Transcript Tom Gillaspy's PPT: Minnesota Demographic Trends in a

Minnesota Demographic
Trends In A Changing World
Tom Gillaspy, State Demographer
Mn Dept of Administration
August 2008
Minnesota Has Been Very
Successful
(Especially For A Cold Weather State at the End
of the Road)
• Our economic growth rate has exceeded the
national average
• Our population growth rate leads the frost
belt
• We rank with the leaders on many social and
economic indicators
• Education has been a key contributor to the
state’s success
2007 Minnesota Per Capita GDP Is 8.8% Above The
National Average
BEA
Minnesota Per Capita Income Has
Grown Faster Than The Nation’s
110%
Per Capita Income
105%
Per Capita Disposable
Income
100%
95%
90%
85%
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000 2007p
Minnesota & New Hampshire Have Long
Led The Frost Belt In Population Growth
0.96%
U.S.
0.37%
Frost Belt
New Hampshire
South Dakota
0.34%
-0.03%
1.60%
0.86%
0.75%
2000-07
1950-07
0.06%
0.29%
0.23%
Iowa
0.75%
0.97%
Minnesota
-0.5%
0.67%
0.85%
0.59%
Wisconsin
North Dakota
1.21%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
Annual Average Change
1.5%
2.0%
Minnesota Ranks Highly in Many
Social/Economic Indicators
• 2nd percent of 16-64
• 4th lowest rate of disability
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
employed (76.9%)
2nd cost of living adjusted
per capita income (OK DOC)
8th lowest poverty rate
1st percent with health
insurance 2004-06 ave
9th median family income in
2006
2nd Kids Count 2007
4th most livable state
(Morgan Quinto Press)
Updated July 2008
•
•
•
among people age 16-64
1st with at least high school
degree (90.7%)
12th with at least a bachelor’s
degree
1st home ownership
2nd United Health Foundation
ranking of state healthiness
2007
Past Performance
Does Not Ensure
Future Results
From 2004 to 2007 Minnesota
Underperformed the US Averages
• Personal income growth
US 6.2%
MN 4.4%
• Per capita personal income growth
US 16.6%
MN 13.5%
• GDP growth
US
8.4%
MN 4.8%
• GDP per capita growth
US
5.4% MN 2.6%
Four Mega-Forces Will Shape
Minnesota’s Economy
• Globalization
• Technology
• Energy prices
• Demography
Population Change 2000-04
Census Bureau Estimate
Population Change
Loss
Gain Under 1,000
Gain 5,000 to 1,000
Gain More Than 5,000
Upper Midwest Becoming More Diverse
But Still Less Than The Nation
33%
United States
24%
14%
Wisconsin
9%
13%
South Dakota
2005
1990
9%
9%
North Dakota
6%
14%
Minnesota
6%
9%
Iowa
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Percent Population of Color
Note: Population except white alone, not Hispanic, 2005 Census Bureau estimate
Minnesota’s Children Are More
Diverse Than Older People
20%
20%
17%
16%
15%
12%
10%
8%
6%
5%
5%
3%
Age Group
2000 Census
70
+
69
60
to
59
50
to
49
40
to
39
30
to
29
20
to
19
to
10
er
10
0%
U
nd
Percent Minority
25%
Students Of Color Are Increasing While
White Students Are Declining
Change Enrollment 2000-01 to 2006-07
Am Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Black
19,533
19,515
White
Total
30,000
20,000
10,000
5,923
458
0
-10,000
-13,773
-20,000
-30,000
-40,000
-50,000
-60,000
-70,000
Mn Dept of Education data
-59,202
Students Speaking Non-English Language At Home:
Much Of The Growth In ESL Enrollment Is Directly Related To Growth In
Local Employment
State 93-94
State 04-05
State 06-07
National 03
St. Paul
Worthington
Richfield
Brooklyn Center
Pelican Rapids
Columbia Heights
Minneapolis
Sleepy Eye
Westbrook-Walnut Grove
0%
3.0%
9.8%
11.0%
18.7%
43.4%
37.5%
37.3%
36.6%
32.8%
31.6%
30.6%
30.5%
27.6%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Percent of Students in 2006-07
Source: Mn Dept of Education data, Districts of more than 100 enrollment.
50%
From 2005 to 2015, Largest Growth in
Minnesota Will Be in Ages 55 to 69
85+
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
16,200
3,900
6,700
44,500
98,000
119,400
107,200
55,500
-43,400
-64,100
-700
67,200
51,800
-9,600
-29,200
Source: Minnesota State Demographic Center
Numbers are rounded
7,400
49,100
37,600
Minnesota Will See a 30 Percent Jump in
Workers Turning Age 62 Beginning 2008
Worked Within Past 5 years
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
7/05 to
7/06
7/06 to
7/07
7/07 to
7/08
7/08 to
7/09
7/09 to
7/10
Year Turning Age 62
2005 ACS
7/10 to
7/11
7/11 to
7/12
Competition For The Future
Workforce Will Increase
14%
13.0%
Percent Change 18-24
12%
10%
8%
US
Mn
6.8%
6%
4.5%
4%
2%
0%
-2%
-1.2%
-4%
-1.6%
-2.2%
-3.5%
-3.0%
-6%
2000-05
2005-10
2010-15
Census Bureau US Proj, Mn State Demographer revised 2007
2015-20
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
DEED projections. Percent of 2006 level
Transportation
and Material
Moving
Occupations
Healthcare
Practitioners
and Technical
Occupations
Architecture
and
Engineering
Occupations
Protective
Service
Occupations
Community
and Social
Services
Occupations
Computer and
Mathematical
Occupations
Education,
training,
Library
Total, All
Occupations
Projected Openings In Minnesota
Occupations 2006-16
Replacement
Growth
Migration Will Become the Largest
Source of New Workers in Minnesota
Net Labor Force Growth
500,000
400,000
Total
Natural
Partic. Rate
Migration
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
-100,000
2000-10
2010-20
2020-30
Percent of Mn Labor Force Born In
Another Country
14%
12.6%
12%
10%
8.5%
25-34
55-64
8%
6%
4%
4.8%
3.3%
3.1%
3.6%
2%
0%
1990
2000
PUMS microdata from 1990 & 2000 Census & 2006 ACS
2006
Thoughts On Economic Theory
Economic growth depends on
Growth in the workforce
Growth in productivity per worker
Productivity per worker depends on
Technology and machines
Public infrastructure
Knowledge, skills, training and education
High School Graduation Rates In Minnesota
Have Drifted Downward And Are Lower For
Males And Minorities
100%
95%
90%
92% 92%
89%
87%
85%
78%
80%
75%
72%
70%
67%
65%
62%
60%
55%
50%
White Male
White Female
Minority Male
Three year averages of 10th grade graduation rate.
Minority
Female
1990-93
2003-06
Median Earnings For Minnesota
Workers By Education & Age
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
<High School
High School
Some College
Bachelors+
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
25-29
2006 ACS
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
And, In Conclusion
•
•
Minnesota has been very successful
•
Demographic forces will shape our future
for the next quarter century
•
Aging and slower labor force growth
encourages migration and immigration
•
Slower labor force growth heightens
importance of productivity growth
We are in a period of rapid and critical
change