Utah s Long Run Demographic Trends: Evolving Community Contexts

Similar documents
The Beehive Shape: Provisional 50-Year Demographic and Economic Projections for the State of Utah,

Salt Lake City 2010 Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex

Clay County Comprehensive Plan

TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 11 (5 TH EDITION) THE POPULATION OF SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN PRELIMINARY DRAFT SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

An Analysis of Long-Term Economic Growth in Southwestern Utah: Past and Future Conditions

of the city. District 4 had the largest population of 18- through 24-year-olds (college-age Salt Lake City 2000 Population

The Well-Being of Women in Utah

Transitions. Population and Economic Trends For Northern Colorado

We re Not All The Same!

Transitions. Population and Economic Trends for Colorado and Garfield County

Transitions. Population and Economic Trends for Colorado

Population & Demographic Analysis

Regional Issues Forum Labor Force Trends in Northern Colorado

Changing Population Age Structures and Sustainable Development

2018:IIIQ Nevada Unemployment Rate Demographics Report*

Growing Colorado. Population Transitions In Boulder

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1

EBRI Databook on Employee Benefits Chapter 6: Employment-Based Retirement Plan Participation

Population and Labor Force Projections for New Jersey: 2008 to 2028

What does your Community look like and how is it changing?

Impacts on Economic Security Programs of Rapidly Shifting Demographics. Robert L. Brown, PhD FCIA, FSA, ACAS

Independence, MO Data Profile 2015

TABLE 1. PROFILE OF GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

LAKE FOREST NEIGHBORHOOD PROFILE

Trend Analysis of Changes to Population and Income in Philadelphia, using American Community Survey (ACS) Data

Enhancing Economic Security for the Latino Community

What Does Population Aging Mean for Growth and Investments? Paula Campbell Roberts

DEMOGRAPHY AND THE ECONOMY

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1

Demographic Future of the Southern California Region

From Crisis to Transition Demographic trends and American housing futures, with lessons from Texas

University of Minnesota

Mid - City Industrial

Commission District 4 Census Data Aggregation

2. Demographics. Population and Households

Camden Industrial. Minneapolis neighborhood profile. About this area. Trends in the area. Neighborhood in Minneapolis.

The coverage of young children in demographic surveys

CRP 566 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION. Dave Swenson Department of Economics College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Iowa State University

Shingle Creek. Minneapolis neighborhood profile. About this area. Trends in the area. Neighborhood in Minneapolis. October 2011

Northwest Census Data Aggregation

Riverview Census Data Aggregation

MEMORANDUM. Gloria Macdonald, Jennifer Benedict Nevada Division of Health Care Financing and Policy (DHCFP)

Health Insurance Coverage: 2001

Zipe Code Census Data Aggregation

Zipe Code Census Data Aggregation

FUTURE LANDSCAPES. The effects of changing demographics. Background. Future landscapes: The effects of changing demographics February, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

Metro Houston Population Forecast

Coping with Population Aging In China

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean. Population Entire MSA

Oregon Population Forecast Program Regional Forecast Meeting - September 23, 2014

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean


Monte Vista Population, ,744 4,651 4,564 4,467 4,458 4,432 4,451

Lehigh Valley Planning Commission

Florida: Demographic Trends

SDs from Regional Peer Group Mean. SDs from Size Peer Group Mean

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web

Demographic Drivers. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University 11

GERMANTOWN-PARISTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD PROFILE

SOUTH LOUISVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD PROFILE

OVERVIEW OF THE SAN DIEGO REGION Current Conditions and Future Trends

EASTWOOD-LONG RUN NEIGHBORHOOD PROFILE

SHELBY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PROFILE

CHEROKEE-SENECA NEIGHBORHOOD PROFILE

Demographic and Economic Trends in Rural America

Minnesota s Economics & Demographics Looking To 2030 & Beyond. Tom Stinson, State Economist Tom Gillaspy, State Demographer July 2008

Figure 2.1 The Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Program

Poverty in the United Way Service Area

Transcription:

Utah s Long Run Demographic Trends: Evolving Community Contexts Pamela S. Perlich, Ph.D. Director, Demographic Research Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, University of Utah

GROWTH

Intermountain States Population: 1900-1950 7 6 Arizona Colorado 749,587 1,325,089 Millions of Population 5 4 3 2 Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Utah Wyoming 588,637 591,024 160,083 681,187 688,862 290,529 1 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Intermountain States Population: 1900-2010 7 6 Arizona Colorado 6,392,017 5,029,196 Millions of Population 5 4 3 2 Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Utah Wyoming 1,566,582 989,415 2,700,551 2,059,179 2,763,885 563,626 1 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Total Population with Million Markers 6,500,000 6,000,000 5,827,810 5,500,000 2050 5,000,000 4,500,000 2032 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 Total Population Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections

Projected Percent Growth by Decade: Utah and the United States 18.00% 16.00% 14.00% 16.63% 14.50% 12.87% 12.00% 11.03% 10.00% 9.69% 8.00% 7.52% 6.93% 6.00% 4.00% 5.48% 4.55% 4.43% 2.00% 0.00% 2010-2020 2020-2030 2030-2040 2040-2050 2050-2060 U.S. Utah Sources: Census Bureau 2014-2060 National Projections; Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections

URBANIZATION

Urban Growth: Utah is an Urban State with Urban Issues 100% 90% 91% 80% Percent of the Population 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 9% 0% 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Total Population by County: 2065 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections

County s Share of State Population: 2065 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections

Absolute Population Change by County: 2015-2065 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections

Percent Population Change by County: 2015-2065 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections

MIGRATION AS A DRIVER

State of Utah Components of Change: Historical and Projected 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0-10,000 Net Migration Natural Increase Growth

Utah Population Change 1990-2010 Natural Increase, 65% Net Migration, 35% Foreign Born, 45% Native Born, 55% Sources: Bureau of the Census (decennial Censuses and Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Calculations.

Utah s Foreign Born Population: 2015 Oceania 3.4% Africa 3.4% Northern America 3.3% Europe 9.3% Central America 6.8% Caribbean 1.8% Asia 20.0% Latin America 60.5% South America 9.6% Mexico 42.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: C05006.

FOLLOWING NATIONAL TRENDS

Utah: Trend Toward Nation 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 4.30 Utah 2.29 Total Fertility Rates 1960 2015 3.60 U.S. 1.84 Source: NCHS - National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 64, Number 1 January 15, 2015

Utah: Trend Toward Nation 6.0 5.0 Household Size 5.17 5.27 4.0 3.0 3.17 2.65 2.0 1.0 0.0 Utah 1960 2015 U.S. Source: Decennial Census and 2015 American Community Survey

Utah: Trend Toward Nation 40.0 Median Age 37.8 35.0 30.0 31.2 28.1 25.0 23.1 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Utah 1970 2015 U.S. Source: Decennial Census and 2015 Population Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau

Utah: Trend Toward Nation 45% 40% 35% 30% Minority Share 38.4% 25% 20% 21.0% 15% 10% 11.4% 5% 0% 1.9% Utah 1970 2015 U.S. Source: U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census and 2015 Population Estimates

Utah: Trend Toward Nation 30 25 20 Female Age at First Marriage 24.3 20.2 20.8 27.8 15 10 5 0 Utah 1970 2015 U.S. Source: U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census and 2015 American Community Survey.

Utah: Trend Toward Nation 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Share of Households: Opposite Sex Married Couple with Children 48% 40% 30% 19% 10% 0% Utah 1970 2015 U.S. Source: Decennial Census and 2015 American Community Survey: S0201.

GENERATIONAL SHIFT

2015: Millennials Surpass Baby Boomers 5,000,000 United States 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 Generation Z (after 2000) 60.1 million Millennials (1982-2000) 82.8 million Generation X (1965-1981) 69.8 million Baby Boomers (1946-1964) 74.9 million Silent Generation (1930-1945) 26.3 million Greatest and Lost Generations (before 1930) 4.6 million 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100+ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division

2015: Millennials Surpass Baby Boomers 60,000 Utah 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 Greatest and Lost Generations (before 1930) 35,708 10,000 Generation Z (after 2000) 767,523 Millennials (1982-2000) 877,693 Generation X (1965-1981) 629,214 Baby Boomers (1946-1964) 514,533 Silent Generation (1930-1946) 166,254 0 0 12 3 45 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85+ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division

129 Languages

Minority Share by Age Group: 2010 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Westside SLC Salt Lake City US Salt Lake County Utah 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census.

Minority Share of the Population: U.S., Utah, & Salt Lake County & City 60% 50% 40% 30% U.S. State of Utah Salt Lake County Salt Lake City 20% 10% 0% 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Sources: Bureau of the Census, Gibson and Jung (2002), Perlich (2002), Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute

Mixed Heritage: America in 2050 Source: National Geographic

HOSANNA MARSHALL, 32, NEW YORK, NEW YORK SELF-ID: African American, Native American, white, and Jewish CENSUS BOXES CHECKED: black

NEIGHBORHOOD DIVERSITY

% of Pop Age 25+: Less Than High School

% of Pop Age 25+: Less Than High School

% Minorities

% Households Below Poverty

Adults Reporting Fair or Poor Health Glendale 30.9% Foothill 7.1%

Life Expectancy at Birth Foothill 85 Glendale 75.8

Neighborhoods

AGING POPULATION

Selected Age Groups as a Percent of Total Population: 2015-2065 100% 90% 1.26% 1.49% 2.26% 3.18% 3.31% 4.01% 8.92% 12.00% 12.79% 13.69% 15.73% 16.25% 80% 70% 60% 48.97% 48.32% 49.35% 48.52% 47.33% 47.05% 50% 40% 30% 10.11% 10.40% 9.18% 8.89% 8.99% 8.57% 20% 10% 0% 22.25% 19.87% 18.64% 18.41% 17.60% 17.10% 8.48% 7.92% 7.78% 7.31% 7.04% 7.02% 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 0-4 5-17 18-24 25-64 65-84 85+ Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections

100 U.S. Dependency Ratios: 1970-2060 Aging Baby Boomer Drive Increase in Total 90 80 70 60 50 79.0 17.7 65.1 18.6 61.6 61.6 20.3 20.1 58.9 64.0 20.7 27.7 71.9 73.1 72.9 76.4 35.5 37.5 38.2 41.5 40 30 20 61.3 46.5 41.3 41.5 38.2 36.3 36.5 35.6 34.7 34.8 10 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Youth Retirement Age Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census and Population Division data and Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Note: Dependency Ratios are computed as the number of nonworking age persons per 100 working age (18-64 year old) persons in the population. Youth are less than 18 years old and retirement age is 65 years and older.

Utah Dependency Ratios: 1970-2060 Youth Dependency Ratios Decline and Stabilize 100 90 80 70 89.9 13.9 80.0 82.3 13.5 15.8 68.6 68.2 69.9 70.3 71.9 76.1 78.3 60 14.4 15.2 20.0 24.7 27.0 31.7 35.1 50 40 30 20 76.0 66.5 66.4 54.3 53.0 49.9 45.6 44.9 44.4 43.3 10 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Youth Retirement Age Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census data and Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Note: Dependency Ratios are computed as the number of nonworking age persons per 100 working age (18-64 year old) persons in the population. Youth are less than 18 years old and retirement age is 65 years and older.

Utah Population Pyramid: 1960, 2015, & 2065 100+ Male - 2065 Projection Female - 2065 Projection 96 Male - 2015 Female - 2015 92 Male - 1960 Female - 1960 88 84 80 76 72 68 64 60 56 52 48 44 40 36 32 28 24 20 16 12 8 4 0 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Note: The top age group for 1960 is 85+ Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, DemographyUTAH Population Committee, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute State Projections

SCHOOL & COLLEGE AGE

Utah: School Age (5-17) and College Age (18-24) Population Estimates and Projections 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 School Age (5 17) Estimate College Age (18 24) Estimate School Age (5 17) Projection College Age (18 24) Estimate 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 Sources: 1980-1989: Governor s Office of Planning and Budget, Population estimates by sex and single year of age: 1980-1989; 1990 to 2009: Governor s Office of Management and Budget, 2012 Baseline Projections; 2010 to 2065: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections

Historical Births Series: Utah and the United States 5,000,000 U.S. Peak (1957, 4.31 million) U.S. Peak (2007, 4.32 million) 100,000 4,000,000 80,000 U.S Births 3,000,000 2,000,000 Utah Peak (1980-82, Over 41,000) Utah Peak (2008, 55,357) 60,000 40,000 Utah Births 1,000,000 20,000 0 0 U.S. Utah Sources: National Center for Health Statistics; Utah Department of Health

Utah Cumulative Births 1,000,000 900,000 5-17 years ago (Estimate) 5-17 years ago (Projection) 18-24 years ago (Estimate) 18-24 years ago (Projection) 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 Sources: 1980-1989: Governor s Office of Planning and Budget, Population estimates by sex and single year of age: 1980-1989; 1990 to 2009: Governor s Office of Management and Budget, 2012 Baseline Projections; 2010 to 2065: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 Draft County Projections

Utah Births Analysis: School Age and College Age Population Estimates, Projections, and corresponding births 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 School Age (5 17) Estimate School Age (5 17) Projection Births 5-17 years ago College Age (18 24) Estimate College Age (18 24) Projection Births 18-24 years ago Sources: 1980-1989: Governor s Office of Planning and Budget, Population estimates by sex and single year of age: 1980-1989; 1990 to 2009: Governor s Office of Management and Budget, 2012 Baseline Projections; 2010 to 2065: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 Draft County Projections

Annual Absolute and Percent Growth School Age Population (5-17) 18,000 15,000 12,000 Annual Growth Annual Growth Projection % Annual Growth % Annual Growth Projection 6% 5% 4% 9,000 3% 6,000 2% 3,000 1% 0 0% -3,000 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Sources: 1980-1989: Governor s Office of Planning and Budget, Population estimates by sex and single year of age: 1980-1989; 1990 to 2009: Governor s Office of Management and Budget, 2012 Baseline Projections; 2010 to 2065: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Draft 2015-2065 County Projections -1%

Annual Absolute and Percent Growth College Age Population (18-24) 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 Annual Growth Annual Growth Projection % Annual Growth % Annual Growth Projection 12% 10% 8% 6% 10,000 4% 5,000 2% 0 0% -5,000-2% -10,000 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060-4% Sources: 1980-1989: Governor s Office of Planning and Budget, Population estimates by sex and single year of age: 1980-1989; 1990 to 2009: Governor s Office of Management and Budget, 2012 Baseline Projections; 2010 to 2065: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Draft 2015-2065 County Projections

The New Utah

Thank you Pamela S. Perlich, Ph.D. Director, Demographic Research Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, University of Utah gardner.utah.edu Pam.Perlich@utah.edu Voice: 801.581.3358 Fax: 801.581.3354

Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute David Eccles School of Business 411 E. South Temple Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 801-585-5618 gardner.utah.edu Facebook.com/gardnerpolicyinstitute Twitter.com/KemGardnerInst