Poverty Rates and College Students: A look at the impact on Utah’s college towns

By: Andrew Reeve, Economist

Poverty rates are an indicator of how well an economy of any size can provide the economic means to support its citizens. High poverty rates suggest that an economy has underlying issues that are not allowing the citizenry to reap the benefits of a truly prosperous and healthy economic environment or that there is simply not enough economic opportunity in the area. It’s easy to blame the issues on a lack of management by local governments or institutions that are designed to help those they serve.

Published poverty rates neglect to factor in the presence of poverty populations who may have actually have domestic tranquility and a strong sense of general welfare. Those are, at least for the sake of argument presented in this article, college students.

The U.S. Census Bureau quantifies poverty by the earned income of an individual and compares it to the Census poverty income threshold — essentially, a person is experiencing poverty if they do not generate enough income to afford their basic needs.^[1] But that is on paper. What if their income and support doesn’t come through themselves, but instead comes through another source, such as parents and family? The Census Bureau definition does not look beyond the student and see the family behind them. Instead, it only sees the student’s income, or lack thereof. Thus, the college student becomes a poverty statistic; when, in reality, they probably are not.

Students in college towns can comprise a large population proportion and can considerably affect the local economic structure. Three areas in Utah — Logan, Provo and Cedar City — have an impacted economic structure because of their college student populations. Although all economies are unique in their own right, college students provide a certain uniqueness that shapes the local demographics differently. For one, they are young, eager and more-often-than-not “poor”. But just because they lack the means and likely the skillsets to budget out a week from today does that place them in a true state of poverty? I argue it does not — at least not in the traditional sense. Hence, their exclusion should be considered when we are looking for the authentic poverty rate of a given college town.

It is important to look at the make-up of an area’s demographics and how that can relate to the area’s characteristics, such as poverty. Using the variable of college student population in the three Utah cities cited above we can examine their influence on those characteristics.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Logan (home of Utah State University) has an overall poverty rate of 25.4 percent (see graph above). If we were to adjust that poverty rate by excluding off-campus college students (those who are not housed in on-campus dormitory units or living with family), the rate drops to 19.7 percent — a difference of 5.7 percentage points. That equates to roughly 2,650 individuals in poverty who are college students. Although aspects of the way they live may lead one to believe they are impoverished, the likelihood that most of these individuals are facing true poverty hardship is low. For many college students, support from family is a main source of assistance for rent and food expenses. On-campus resources designed to help students facing economic adversity are also readily available^[2]. In contrast, those who are experiencing actual impoverishment often do not have such readily available resources to fall back on.

When we look at Provo (home of Brigham Young University) we see the difference in the adjusted poverty rates are more pronounced. In Provo, the difference between total poverty and college--adjusted poverty is 8.6 percentage points — roughly 9,185 individuals.

Cedar City (home of Southern Utah University) shows the greatest difference, with the poverty rate virtually cut in half to 12.6 percent — equating to roughly 3,625 individuals.

The bottom line is that when we consider poverty rates for various areas it is important to look at the underlying factors that contribute to those numbers. Understanding the full story of what is included in an area’s rate of poverty gives elected officials, policy makers, nonprofits and community leaders a clearer picture of the actual need for addressing poverty in their community.

---

[1] “How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty” < https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html >

[2] i.e. TRiO Programs – Student Support Services < https://sss.usu.edu/ >

Utah's Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Rates posted online

Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates for all Utah counties have been posted online here.

Each month, these rates are posted the Monday following the Unemployment Rate Update for Utah.

For more information about seasonally adjusted rates, read a DWS analysis here.

Next update scheduled for March 26th.

Utah's Employment Situation for January 2018

Utah's Employment Situation for January 2018 has been released on the web.

Find the Current Economic Situation in its entirety here.

For charts and tables, including County Employment, go to the Employment and Unemployment page.

Next update scheduled for March 23rd, 2018.

Economic Hurdles in Rural Utah

by Mark Knold

Utah is a geographically large state. Based on total area, it is the 13^th largest state, implying there is room to spread out. Despite all this space, Utah’s population distribution is quite concentrated. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Utah is the nation’s 9^th most urbanized state. This dichotomy has shaped a state with two economic profiles — one urban, one rural. It can be challenging for a state dominated and prospering within the urban to extend its economic bounty to the betterment of the rural.

What is rural? It depends upon one’s objective behind the question. Most define rural by a visual scan of the landscape. A lot of open land and not many people — rural. Yet economically, the view can be different. An area may look rural, but if the economic vitality of its populace is strongly integrated with a nearby urban area, then this creates a different perspective. The latter is a preference of the federal government — an entity that often makes allocation or distribution decisions based upon economic factors.

No matter how one technically defines rural, the Governor’s Office recognizes a recent dichotomy in Utah’s economic prosperity. Since the Great Recession, Utah has had compelling economic success. Yet, most of this is concentrated in Utah’s urban centers. Portions of Utah’s rural communities are not seeing matching levels of success. Utah’s Lt. Governor recently observed, “Not all of Utah’s communities are full participants in this economic success. Many counties off the Wasatch Front are experiencing challenges.”

In response to this economic disparity, the Governor’s Office has launched the 25k Jobs initiative — an effort for businesses to create 25,000 new jobs in 25 Utah counties by 2020. With this spotlight on rural Utah’s economics, let’s take a look at some of these rural challenges.

To most, jobs deliver their income and means for living sustenance. Therefore, employment, and peripheral variables associated with employment, becomes the strongest proxy for measuring the Utah economy’s health. We will look at Utah’s counties through the lens of employment, unemployment, the labor force and how the industry structure speaks to the underlying performance of these variables.

A profile of job growth becomes a starting point. Economic performance needs to be viewed with a somewhat long lens. The Governor’s 25k Jobs initiative was not born from a short-term disorder, but instead is recognition of weak longer-term fundamentals. To illustrate this perspective, one needs to backdrop the short-term mechanics against the longer-term dynamics.

The County Job Profile chart is an intersection of the short-term trend with the moderate-term. Each county is a bubble, and the bubble size reflects job counts. The chart is divided into four quadrants. The quadrants tell the story of the intersection of the short and moderate-term trends (growth or contraction) and the general health of the county’s economy.

There are two axes of measure. First, the vertical axis represents the short-term. It is the percentage of county job change between 2015 and 2016. Above the horizontal axis is growth — below is contraction.

Second, the horizontal axis measures the moderate-term. It is the percentage of job change over the past five years (2011-2016). To the right of the vertical axis is growth — to the left is contraction. Where a bubble lies is the intersection of the short and the moderate term.

To illustrate, find Beaver County on the chart. Beaver aligns with around -4.0 percent on the vertical axis, and 8.0 percent on the horizontal axis. This says that over the past five years, Beaver County’s job count has grown by 8.0 percent, but over the past year it has contracted by around 4.0 percent. This implies that Beaver County’s economy may be slipping a bit. A one-year view would imply a problem. A longer-term view places this short-term setback against a broader perspective of overall prosperity.

The quadrant of concern is the Contracting quadrant. These economies have contracted over both the most recent year and the past five years. No matter how one wants to define rural as outlined above, all of these contracting counties identify as rural.

In-county jobs alone are not the complete picture. For example, a large percentage of Morgan County’s residents commute to Weber or Davis counties for work. If jobs are not being germinated in Morgan County, the county and its population can still prosper from its ties with the urban area.

An additional way to look at the economy is through the lens of the labor force. The labor force consists of those 16-years and older who are either working or looking for work. It is based upon where people live, not where they work. A worker living in Morgan County will be represented in Morgan County on the following chart (County Labor Force Change); yet, if they work in Weber County, their job is represented in Weber County on the prior chart. Adding this perspective helps to round out a county’s profile.

The structure of the County Labor Force Change graphic is the same as the prior chart. The area of vibrancy is the upper-right quadrant where the labor force is increasing. The quadrant of labor force contraction is the lower left. A decline in the labor force occurs when people become discouraged and leave the labor force — yet stay in the county, or when people leave the county altogether. Either way, a decline in the labor force signals a fundamental negative in the economic trend.

Depending upon the variables measured, a gain in one and a decline in another can both be positive. Job growth and an unemployment decline are both positive. To associate the positive with low unemployment, the quadrant message on the Unemployment Rate chart has been transposed.

Every month an unemployment rate is calculated for Utah and each of its counties. A county’s unemployment rate can be measured against the Utah statewide average unemployment rate. In the following graphic, county rates are mathematically compared against the statewide rate (seasonally adjusted), recorded and then summed across time.

For example, if a county’s unemployment rate is 5.5 percent and the statewide rate is 4.0 percent, then that county’s difference for that month is 1.5. If a county’s rate were to be 3.5 percent against the statewide rate of 4.0 percent, then the difference is -0.5. These monthly differences are tallied and summed. A high score speaks to a consistent and persistent unemployment rate above the statewide average. In other words, these are counties with a continuous environment of high unemployment.

The horizontal axis is a measure since 2000 and the vertical axis a measure since the beginning of the Great Recession (2008). The axis intersection is not at zero to isolate the “concern area” within the upper right quadrant. The statewide average is consistently close to the Salt Lake County average, so a sizeable number of counties will have sums slightly above the statewide average; yet, this doesn’t imply an unemployment problem. But the non-zero intersection is utilized to emphasize the counties that do have an outstanding unemployment disparity.

Across these various charts, a common group of rural counties emerge in the weak quadrant. These include Carbon, Emery, Garfield, Piute and San Juan counties; with Duchesne and Uintah hanging on the edge. There is a common theme that surrounds this grouping and it centers upon low economic diversity.

An economy’s ability to be consistently positive has a strong foundation in a diverse mix of industrial employment. Think of it in terms of “not putting all your eggs in one basket.” Economic diversity is spreading jobs across many baskets. Diversity is desirable because the overall economy is not dominantly influenced by one or a handful of industries whose poor performance weighs upon the whole.

A Hachman Index is an evaluation tool measuring to what degree an economy may or may not have all its eggs in one basket. In the Hachman Index, a measure of 1.0 means your eggs are well distributed across many industries. Conversely, numbers approaching zero point to a high concentration in one or a handful of industries.

Many of the counties that score low on the previous charts are the same ones on the lowest tier of the following Hachman Index chart. This chart represents the placement of economic diversity upon employment change of the past five years. A county will be placed high or low (vertical axis) on the chart depending upon its Hachman Index score. It will align right or left (horizontal axis) depending upon its five-year employment change. Metropolitan counties have higher economic diversity than rural counties — placing them higher on the chart. They are also further to the right on the chart, showing stronger employment growth. There can be individual exceptions, but the general theme is that lack of economic diversity is a foundational impediment to economic viability. Industrial diversity, though difficult to artificially induce, is a desired remedy to counter sluggish economic performance.

Lack of diversity does not mandate a poor economy. A reproduction of this chart five years ago would have placed Uintah and Duchesne counties still low on the chart, but their five-year growth rates would have been off the chart, needing arrows to point out beyond the chosen 40 percent horizontal axis limit.

Those economies are dominated by energy production. When energy prices are high, their economies can soar. When energy falters, they often do likewise. They are striking examples of economic outcome being determined by a dominant industry.

In summary, there is a dichotomy within the Utah economy between urban and rural. The urban economies are diverse and, therefore, more economically balanced; while many rural economies are not. With some rural counties the economic distinction is not a wide divide; but in the rural counties where the divide is pronounced, the underlying theme is often a low level of economic performance.

What happened to Utah's construction workers?

The Fall and Rise of Utah’s Construction Industry
What happened to construction workers?

By Lecia Parks Langston, Senior Economist

"It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” –Charles Darwin

The pre-Great-Recession economic boom was built on the back on the construction industry. In Utah and across the nation, a speculative housing-price bubble resulted in a huge demand for construction workers. However, once that bubble popped, many construction personnel were left without employment. What happened to that workforce? And once expansion returned, where did the building industry find a replenishing supply of employees? While a notable number of construction workers experienced a spell of persistent nonemployment during the recession, many found jobs in the construction industry as well as other industries. Still others moved to nearby states for employment while a smaller number moved even farther afield. When the industry began expanding again it drew workers from the same industries that had hired separated construction employees during the recession. In turn, states which had attracted separated construction workers were typically those which fed Utah construction hires on the upswing.

To read the entire study, click "Read More."

Better, Faster, Smarter... Check out our new website design!

Go to: JOBS.UTAH.GOV/WI to check it out

Information is the treasure of the current age. The instant access to information since the advent of the Internet has transformed societies in ways that thousands of years prior had not. Information can lead to knowledge, and — with increased knowledge — better efficiencies and way of life. If information is vital, then the presentation of information has also risen to a prominent level. With this, the Utah Department of Workforce Services has made some organizational improvements to its economic webpages. Various economic data categories are not mutually exclusive, but we made an effort to compartmentalize economic data for a better organizational display and navigation. We also added a new feature area that taps into various national data elements and measurements from the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), the database of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. FRED’s added value is national — and Utah — economic indicators. More on FRED’s contribution below.

Depending on the subject, economic data can be categorized as either broad or specific. For example, the demographic makeup of an area and how that impacts an economic structure is a broad-subject approach. Conversely, a current monthly snapshot of the Utah economy, its job growth and unemployment rate is a more specific observation. Our economic webpage has four “portals” through which to “categorize” and search for information. One portal is broad, while the other three are more specific in nature.

Topic Portals

The monthly employment profile just mentioned is a specific topic and gets its own “portal,” entitled Employment Update. Here, the most current Utah economic performance can be explored and summarized. The information found here is what often gets cited in the local news media in reference to the current Utah job performance and unemployment rate.

The second specific “portal” is labeled Local Insights. This is a quarterly profile of the Utah economy down to a county level. Each county is summarized with its own economic performance, including job growth, unemployment rate, housing starts, taxable sales and other profile variables. The common theme here is a county-specific approach.

The third specific “portal” is Reports and Analysis. Workforce Services’ economic forte is the labor market. Things over and above the everyday reporting on the labor market are presented here. Sometimes we do special economic studies, other times we will report on specific economic groups within the labor force, like women or veterans. Anything we do that is not an often repeated or ongoing report are grouped here.

The final “portal,” and possibly the one that will be most used, is labeled Economic Data. The core of our data collection and analysis is concentrated here. Employment data, occupational data, wage information and demographic profiles are just some of the major economic themes found in this area.

FRED's on site

As mentioned earlier, we have added an economic indicator area tapping into FRED, which is a massive compilation of economic data from various sources — primarily government statistical agencies, but also some nongovernmental organizations. Workforce Services economists have gone through the list and selected a handful of the most useful data series for gauging the performance of Utah’s macro economy and gaining insights into expected trends. Utah functions within the national economy, so the national economic indicators profiled here are intended to also be guiding influences on the Utah economy. These indicators include composite indexes; a recession probability indicator; leading indicators, such as construction permits and the yield curve; coincident indicators, such as real GDP and employment; and price indicators, such as the consumer price index, regional housing prices, and oil and gas prices. Each chart has a detailed description of what the data represent and how they may be useful.

Keeping relevant with the fast-changing pace of the Internet and data presentation is our goal at Workforce Services. We hope these changes help to better present our broad package of economic data offerings.

Federal Government Land Ownership in Utah

Mark Knold, Supervising Economist

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/10/29/states-coordinate-challenge-feds-on-public-land-use?hd

This link will take you to an article by the Pew Charitable Trust that includes the above map showing how much of each state’s land mass is owned by the federal government. Because this federal land is untaxable, it also shows how much money the federal government gives each state as payments in lieu of taxes for the federally owned land. Hover on the map to find out each state’s variables. It should not surprise one that Utah’s percentage is very high.

Local Insights updated on the web

By Mark Knold, Supervising Economist 

Shelter is one of humanity’s basic needs. That is why housing is everywhere. Since housing is so ubiquitous, it becomes an important component in an economy’s foundation, and as such becomes an economic indicator.

In this issue of Local Insights, we look at the demand for housing structures, the amount of housing permits and their history, and how this history shows that housing demand follows the ups and downs of a region’s economic performance. In evaluating the volume of housing permits, we also parallel the health and vitality of the local economy.

People need jobs that supply them income in order to afford housing. Jobs are not the only factor, as things like affordability and the ability to obtain lending also play their part in housing demand. But the foundation of housing demand is the health of the job market.

The graph shows Utah statewide housing permits. A trend of normal permitting activity is evident from 1996 through 2004. Permits rose during the pre-Great Recession boom, then became lethargic for the seven years following. It is just recently that the volume of permit activity is again approaching something normal. That in itself is an economic indicator of an improved Utah economy.

--------------------------------------------

To read more, see the latest issues of Local Insights. To receive a printed copy, please call 801-526-9785.