade… more on the luxury end, reflects a level of prosperity.” 11 ATLANTA Assessing Atlanta’s Progress A Statistical Portrait Understanding the economic role of talented young adults requires a clear and accurate picture of how Atlanta has fared over the past decade when compared to the rest of the nation. This report charts Atlanta’s standing in this competition. Combing through, scrutinizing and evaluating Census and other data for the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., our analysis compiles a highly detailed picture of the patterns of population change among the 25 to 34 year-old age group and showed the following: • Atlanta has been extraordinarily successful in attracting young adults. At a time when the 25-34 year old population has been decreasing nationally, the number of young adults has been increasing in Atlanta. In 2000, Atlanta had 722,617 persons in the 25 to 34 year-old age group (including collegeeducated and those without a degree). • Atlanta has done particularly well in attracting college-educated young adults--the gold standard of the Young and Restless. The number of college-educated young adults increased 46% in Atlanta in the 1990s, the fifth fastest growth rate recorded by any of the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas. The educational attainment of Atlanta’s 25 to 34 year-olds ranks among the top ten of the 50 largest U.S. metro areas: nearly 36 percent of young adults have a four-year college degree. 12 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT • Atlanta is the leading the nation in its gain in overall U.S. market share of college-educated 25 to 34s among the top 50 metro areas; this is strong evidence that Atlanta has a powerful attraction for talented young workers. • Our analysis of 1990 and 2000 national and metropolitan demographic trends shows that Atlanta was substantially more attractive to the nation’s 25 to 34 year-olds in 2000 than it was in 1990. • Atlanta has been a Mecca for young African-American adults. While the African-American young adult population declined nationally in the 1990s by about 6 percent, it increased more than 36 percent in Atlanta. • Atlanta is a very young city, with 17.6 percent of its population in the 25 to 34 year-old age group, ranking second among the top 50 areas. Atlanta has 105,000 more young adults than it would have if its age distribution mirrored the national average. • Atlanta has a much larger number of well-educated young adults than college students. Compared to other large metropolitan areas, Atlanta has a smaller fraction of its 18 to 24 year old population enrolled in college, but a much larger fraction of its population having received a four-year degree. Atlanta also has a very low rate of out-migration for 25 to 34 year olds. This indirect evidence strongly suggests Atlanta does well in retaining local college graduates. • Atlanta has outperformed its competitor regions – Boston, Washington-Baltimore, Chicago and Detroit – over the past decade in attracting college-educated professionals. All have fewer young adults, smaller increases (or outright declines in their 25 to 34 year-old population, and (except for Washington and Boston) lower levels of educational attainment. • New York City is the largest single source of young adult migrants to Atlanta, followed closely by smaller metropolitan areas in the South. The region gains more 25 to 34 year-olds than it loses to 44 of the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas. • Atlanta’s 25 to 34 year-olds are found throughout the region, but there are some significant sub-regional concentrations. Overall, 25 to 34 year-olds are disproportionately found in the center city, and there is a distinct cluster of college-educated young adults in the center city. • Atlanta has a more diverse population than the typical U.S. metro, and a relatively large concentration young adult African-Americans. The number of young adult Asians and Hispanics is increasing, but is still below the average for US metropolitan areas. 13 ATLANTA Exploring Demographic Change The objective of this analysis is to provide a detailed picture of the Atlanta region’s young adult population – where it stood in 2000, how it has changed since 1990, and how Atlanta’s standing and performance compared to other large metropolitan areas in the United States, with a special emphasis on those metros which Atlanta sees as competitors. Young adults – persons between 25 and 34 years old – play a particularly important role in shaping metropolitan economic growth and prosperity. The mid 20s and early 30s represent an age when most persons have completed their formal education, have started pursuing careers (or developing a formative work history), and are finding partners and starting families. While persons in their early twenties – particularly those with a four-year degree or higher level of education – are the most mobile age group in our society, the likelihood of moving to another state or metropolitan area declines sharply as people move into their early thirties. Consequently, the best opportunity to attract the population that will provide the human capital for a region’s economic future is when those persons are young adults. The importance of the young adult population to metropolitan economic health has been thrown into sharp relief by the major demographic change sweeping the nation: the aging of the baby boom generation. Slightly more than a decade ago, when the 1990 Census was conducted, the tail end of the baby boom generation (persons born between 1956 and 1965) were between 25 and 34 years of age. In 2000, these boomers had moved into the 35 to 44 age group. 14 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT Those who followed – persons born between 1966 and 1975 – were part of a much smaller birth cohort, the socalled baby bust. Even augmented by substantial immigration, the number of persons age 25 to 34 in 2000 was far less. Nationally there were nearly 4 million fewer 25 to 34 year-olds than in the previous decade. This means that the nation’s metropolitan areas were competing for a smaller pool of young adults in 2000 than they were in 1990. This analysis shows how the distribution of this young adult population changed between 1990 and 2000, and how Atlanta fared in attracting its share of this mobile and economically important group. As we shall see, the geographic distribution of this age group was influenced by an array of factors, including the changing race and ethnicity of young adults, variations in underlying regional and metropolitan growth trends, and the differential attractiveness of metropolitan areas to young adults. Overview of Age Structure and Population Trends To understand Atlanta’s performance, it helps to consider the broad sweep of demographic change in the nation’s metropolitan areas, and in particular, the changes in population in the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas. The top 50 includes all the nation’s metropolitan areas with populations of one million or more in 2000. In order to be able to accurately compare population totals from 1990 and 2000, we use the Census metropolitan area definitions that were in effect for Census 2000 (for more details about methodology, see the Appendix). ONE Collectively, the nation’s metropolitan areas accounted for 80.3 percent of the U.S. population, and the 50 largest metro areas accounted for 57.7 percent. Young adults are disproportionately concentrated in metropolitan areas, particularly larger metropolitan areas. Some 83 percent of 25 to 34 year-olds lived in metropolitan areas; 61.6 percent of all 25 to 34 year-olds lived in the 50 most populous metropolitan areas. In 2000, 32.8 million 25 to 34 year-olds lived in metro areas, and 24.4 million lived in the 50 largest metropolitan areas. The 2000 Census showed that these 32.8 million 25 to 34 year-olds in the metropolitan United States represented about 14.5 percent (roughly one in seven) of the nation’s total metropolitan population of nearly 226 million people. In Atlanta, in 2000, there were more than 722,000 25 to 34 year-olds, and they made up about 16.7 percent of the metropolitan area’s population of 4.1 million. The Atlanta metropolitan area includes 20 counties in Northern Georgia, with a population of 4.1 million, according to the 2000 Census. Atlanta was the nation’s eleventh largest metropolitan area in 2000. (As of June 2003) the metro area’s definition changed, adding 8 counties resulting in a 28-county MSA. For comparison purposes with the 1990 census the 20-county census used, which was the official MSA definition prior to June 2003. 15 ATLANTA, GA METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA TABLE 1 TOTAL POPULATION AND 25-34 POPULATION, 2000 METRO US AT L A N TA Total Population 25-34 Population Percent 25-34 225,981,711 32,864,383 14.5% 4,112,198 722,617 17.6% exhibits a strong young adult “bulge” – the metro area has a larger proportion of its population in the age groups 25 to 39, and much a smaller share of its population in the age categories 55 and over than the nation as a whole. Atlanta has about 105,000 more persons in the 25 to 34 year-old age group than it would have if its age distribution were the same as the average of the 50 largest metropolitan areas. FIGURE 1 AGE-SEX DISTRIBUTION, 2000 MIGRATION FIGURES Age Pyramid, 2000 The change in the population of any age group in a metropolitan area is the product of a number of factors, including national demographic changes (the different sizes of successive birth cohorts) as well as migration. The age structure of different metropolitan areas can be summarized in a population pyramid that shows the fraction of the total population in each of a series of age/sex groups. The youngest generation is shown at the bottom of the chart, the oldest at the top. Figure 1 shows the population pyramid for Atlanta in 2000. Atlanta, GA MSA 85 plus 80 to 84 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 Under 5 Female Male The pyramid illustrates the age-sex distribution of the population compared to the metropolitan United States. Data for Atlanta are shown in the shaded bars; values for the U.S. are outlined in bold. Data to the right of the axis are for females; data to the left are for males. In general, Atlanta is a very young metropolitan area. Compared to the nation, Atlanta’s age distribution Age Group (2000) -6% -4% -2% 0% Source: Census Bureau data 2% 4% 6% 16 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT Change in the 25 to 34 Year-old Population, 1990 to 2000 Our primary focus in this report is the change in the geographic distribution of the young adult population in the United States between 1990 and 2000. It is helpful to start our analysis by reviewing the broad changes in population in the metropolitan U.S. and in the Atlanta area. Overall, the metropolitan population of the United States increased by nearly 14 percent from 1990 to 2000, growing from about 198 million to nearly 226 million in 2000. Atlanta’s population grew much more rapidly – almost 39 percent – over the decade. The metropolitan area’s total population grew from less than 3 million in 1990 to 4.1 million in 2000. At the national level, the number of persons 25 to 34 year-olds in the U.S. actually declined during the decade of the 1990s, primarily due to the movement of the baby boom generation into an older age group over the course of the decade. The number of 25 to 34 year-olds in the nation’s metropolitan areas declined by almost 3 million between 1990 and 2000 – from 35.9 million in 1990 to 32.9 million in 2000. Atlanta was a prominent exception to this national trend; between 1990 and 2000, Atlanta’s 25 to 34 year-old population increased by 125,000. The aging of the baby boom generation is readily apparent when we look at the change in the age distribution of the population between 1990 and 2000. Figure 2 shows the percentage of the Atlanta population in each of 17 five-year age groups in both 1990 and 2000. In 1990, the largest age groups were 25 to 29 years old and 30 to 34 years old, each with more than 10 percent of the metropolitan area’s population. In 2000, the two largest age groups were those 35 to 39 and 40 to 44, with about 9 percent each of the metropolitan area’s population. The share of the metropolitan area’s population in the 25 to 34 year-old age group declined, with about 9 percent of the population in each of the 25 to 29 year old and 30 to 34 year old categories. Overall population growth varied dramatically among U.S. metropolitan areas during the 1990s. Some metropolitan areas—mostly in the South and West, grew rapidly, while others, primarily in the North and TWO T O TA L P O P U L AT I O N METRO US NUMBER YEAR TABLE 2 TOTAL POPULATION AND 25-34 POPULATION, 1990 AND 2000 AT L A N TA NUMBER SHARE OF US 1990 2000 Change Growth (%) 198,402,494 225,981,711 27,579,217 13.9% 2,959,930 4,112,198 1,152,268 1.49% 1.82% 0.33% 38.9% 25 TO 34 YEAR OLD POPULATION METRO US YEAR NUMBER AT L A N TA NUMBER SHARE OF US 1990 2000 Change Growth (%) 35,855,275 32,864,383 (2,990,892) -8.3% 597,594 722,617 125,023 20.9% 1.67% 2.20% 0.53% East, grew slowly or actually declined. During the decade of the 1990s, Atlanta’s population increased by 39 percent, making it one of the nation’s fastest growing regions, and ranking 4th overall among the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas. Atlanta grew more rapidly than all of its principal competitor regions, except Austin, which grew about 48 percent during the 1990s. (See Table 3, Appendix) There is considerable variation among metropolitan areas in the fraction of their population that is between 25 and 34 years of age. Among the 50 largest metropolitan areas in 2000, 15 percent of the population was between 25 and 34. As Table 4 (Appendix) illustrates, five metropolitan areas in the South, including Austin, Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham, Dallas and Charlotte, lead the list with the largest share of the 25 to 34 year-old population. The bottom of the list is composed of very slowly growing or declining cities in the Northeast (Rochester, Buffalo, Pittsburgh) and two Florida metropolitan areas with large retirement populations (Tampa and West Palm Beach). Atlanta ranks second 17 FIGURE 2 CHANGE IN POPULATION BY AGE GROUP, 1990-2000 85plus 80to84 75to79 70to74 65to69 60to64 Age Group (2000) 55to59 50to54 45to49 40to44 35to39 30to34 25to29 20to24 15to19 10to14 5to9 Under 5 1990 2000 Dallas recorded small increases in their young adult populations. Houston, Chicago, Tampa, and particularly Washington-Baltimore saw declines in the number of young adults. Data on population trends since the 2000 Census are fragmentary. As part of its American Community Survey, the Census Bureau developed age-specific population estimates for 2004 for the Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area. The Census Bureau estimates that the 25 to 34 year-old population increased to about 740,000 persons in 2004, about a 2.5 percent increase from the 2000 level. 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% Source: Census Bureau data overall among the 50 metropolitan areas in the share of its 25 to 34 year-old population. Atlanta compares favorably to all of its competitor metros on this index. Austin, Dallas and Charlotte are all in the top five on this measure, while Washington and Chicago are more typical. Tampa Bay’s population is relatively much older. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of 25 to 34 year-olds in the metropolitan U.S. declined by nearly 3 million. As a result, most metropolitan areas lost population in this age group. There was, however, considerable variation among metropolitan areas. About a third of the 50 largest metropolitan areas saw increases in their 25 to 34 year-old population between 1990 and 2000. Several metropolitan areas saw declines in their 25 to 34 year-old population of more than 20 percent. Atlanta ranked fourth of the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the percentage change in the 25 to 34 yearold population, with a gain of about 21 percent between 1990 and 2000 (See Table 5, Appendix). The performance of its competitor regions was quite mixed. Austin and Charlotte showed similar gains to Atlanta’s and were among the nation’s leaders. Nashville and 18 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT Changing Faces, Changing Places THREE Race and Ethnicity of the 25 to 34 Year-old Population, 1990 and 2000 most closely similar 2000 data for persons identifying themselves as belonging to a single racial category. (Despite the option to choose two or more races, the overwhelming proportion of respondents chose a single race.) Because these numbers are not strictly comparable, we have described these comparisons as the “indicative change” in the racial groups shown. Second, we have examined the changes in the share of the U.S. population in various racial groups in each U.S. metropolitan area. This “market share” notion compares a region’s share of the total U.S. population in one racial category in 1990 with its market share of the most similar racial category in 2000. The market share approach shows whether a region accounted for a greater or larger share of all of the persons identifying themselves as belonging to a racial group in 2000 than the most similarly defined group in 1990. Our analysis focuses on the three largest broad racial groupings in the Census: whites, African-Americans and Asians. Our analysis excludes Native Americans and, for 2000, individuals reporting two or more races. We also separately report data for persons of Hispanic origin, who can be of any race. For simplicity, we use an abbreviated description of each racial and ethnic category: African-American includes persons describing themselves as black and African-American, Asian, includes Asians and Pacific Islanders. Hispanic includes Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban or other Spanish. So far, we have examined the 25 to 34 year-old age group solely on the basis of age. But this group is, of course, composed of individuals in a variety of racial and ethnic groups. Every metropolitan area has a different racial and ethnic composition. Over the past decade, there have been important shifts in the racial and ethnic composition of the U.S. population, and they have been especially pronounced in the 25 to 34 year-old age group. Some sub-groups of the 25 to 34 year-old population, notably Hispanics and Asian-Americans, have increased significantly and are also considerably more dispersed among metropolitan areas. Other sub-groups, particularly the white population, have decreased substantially in number. To fully understand the dynamics of the changing age structure of the young adult population, it is important to consider each of these racial and ethnic groups separately. This task is complicated by fundamental changes made by the Census Bureau in the manner in which it asked citizens to identify their race between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses. In 1990, the Census required respondents to choose a single racial category. In 2000, the Census gave respondents the opportunity to identify themselves as belonging to two or more racial groups. Consequently, data for 1990 and 2000 are not directly comparable. We have dealt with this definitional change in two ways. First, we have compared the 1990 data with the 19 As Figure 3 illustrates, the racial and ethnic composition of Atlanta’s young adult population differs in many ways from the average of U.S. metropolitan areas. In 2000, a larger fraction of the 25 to 34 year-old population was African-American, and a smaller Hispanic, than in the nation as a whole. Whites make up a smaller share of the 25 to 34 year-old population in Atlanta than they do in the rest of the metropolitan U.S. Asian-American 25 to 34 year-olds are somewhat under-represented in Atlanta compared to the metropolitan U.S. as a whole. FIGURE 3 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE FIGURE 4 DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE FIGURE 5 DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE There were significant differences across racial and ethnic lines in the change in the 25 to 34 year-old population between 1990 and 2000. In Atlanta, there was a slight increase in the white 25 to 34 year-old population, a significant increase in the AfricanAmerican 25 to 34 year-old population, and large percentage increases (from relatively small bases) for the Asian and Hispanic 25 to 34 year-old populations. TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN KEY DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS, 1990-2000 ATLANTA White African-American Asian Hispanic 1990 419,200 159,901 11,116 14,367 2000 427,230 216,910 30,799 70,518 CHANGE 8,030 57,009 19,683 56,151 PERCENT 2% 36% 177% 391% Note: Racial categories changed between 1990 and 2000, 2000 is white, a singlerace only. 2000 data is one race only for white, African-American and Asian. 20 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT Although the Atlanta area’s young adult population remained predominantly white – declining from about 70 percent of the age group in 1990 to about 60 percent in 2000 – there was substantial growth in other racial and ethnic groups during the 1990s. As Figure 5 illustrates, the share of each of the other major racial and ethnic groups increased. The pattern of racial and ethnic change in the young adult population in Atlanta differs from the national trend. This is most striking among young adult AfricanAmericans. While the African-American young adult population declined nationally in the 1990s by about 6 percent, it increased more than 36 percent in Atlanta. Atlanta was also an exception to a national pattern of young adult African-Americans becoming more evenly distributed among the nation’s metropolitan areas. Nationally, a dozen metropolitan areas had more than 100,000 25 to 34 year old African Americans in 1990. All of them—including Washington-Baltimore, Chicago, Houston and Dallas—had a decline in young adult African Americans, except Miami (which gained about 3 percent) and Atlanta. The diversity of Atlanta’s population has been fueled by very rapid growth in Asian and Hispanic young adults. FIGURE 6 POPULATION CHANGE The Asian 25 to 34 year-old population increased 40 percent nationally and more than doubled in Atlanta. The region’s Hispanic population increased nearly fourfold during the 1990s, compared to a national increase of slightly less than 60 percent. Again, inasmuch as the figures shown for 1990 and 2000 in Table 6 are not directly comparable, we present an alternative way at looking at the changing racial and ethnic composition of the 25 to 34 yearold population. Table 7 shows the share of the U.S. metropolitan population residing in the Atlanta area in 1990 by racial and ethnic group and the change in the share for each group between 1990 and 2000. In 1990, Atlanta accounted for about 1.49 percent of the total U.S. metropolitan population. This increased to about 1.82 percent of the total U.S. population in 2000, for an increase in share of .328 percent. Atlanta’s share of 25 to 34 year-olds increased even more than its share of total U.S. population during this time with an increase of .532 percent. This indicates that Atlanta’s growth is disproportionately being driven by its attractiveness to young adults. The market share figures for different race and ethnic categories show that Atlanta has gained market share for each group of young adults. Atlanta accounts for a larger share of white, Asian, African-American, and Hispanic 25 to 34 year-olds in 2000 than it did in 1990. The increase is particularly dramatic among young adult African-Americans, where Atlanta increased its share of this demographic group from 3.4 percent in 1990 to 4.9 percent in 2000. TABLE 7 SHIFT IN SHARE OF US METROPOLITAN POPULATION, 1990 TO 2000 All Ages 25/34s White African-American Asian Hispanic 1990 1.492% 1.667% 1.515% 3.396% 0.826% 0.354% 2000 1.820% 2.199% 1.861% 4.892% 1.620% 1.107% SHIFT 0.328% 0.532% 0.346% 1.497% 0.794% 0.753% 21 White Population Among the 25 to 34 year-old population in Atlanta, the single largest racial group is white. In 1990, 69.8 percent of Atlanta’s 25 to 34 year-old population described themselves as white; in 2000, 59.1 percent of the population described themselves as white, singlerace. The share of Atlanta’s 25 to 34 year-old population that was white was significantly lower than the average for all U.S. metropolitan areas in both 1990 and 2000. While the white 25 to 34 year-old population in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas declined by about 17 percent between 1990 and 2000, it actually increased in Atlanta—by about 2 percent. TABLE 8 WHITE 25-34 POPULATION, 1990 AND 2000 PERCENT OF 25/34 POPULATION METRO US Less than a fifth of the largest 50 metropolitan areas had a white single-race 25 to 34 year-old population in 2000 that was more numerous than the white 25 to 34 year-old population in 1990. With a 2 percent increase, Atlanta was one of the few metropolitan areas to see a gain in this demographic group. Atlanta ranked seventh among the top 50 metropolitan areas on this indicator, better than all but two of its competitor regions. Austin registered a 17 percent increase in white young adults, and Charlotte 7 percent. Four competitor regions saw double-digit declines: Houston, Tampa, Chicago and Washington-Baltimore (See Table 10, Appendix). FIGURE 8 INDICATIVE CHANGE IN WHITE 25-34 POPULATION, 1990-2000 NUMBER METRO US ATLANTA ATLANTA 1990 2000 Change Growth (%) 27,669,194 22,955,060 (4,714,134) -17.0% 419,200 427,230 8,030 1.9% 77.2% 69.8% 70.1% 59.1% Note: Racial categories changed between 1990 and 2000, 2000 is white, singlerace only. Among the 50 most populous metropolitan areas, the fraction of the 25 to 34 year-old population that was white, single-race in 2000 varied from about 50 percent in Los Angeles to 88 percent in Pittsburgh (See Table 9, Appendix). Atlanta ranks 44 among the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas in the share of the young adult population that is white, single-race. Atlanta has a proportionately smaller white, young adult population than its competitor regions. It is most similar to metropolitan Houston and Washington-Baltimore. FIGURE 7 WHITE 25-34 POPULATION, 2000 Hispanic Population Between 1990 and 2000, the number of young adult Hispanics in the metropolitan U.S. increased dramatically from 4 million to nearly 6.4 million. Hispanics accounted for about 11 percent of the metropolitan 25 to 34 year-old population in 1990, but nearly 20 percent of the metropolitan 25 to 34 year-old population in 2000. The growth of the Hispanic population in Atlanta exceeds the national trend; Hispanic 25 to 34 year-olds increased 391 percent from about 14,000 in 1990 to more than 70,000 in 2000. Despite the rapid increase in the Hispanic population, there is considerable variation in the share of the population that is Hispanic among U.S. metropolitan areas. A majority of the 25 to 34 year-old population is Hispanic in San Antonio, and Hispanics are approaching 22 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT TABLE 11 HISPANIC 25-34 POPULATION, 1990 AND 2000 PERCENT OF 25/34 POPULATION METRO US NUMBER METRO US ATLANTA ATLANTA in the percentage increase in the number of Hispanic 25 to 34 year-olds, with increases of several hundred percent, although they recorded these increases from very small 1990 base populations of young adult Hispanics (See Table 13, Appendix). The percentage increase in the Hispanic population in Atlanta during the 1990s exceeded that of all of its competitors except Charlotte and Nashville, which started from an even smaller base Hispanic population in 1990. FIGURE 10 CHANGE IN HISPANIC 25-34 POPULATION, 2000 1990 2000 Change Growth (%) 4,060,295 6,372,589 2,312,294 56.9% 14,367 70,518 56,151 390.8% 11.3% 19.4% 2.4% 9.8% Note: Hispanic persons can be of any race. a majority of this age group in two other metropolitan areas, Los Angeles and Miami. In most of the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, including Atlanta, less than 10 percent of the 25 to 34 year-old population is Hispanic, with the smallest concentrations of Hispanic population found in Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Louisville, Columbus and Cincinnati (See Table 12, Appendix). In 2000, about 9.8 percent of Atlanta’s population was Hispanic, ranking the region 22 among the 50 largest metropolitan areas in this measure. Four Atlanta competitors have much proportionately larger Hispanic populations – Austin, Houston, Dallas and Chicago – while its other competitor regions are more similar to Atlanta. FIGURE 9 HISPANIC 25-34 POPULATION, 2000 Share of 25 to 34 Year Olds Hispanic, 2000 Change in Hispanic 25 to 34 Population, 1990-2000 -200% 0% 200% 400% 600% 800% 1000% Atlanta, GA MSA African-American Population In 2000, there were about 4.4 million African-American, single-race, 25 to 34 year-olds in the metropolitan areas of the United States. This represented a number about 6 percent smaller than the number of AfricanAmerican 25 to 34 year-olds in 1990 in metropolitan areas (although the racial definitions were different in that year). African-Americans represented about 13.1 percent of the 25 to 34 year-old metropolitan population in 1990; African-American, single-race, 25 to 34 year-olds represented about 13.5 percent of the U.S. metropolitan population in 2000. African-Americans make up a much larger fraction of the 25 to 34 year-old population in Atlanta (30 percent) than in the metropolitan U.S. as a whole (13.5 percent). The African-American population in this age group in Atlanta increased between 1990 and 2000 by an amazing 36 percent at a time when the overall size of this demographic group declined by about 6 percent. The proportion of the population classifying themselves as black or African-American varies substantially among U.S. metropolitan areas. The proportion of the 25 to 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Atlanta, GA MSA The 25 to 34 year-old Hispanic population increased in 49 of the 50 largest metropolitan areas between 1990 and 2000 – the sole exception being New Orleans, which registered a slight decline. Many metropolitan areas with previously small numbers of Hispanic residents registered the largest percentage increases. Atlanta and four other Southern metros (Charlotte, Raleigh, Nashville, and Greensboro) ranked among the top five 23 TABLE 14 AFRICAN-AMERICAN 25-34 POPULATION, 1990-2000 PERCENT OF 25/34 POPULATION METRO US NUMBER METRO US ATLANTA ATLANTA 1990 2000 Change Growth (%) 4,708,840 4,433,712 (275,128) -5.8% 159,901 216,910 57,009 35.7% 13.1% 13.5% 26.8% 30.0% Note: Racial categories changed between 1990 and 2000, 2000 is AfricanAmerican, single-race only. regional variations in this indicative change in the African-American young adult population. Overall, the African-American population became more dispersed among U.S. metropolitan areas. The biggest indicative increases in the African-American population were recorded in a diverse set of metropolitan areas: Minneapolis, Las Vegas, Atlanta, Phoenix and Orlando. Most metropolitan areas experienced indicative declines, with the largest decreases in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco. (The apparent declines in California may, however, reflect a greater fraction of persons who identified themselves as African-American in 1990 and as having two or more races in 2000 than was the case in other regions of the country.) Atlanta’s indicative change in the African-American 25 to 34 year-old population ranked third in the nation between 1990 and 2000. Among its competitor regions, only Charlotte, which ranked sixth with a 22 percent increase in African-American young adults, was among the top ten in this measure. Austin and Tampa recorded increases, and all of the other competitor regions saw declines in their young adult African-American population (See Table 16, Appendix). FIGURE 12 INDICATIVE CHANGE IN AFRICAN-AMERICAN 25-34 POPULATION, 1990-2000 Change in African-American 25 to 34 Population, 1990-2000 -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% Atlanta, GA MSA 34 year-old population identified as black or AfricanAmerican ranges from 30 percent or more in Atlanta and several other Southern metropolitan areas to fewer than four percent in several Western metropolitan areas (See Table 15, Appendix). Atlanta ranks fifth among the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas in the percentage of its 25 to 34 year-old population identified as African-American, single-race in the 2000 Census. Atlanta leads all of its competitor metropolitan areas in this regard. AfricanAmericans account for about one-quarter of 25 to 34 year-olds in Washington-Baltimore, about one-fifth in Charlotte, and about one-sixth in Chicago, Houston and Nashville. Austin is the outlier here where fewer than one in 12 young adults is African-American. In the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas, there were fewer 25 to 34 year-olds who described themselves as African-American, single-race in 2000 than were in that same age group and described themselves as African-American in 1990. There were considerable 60% FIGURE 11 AFRICAN-AMERICAN 25-34 POPULATION, 2000 Share of 25 to 34 Year Olds African-American, Single-Race 2000 0% 10% 20% 30% Atlanta, GA MSA 40% 50% Asian Population There were about 1.9 million Asian, single-race, 25 to 34 year-olds in the nation’s metropolitan areas in 2000. The number of 25 to 34 year-olds identifying themselves as Asian in the metropolitan U.S. increased by more than half a million during the decade of the 1990s. Asians now account for almost 6 percent of the metropolitan 25 to 34 population, up from about 4 percent in 1990. 24 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT TABLE 17 ASIAN 25-34 POPULATION, 1990 AND 2000 PERCENT OF 25/34 POPULATION METRO US NUMBER METRO US Asian-Americans make up between 2 and 6 percent of the population. Metropolitan areas in the South generally have the lowest fraction of Asian-American population (See Table 18, Appendix). 1.9% 4.3% Atlanta ranks 17 among the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas in the fraction of its 25 to 34 year-old population that is Asian. Asians represent a larger fraction of the young adult population in several competitors (Washington-Baltimore, Houston and Chicago). The share of Atlanta’s young adult population that is Asian is larger than it is in competitor regions in the South, such as Tampa, Nashville and Charlotte. The Asian population in the metropolitan U.S. became more dispersed over the decade of the 1990s. Percentage increases in the Asian young adult population were greatest in those areas with traditionally small concentrations of Asians and lowest in the areas with traditionally large concentrations of Asians. The indicative increase in the Atlanta Asian young adult population between 1990 and 2000 was 177 percent, the third fastest rate of growth among the top 50 U.S. metro areas. This performance was stronger than all of the region’s competitors, even though they each experienced substantial increases in their Asian, 25 to 34 year-old population in this decade (See Table 19, Appendix). ATLANTA ATLANTA 1990 2000 Change Growth (%) 1,345,532 1,900,774 555,242 41.3% 11,116 30,799 19,683 177.1% 3.8% 5.8% Note: Racial categories changed between 1990 and 2000, 2000 is Asian, singlerace only. The Asian 25 to 34 year-old population of the Atlanta metropolitan area increased almost four times as fast during the 1990s as it did nationally, growing from a little more than 14,000 to more than 70,000. Nearly twice as many 25 to 34 year-olds identified themselves as Asian, single-race in the 2000 Census as identified themselves as Asian in the 1990 Census. The fraction of Atlanta’s population that is Asian, however, is still less than half of the average level of the Asian population in U.S. metropolitan areas. The Asian population in the United States has historically been most concentrated on the West Coast. Four of the five metropolitan areas with the largest proportions of 25 to 34 year-old Asian-Americans are located in California, and the fifth is Seattle. The distribution of Asian-Americans is still heavily skewed to a relatively few metropolitan areas. In five metropolitan areas, Asian-Americans make up more than 10 percent of the 25 to 34 year-old population; in forty metropolitan areas, FIGURE 13 ASIAN POPULATION, 2000 Share of 25 to 34 Year Olds Asian, One Race 2000 FIGURE 14 INDICATIVE CHANGE IN ASIAN 25-34 POPULATION, 1990-2000 Change in Asian 25 to 34 Population, 1990-2000 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% Atlanta, GA MSA 250% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Atlanta, GA MSA 25 Young Talent FOUR Educational Attainment of the 25 to 34 Year-old Population, 1990 and 2000 The educational attainment of Atlanta’s 25 to 34 yearold population is substantially higher than in the nation’s metropolitan areas as a whole. Census data for 2000 show that 35.7 percent of Atlanta’s 25 to 34 year-old population had received a four-year college degree, compared to a national figure of 31.9 percent. The total number of college-educated 25 to 34 year-olds increased about 46 percent between 1990 and 2000 in Atlanta, from 176,000 in 1990 to 257,000 in 2000. The trend in educational attainment varies by gender. In Atlanta, while the number of young adult men with a college degree increased by 34,000, the number of young adult women with a college degree increased by almost 47,000. As Table 20 illustrates, the number of college-educated 25 to 34 year-old women in Atlanta exceeds the number of college-educated 25 to 34 yearold men by nearly 17,000. This reflects a national trend. College attainment rates for young women exceed those of young men by more than 3 percentage points, a major shift from the rough gender parity in educational attainment that prevailed in 1990. There is substantial variation in the fraction of the young adult population with a college degree among the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas. Four of the five highest-ranking metropolitan areas have college attainment rates of more than 40 percent. All of the lowest metropolitan areas have college attainment rates of less than 25 percent. The college attainment rate of the highest rated metropolitan area (RaleighDurham) is nearly three times that of the lowest rated (Las Vegas) (See Table 21, Appendix). Atlanta ranks ninth among the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas in college attainment of its 25 to 34 year-old population. It ranks just behind two of its competitor regions, which are also among the ten best-educated metropolitan areas (WashingtonBaltimore and Austin). Among other competitor metros, educational attainment is similar in Chicago, and much lower in Houston and Tampa. From an economic perspective, the skills and talent of the workforce are an increasingly important factor in shaping metropolitan growth. For purposes of our analysis, we use educational attainment – measured by the fraction of the population with a four-year college degree or higher level of education – as our benchmark indicator of skill. In 2000, nearly 32 percent of the 25 to 34 year-olds in the 50 most populous metropolitan areas in the United States had a four-year college degree. Between 1990 and 2000, even though the total population of 25 to 34 year-olds in the top 50 metropolitan areas declined, the total number of persons with a four-year degree or higher level of education increased by 11 percent, from about 7 million to almost 7.8 million. Young adults, as a group, recorded a substantial increase in educational attainment over 1990, and college attainment in the top 50 metropolitan areas rose from 26.6 percent in 1990 to 31.9 percent in 2000. TABLE 20 COLLEGE-EDUCATED 25-34 POPULATION, 1990 AND 2000 COLLEGE ATTAINMENT RATE TOP 50 METROS NUMBER TOP 50 METROS ATLANTA ATLANTA 1990 Male Female 2000 Male Female Male Female Growth (%) Male Female 7,014,501 3,542,756 3,471,908 7,789,178 3,692,763 4,096,415 150,007 624,507 11.0% 4.2% 18.0% 176,366 86,532 89,834 257,837 120,680 137,157 81,471 34,148 47,323 46.2% 39.5% 52.7% 26.6% 26.9% 26.3% 31.9% 30.3% 33.6% 29.5% 29.4% 29.6% 35.7% 33.3% 38.1% Change 1990-2000 774,677 26 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT FIGURE 15 COLLEGE ATTAINMENT OF 25-34 POPULATION, 2000 College Attainment Rate of 25 to 34s, 2000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Atlanta, GA MSA between 1990 and 2000. Because the college-educated population increased 11 percent over the decade, the increase in many metropolitan areas was driven by this national trend, rather than in any shift in the relative attractiveness of their metropolitan areas to talented young adults. This market share approach shows whether a metropolitan area increased more rapidly or more slowly than the 50 largest metropolitan areas as a group. FIGURE 16 CHANGE IN COLLEGE ATTAINMENT, 1990-2000 Change in College Educated 25 to 34 Population, 1990-2000 -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% Atlanta, GA MSA 80% 100% 120% Consistent with the national trend, most metropolitan areas recorded an increase in the number of collegeeducated 25 to 34 year-olds between 1990 and 2000. The number of college-educated 25 to 34 year-olds doubled in Las Vegas and increased by about half in Atlanta and three other metropolitan areas, Charlotte, Austin, and Portland. Several metropolitan areas – mostly in the Northeast – saw actual declines in their college-educated 25 to 34 year-old population. Atlanta had one of the nation’s largest increases in the number of college-educated young adults between 1990 and 2000. The region added more than 80,000 college graduates in this age group over the decade, going from 176,000 college-educated 25 to 34 year olds in 1990 to 257,000 in this group in 2000. Atlanta ranked fifth among the top 50 metropolitan areas in the percentage increase in college-educated young adults. Atlanta outperformed all of its competitor regions except Charlotte and Austin on this measure (See Table 22, Appendix). Another way of looking at the shifting distribution of talent among metropolitan areas is to examine the change in the share of the college-educated 25 to 34 year-old population living in each metro area Table 23 (Appendix) shows the change in share of college-educated 25 to 34 year-olds for the 50 largest metropolitan areas between 1990 and 2000. Atlanta recorded the largest increase in market share of U.S. metropolitan areas with an increase of nearly eighttenths of one percent of all college-educated 25 to 34 year-olds living in the U.S. over the decade. Other metropolitan areas in the West and South were leaders in increasing their share of these talented young workers. Several of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, including New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Atlanta and Washington, recorded significant declines in their share of college-educated 25 to 34 year-olds. Jarrett Jack- Basketball Photo: Courtesy of Georgia Tech Sports Information 27 to 34 year olds moved from Athens to Atlanta each year between 1995 and 2000 (See Table 34, Appendix). The difference in college students and college graduates reflects the large net in-migration of well-educated young adults. Published Census data doesn’t enable us to directly determine whether the persons who graduated from Atlanta institutions of higher education stayed in the metropolitan area or moved away, but the aggregate statistics suggest that Atlanta is very successful in retaining its own college graduates as well as attracting college graduates from other regions. Sample data from Census 2000 also shed some light on Atlanta’s ability to retain college graduates locally. We used Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) to determine the 1995 residence of the Metro Atlanta’s 2000 college-educated 25 to 34 year-old population. We estimate that approximately 64 percent of metropolitan Atlanta’s 25 to 34 year olds with a college degree had lived in Georgia five years earlier (Census PUMS data allow us to determine the state, but not the metropolitan area of residence in 1995). Thus, about 165,000 of the region’s 257,000 college educated 25 to 34 year olds had been living in Georgia in 1995 (when they were 20 to 29 years of age). This works out to about 16,500 persons per birth year. For comparison, note that higher education institutions in Georgia granted about 27,000 bachelor’s degrees per year in the 1990s; and that the 18 to 24 year-old, college-enrolled population of the Atlanta metropolitan area in 2000 was about 15,200 persons per birth year. Taken together, these data suggest that about three-fifths of Georgia’s college graduates end up living in metropolitan Atlanta, and that the region attracts and retains more college graduates, by a wide margin, than it loses to other places. College attainment varies substantially by demographic group. Nationally, among 25 to 34 year-olds, Asians have the highest rates of college attainment, while African-Americans and Hispanics have lower than average levels of college attainment. Consequently, the demographic composition of a metropolitan area’s population tends to influence its aggregate college attainment rate. To examine whether metropolitan attainment rates were influenced by demographic characteristics, we compiled data from the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) of Census 2000 to estimate the metropolitan level college attainment rate for principal demographic groups in the 25 to 34 year-old population. Because they are drawn from a sample of Census respondents, PUMS data computations do not correspond exactly to published Census data. Among competitor regions, Austin and Charlotte had roughly similar increases in the share of the nation’s college educated young adult population. Nashville and Chicago had smaller share increases, Tampa roughly broke even, and Houston, Dallas, and WashingtonBaltimore all had declines. Atlanta’s outstanding performance in expanding its college-educated population is primarily due to the netin-migration of well educated young adults. Atlanta’s college-educated young adult population greatly exceeds the size of the region’s higher education capacity. Atlanta has about 106,600 enrolled college students between the ages of 18 to 24, the prime college-going years, or an average of about 15,200 in each birth year. In contrast metro Atlanta has 257,000 25 to 34 year old college graduates, about 25,700 per birth year. Among the 50 largest U.S. metro areas, Atlanta is about 17 percent below average in the college enrollment rate of 18 to 24 year old college students. In part, metropolitan Atlanta’s relatively low level of college enrollment is due to the fact that the University of Georgia is located outside the boundaries of the federally designated Atlanta metropolitan area. If one were to add the more than 30,000 students enrolled at the University of Georgia, Athens, to the Atlanta totals, it would bring the region’s enrollment above the US average. Net migration data show that about 1,000 25 28 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT TABLE 24 ESTIMATED EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY PRINCIPAL ETHNIC GROUPS 2000 TOP 50 METROS ATLANTA All Race White African-American Asian Hispanic Men Women 35% 42% 24% 52% 14% 33% 38% 18% 56% 11% Another important segment of the college-educated 25 to 34 year-old population is single women. Over the past several decades, women’s educational attainment has increased dramatically. In 1960, women were only about half as likely to have college degrees as men. But while male college attainment rates basically peaked in the 1970s, women’s college attainment rates continued to increase. By the mid-1990s, there was basically no difference in the college attainment rates of young adult (25 to 34 year-old) men and women. Since 1997, college attainment rates of women in this age group have clearly surpassed those of their male counterparts. For 25 to 34 year-olds in 2002, the college attainment rate was 32.7 percent for women compared 28.5 percent for men (Bureau of the Census, 2003c). Those now 25 to 34 years old represent the first generation where women are measurably better educated than men. Never-married women tend to be better-educated and more mobile than their married counterparts. And significantly, the number of never-married women in the 25 to 34 year-old age group has increased, even though the total number of 25 to 34 year-old women has decreased by 2 million since 1990. The number of single, never-married women in this age group actually increased by almost 10 percent. In 1990, there were 5.3 million single, never-married women in the U.S. By 2000, there were 5.8 million. The Census Bureau does not separately publish data that show the educational level, marital status, gender and age in a way that enables the U.S. to directly compute the change in the number of 25 to 34 yearold never-married, female college graduates by metropolitan area. However, drawing on data from the Public Use Microdata Sample, we were able to estimate the fraction of 25 to 34 year-old women who were single, never married and had a college degree. Among the top 50 metropolitan areas, 16 percent of all 25 to 34 year-old women are single and have a fouryear college degree or higher level of education. For Atlanta, we estimate that about 17 percent of all 25 to 34 year-old women are single, never married, and have a four-year degree. The rate of college attainment for whites, and AfricanAmericans is higher in Atlanta than for the comparable racial categories nationally. The college attainment rate for Asian-Americans is slightly lower than the national rate. This analysis suggests that Atlanta’s above average level of college attainment among 25 to 34 year-olds is not due primarily to differences in its racial or ethnic composition. In fact, Atlanta’s high level of overall college attainment is especially striking because a larger fraction of its population is composed of groups—African-Americans—that nationally, have relatively low levels of college attainment. As we noted earlier, the growth in the young adult African-American population has been a significant factor in Atlanta’s growth. This is especially clear among the college-educated population. Atlanta has the third largest concentration of college-educated 25 to 34 year old African Americans (behind only New York and Washington-Baltimore). Of the ten metropolitan areas with the largest populations young adult AfricanAmericans, Atlanta has the highest level of college attainment at nearly 24 percent. TABLE 25 SINGLE, COLLEGE-EDUCATED WOMEN AS A PERCENT OF 25/34 WOMEN TOP 50 METROS ATLANTA Single, College Educated 17% 16% 29 Dissecting Change FIVE Component Analysis of Change in 25 to 34 Year-old Population, 1990 to 2000 Braves Team Photo: Courtesy of Atlanta Braves National League Baseball Club As the previous sections of this report illustrate, the change in the number of 25 to 34 year-olds in each metropolitan area is the product of complex interactions between national trends (a less numerous birth cohort of 25 to 34 year-olds in 2000 than a decade earlier), shifting demographics (declining numbers of whites, increasing numbers of Asians and Hispanics), metropolitan growth trends (rapid growth in some metropolitan areas, like Las Vegas, and decline in others like Buffalo), and finally, the unique attractiveness of some metropolitan areas to the 25 to 34 year-old generation. In this portion of the report, we seek to separate the various factors influencing demographic change in the metropolitan area between 1990 and 2000. In this analysis, we estimate the amount of change in the 25 to 34 year-old population that is due to the overall national decline in this age group, the difference between national and metropolitan growth rates, and a residual effect which is the net change in the relative attractiveness of Atlanta to the 25 to 34 year-old population. Our estimates of the contribution of each of these factors to the change in the 25 to 34 year-old population in Atlanta between 1990 and 2000 are shown in Table 26. We have decomposed the change in population into three factors. The first factor is the national trend. Because of the smaller size of 1966-1975 birth cohort than the 1956-1965 birth cohort, there are about 10 percent fewer 25 to 34 year-olds nationally in 2000 than 1990. This 10 percent reduction is the national trend contribution to the change in the population of each metropolitan area between 1990 and 2000. All other things being equal, if the reduction in population had been experienced equally in all metropolitan areas, and there had been no relative change in the size of metro areas, this would have resulted in a 10 percent reduction in the 25 to 34 year-old population of each metropolitan area. For Atlanta, for the decade 1990 to 2000, we estimate the size of this national trend effect at -49,849 for 25 to 34 year-olds. Our second factor is the metropolitan growth factor. Some metropolitan areas grew faster than others, some grew more slowly, and others declined. Some of the growth or decline in the number of 25 to 34 year-olds in any metropolitan area is shaped simply by whether these were growing or declining metropolitan areas. To estimate this overall metropolitan trend effect, we have estimated the share of the metropolitan U.S. population that resided in each metropolitan area in 1990 and in 2000 (Table 7). We then examined the shift in share of each metropolitan area between 1990 and 2000. We used this shift-share factor to estimate the 30 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT metropolitan trend component in population growth for each metropolitan area between 1990 and 2000. In 1990, Atlanta accounted for 1.49 percent of U.S. metropolitan population. In 2000, it accounted for 1.82 percent, for a shift in share between 1990 and 2000 of +0.44 percentage points. Applying this shift-share factor to the 2000 population of 25 to 34 year-olds suggests, that all other things being equal, the increasing share of the U.S. metropolitan population that lived in Atlanta would have produced an increase of 107,737 25 to 34 year-old residents between 1990 and 2000. The difference between these two factors – the national trend effect of –49,849 and the metropolitan growth trend effect of +107,737, and the actual change in the 25 to 34 year-old population, a increase of 125,023 – is the youth attractiveness effect for Atlanta. The effect for Atlanta is +67,135, meaning that Atlanta has about 67,000 more 25 to 34 year-old adults that we would have expected based solely on national demographic and metropolitan growth trends. This suggests that on balance, Atlanta is much more attractive to the nation’s 25 to 34 year-olds in 2000 than it was in 1990. TABLE 26 COMPONENTS OF CHANGE IN 25-34 POPULATION, 1990 TO 2000 ATLANTA TABLE 27 SHIFT IN SHARE OF 25-34 POPULATION IN TOP 50 METROS, 1990 TO 2000 1990 ATLANTA 2000 SHIFT 1990-2000 Total Population 25/34 Population Male Female 2.085% 2.269% 2.442% 2.587% 2.530% 2.963% 3.310% 3.268% 3.348% 0.445% 0.695% 0.796% 0.826% 0.761% College Educated 25/34s 2.514% In a broader context, we can see how Atlanta’s share of U.S. metropolitan population by age group changed over the period 1990 to 2000. Figure 17 shows the shift in Atlanta’s share of the U.S. population in each of 17 five-year age groups between 1990 and 2000. Atlanta recorded its largest increases in share among persons in their late 20s and early 30s. Its relative increase was least among persons in their 40s and persons 70 and older. This pattern of change suggests that Atlanta is gaining population primarily because of its attractiveness to mobile young adults. National Trend MetroTrend Youth Effect Net Change (49,849) 107,737 67,135 125,023 FIGURE 17 SHIFT IN SHARE OF US POPULATION BY AGE GROUP, 1990-2000 Atlanta Shift in Share of US Population, 1990 to 2000 80to84 70to74 60to64 50to54 40to44 30to34 20to24 10to14 Under 5 It is also instructive to compare the shift in share of Atlanta’s population for various demographic groups. For this analysis, we computed the metropolitan area’s share of the total population in the 50 largest metropolitan areas. Table 27 shows Atlanta’s share of total metropolitan population, the 25 to 34 yearold population, and the college-educated 25 to 34 year-old population in both 1990 and 2000. Overall, Atlanta recorded an increase in its share of the U.S. metropolitan population(+.44 percent). Atlanta’s share of the metropolitan 25 to 34 year-old population increased even more sharply (+.695 percent). Atlanta increased its share of the college-educated 25 to 34 year-old population even more (+.796 percent). Atlanta’s increase in market share was less among college-educated women (+.761 percent) than it was among college-educated young men (+.826 percent). Age Group 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60% 0.70% 0.80% Source: Census Bureau data 31 On the Move Migration of 25 to 34 Year-olds, 1995 to 2000 SIX Amanda Weir- Swimming Photo: Credit: AFB By Timothy A. Clary To this point in our report, we have compared the differing location patterns of two different birth cohorts when they were 25 to 34 years of age. Our data for 1990 reflected the locational patterns of those born between 1956 and 1965, and our 2000 data reflected the locational patterns of those born between 1966 and 1975. We have, in effect, compared two different snapshots of two separate groups of people taken ten years apart. A major factor shaping these location patterns is the migration decisions of individuals as they move among metropolitan areas. As we examine migration data, our analysis undergoes a subtle but very important shift. Now we will be looking at a single birth cohort and comparing its location decisions at two different points in time. The 2000 Census elicited information about migration patterns by asking each respondent to identify whether they lived in a different house in 2000 than they had in 1995, and then followed up to ask the location of that 1995 residence for those that had moved. Consequently, migration data reported in the 2000 Census reflect the change in residence of respondents from where they were five years earlier, when of course, they were five years younger. So, for example, data reported for 25 to 34 year-olds in 2000, reflect the change in residence of these respondents since 1995, at which time they were between 20 and 29 years of age. Particularly for persons in their early 20s – 21, 22, 23 and 24 years of age – migration is likely to reflect movement away from college campuses. As a result, migration data generally show the changing patterns of location of people at different points in their life rather than simply changes in the relative attractiveness of different metropolitan areas over time. For example, metropolitan areas with large universities (Tallahassee, Florida or Athens, Georgia) have large in-migration of persons in their late teens and large out-migration of persons in their early to mid 20s. Metropolitan areas with a relatively smaller higher education infrastructure usually show the reverse pattern. In this case, migration data do not necessarily show whether a metropolitan area is becoming more or less attractive to young people over time. Consequently, caution must be taken in interpreting these data. Census data provide us with information on two types of migration, domestic and international. Domestic migration is movement within the United States. For persons who lived in the United States in both 1995 and 2000, Census reports gross domestic in-migration (the number of people moving into a metropolitan area), gross domestic out-migration (the number of people moving out of a metropolitan area), and net domestic migration (the difference between these two amounts). 32 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT Census separately identifies the gross in-migration of residents from foreign countries, i.e., the total number of persons in a metropolitan area in 2000 who were living outside the United States in 1995. It is important to keep in mind that this group includes both U.S. citizens who may have been living abroad as well as foreign citizens who have migrated to the United States. Because the Census includes only residents of the U.S., there are no statistics on international out-migration from metropolitan areas. Table 28 shows domestic and international migration for Atlanta from 1995 to 2000 for the total population (all ages) and for 25 to 34 year-olds in 2000. Between 1995 and 2000, about 693,000 people moved to Atlanta and roughly 460,000 people moved away from Atlanta, producing net in-migration of slightly more than 233,000 persons. The migration rate, computed as the number of migrants divided by the 2000 population, was gross in-migration of 18 percent, gross out-migration of 12 percent and net in-migration of 6 percent. Between 1995 and 2000, some 208,000 25 to 34 yearolds (in 2000) moved into Atlanta and about 110,000 moved out, for net in-migration of roughly 98,000. Both the in-migration rate and the out-migration rate for 25 to 34 year-olds was higher than for the overall population, which is not surprising given the relatively high mobility of persons in this age group. The ratio of in-migrants to out-migrants is higher for 25 to 34 yearolds and for the entire population. The net domestic in-migration was also accompanied by international immigration of almost 52,000 over the same period. At first glance, it might seem contradictory that Atlanta could have a bigger increase in the number of 25 to TABLE 28 MIGRATION SUMMARY TOTAL POPULATION NUMBER 25 TO 34 POPULATION NUMBER RATE RATE DOMESTIC MIGRATION Gross In-Migration Net Migration In/Out Ratio Gross International In-Migration 162,972 4.3% 51,825 7.2% 693,504 233,303 1.5 18.2% 12.1% 6.1% 208,136 110,117 98,019 1.9 28.8% 15.2% 13.6% Gross Out-Migration 460,201 INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION 34 year-olds (a gain of 150,000, counting 98,000 net domestic and 52,000 international immigrants—as shown in Table 28) in the five years between 1995 and 2000 than the total increase of 125,000 in young adults between 1990 and 2000 (as reported in Table 2). It is, however, perfectly possible for the increase in 25 to 34 year olds over a period of time to be less than the net-in-migration in that age group. The reason is a large number of persons are “aging out” of the 25 to 34 year-old age group even as others are moving into the region (See Appendix Table 29). Between 1995 and 2000, we estimate that a net of more than 155,000 persons “aged out” of the 25 to 34 year-old age group in Atlanta (that is, the number of persons turning 35 over that five-year period exceeded the number of persons turning 25, by about 155,000). Thus, unless net domestic and international immigration exceed 155,000, Atlanta would have a decline in the number of persons in this age group. Figure 18 illustrates the relationship between migration and age for the Atlanta metropolitan area. The data show that the likelihood of migrating peaks when persons are in their twenties and generally declines thereafter. Atlanta recorded net domestic in-migration (the number of out-migrants exceeded the number of in-migrants) in every age group except those in their late 50s and 60s. While Atlanta records net in-migration for most groups, in-migration is particularly strong for persons in their late 20s. Atlanta’s gross international in-migration was about 163,000 overall, with about 51,000 of these international in-migrants being between 25 and 34 years of age in 2000. FIGURE 18 MIGRATION RATE BY AGE GROUP, 1995-2000 Total Migration 85 plus Domestic Net Migration Atlanta, GA MSA 75 to 79 International Immigration 65 to 69 Age Group (2000) 55 to 59 45 to 49 35 to 39 25 to 29 15 to 19 5 to 9 -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Migration Rate Source: Census Bureau data 33 Migration rates vary substantially among metropolitan areas. Domestic gross in-migration rates for 25 to 34 year-olds range from a high of more than 30 percent (chiefly in fast growing metropolitan areas in the West and South) to lows of around 10 percent (especially in very large metropolitan areas like New York and Los Angeles). Atlanta’s gross domestic in-migration rate for 25 to 34 year-olds was 29 percent, ranking ninth highest of the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. Atlanta’s rate of gross in-migration of 25 to 34 yearolds was similar to that of Charlotte and Nashville, and considerably higher than that of its other competitor regions (See Appendix Table 30). Gross domestic out-migration rates also vary substantially among metropolitan areas. In-migration and out-migration rates are often correlated. Some metropolitan areas have both high rates of in-migration and out-migration (Raleigh-Durham ranks second in inmigration and third in out-migration), and some have very low rates of both in and out- migration (New York, Detroit and Los Angeles are all in the bottom five in both in-migration and out-migration rates). As Table 30 illustrates, Atlanta ranked 41 in out-migration rate among the 50 largest metropolitan areas. The only competitor regions with a lower rate of out-migration were Chicago and Dallas. The difference between gross domestic in-migration and gross domestic out-migration is net domestic migration.The highest ranking areas had net inmigration rates of between 10 and 20 percent, meaning that domestic migration had the net effect over the five-year period from 1995 to 2000 of increasing the population of the 25 to 34 year-old age group 10 to 20 percent above what it otherwise would have been. The lowest-ranking metropolitan areas had net outmigration of 25 to 34 year-olds of between 5 and 10 percent. The regions with the greatest net in-migration were in the West and South; the metropolitan areas with the greatest net out-migration of 25 to 34 year-olds were in the Northeast and South. Between 1995 and 2000, Atlanta had a net in-migration rate of 25 to 34 year-olds of 13.6 percent, ranking third of the 50 largest metropolitan areas. Its ranking was higher than all of its competitor regions except Charlotte. Washington DC ranked 22, recording net in-migration of 25 to 34 year-olds of 3.4 percent (See Appendix Table 31). Gross international in-migration is particularly important in driving growth in a number of metropolitan areas. Three Florida metropolitan areas—Miami, West Palm Beach, and Orlando – have the highest rates of gross international in-migration of 25 to 34 yearolds between 1995 and 2000. Gross international in-migration is generally least significant in smaller cities located in the interior of the U.S. Atlanta ranked eleventh in international in-migration among the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, just behind competitor cities Washington-Baltimore and Austin. International immigration was a smaller factor in the growth of Tampa, Nashville and Charlotte (See Appendix Table 32). FIGURE 19 NET DOMESTIC MIGRATION RATE OF 25-34s, 1995-2000 Net Migration Rate of 25 to 34s, 1995-2000 -15.0% -10.0% -5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% Atlanta, GA MSA 34 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT Coming and Going SEVEN NET OUT 12,643 11,836 71,243 13,249 108,971 MIGRATION 14,184 18,787 59,609 6,585 99,165 IN 26,827 30,623 130,852 19,834 208,136 The Origins and Destinations of 25 to 34 Year-old Migrants Atlanta has generated substantial net in-migration over the past decade, particularly among young adults. But where are these new migrants moving from, and to what places does Atlanta lose out-migrants? The pattern of migration among regions, states and metropolitan areas provides insight into the factors driving the migration of young adults. In this section of our report, we use data from Census 2000 to identify the origins of in-migrants and the destinations of outmigrants from Atlanta. Again, our focus is on migration between 1995 and 2000. TABLE 33 MIGRATION OF 25 TO 34 YEAR OLDS BY REGION, 1995 TO 2000 INDIVIDUALS 25-34 IN 2000 GROSS MIGRATION CENSUS REGION Midwest Northeast South West Total Domestic Migration We can get a better idea of the source of in-migration to Atlanta by identifying the specific metropolitan areas that contribute the most in-migrants to the metropolitan area. Table 34 (Appendix) shows, for the 25 most important sources of in-migrants, the metropolitan area of origin of the 25 to 34 year-old in-migrants to Atlanta between 1995 and 2000. The top ten metropolitan areas in this list are other large metropolitan areas (the exception being Athens, home of the University of Georgia. The largest single contributor of 25 to 34 yearold in-migrants to Atlanta is New York, accounting for 7 percent of gross in-migration. Washington-Baltimore, Los Angeles, Miami and Chicago each account for about 3 percent of the gross in-migrants to Atlanta. Many of the same metropolitan areas are the principal destinations of out-migrants from Atlanta, as shown in Table 35 (Appendix). Eight of the ten largest sources of in-migrants are also among the ten largest destinations of out-migrants (Charlotte and San Francisco rank noticeably higher on the list of destinations for outmigrants, while Athens and Philadelphia rank lower). The strong overlap between these two lists shows that migration is a two-way process reflecting a variety of economic, social and personal relationships between pairs of metropolitan areas. Migration is almost always a two-way street, not a one-way street. The leading destinations of out-migrants include other larger metropolitan areas in the New York, WashingtonBaltimore, Los Angeles and Chicago ranking first, second, third and fourth. The difference between in-migration and out-migration is the net migration to a metropolitan area. We examine both the largest sources of net in-migration (to see which areas are consistently losing young adults to Atlanta and the largest destinations for net out-migration) to show metropolitan areas to which Atlanta is most consistently losing its young adults. The sources of Atlanta’s net in-migration are fairly diffuse. The largest single source of net migrants, the New York metropolitan area, accounts for about 10 percent of the net flow. As Table 36 (Appendix) shows, the flow of new migrants tends to come from We begin by looking at the broad regional patterns of movement of 25 to 34 year-olds to and from Atlanta. Table 33 shows the number of in-migrants, outmigrants and net migration to Atlanta by 25 to 34 yearolds between 1995 and 2000 by Census region. Not surprisingly, the largest source of in-migrants, and the largest destination region of out-migrants, was other places in the South—about 60 percent of the region’s young adult in-migrants came from elsewhere in the South and two thirds of out-migrants moved to other places in the South. Atlanta attracted net migration from every other region of the country, with in-migrants from the Northeast and Midwest outnumbering out-migrants to those regions by more than two to one. Atlanta also attracted young adults from the West, with about three in-migrants from the West for every two-out-migrants to Western states. 35 two different sources: other large metropolitan areas (New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago) and Southern college towns (Athens, Tallahassee, Gainesville, and Auburn). Recall that our migration data are for persons ages 25 to 34 in 2000 and reflect their change in residence since 1995 when they were 20 to 29 years of age. Atlanta also receives substantial net migration from smaller metropolitan areas in the South Atlanta’s strength as a magnet for young adults is apparent from the small number of cities that attract more young adults from Atlanta than they lose. Table 37 shows which metropolitan areas are attracting, on balance, the largest numbers of Atlanta’s young adults. Only three metropolitan areas, Phoenix, Denver and Charlotte, attracted more than 100 net migrants from Atlanta over the five-year period 1995 to 2000. Added together, the top 25 cities for net out-migration together attracted about 1,100 net migrants from Atlanta, while each of the 25 largest sources of net in-migrants to Atlanta accounted for at least a thousand migrants, or a total of 54,000. The very small scale of net out-migration suggests emphasizes the breadth of Atlanta’s competitive strengths: Atlanta attracts new residents from every region of the country and nearly every other large metropolitan area. To summarize Atlanta’s competitive position, Table 38 (Appendix) shows the net migration of 25 to 34 yearolds between Atlanta and each of the other 49 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. Atlanta receives net in-migration from 43 other metropolitan areas and has net out-migration to 6 other metropolitan areas. New York is the largest source of net in-migrants from other large metropolitan areas, followed by Miami. Atlanta loses a very small number of young adults, chiefly to a handful of fast growing metropolitan areas in the West, and to Charlotte, although only 110 persons over the five years from 1995 to 2000. 36 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT Metro Patterns EIGHT COUNTY 1990 WHITE AFRICANAMERICAN Sub-Regional Location of the 25 to 34 Year-old Population So far, our analysis has focused on the differences in the distribution of the 25 to 34 year-old population among U.S. metropolitan areas. But there are also important variations in the distribution of the young adult population within metropolitan areas. To illustrate the patterns of settlement within the Atlanta metropolitan area, we undertake two disaggregations of the regional population, by county and by census tract. County level data show the distribution of the population among principal political jurisdictions of the region while census tract data provide a much more fine-grained, neighborhood view of population patterns. TABLE 39 POPULATION BY AGE AND COLLEGE ATTAINMENT, BY COUNTY, 1990 AND 2000 1990 populous county, accounting for about one-fifth of the region’s total population. The college-educated young adult population is concentrated in the region’s four largest counties. College attainment rates for 25 to 34 year-old persons range from 47 percent in Fulton County, to an average of 22 percent in the 12 outlying counties. Fulton County saw a significant increase in its college-educated young adult population, surpassing the college attainment rate of Cobb County over the decade of the 1990s. TABLE 40 25 TO 34 YEAR OLD POPULATION BY DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP, BY COUNTY, 1990 AND 2000 ASIAN HISPANIC Fulton County DeKalb County Cobb County Gwinnett County All Other Counties Atlanta MSA 2000 648,779 546,171 447,745 352,910 963,895 2,959,500 816,006 665,865 607,751 588,448 1,434,128 4,112,198 167,227 119,694 160,006 235,538 470,233 1,152,698 127,863 114,907 95,764 80,757 178,305 597,596 150,817 130,386 109,450 104,094 227,870 722,617 22,954 15,479 13,686 23,337 49,565 125,021 44,371 41,904 36,963 26,439 26,819 176,497 70,275 51,287 48,173 37,204 50,898 257,837 25,904 9,383 11,210 10,765 24,079 81,340 35% 36% 39% 33% 15% 30% 47% 39% 44% 36% 22% 36% Fulton County DeKalb County Cobb County Gwinnett County All Other Counties Atlanta MSA 2000 63,544 57,111 79,505 70,874 148,166 419,200 78,206 46,752 70,263 66,561 165,448 427,230 14,662 (10,359) (9,242) (4,313) 17,282 8,030 60,354 52,412 13,573 6,587 26,975 159,901 56,970 66,150 26,339 19,114 48,337 216,910 (3,384) 13,738 12,766 12,527 21,362 57,009 2,083 3,458 1,592 2,234 1,749 11,116 6,167 6,966 4,129 8,655 4,413 30,330 4,084 3,508 2,537 6,421 2,664 19,214 3,778 3,904 2,397 2,106 2,182 14,367 13,642 14,811 12,321 16,470 13,274 70,518 9,864 10,907 9,924 14,364 11,092 56,151 Fulton County DeKalb County Cobb County Gwinnett County All Other Counties Atlanta MSA CHANGE 1990-2000 Fulton County DeKalb County Cobb County Gwinnett County All Other Counties Atlanta MSA CHANGE 1990-2000 Fulton County DeKalb County Cobb County Gwinnett County All Other Counties Atlanta MSA Fulton County DeKalb County Cobb County Gwinnett County All Other Counties Atlanta MSA Table 39 shows the distribution of the Atlanta population in each of the metropolitan area’s four largest counties and the remainder in the metro areas other 16 counties. Fulton County is the area’s most 37 FIGURE 20 olds residing disproportionately closer to the center of the metropolitan area. We computed the fraction of the population of 25 to 34 year-olds within three miles of the center of the city. Overall, about 17.6 percent of Metro Atlanta’s population was between 25 and 34 years of age in 2000. Within three miles of the central city, 22.4 percent of the population was between 25 and 34. In 1990, 25 to 34 year olds were about 5 percent more likely than persons in other age groups to live within 3 miles of the center, by 2000, the preference for central city neighborhoods by young adults had increased to about 28 percent higher. This suggests a tendency for young adults to increasingly prefer a location in the center of the region. (It is still the case, however, that about 95 percent of the region’s young adults live outside this 3-mile ring.) A more detailed view of the distribution of the 25 to 34 year-old population is provided in Figure 20, which shows the fraction of the population in each census tract in the Atlanta metropolitan area that is between 25 and 34 years of age. The lighter (yellow) shaded areas of the map have concentrations of young adults below Table 40 illustrates the distribution of the region’s principal demographic groups by county for 1990 and 2000. Fulton and DeKalb Counties have the most diverse populations in the region, accounting for a majority of the region’s 25 to 34 year-old AfricanAmerican population. Young adult African-Americans are more geographically dispersed than a decade ago as the 25 to 34 year-old African-American population declined in Fulton County, and increased in DeKalb, Cobb, and Gwinett Counties and in the balance of the region. Interestingly, the white young adult population increased in Fulton County, and decreased in DeKalb, Cobb and Gwinnett Counties. The region’s Asian and Hispanic young adults have increased substantially in number in each of the region’s four largest counties. The second part of our geographic analysis was to examine the tract level distribution of the 25 to 34 year-old population. We focused on measuring the extent to which Atlanta’s 25 to 34 year-olds were more or less likely to be located centrally, as opposed to peripheral locations within the region. In general, our analysis of metropolitan areas selected for detailed analysis shows a consistent pattern of 25 to 34 years 38 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT the metropolitan average; the darker (red) shaded areas have above average concentrations of young adults. Figure 20 highlights those parts of the region with the greatest concentrations of young adults. There is a substantial concentration of young adults in the City of Atlanta, as well as concentrations along the Interstate 75 freeway corridor to the Northwest and along the Interstate 85 corridor to the Northeast. Metro Atlanta’s young adults in various race and ethnic groups are not evenly distributed throughout the region. One way of examining the degree of integration of various racial and ethnic groups in the population is to construct a dissimilarity index, which represents the number of persons who would have to move to a different neighborhood (census tract) if every census tract’s population mirrored the metropolitan wide population distribution. The dissimilarity index is computed for pairs of racial/ethnic groups. For the entire population (of all ages) for Atlanta in 2000, the African-American/white dissimilarity index was .66, meaning that 66 percent of the population would have to move for every census tract to have the same racial FIGURE 21 composition as the metropolitan area. The overall whiteHispanic dissimilarity index was .52. For 25 to 34 year olds, the dissimilarity index is considerably smaller (.59 for African Americans and whites, and .49 for whites and Hispanics). This difference reflects a somewhat greater degree of racial and ethnic integration among the younger population. However, since 1990, the young adult population in Atlanta has grown somewhat less integrated. In 1990, the dissimilarity index for young adult whites and African-Americans was .56, and for young adult whites and Hispanics was .42. It is also possible to map the location of the young adult population by race and ethnicity. To illustrate the places with the greatest concentrations of young adults in each demographic group within the region, we computed the “excess” number of 25 to 34 year-olds living in each census tract. Our measure of excess residents is related to the dissimilarity index described above. For each census tract in the region, we computed the number of 25 to 34 year-olds that would live in the census tract if 25 to 34 year-olds were distributed in exactly the same proportions as the rest of the metropolitan area’s population. For example, if a particular census 39 tract accounted for one percent of the region’s 25 to 34 year olds, we assumed that one percent of each ethnic and racial group’s 25 to 34 year old population would live in the census tract. If the actual number was higher than this predicted value, we counted those residents as “excess.” This analysis shows where particular demographic groups within the 25 to 34 year-old population are clustered within the region. Figure 21 shows the places in Metro Atlanta with the greatest concentrations of 25 to 34 year old African Americans, i.e. those neighborhoods where there are more African-American young adults that one would expect based on the concentration of young adults in each census tract. The greatest concentrations are found in the southern half of the metropolitan area, in Fulton and DeKalb counties. Figure 22 shows the geographic distribution of the metropolitan area’s Hispanic 25 to 34 year-old population. Young adult Hispanics are overwhelmingly concentrated along the Interstate 85 corridor from Atlanta to Norcross, with smaller concentrations near Marietta and along I-75 near Forest Park. Over the past decade there have been strong differences in the settlement patterns of the region’s young adult African-Americans and whites. Figures 23 and 24 count the change in the 25 to 34 year old population living in each census tract in Metro Atlanta between 1990 and 2000. Figure 23 shows the census tracts with more African-American young adults in 2000 than in 1990; Figure 24 shows census tracts with more white young adults in 2000 than in 1990 (each dot corresponds to a increase of 50 persons in the demographic group over the decade). For African American young adults, it is apparent that nearly all of the growth in population has occurred outside the Beltway. There has been relatively little growth in population within the City of Atlanta, or within the 3-mile circle around the center of the region. The greatest amount of growth has been outside the beltway in DeKalb County and Cobb County. The growth in the white young adult population has been much stronger in the City of Atlanta, and has been relatively strong in the close-in neighborhoods (within FIGURE 22 40 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT FIGURE 23 the 3-mile circle). The growth in the white, young adult population is disproportionately concentrated in the northern portions of Atlanta, and in the suburban jurisdictions to the North. There has been virtually no increase in the white, young adult population in neighborhoods south of Interstate 20. Our final map pinpoints the neighborhoods with the highest concentration of college-educated young adults. Figure 25 shows the excess college-educated population young adult population in each Census tract in 2000 – again, each dot represents 50 more collegeeducated young adults living in a neighborhood than would be predicted based on knowing just the number of 25 to 34 year olds living in that neighborhood. The map illustrates three distinct patterns of collegeeducated young adults. First, within Atlanta there is a strong concentration of young adults in the center of the city – particularly in the close-in neighborhoods to the north and east of the city center. Second, collegeeducated 25 to 34 year-olds are heavily concentrated in the areas to the North of the center along the I-75 and I-85 corridors. Third, there are relatively few concentrations of college-educated 25 to 34 year-old adults South of I-20. 41 FIGURE 24 FIGURE 25 A 42 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT ATLANTA Attracting the Young and the Restless A Toolkit for Cities Deliver an appealing reality. Nothing is more important than delivering an appealing reality. Substance is what counts. Young people are very savvy in assessing cities. They use the Internet to get information and check facts. They are tied in to their own extensive networks of people with first-hand knowledge of how things really are. Personal contacts and networks shape the menu of choices when 25 to 34 year-olds consider moving from place to place. Finally, young people are mobile. They vote with their feet. You may be able to attract them, but if they don’t like what they find – if the reality doesn’t mesh with the marketing -- they’re going to move on. In fact, given the large number of people moving in and out of the metro area in any given year, the best opportunity to increase the 25 to 34 year-old population is to do a better job of hanging on to the people who already live in your community. Put values on display. Symbols matter. Develop ways in which the values of 25 to 34 year-olds are seen as obviously present. A city must not only welcome newcomers and new ideas. It must also find ways to make it apparent that it welcomes newcomers and new ideas. The same is true of all values expressed by 25 to 34 year-olds. Values get expressed in a variety of ways: what stories does the local media feature? What gets discussed at the chamber and other non-profits? Who participates in these organizations? What do public officials say and do? Keep in touch with former residents. High schoolers who leave the region to attend college and college graduates who move elsewhere represent some of the best candidates to return to your city. 43 Develop ways to stay in touch with them about current developments that would interest them. Make sure that you tap into the networks of connections that already exist with your expatriate young. Make sure that communications reflect their “voice,” and use methods more likely to resonate with 25 to 34 year-olds. Create opportunities for civic involvement. Create opportunities for young people to participate on nonprofit and public boards. Seek out their opinions on civic issues. Their voices must be deliberately sought out for their views to be considered, since they are the least likely adults to be “heard” on local issues. a city to young adults so that they can imagine progress and they can see that, indeed, someone is working on it. Be clear that you care about the future of your community and want young adults to play a prominent role in shaping it. If they don’t feel like they have an opportunity to share in your community’s future, many of them will exercise their option to find a community where they can make a mark. A Promote your city. For a generation supposedly turned off to marketing, 25 to 34 year-olds repeatedly called for better marketing and more marketing of their cities. Unfortunately, place branding is a difficult challenge. It’s hard to get it right. But smart young people believe their cities will benefit from good marketing efforts. Because so much information is spread friend-to-friend, family memberto-family member, it is critical that current residents are included in the target market. However, place marketing works best when it is based on authentic stories that people are willing to tell about their cities. Use internships to connect with young adults. Internships with major public and private employers are an effective way to identify and introduce bright young adults to your region. Manage the interns’ experiences so that while they are there, they connect with what’s happening in the city and with other bright young adults. Promote a young adult lifestyle. A review of materials shows that most cities appear to be afraid to promote their young people. If an active nightlife is shown, cities fear, it may scare off the soccer moms, as if everything has to be geared toward kids and families. If cities are to attract 25 to 34 year-olds, they must show themselves to be places where young people can find friends, enjoy themselves and succeed. Our results show young people care about both an exciting and engaging place to live now, and a community where they can become engaged, and if so inclined, someday raise a family. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that one is the enemy of the other—both are on the minds of many young people. Survey young adults regularly. Survey young adults to assess their attitudes about the community. A periodic report can help identify the key issues on the minds of young adults and evaluate the community’s progress toward addressing these issues. Supplement surveys with “exit interviews,” asking those who leave the community why they are choosing to leave. Celebrate young entreprene urs and civic contributors. Make it clear that young people can be and are leaders in your city. Showcase their achievements in the media and as part of community celebrations and awards programs. Communicate development plans to young adults. If things are undone and development is lagging, young adults are likely to think no one is working on it. Worse, many believe that the way things are today is intentional. Someone must want it that way for it to be so. It is important to communicate plans for improving 44 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT ATLANTA Appendix Tables TABLE 3 METROPOLITAN GROWTH RANK Metro Areas Ranked by Percentage Change in Total Population (All ages) 1990-2000 METROPOLITA N A R E A PERCENT TABLE 4 YOUNG ADULT POPULATION Share of the Population 25 to 34, 2000 RANK M E T R O P O L I TA N A R E A PERCENT LEADING METROS LEADING METROS 1 2 3 4 5 2 4 9 10 12 13 24 27 34 46 47 48 49 50 Las Vegas, NV–AZ MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Phoenix–Mesa, AZ MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Raleigh–Durham–Chapel Hill, NC MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill,NC–SC MSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria,TX CMSA Nashville, TN MSA Tampa–St.Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Rochester, NY MSA Cleveland–Akron, OH CMSA Hartford, CT MSA Pittsburgh, PA MSA Buffalo–Niagara Falls, NY MSA 83% 48% 45% 39% 39% 48% 39% 29% 29% 25% 25% 16% 13% 11% 3% 3% 2% -2% -2% 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 4 5 9 11 20 21 47 46 47 48 49 50 Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Raleigh–Durham–Chapel Hill, NC MSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill,NC–SC MSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria,TX CMSA Nashville, TN MSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMS Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Rochester, NY MSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Buffalo–Niagara Falls, NY MSA Pittsburgh, PA MSA West Palm Beach–Boca Raton, FL MSA 18.2% 17.6% 17.5% 16.8% 16.6% 18.2% 17.6% 16.8% 16.6% 15.8% 15.7% 15.2% 15.2% 12.7% 12.8% 12.7% 12.3% 12.1% 11.6% BENCHMARK METROS COMPETITOR METROS LOWEST METROS LOWEST METROS 45 TABLE 5 CHANGE IN YOUNG ADULT POPULATION RANK METROPOLITA N A R E A Change in 25 to 34 Year Year Old Population, 1990 to 2000 PERCENT TABLE 10 INDICATIVE CHANGE IN WHITE POPULATION, 1990-2000 Change in White 25-34 Population, 1990-2000 RANK M E T R O P O L I TA N A R E A PERCENT LEADING METROS LEADING METROS 1 2 3 4 5 2 4 6 11 12 15 24 35 36 46 47 48 49 50 Las Vegas, NV–AZ MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Phoenix–Mesa, AZ MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Raleigh–Durham–Chapel Hill, NC MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Nashville, TN MSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Chicago–Gary--Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Louisville, KY–IN MSA Cincinnati–Hamilton, OH–KY–IN CMSA Norfolk–Virginia Beach–Newport News, VA–NC MSA Rochester, NY MSA Pittsburgh, PA MSA Hartford, CT MSA Buffalo–Niagara Falls, NY MSA 55.7% 27.8% 23.7% 20.9% 20.0% 27.8% 20.9% 16.9% 4.0% 3.6% -1.1% -7.6% -12.7% -13.1% -21.5% -23.8% -24.8% -26.3% -26.5% 1 2 3 4 5 2 5 7 10 14 18 21 28 34 46 47 48 49 50 Las Vegas, NV–AZ MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Raleigh–Durham–Chapel Hill, NC MSA Phoenix–Mesa, AZ MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC--SC MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Nashville, TN MSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA 33.1% 16.8% 9.2% 7.2% 6.6% 16.8% 6.6% 1.9% -1.8% -9.1% -13.4% -16.4% -17.9% -23.5% COMPETITOR METROS COMPETITOR METROS LOWEST METROS LOWEST METROS Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, CA CMSA -28.6% Rochester, NY MSA -29.9% Buffalo–Niagara Falls, NY MSA -30.4% Norfolk–Virginia Beach–Newport News, VA–NC MSA -30.4% Hartford, CT MSA -34.8% TABLE 9 WHITE SINGLE RACE POPULATION, 2000 RANK METROPOLITA N A R E A Share of 25 to 34 Year Old Population, White, One Race, 2000 PERCENT TABLE 12 HISPANIC POPULATION, 2000 RANK M E T R O P O L I TA N A R E A Share of 25 to 34 Year Old Population Hispanic, Any Race, 2000 PERCENT LEADING METROS LEADING METROS 1 2 3 4 5 15 16 27 32 37 39 43 44 46 46 47 48 49 50 Pittsburgh, PA MSA Salt Lake City–Ogden, UT MSA Cincinnati–Hamilton, OH–KY–IN CMSA Providence–Fall River–Warwick, RI–MA MSA Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI MSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Nashville, TN MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Atlanta, GA MSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA New Orleans, LA MSA San Francisco–Oakland–San Jose, CA CMSA Memphis, TN–AR–MS MSA Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, CA CMSA 88.0% 84.6% 83.8% 83.4% 83.0% 78.5% 78.0% 71.1% 69.1% 65.4% 64.2% 59.6% 59.1% 58.6% 58.6% 56.4% 53.7% 50.9% 50.2% 1 2 3 4 5 4 7 9 13 18 22 25 29 36 46 47 48 49 50 San Antonio, TX MSA Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, CA CMSA Miami–Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA San Diego, CA MSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Dallas--Fort Worth, TX CMSA 27.2% Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Nashville, TN MSA Columbus, OH MSA Louisville, KY–IN MSA St. Louis, MO–IL MSA Cincinnati–Hamilton, OH–KY–IN CMSA Pittsburgh, PA MSA 55.3% 47.6% 45.6% 35.4% 31.3% 35.4% 29.1% 21.2% 13.7% 9.8% 9.3% 8.1% 5.1% 2.6% 2.4% 2.1% 1.6% 1.0% COMPETITOR METROS COMPETITOR METROS LOWEST METROS LOWEST METROS 46 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT TABLE 13 CHANGE IN HISPANIC POPULATION, 1990-2000 Increase in 25 to 34 Year Year Old Hispanic Population RANK METROPOLITA N A R E A PERCENT TABLE 16 INDICATIVE CHANGE IN AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION, 2000 Increase in 25 to 34 Year Year Old Black Population RANK M E T R O P O L I TA N A R E A PERCENT LEADING METROS 1 2 3 4 5 2 4 5 21 27 28 29 30 33 46 47 48 49 50 Greensboro–Winston–Salem–High Point, NC MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Raleigh–Durham–Chapel Hill, NC MSA Nashville, TN MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Nashville, TN MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Buffalo–Niagara Falls, NY MSA Pittsburgh, PA MSA San Antonio, TX MSA Norfolk–Virginia Beach–Newport News, VA–NC MSA New Orleans, LA MSA 926.8% 740.9% 595.5% 475.7% 390.8% 740.9% 475.7% 390.8% 98.9% 71.6% 69.2% 67.8% 64.6% 56.5% 20.2% 19.6% 14.2% 13.8% -3.1% LEADING METROS COMPETITOR METROS 1 2 3 4 5 3 6 11 13 20 22 31 40 41 46 47 48 49 50 Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI MSA Las Vegas, NV–AZ MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Phoenix–Mesa, AZ MSA Orlando, FL MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Nashville, TN MSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Buffalo–Niagara Falls, NY MSA Pittsburgh, PA MSA San Diego, CA MSA Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, CA CMSA San Francisco–Oakland–San Jose, CA CMSA 48.5% 43.0% 35.7% 31.2% 29.6% 35.7% 22.1% 8.4% 7.2% -0.2% -0.7% -8.5% -11.7% -12.0% -16.9% -17.5% -26.6% -27.4% -30.3% COMPETITOR METROS LOWEST METROS LOWEST METROS TABLE 15 AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION, 2000 RANK METROPOLITA N A R E A Share of 25 to 34 Year Old Population, Black, One Race, 2000 PERCENT TABLE 18 ASIAN POPULATION, 2000 RANK M E T R O P O L I TA N A R E A Share of 25 to 34 Year Old Population Asian, One Race, 2000 PERCENT LEADING METROS LEADING METROS 1 2 3 4 5 Memphis, TN–AR–MS MSA New Orleans, LA MSA Norfolk–Virginia Beach–Newport News, VA–NC MSA Richmond–Petersburg, VA MSA Atlanta, GA MSA 43.2% 36.8% 30.8% 30.0% 30.0% 1 2 3 4 5 7 11 12 14 15 17 30 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 San Francisco–Oakland–San Jose, CA CMSA Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, CA CMSA San Diego, CA MSA Sacramento–Yolo, CA CMSA Seattle–Tacoma–Bremerton, WA CMSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Houston--Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Atlanta, GA MSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Nashville, TN MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Miami–Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA San Antonio, TX MSA Louisville, KY–IN MSA Indianapolis, IN MSA Greensboro–Winston–Salem–High Point, NC MSA 21.7% 11.0% 10.6% 10.3% 10.2% 6.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.3% 5.1% 4.3% 3.0% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% COMPETITOR METROS COMPETITOR METROS 5 Atlanta, GA MSA 30.0% 6 Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA 11 Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA 16 Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA 19 Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA 21 Nashville, TN MSA 25 Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA 31 Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA 38 Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA LOWEST METROS 26.1% 21.0% 17.0% 16.2% 15.0% 13.5% 11.5% 7.5% 4.3% 4.3% 3.8% 2.4% 1.1% LOWEST METROS 46 47 48 49 50 Providence–Fall River–Warwick, RI–MA MSA Denver–Boulder–Greeley, CO CMSA Phoenix–Mesa, AZ MSA Portland–Salem, OR–WA CMSA Salt Lake City–Ogden, UT MSA 47 TABLE 19 INDICATIVE CHANGE IN ASIAN POPULATION, 1990-2000 Increase in 25 to 34 Year Year Old Asian Population RANK METROPOLITA N A R E A PERCENT TABLE 22 CHANGE IN COLLEGE EDUCATED POPULATION, 1990-2000 RANK LEADING METROS Increase in 25 to 34 Year Year Old Population with a 4-Year Degree or Higher M E T R O P O L I TA N A R E A PERCENT LEADING METROS 1 2 3 4 5 3 7 8 12 17 18 29 32 34 46 47 48 49 50 Louisville, KY–IN MSA Las Vegas, NV–AZ MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Grand Rapids–Muskegon–Holland, MI MSA Memphis, TN–AR–MS MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Nashville, TN MSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA 213.9% 187.0% 177.1% 169.7% 149.1% 177.1% 131.1% 128.0% 120.3% 100.9% 99.1% 74.6% 71.8% 60.3% 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 5 8 24 25 32 34 35 46 47 48 49 50 Las Vegas, NV–AZ MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Portland–Salem, OR–WA CMSA Atlanta, GA MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Nashville, TN MSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Buffalo–Niagara Falls, NY MSA Rochester, NY MSA Norfolk–Virginia Beach–Newport News, VA–NC MSA Providence–Fall River–Warwick, RI–MA MSA Hartford, CT MSA 104.6% 56.6% 56.2% 50.0% 46.2% 56.6% 56.2% 46.2% 37.3% 13.9% 13.6% 8.9% 5.9% 4.4% -5.9% -6.3% -6.9% -7.0% -16.7% COMPETITOR METROS COMPETITOR METROS LOWEST METROS LOWEST METROS Sacramento–Yolo, CA CMSA 26.5% New Orleans, LA MSA 25.2% San Diego, CA MSA 18.8% Norfolk–Virginia Beach–Newport News, VA–NC MSA 9.0% Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, CA CMSA 8.3% TABLE 21 COLLEGE EDUCATED POPULATION, 2000 RANK METROPOLITA N A R E A Share of 25 to 34 Year Old Population with a 4-Year Degree or Higher PERCENT TABLE 23 CHANGE IN MARKET SHARE OF COLLEGE EDUCATED POPULATION, 1990-2000 RANK LEADING METROS Change in Share of College Educated 25 to 34s in Top 50 Metropolitan Areas, 1990-2000 M E T R O P O L I TA N A R E A PERCENT 1 2 3 4 5 4 6 9 11 17 19 28 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 Raleigh–Durham–Chapel Hill, NC MSA Boston–Worcester–Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT CMSA San Francisco–Oakland–San Jose, CA CMSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI MSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Nashville, TN MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Norfolk–Virginia Beach–Newport News, VA–NC MSA Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, CA CMSA Jacksonville, FL MSA San Antonio, TX MSA Las Vegas, NV–AZ MSA 45.2% 43.2% 41.3% 40.9% 39.9% 40.9% 38.9% 35.7% 35.0% 32.9% 32.3% 28.8% 25.2% 24.5% 23.8% 23.0% 22.5% 22.2% 16.3% LEADING METROS COMPETITOR METROS 1 2 3 4 5 1 5 7 12 13 23 34 43 46 46 47 48 49 50 Atlanta, GA MSA San Francisco–Oakland–San Jose, CA CMSA Denver–Boulder–Greeley, CO CMSA Portland–Salem, OR–WA CMSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Nashville, TN MSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Philadelphia–Wilmington–Atlantic City, PA–NJ–D Boston–Worcester–Lawrence, MA–NH–ME–CT CMSA New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NY–NJ Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, CA CMSA 0.796% 0.526% 0.430% 0.333% 0.329% 0.796% 0.329% 0.300% 0.156% 0.140% 0.022% -0.063% -0.152% -0.293% -0.293% -0.433% -0.488% -1.121% -1.207% COMPETITOR METROS LOWEST METROS LOWEST METROS 48 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT TABLE 29 DOMESTIC GROSS IN-MIGRATION RATES OF 25 TO 34S, 1995-2000 RANK METROPOLITA N A R E A PERCENT LEADING METROS TABLE 30 DOMESTIC GROSS OUT-MIGRATION RATES OF 25 TO 34s, 1995-2000 RANK M E T R O P O L I TA N A R E A PERCENT LEADING METROS 1 2 3 4 5 3 6 9 11 14 21 29 35 46 46 47 48 49 50 Las Vegas, NV–AZ MSA Raleigh–Durham–Chapel Hill, NC MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Denver–Boulder–Greeley, CO CMSA Orlando, FL MSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Nashville, TN MSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Detroit–Ann Arbor–Flint, MI CMSA Buffalo–Niagara Falls, NY MSA Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, CA CMSA New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NY–NJ 35.1% 34.6% 32.7% 31.1% 31.0% 32.7% 30.4% 28.8% 27.8% 26.1% 23.3% 20.1% 17.4% 12.9% 12.9% 12.5% 11.7% 10.1% 8.8% 1 2 3 4 5 6 17 20 29 38 41 45 46 47 46 47 48 49 50 Norfolk–Virginia Beach–Newport News, VA–NC MSA 36.9% San Diego, CA MSA 29.5% Raleigh–Durham–Chapel Hill, NC MSA 26.3% Oklahoma City, OK MSA 26.1% Jacksonville, FL MSA 25.0% Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Nashville, TN MSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Chicago–Gary--Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, CA CMSA Detroit–Ann Arbor–Flint, MI CMSA New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NY–NJ 24.7% 20.3% 19.4% 16.7% 15.4% 15.2% 13.7% 13.6% 13.5% 13.6% 13.5% 13.0% 12.6% 11.5% COMPETITOR METROS COMPETITOR METROS LOWEST METROS LOWEST METROS TABLE 31 NET DOMESTIC MIGRATION RATES, 1995-2000 RANK METROPOLITA N A R E A PERCENT LEADING METROS TABLE 32 INTERNATIONAL GROSS IN-MIGRATION RATE OF 25 TO 34S, 1995-2000 RANK M E T R O P O L I TA N A R E A PERCENT LEADING METROS 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 7 11 13 15 20 22 38 46 47 48 49 50 Las Vegas, NV–AZ MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Denver–Boulder–Greeley, CO CMSA Phoenix–Mesa, AZ MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Nashville, TN MSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA 19.8% 15.0% 13.6% 12.2% 10.9% 15.0% 13.6% 9.7% 8.0% 7.5% 6.7% 3.8% 3.4% -0.8% COMPETITOR METROS 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 9 10 11 16 21 25 34 46 47 48 49 50 Miami–Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA 13.4% San Francisco–Oakland–San Jose, CA CMSA 10.9% New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NY–NJ 9.1% West Palm Beach–Boca Raton, FL MSA 8.6% Orlando, FL MSA 8.1% Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA Atlanta, GA MSA Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA Nashville, TN MSA Louisville, KY–IN MSA Cleveland–Akron, OH CMSA Pittsburgh, PA MSA Cincinnati–Hamilton, OH–KY–IN CMSA New Orleans, LA MSA 7.9% 7.9% 7.4% 7.2% 7.2% 6.7% 5.3% 4.8% 4.1% 2.9% 2.8% 2.6% 2.5% 2.3% COMPETITOR METROS LOWEST METROS Pittsburgh, PA MSA -5.3% New Orleans, LA MSA -6.2% Rochester, NY MSA -7.2% Norfolk–Virginia Beach–Newport News, VA–NC MSA -7.3% Buffalo–Niagara Falls, NY MSA -10.3% LOWEST METROS 49 TABLE 34 GROSS IN-MIGRATION OF 25 TO 34 YEAR OLDS, 1995 TO 2000 INDIVIDUALS 25-34 IN 2000 METROPOLITAN AREA OF RESIDENCE RANK IN 1995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GROSS IN -MIGRATION NUMBER 14,841 6,850 6,686 6,348 5,574 5,473 3,248 3,095 - 3,073 3,070 3,038 2,942 2,839 2,838 2,835 2,596 2,583 2,500 2,358 2,297 2,293 2,263 2,185 2,107 2,094 PERCENT 7% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% NET MIGRATION 9,450 5,416 2,763 3,197 3,601 2,789 1,229 666 1,675 1,077 1,658 1,452 1,159 1,402 1,689 320 1,410 1,251 1,155 - 110 1,994 1,540 1,023 1,391 700 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA Athens, GA MSA Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA CM Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CMSA Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT CMS Macon, GA MSA Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI CMSA Orlando, FL MSA Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC MSA San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA Birmingham, AL MSA Savannah, GA MSA Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA Tallahassee, FL MSA Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC MSA New Orleans, LA MSA Jacksonville, FL MSA 50 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT TABLE 35 GROSS OUT-MIGRATION OF 25 TO 34 YEAR OLDS, 1995 TO 2000 INDIVIDUALS 25-34 IN 2000 METROPOLITAN AREA OF RESIDENCE RANK IN 1995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GROSS IN -MIGRATION NUMBER 5,391 3,923 3,151 2,684 2,429 2,407 2,276 2,019 1,993 1,973 1,680 1,646 1,490 1,436 1,434 1,398 1,394 1,380 1,249 1,216 1,203 1,173 1,162 1,146 965 PERCENT 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% NET MIGRATION 9,450 2,763 3,197 2,789 666 -110 320 1,229 1,077 3,601 1,159 419 1,452 1,402 5,416 1,675 700 1,658 1,251 -112 1,155 1,410 1,023 1,689 -151 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA CM Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CMSA Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT CMS Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA Orlando, FL MSA Nashville, TN MSA Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI CMSA Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA Athens, GA MSA Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA Jacksonville, FL MSA Macon, GA MSA Birmingham, AL MSA Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA Savannah, GA MSA Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC MSA Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC MSA Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 51 TABLE 36 NET IN-MIGRATION OF 25 TO 34 YEAR OLDS, 1995 TO 2000 INDIVIDUALS 25-34 IN 2000 METROPOLITAN AREA OF RESIDENCE RANK IN 1995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GROSS IN -MIGRATION NUMBER 9,450 5,416 3,601 3,197 2,789 2,763 1,994 1,897 1,689 1,689 1,675 1,658 1,540 1,452 1,410 1,402 1,391 1,251 1,229 1,201 1,159 1,155 1,077 1,051 1,023 PERCENT 10% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA Athens, GA MSA Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA CM Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA Tallahassee, FL MSA Gainesville, FL MSA Auburn-Opelika, AL MSA Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC MSA Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PAMacon, GA MSA Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI CMSA Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA New Orleans, LA MSA Birmingham, AL MSA Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA Columbus, GA-AL MSA Orlando, FL MSA Savannah, GA MSA Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT CMS Tuscaloosa, AL MSA Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC MSA 52 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT TABLE 37 NET OUT-MIGRATION OF 25 TO 34 YEAR OLDS, 1995 TO 2000 INDIVIDUALS 25-34 IN 2000 METROPOLITAN AREA OF RESIDENCE RANK IN 1995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA Fort Collins-Loveland, CO MSA Portland-Salem, OR-WA CMSA Las Vegas, NV-AZ MSA Canton-Massillon, OH MSA Santa Fe, NM MSA Asheville, NC MSA Bangor, ME MSA Jackson, MI MSA Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT MSA Bellingham, WA MSA Decatur, AL MSA Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR MSA Fort Wayne, IN MSA Alexandria, LA MSA Evansville-Henderson, IN-KY MSA Cumberland, MD-WV MSA Enid, OK MSA Amarillo, TX MSA Laredo, TX MSA Casper, WY MSA Terre Haute, IN MSA Yakima, WA MSA GROSS IN -MIGRATION NUMBER -151 -112 -110 -99 -97 -73 -62 -51 -49 -41 -36 -35 -31 -26 -25 19 -17 -16 -15 -15 -14 -13 -11 -11 -11 PERCENT 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 53 TABLE 38 NET MIGRATION AMONG TOP 50 METRO AREAS, 1995-2000 NET MIGRATION TO ATLANTA MSA, 1995-2000 PERSONS AGED 25 TO 34 IN 2000 1 New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NY–NJ 2 Miami–Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA 3 Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, CA CMSA 4 Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA 5 Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA 6 Philadelphia–Wilmington–Atlantic City, PA–NJ–D 8 Detroit–Ann Arbor–Flint, MI CMSA 9 Raleigh–Durham–Chapel Hill, NC MSA 10 Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA 11 New Orleans, LA MSA 12 Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA 13 Orlando, FL MSA 15 Pittsburgh, PA MSA 16 Buffalo--Niagara Falls, NY MSA 17 Greensboro--Winston-Salem--High Point, NC MSA 18 San Diego, CA MSA 19 Richmond–Petersburg, VA MSA 20 Jacksonville, FL MSA 21 West Palm Beach–Boca Raton, FL MSA 22 Cleveland–Akron, OH CMSA 23 Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA 24 Rochester, NY MSA 25 Memphis, TN–AR–MS MSA 9,450 3,601 3,197 2,789 2,763 1,675 1,452 1,410 1,402 1,391 1,229 1,159 889 888 883 852 740 700 688 680 666 644 638 26 Cincinnati–Hamilton, OH–KY–IN CMSA 27 Milwaukee–Racine, WI CMSA 28 St. Louis, MO–IL MSA 29 Columbus, OH MSA 30 Nashville, TN MSA 31 Hartford, CT MSA 32 Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI MSA 33 Kansas City, MO–KS MSA 34 San Antonio, TX MSA 35 Oklahoma City, OK MSA 36 San Francisco–Oakland–San Jose, CA CMSA 37 Louisville, KY–IN MSA 38 Indianapolis, IN MSA 39 Seattle–Tacoma–Bremerton, WA CMSA 40 Sacramento–Yolo, CA CMSA 41 Providence–Fall River–Warwick, RI–MA MSA 42 Austin–San Marcos, TX MSA 43 Grand Rapids–Muskegon–Holland, MI MSA 44 Atlanta, GA MSA 45 Salt Lake City–Ogden, UT MSA 46 Las Vegas, NV–AZ MSA 47 Portland–Salem, OR–WA CMSA 48 Charlotte–Gastonia–Rock Hill, NC–SC MSA 49 Denver–Boulder–Greeley, CO CMSA 50 Phoenix–Mesa, AZ MSA 614 549 505 494 419 414 408 372 359 346 320 317 180 173 143 141 113 92 0 -35 -73 -97 -110 -112 -151 A 7 Norfolk–Virginia Beach–Newport News, VA–NC MSA 1,540 14 Boston–Worcester–Lawrence, MA–NH–ME–CT CMSA 1,077 54 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT ATLANTA Appendix Data Sources and Methodology Data Sources Data for this report are drawn from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses. In preparing the tables and figures presented in this report we have used data tabulated by the Census Bureau, as well other tabulations of Census data prepared by third parties. The analysis and presentation of all data in this report were undertaken by Impresa, Inc. The principal underlying source of data about 25 to 34 year-olds in U.S. metropolitan areas is the Census 2000 Summary File 3. These data were published by the Census Bureau in 2002 (Bureau of the Census, 2002). In order to estimate the change in the 25 to 34 yearold population of U.S. metropolitan areas between 1990 and 2000, we relied on tabulations prepared by GeoLytics, Inc (GeoLytics Incorporated, 2002), (GeoLytics Incorporated, 2003). Geolytics has tabulated 1990 Census data according to the geographic definitions used in the Census 2000. We supplemented these tabulations of data with references to Census Bureau publications, particularly for the tabulation of educational attainment data by metropolitan area and county for 1990. We accessed these reports from the Census Bureau website (Bureau of the Census, 1993). The Census Bureau produced a special database tabulating the migration of persons among counties in the United States (Bureau of the Census, 2003b). We used this data to document migration to and from metropolitan areas between 1995 and 2000. To refine our analysis of the demographic characteristics of the 25 to 34 year-old population we examined microdata drawn from the 2000 Census. These data were prepared and provided by the University of Minnesota (Ruggles & Sobek, 2003). We mapped data for selected metropolitan areas using the Maptitude geographic information system software package (Caliper Corporation, 2001) Is this software too old?. We also checked the most recent Census data on the age distribution of the population. The American Community Survey contains sample-based estimates of the age distribution of the population in 2002 (Bureau of the Census, 2003a). 55 Concepts Metropolitan area definitions and names. Our geographic unit of analysis for this study is the metropolitan area. We look at the 50 most populous metropolitan areas in the United States in 2000, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and based on the tabulations of Census 2000. Our list includes all metropolitan areas with a population of one million or more in 2000. Our list includes a combination of metropolitan statistical areas and consolidated metropolitan statistical areas. Consolidated metropolitan statistical areas consist of 2 or more adjacent metropolitan statistical areas with substantial economic interconnections. The task of computing the change in population of metropolitan areas was complicated by significant changes in the definition of metropolitan areas between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses. Newly urbanizing counties were added to several metropolitan areas, some metropolitan areas were merged, and others were redefined, making it impossible to directly compare published results from the two Censuses. We have used 1990 data recast according to the 2000 metropolitan area definitions for our analysis. Subsequent to the publication of Census 2000 results, the Office of Management and Budget has published a new list of metropolitan areas based on new definitions which will be used in future data gathering. We do not use that new classification system in this report. In our tabulations of data we include the official name of each metropolitan area, a title which usually identifies the principal cities in the metropolitan area— for example, the Atlanta--Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area). For brevity, in our narrative and in figures, we generally shorten these names to a more manageable length— Atlanta—but in all cases our reference is to the entire metropolitan area. Competitor Metropolitan Areas. We asked local project sponsors to identify up to six metropolitan areas that they regarded as competitors to Atlanta. We have highlighted these metropolitan areas in metropolitan comparison tables. Birth-cohort and age group. Our primary interest is in the location patterns of persons ages 25 to 34. We are particularly interested in seeing how these location patterns have changed over time, and we rely on Census data from 1990 and 2000 to make these comparisons. Of course, the people who were 25 to 34 in 1990 are not the same people who were 25 to 34 in 2000. For clarity, it is helpful to label these two groups. In 1990, 25 to 34 year-olds were born between 1956 and 1965 (the tail end of the Baby Boom generation) so we refer to them as the 1956-1965 birth cohort. In 2000, 25 to 34 year-olds were born between 1966 and 2000, and they are the 1966-1975 birth cohort. If we looked at the same birth cohort in 1990 and 2000, we would be looking at the same people, but at different stages in their lives. The 1956-1965 birth cohort would be 25 to 34 year-olds in 1990 and 35 to 44 year olds in 2000. Because these same people are at a different stage in their lives (marriages, relationships, careers, children, mortgages), we do not expect their behavior to be shaped by the same set of considerations that it was when they were in their late 20s and early 30s. Similarly, looking at the change in the location of the 1966-75 birth cohort between 1990 and 2000 would essentially capture the effect of their movement from the late adolescent-early college years (15 to 24) to the young adult years (25 to 34). Again, any observation of changing locational preferences here would be largely a factor of the process of individual aging and maturation, rather than indicative of new patterns of settlement. Consequently, our analysis compares and contrasts the locational preferences of the 1956-65 birth cohort in 1990 (when they were 25 to 34) with the locational preferences of the 1966-75 birth cohort in 1990 (when they, too, were 25 to 34) to see how the preferences of people in this age group have changed over the past decade. A 56 THE YOUNG AND RESTLESS HOW ATLANTA COMPETES FOR TALENT ATLANTA References Bureau of the Census. (1993, October). 1990 Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics (CP-2), [PDF]. U.S. Census Bureau. Available: www.Census.gov/prod/cen1990/cp2/ . Bureau of the Census. (2002). Summary File 3: 2000 Census of Population & Housing, Technical Documentation. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Bureau of the Census. (2003a, September). American Community Survey Change Profile 2000-2002, [Internet]. U.S. Census Bureau. Available: http://www.Census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Chg/2002/0002/. Bureau of the Census. (2003b, October). Census 2000 Migration Data, [DVD]. U.S. Census Bureau . Bureau of the Census. (2003c, March 21). Years of School Completed by People 25 Years Old and Over, by Age and Sex: Selected Years 1940 to 2002”, [Internet Table]. U.S. Census Bureau. Caliper Corporation. (2001). Maptitude (Version 4.5). Newton, MA. GeoLytics Incorporated. (2002). Census CD 2000 Long Form (Version Release 2.0) [Compact Disc]. East Brunswick, NJ: GeoLytics, Inc.,. GeoLytics Incorporated. (2003). Census CD 1990 Long Form in 2000 Boundaries (Version Release 1.0) [Compact Disc]. East Brunswick, NJ: GeoLytics, Inc.,. Ruggles, S., & Sobek, M. (2003). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0. Minneapolis: Historical Census Projects, University of Minnesota. Available: http://www.ipums.org [2003.] Acknowledgements Research for The Young and the Restless: How Atlanta Competes for Talent was undertaken by Impresa, Inc. and Coletta & Company on behalf of the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce. Economist Joseph Cortright of Impresa, Inc., led the quantitative research effort, examining Census and other data to pinpoint the movement and characteristics of the nation’s 25 to 34 year-old population. Carol Coletta of Coletta & Company organized and conducted interviews and focus groups with the Young and Restless in six cities around the country, as well as interviews with human resource professionals and other informed observers of local labor markets. The conclusions and opinions expressed in this report are solely those of Impresa, Inc., and Coletta & Company and do not necessarily reflect the views of project sponsors or funders. 57