Population Loss in Southeast Michigan Update

by Amy Styma 8. February 2010 04:01

Editor's Note: This blog entry was contributed by former Center for Urban Studies Employee Amy Styma who now works at the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth (DELEG).  Additional computations were performed by Center for Urban Studies employee Mary Hennessey.

As a follow up to our August 17th entry on Southeast Michigan’s population migration, this entry expands our previous effort by including an analysis of the 2004-2005 and 2007-2008 IRS Statistics of Information data as well as an analysis of the Aggregated Gross Income data for the entire four year period (2005-2008).

Michigan has lost a large amount of its population to other US states.  In 2005, 39,384 citizens left Michigan for another state and this number has increased by an average of 26.3% in each of the following years (see Tables 1 and 2).  Southeast Michigan has also continuously lost population each year, but the number leaving the area has decreased by 9.3% between 2007 and 2008 (see Table 2). 

Table 1: In-migration minus Out-migration Balance by Year 

 

Mich to Different State

Mich to Foreign

SE Mich to Elsewhere

2005

-39,384

1,746

-21,271

2006

-52,111

1,945

-33,903

2007

-68,000

1,643

-42,205

2008

-78,991

6,864

-38,292

Cumulative

-238,486

12,198

-135,671

Table 2: % Change in In-Migration minus Out-Migration Balance by Year
  Mich to Different State Mich to Foreign SE Mich to Elsewhere
2005-2006 32.3% 11.4% 57.9%
2006-2007 30.5% -15.5% 24.5%
2007-2008 16.2% 317.8% -9.3%
Average 26.3% 104.6% 24.4%

With the exception of St. Clair County’s 2008 population increase, the remaining Southeast Michigan counties are steadily losing more residents than they are gaining (see Figure 1).  Aside from Monroe and St. Clair Counties, the population loss in 2008 is considerably more than it was in 2005 for each county.

St. Clair County’s unusually high population gain in 2008 is due to a large influx of foreign population in that year.

As mentioned in our previous population migration blog post, the only demographic area in which Michigan and Southeast Michigan have gained population is from an increase in its foreign migrant population.  Analysis of the 2004-2005 and 2007-2008 data has validated this conclusion.

Table 3: Foreign Migration Balance compared to AGI Balance for SE Michigan


Migration balance

AGI balance

2005

1,060

-40,370.54

2006

997

-8,318.10

2007

969

-59,264.50

2008

5,996

-113,652.54

While this finding is promising, an analysis of IRS Statistics of Information data on the aggregated gross income (AGI) of the population entering and leaving Michigan shows that the positive balance of foreign migrants is accompanied with a negative AGI balance, as displayed in Table 3.  So even though we are gaining population in this area, the jobs that incoming foreign residents are filling are paying less overall than those of the outgoing residents.  We cannot conclude from this data alone whether they are being paid less for comparable jobs or whether they are taking jobs that are traditionally lower paying.  Certainly, these conclusions are not mutually exclusive and therefore it could be a combination of both.

According to the AGI data, this negative AGI finding is not exclusive to the foreign population.  Table 4 displays a breakdown of the differential between incoming AGI and outgoing AGI for each Southeast Michigan counties by year, for those migrating out of the Southeastern Michigan counties.  It is clear from Table 4 that a majority of counties are losing income for most years.  For an unknown reason, Monroe County has been resistant to this phenomenon.

 

Table 4: AGI Difference for Inflow/Outflow in SE MI Counties (relocating outside of SE MI)


Livingston

Macomb

Monroe

Oakland

St. Clair

Washtenaw

Wayne

2005

9,182.51

-6,397.72

48,294.61

-16,813.46

2,824.01

-31,168.25

-16,745.92

2006

34,457.58

65,771.77

47,094.89

13,605.48

31,894.97

-29,964.66

-16,545.32

2007

-28,000.34

-11,148.53

72,148.47

-30,044.34

-4,945.21

-26,759.59

-20,081.80

2008

-29,950.70

-3,315.31

12,621.50

-35,439.83

-33,776.63

-58,075.02

-12,882.50

Average

-3,577.74

11,227.55

45,039.87

-17,173.04

-1,000.72

-36,491.88

-16,563.88

For an overview of how each county in Southeast Michigan fares regarding population and AGI loss, see Figure 2.  Each scatter plot point represents the average amount of population and AGI loss for each county between 2005 and 2008 for residents relocating outside of Southeast Michigan.  St. Clair County is the only one of the seven counties to have an average population gain rather than loss, but Livingston, Monroe, and Washtenaw Counties have remained relatively resilient to population loss.  Wayne and Oakland County have lost the most population; however, they also have higher initial populations to lose from.  This should be kept in mind when looking at the scatter points in Figure 2.  Despite the fact that they have a higher population (for a comparison of percentages of total population loss, see table 5), Wayne and Oakland Counties still appear to be the hardest hit counties in Southeast Michigan by the population migration in terms of combined AGI and population loss. 

Table 5: SE Michigan Counties' Population Loss by Percentage by Year


Livingston

Macomb

Monroe

Oakland

St. Clair

Washtenaw

Wayne

% Leaving SE Michigan

% Leaving SE Michigan

% Leaving SE Michigan

% Leaving SE Michigan

% Leaving SE Michigan

% Leaving SE Michigan

% Leaving SE Michigan

2005

0.13%

0.29%

4.50%

0.44%

0.39%

1.16%

0.41%

2006

0.70%

0.78%

0.68%

1.23%

0.71%

1.06%

0.82%

2007

1.02%

1.05%

0.61%

1.49%

0.89%

0.94%

1.08%

2008

1.30%

0.85%

0.85%

1.31%

-2.71%

2.17%

1.07%

Currently rated 5.0 by 3 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags:

Comments are closed

Powered by BlogEngine.NET 1.4.5.0
Theme by Mads Kristensen

About the Authors

We are the Center for Urban Studies Economic Development Unit.  We have several authors who contribute directly and indirectly to this blog.

Lyke Thompson, Ph.D.

Director of the Center for Urban Studies and Professor in Wayne State University's Political Science Department, has specialized his research on the urban political and economic environment.  A primary focus has been centered on municipal economic development, urban policy, and the determinants of economic growth.

Eric Stokan, MA.

Research assistant at the Center for Urban Studies Economic Development Unit.  Mr. Stokan serves as the lead researcher of the Unit, analyzing economic data using various statistical techniques.  Mr. Stokan is interested in questions concerning municipal economic growth and industry mix as well as determinants of local economic incentive adoption.

Mary Hennessey

Research technician at the Center for Urban Studies Economic Development Unit.  Ms. Hennessey researches the effectiveness of local economic development incentives.  Specifically, she has conducted a thorough investigation of brownfields and is currently working on public transit.