Annual Profiles

The Workforce Research and Analysis division has updated information in the county Annual Profiles.

The information available in these Annual Profiles are separated by county and state and include:

• quick facts
• nonfarm employment
• unemployment
• major employers
• population
• demographics
• income and wages
• construction
• gross taxable sales
• county rankings

This data is updated on an annual basis, and dates can be found at the bottom of each tab. To print any of the visualizations, see the instructions here. For more information about this data, contact your regional economist.

First round of 2012 American Community Survey results released

The U.S. Census Bureau has just released the first round of data from the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS). This survey is the primary source of demographic, income and poverty data for the United States. It covers more than 40 topics ranging from language spoken at home to selected monthly homeowner costs.

As usual, these figures can be accessed from the American FactFinder. To learn more about ACS, see a previous post written about an article by Jim Robson in a past issue of Trendlines.We’ll publish interesting facts from the ACS data in upcoming posts. The current release includes figures for the nation, states, Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and counties/places with population of 65,000 or more. A list of the Utah areas follows after the jump.

• Cache County
• Davis County
• Salt Lake County
• Utah County
• Washington County
• Weber County
• Layton
• Millcreek CDP
• Ogden
• Orem
• Provo
• St. George
• Salt Lake City
• Sandy
• West Jordan
• West Valley

March Madness at the Census Bureau

You may think that the employees of the U.S. Census Bureau are a bunch of data-counting and collating geeks. However, the Bureau shows its lighter side with “Population Bracketology,” an interactive data visualization that allows you to fill out your own bracket based on comparisons of state and metro area populations. The objective is to pick the larger population between two metro areas or states. See if you can get a perfect score of 63. The population comes from the Census Bureau’s recently released 2012 population estimates. 

Click here to play.

2012 Census County-Level Population Estimates Available

The U.S. Census Bureau has just released its 2012 population estimates for counties, metropolitan areas and micropolitan areas.

You can use the visualization below to access county-level population numbers by selecting the appropriate area. 

Remember, the Utah Population Estimates Committee under the guidance of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget will also release 2012 population estimates for the state and counties at a later date.

• Vernal (fifth) and Heber City (sixth) were ranked among the fastest-growing micro areas in the nation during 2012. Vernal also ranked number 10 for the largest numeric increase in U.S. micropolitan population. 
• According to the Census estimates, the fastest growing counties in Utah were Uintah (4 percent), Wasatch (4 percent), Washington (2 percent), Duchesne (2 percent) and Utah (2 percent). Statewide, the population grew 1.5 percent during 2012. 
• With the exception of Washington County, the highest levels of population growth were centered in the Wasatch Front/Uintah Basin counties and their contiguous neighbors. 
• The oil and gas field boom of the Uintah Basin drove population growth in Uintah and Duchesne counties following a similar pattern to the U.S. population expansion. 
• Roughly one-third of Utah’s counties actually showed population declines. These were generally rural counties in the central part of the state. 
• Counties showing the largest population declines included Sevier (1 percent), Wayne (1 percent), Garfield (2 percent), Rich (2 percent) and Daggett County (6 percent). 

To access the entire data set, click here.

Learn About Tableau

The social costs of fewer families

Click to enlarge

38-year-old filmmaker SethToedter is part of a growing demographic of singles worldwide now aging into their middle years without forming families. Across the globe, birth rates are dropping, in part because couples are having fewer children, but also because fewer young adults are even living together — married or otherwise.

In the U.S., those living alone are now "tied with childless couples as the most prominent residential type," according to Eric Klinenberg, a sociologist at New York University.

About 22 percent of American adults were single in 1950. Today, more than 50 percent of adults are single, notes Klinenberg in "Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone," published in 2012. In 1950, he tells us, 4 million Americans lived alone, or 10 percent of households. Today, more than 32 million live alone, or 28 percent of households.

The dramatic shift has caught the attention of scholars and social commentators. Some, like Klinenberg, see the new way of living as inevitable, arguably healthy for the individuals involved, and something the state should support with more favorable public policies that make single living more convenient and ease the complications, including the difficulties of aging alone.


Others, like demographer Joel Kotkin and a number of his colleagues, see shattering implications for societies that fail to adequately replace one generation with another. The difficulty, they argue, is that modern societies place the burden of each retired generation on those currently working.

When the next generation is smaller than the last, a skewed "dependency ratio" results, squeezing ever fewer active workers to support more retirees, while still investing in roads and schools and saving for their own retirement.

One difficulty, Kotkin and his colleagues argue, is that although modern societies maintain a myth that the working generation is saving for its old age, in fact the burden falls heavily on their children. If today's generation does not produce enough children, a skewed "dependency ratio" emerges.

"Among the 23 most developed countries," write Kotkin and his colleagues, "the population 65 or older was roughly 9 percent in 1960; it is 16 percent today. By 2030, this could reach as high as 25 percent. Many countries, notably Germany and Singapore, by 2050 will have about 57 people over 65 for every 100 workers."

The burden is already immense. "In the United States, persons 65 and over received 7 times more in federal spending in 2000 per person than did children under age 18," noted demographer Philip Longman of the New America Foundation in 2004, "and this was before they enacted the hugely costly prescription drug benefit for seniors." Even factoring in education spending at the local level, total government spending favors seniors by roughly 3-to-1. Deseret News

Where did they come from, where did they go? The Census Bureau knows. . .

The Census Bureau has just released state-to-state migration flow tables for 2011. In other words, we can now track the state of origin for individuals moving to Utah during 2011 and where out-migrating Utahns moved.

The estimates indicate that more than 85,000 persons moved from other states to Utah compared to 73,000 persons leaving Utah for homes in other states. California ranked as the top previous state of residence for those moving to Utah, while out-migrating Utahns were most likely to relocate in Arizona.

Whether coming or going, the same four states accounted for both the largest shares of Utah's 2011 moves—Arizona, California, Idaho, Texas and Washington. Other than Florida, Eastern and Midwestern populations are unlikely to move to or from Utah. Remember that this data comes from a survey. States with no in- or out-migration figures may not accurately reflect reality.


To access the state-to-state data flows from the Census Bureau, click here.  

Powered by Tableau

 

Before and After 1940: Change in Population Density

County-level population in the United States change for the 1930s differed from the 1920s or the 1940s, as shown in this set of three maps. In the 1920s, a number of predominantly rural counties in the nation's eastern half saw declines in population and population density, often reflecting outmigration to cities. During the 1930-1940 decade the pattern reversed, with population and population density declines primarily located in the Great Plains. Between 1935 and 1940, 12 percent of the population moved to another county or state. This represented a lull in population movement that changed during and after WWII as geographic mobility increased in the U.S. For instance, between 1940 and 1947, 21.5 percent of civilians moved to different counties or states. In the 1940-1950 period, population density increased for the more urban and populous counties in the Northeast and Midwest, but declines were widespread in predominantly rural counties. United States Census Bureau

Coming to Our Census

On the last Sunday Edition Richard Piatt began to host a special report: Coming to Our Census. Taking a closer look at the changing face of Utah. If demographic trends continue, the minority will eventually become majority nearly statewide. What does Utah's future look like and how do we prepare for the challenges and embrace the opportunities? KSL will explore the issues. KSL

Net migration from Mexico to U.S. appears to have halted

We typically reserve the information we present on this blog to Utah-specific data. However, a recent report from the Pew Hispanic Center seems to merit mention. In a recent report, the Pew Hispanic Center indicates that net migration flows from Mexico have stopped and may have even declined. These estimates include both legal and "unauthorized" individuals. (Click here for the entire report.)

According to earlier estimates, several mountain states experienced out-migration of unauthorized immigrants as early as 2009. Estimates for Arizona, Utah, and Colorado combined showed a net decrease of 130,000 unauthorized immigrants between 2008 and 2009. Alone, our neighbor Nevada's unauthorized immigrant population lost an estimated 50,000 individuals. (Click here for this report.)

Now, a few words from the data police. Since no one really wants to admit being in this country illegally, the Pew Hispanic Center must estimate "unauthorized" migrants. These estimates are primarily derived from a one-month supplement to the Current Population Survey. These estimates use a fairly complex methodology. In other words, they lack the gravitas of an actual survey. In the recent migration report, the Pew Hispanic Center did use data from Mexico also. In their favor, the trends in this report certainly seem to reflect what one would expect to see given the business cycle and also what casual observation suggests.



The report attributes this cessation in net in-migration to several factors:

• Weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets
• Heightened border enforcement
• A rise in deportations
• The growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings
• The long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates
  
• Changing economic conditions in Mexico.

Utah ranks 36th for teen births

Teen births fell again in the United States in 2010 with the highest rate once more in Mississippi, according to a new government report. Nearly every state saw a decline in teen births from 2007 to 2010. With 27.9 births per 1,000 females aged 15-19, Utah ranked 36th in the nation for teen births. The Spectrum

(Click to Enlarge)

Note: The full report can be found here. Here are some notable findings:

(Click to Enlarge)

• The birth rate for teenagers ranged from 15.7 in New Hampshire to 55.0 in Mississippi in 2010. 
• The national 2010 teen birth rate measured 34.3 births per 1,000 teen-aged females.
• The report also indicates that Utah experienced one of the largest declines in teen births between 2007 and 2010. The teen birth rate dropped from 35.5 to 27.9--a decline of 21 percent. 
• In 2010, Utah teen births numbered 3,046.

Utah officials plan how to handle 67% growth by 2040

The Wasatch Front is expected to grow by 1.4 million people over the next 30 years. So hundreds of officials from governments, businesses, universities and nonprofit groups gathered Tuesday to further implement plans on how to handle that growth while maintaining a high quality of life.

They heard updates on new regional housing and transportation plans and observed a demonstration of software that will allow cities to share modeling for the future, hold discussions on how to change zoning laws to allow new kinds of higher density development and exchange updates on expected demographic changes.

The group is using a $5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to help local communities work together to implement a regional vision for the future that was developed by them through Envision Utah over the past decade.

"We are a state that is 90 percent urban that is living on 1.1 percent of the land. … What a responsibility to plan carefully," University of Utah research economist Pam Perlich told the group. That population density, plus an expected 67 percent growth in 30 years, has the group envisioning a different-looking Utah by 2040.

Instead of expanding suburban sprawl with single-family homes, the consortium hopes that maybe a third of the population would start to cluster in new town centers built around mass-transit stations that replace old, rundown areas.

Many would live in buildings that have businesses on the first floor, offices on the second and residences above that. Town centers would be designed to allow people to live, work and play in the same area, so they would drive less and walk or bike more. Transit options would expand so that most of the population would live close to major transit centers. Salt Lake Tribune

The Highs and Lows of Labor Force Participation in Utah - Trendlines Article

When measuring labor force participation, the usual universe includes the population 16 years and older not confined to an institution (nursing homes, prisons, etc.). The universe includes individuals 65 and older who are typically retired. The participation rate is simply the percentage of that universe which is active in the labor force.

To be counted in the labor force, one can either be employed or unemployed. Employed persons worked for pay or profit (or at least 15 hours in a family-owned business for no pay). A person on temporary absence from a job is also included. For example, if you are ill, on strike, on vacation, snowed in, or having a baby and will be returning to a particular job, you are counted as employed.

To read this entire article, click here.

To subscribe to Trendlines, call 801-526-9785 or send us your name and address information.

Census Bureau Releases 2011 Population Estimate for States

The U.S. Census Bureau just released 2011 population estimates for states. Interestingly, the United States as a whole saw its population increase by 2.8 million over the 15-month period, to 311.6 million. Its growth of 0.92 percent between April 1, 2010, and July 1, 2011, was the lowest since the mid-1940s. Unlike decennial census counts, the 2011 estimates are pegged at July 1st rather than April 1st.

According to these estimates Utah's population mid-year 2011 stood at 2.8 million--a 1.5-percent increase over July 1, 2010. That growth rate ranks second only to Texas. (A few states actually lost population). Census estimates suggest that more than 90 percent of Utah's population occurred due to "natural increase" --more births than deaths. For many states, net in-migration is the major factor behind population growth.

Powered by Tableau

Keep in mind that the Utah Population Estimates Committee will also publish homegrown 2011 population estimates in the near future.

For more information on the Census Bureau 2011 population estimates, click here.