Population Change in the Peer Metros
Migration is not the only factor in population change in a metropolitan area. Natural growth (births minus deaths) accounts for most of the population growth in most of the metro areas we studied, and for nearly 60 percent of the total growth in all 10 peer metros. Chart 1 ranks the peer metros based on total population gain between 2000 and 2005. The green portion of the bar represents the portion of that growth that came from natural growth and the blue represents the portion that came from net migration growth.
1. Components of Population Change, 2000-2005*
The components of population growth vary widely among the metros, but some significant trends are evident. For instance, the faster growing metros, especially Austin and Portland, had the highest amounts of population growth due to migration. The slowest growing metros had very low or, in the case of Salt Lake City, negative migration growth.
Chart 2A shows the net migration trends for each peer metro between 2000 and 2005. Kansas City generally runs at the middle of the pack. Austin and Portland consistently run at the top.
2. Peer Metro Migration Trends
The slower-growing metros experienced fairly consistent growth rates, while the faster-growth metros had more volatility. Austin, Denver and Minneapolis/St. Paul all had dramatic drops in net migration between 2001 and 2002, a time period when the national economy hit a brief recession. This indicates that during periods of economic uncertainty, people may be less likely to migrate.
All metros except Minneapolis/St. Paul and St. Louis have experienced at least a modest increase in net migration in the past few years as the economy has recovered.
Chart 2B shows migration trends over time using both Census data and adjusted IRS data, which allows us to examine a broader time period — from 1994 to 2005. Many of the same trends are evident, but the declines in Denver and Minneapolis/St. Paul are more pronounced.
Migration by year data is summarized in Charts 3A and B to illustrate the total population growth due to migration for each of the peer metros.
Chart 3A uses Census data for 2000–2005. Austin and Portland clearly separate themselves from the pack when looking at net migration in recent years. Kansas City lies in the middle with just under 40,000 net new migrants between 2000 and 2005.
Net Migration Totals
Chart 3B looks at the longer time frame, 1994 to 2005, using adjusted IRS data. Austin, Portland and Denver are the clear net gainers in migration. Kansas City lies in the middle tier with just over 100,000 net new migrants. Omaha and Salt Lake have very modest growth, while St. Louis has net migration loss.
Domestic vs. International Migration
Census Bureau data provides more details about net migration, telling us whether migrants came from within the U.S. (domestic migration) or from other countries (international migration).
Domestic/International Migration
International migration is a very large part of the total population growth due to migration in the three metros with the largest migration growth, Austin, Portland and Denver. It is also significant in Minneapolis/St. Paul, where net domestic migration was actually negative.
*Note: Because of rapid growth in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metropolitan area, we have omitted them from charts and graphs in the following pages where their inclusion would skew the scale to the extent that differences between the other metros would not be visually discernable. A summary and map of migration trends in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metropolitan area is included in the Metro Details section.
<<Measuring Migration | Metro Details>>