Young Professionals: A Comparison

**Updated 2/3/2017 with 2015 data. Originally posted 1/21/2016.

Millennials and Young Professionals are big news these days. Millennials are the largest generation ever in terms of total numbers (exceeding 76 million), and their choices are already having big impacts on everything from housing to the economy, and Young Professionals have long been an important urban demographic. I wanted to look at Columbus and its peers to see where it ranks in terms of attracting the 25-34 age group that include these demographics.

For the comparison, I looked at metro areas of 1.5-2.5 million as well as major Midwest metros and then used their core cities to get the numbers.

Rank of Total Population Aged 25-34

2005_______________________2010___________________2015

1. Chicago: 463,236_______1. Chicago: 510,042________1. Chicago: 530,508
2. San Antonio: 180,981_____2. San Antonio: 200,645____2. San Antonio: 238,111
3. Austin: 137,523_________3. Austin: 162,247_________3. Austin: 211,528
4. San Jose, CA: 133,144___4. Columbus: 147,584______4. Columbus: 174,059
5. Columbus: 131,641______5. San Jose, CA: 142,551___5. San Jose, CA: 159,172
6. Indianapolis: 114,532_____6. Indianapolis: 133,088____6. Charlotte, NC: 145,573
7. Detroit: 110,759_________7. Charlotte, NC: 127,539___7. Indianapolis: 140,838
8. Charlotte, NC: 100,025____8. Portland, OR: 113,210___8. Nashville: 127,646
9. Portland, OR: 90,023_____9. Nashville: 110,882______9. Portland: 125,173
10. Las Vegas: 84,418______10. Milwaukee: 97,359____10. Milwaukee: 100,826
11. Milwaukee: 82,060______11. Detroit: 85,023_______11. Detroit: 95,474
12. Sacramento, CA: 75,497___12. Minneapolis: 81,532__12. Minneapolis: 93,282
13. Minneapolis: 74,208___13. Las Vegas: 81,212______13. Sacramento: 88,819
14. Kansas City, MO: 68,060__14. Sacramento: 78,527__14. Las Vegas: 87,951
15. Virginia Beach: 60,749__15. Kansas City: 73,872____15. Virginia Beach: 76,061
16. Omaha, NE: 56,248____16. Virginia Beach: 67,614__16. Kansas City: 75,582
17. Wichita, KS: 52,426____17. Omaha: 62,396________17. Omaha: 71,910
18. Cleveland: 50,558_____18. St. Louis: 57,627_______18. Orlando: 63,936
19. St. Louis: 48,137______19. Wichita: 56,737________19. Pittsburgh: 62,703
20. Cincinnati: 44,945_____20. Cleveland: 54,428______20. St. Louis: 61,874
21. Toledo: 43,134_______21. Pittsburgh: 51,109______21. Cleveland: 58,209
22. Orlando: 40,846______22. St. Paul: 50,107________22. Wichita: 56,933
23. St. Paul, MN: 39,676__23. Cincinnati: 49,067_______23. St. Paul: 55,956
24. Lincoln, NE: 38,893___24. Orlando: 48,102________24. Cincinnati: 55,826
25. Madison, WI: 38,826___25. Madison: 44,662_______25. Madison: 47,551
26. Pittsburgh: 38,744____26. Lincoln: 42,034_________26. Toledo: 43,645
27. Grand Rapids: 35,287__27. Toledo: 41,580________27: Lincoln: 41,602
28. Des Moines: 32,640__28. Fort Wayne: 35,193______28. Grand Rapids: 38,044
29. Fort Wayne, IN: 31,738__29. Providence: 31,044____29. Fort Wayne: 36,915
30. Akron: 30,436_______30. Grand Rapids: 30,963____30. Des Moines: 35,123
31. Providence, RI: 29,307__31. Des Moines: 30,376____31. Providence: 32,615
32. Dayton: 18,591_______32. Akron: 27,446_________32. Akron: 28,645
33. Youngstown: 8,505____33. Dayton: 20,278________33. Dayton: 20,527
34. Nashville, TN: N/A___34. Youngtown: 8,484_______34. Youngstown: 9,110

So Columbus ranks highly among total population in the 25-34 age group. But what about growth?

Total Growth Rank in 25-34 Population 2005-2015

1. Austin, TX: 74,005
2. Chicago: 67,272
3. San Antonio, TX: 57,130
4. Charlotte, NC: 45,548
5. Columbus: 42,418
6. Portland, OR: 35,150
7. Indianapolis: 26,306
8. San Jose, CA: 26,028
9. Pittsburgh, PA: 23,959
10. Orlando, FL: 23,090
11. Minneapolis, MN: 19,074
12. Milwaukee, WI: 18,766
13. St. Paul, MN: 16,280
14. Omaha, NE: 15,662
15. Virginia Beach, VA: 15,312
16. St. Louis, MO: 13,737
17. Sacramento, CA: 13,332
18. Cincinnati: 10,881
19. Madison, WI: 8,725
20. Cleveland: 7,651
21. Kansas City, MO: 7,522
22. Fort Wayne, IN: 5,177
23. Wichita, KS: 4,507
24. Las Vegas, NV: 3,533
25. Providence, RI: 3,308
26. Grand Rapids, MI: 2,757
27. Lincoln, NE: 2,709
28. Des Moines, IA: 2,483
29. Dayton: 1,936
30. Youngstown: 605
31. Toledo: 511
32. Akron: -1,791
33. Detroit: -15,285
34. Nashville, TN: N/A

Again, Columbus ranks near the top during this period. What about more recently, since 2010?

Total Growth Rank of 25-34 Population 2010-2015

1. Austin: 49,281
2. San Antonio: 37,466
3. Columbus: 26,475
4. Chicago: 20,466
5. Charlotte: 18,034
6. Nashville: 16,764
7. San Jose: 16,621
8. Orlando: 15,834
9. Portland: 11,963
10. Minneapolis: 11,750
11. Pittsburgh: 11,594
12. Detroit: 10,451
13. Sacramento: 10,292
14. Omaha: 9,514
15. Virginia Beach: 8,447
16. Indianapolis: 7,750
17. Grand Rapids: 7,081
18. Cincinnati: 6,759
19. Las Vegas: 6,739
20. St. Paul: 5,849
21. Des Moines: 4,747
22. St. Louis: 4,247
23. Cleveland: 3,781
24. Milwaukee: 3,467
25. Madison: 2,889
26. Toledo: 2,065
27. Fort Wayne: 1,722
28. Kansas City: 1,710
29. Providence: 1,571
30. Akron: 1,199
31. Youngstown: 626
32. Dayton: 249
33. Wichita: 196
34. Lincoln: -432

So Columbus is doing even better since 2010 than it did in the earlier period and attracts significantly more people in the 25-34 age group than cities often cited for this very metric.

Next, let’s look at percentage growth, as city size can affect this.

Total Percent Growth 2005-2015 in 25-34 Population

1. Pittsburgh: +61.8%
2. Orlando: +56.5%
3. Austin: +53.8%
4. Charlotte: +45.5%
5. St. Paul: +41.0%
6. Portland: +39.0%
7. Columbus: +32.2%
8. San Antonio: +31.6%
9. St. Louis: +28.5%
10. Omaha: +27.8%
11. Minneapolis: +25.7%
12. Virginia Beach: +25.2%
13. Cincinnati: +24.2%
14. Indianapolis: +23.0%
15. Milwaukee: +22.9%
16. Madison: +22.5%
17. San Jose: +19.5%
18. Sacramento: +17.6%
19. Fort Wayne: +16.3%
20. Cleveland: +15.1%
21. Chicago: +14.5%
22. Providence: +11.3%
23. Kansas City: +11.1%
24. Dayton: +10.4%
25. Wichita: +8.6%
26. Grand Rapids: +7.8%
27. Des Moines: +7.6%
28. Youngstown: +7.1%
29. Lincoln: +7.0%
30. Las Vegas: +4.2%
31. Toledo: +1.2%
32. Akron: -5.9%
33. Detroit: -13.8%
34. Nashville: N/A

So Columbus again performs fairly well in percentage growth, despite having one of the largest populations in the age group.

Finally, now that we know the totals and the growth, what is the % of total city population that the 25-34 age group makes up?

25-34 % of Total City Population 2015

1. Orlando: 23.6%
2. Austin: 22.7%
3. Minneapolis: 22.7%
4. Pittsburgh: 20.6%
5. Columbus: 20.5%
6. Portland: 19.8%
7. St. Louis: 19.6%
8. Chicago: 19.5%
9. Nashville: 19.5%
10. Grand Rapids: 19.4%
11. Madison: 19.1%
12. Cincinnati: 18.7%
13. St. Paul: 18.6%
14. Providence: 18.2%
15. Sacramento: 18.1%
16. Charlotte: 17.6%
17. Milwaukee: 16.8%
18. Virginia Beach: 16.8%
19. Des Moines: 16.7%
20. Indianapolis: 16.6%
21. Omaha: 16.2%
22. San Antonio: 16.2%
23. Kansas City: 15.9%
24. Toledo: 15.6%
25. San Jose: 15.5%
26. Cleveland: 15.0%
27. Lincoln: 15.0%
28. Dayton: 14.6%
29. Wichita: 14.6%
30. Akron: 14.5%
31. Fort Wayne: 14.3%
32. Detroit: 14.1%
33. Las Vegas: 14.1%
34. Youngstown: 14.1%

Columbus has an existing large population of the 25-34 age demographic, and looks to be one of the strongest performers into the near future.
Some would ask why that would be considering that Columbus transit is woefully lacking and has a reputation (very undeservedly, in my opinion) of being suburban- characteristics that Millennials/YPers supposedly almost universally reject. Perhaps the bottom line is that economics trump all other desires. Cost of living and employment tend to be higher up the list than rail lines, and Columbus has both a strong economy and relatively low COL. Whatever the case may be, Columbus seems to be doing something right.

Columbus City Diversity and Comparison to Peers

In the 2nd post related to the recently-released Census demographic data, I’ll look at city diversity and how it’s been changing since 2005.

Rank by City of Total White, non-Hispanic Population by Year
2005————————————–2010————————————-2015

1. Chicago, IL: 819,215————1. Chicago: 853,910—————1. Chicago: 879,318
2. Indianapolis, IN: 491,044——2. Indianapolis: 482,195———–2. Columbus: 491,602
3. Columbus: 442,958————-3. Columbus: 470,971————-3. Indianapolis: 479,376
4. Portland, OR: 382,033———-4. Portland: 417,876—————4. Portland: 449,552
5. San Antonio, TX: 356,420—–5. Austin: 384,065——————5. Austin: 444,638
6. Austin, TX: 347,013————-6. San Antonio: 351,420———-6. Nashville: 365,542
7. Nashville, TN: 314,518——–7. Nashville: 339,030————–7. San Antonio: 364,707
8. Charlotte, NC: 302,789——-8. Charlotte: 331,357—————8. Charlotte: 356,507
9. Virginia Beach, VA: 290,891–9. Virginia Beach: 282,812——9. Omaha: 293,631
10. San Jose, CA: 281,822—–10. Las Vegas: 280,604——-10. Virginia Beach: 281,686
11. Las Vegas, NV: 281,679—-11. Omaha: 277,606————–11. Las Vegas: 278,444
12. Omaha, NE: 267,685——–12. San Jose: 265,311————12. San Jose: 268,948
13. Kansas City, MO: 249,123—13. Kansas City: 247,473——13. Kansas City: 261,360
14. Milwaukee, WI: 219,891——14. Minneapolis: 242,848——14. Minneapolis: 243,709
15. Minneapolis, MN: 216,975—-15. Milwaukee: 221,514——-15. Milwaukee: 216,755
16. Toledo: 183,746—————–16. Pittsburgh: 203,622——–16. Pittsburgh: 192,187
17. Pittsburgh, PA: 180,725——-17. Toledo: 177,341————17. Toledo: 164,305
18. Sacramento, CA: 160,599—-18. Sacramento: 165,610—–18. Sacramento: 155,784
19. Cleveland: 147,359————19. Cincinnati: 143,120——–19. Cincinnati: 147,360
20. St. Louis, MO: 143,590——–20. Cleveland: 137,977——–20. St. Louis: 138,178
21. Cincinnati: 138,486————-21. St. Louis: 134,146———-21. Cleveland: 133,998
22. Akron: 128,976——————22. Akron: 120,800————22. Grand Rapids: 119,128
23. Grand Rapids, MI: 113,791—23. Grand Rapids: 104,636—-23. Akron: 117,587
24. Orlando, FL: 92,326————24. Orlando: 96,867————24. Orlando: 102,822
25. Detroit, MI: 77,163————–25. Dayton: 72,663————-25. Dayton: 75,539
26. Dayton: 67,581——————26. Providence: 64,284——-26. Detroit: 64,511
27. Providence, RI: 64,223——–27. Detroit: 55,298————-27. Providence: 61,492

Columbus moved from 3rd to 2nd over the 10-year period for total White, non-Hispanic population.

Rank by City of Total Black, non-Hispanic Population by Year
2005—————————————–2010———————————2015

1. Chicago: 938,097—————–1. Chicago: 895,294———–1. Chicago: 834,048
2. Detroit: 683,999——————–2. Detroit: 587,707————-2. Detroit: 536,527
3. Milwaukee: 222,040————–3. Charlotte: 251,274———-3. Charlotte: 282,456
4. Cleveland: 221,797—————4. Milwaukee: 230,473——–4. Indianapolis: 234,338
5. Charlotte: 205,216—————-5. Indianapolis: 226,314——-5. Columbus: 233,320
6. Indianapolis: 193,948————6. Columbus: 216,486———6. Milwaukee: 231,304
7. Columbus: 179,197—————7. Cleveland: 208,528———7. Cleveland: 194,350
8. St. Louis: 168,768—————-8. Nashville: 171,104———–8. Nashville: 178,293
9. Nashville: 148,051—————-9. St. Louis: 157,382———–9. St. Louis: 146,925
10. Kansas City: 131,694———-10. Kansas City: 138,461—–10. Kansas City: 140,515
11. Cincinnati: 131,010————-11. Cincinnati: 131,909——–11. Cincinnati: 125,621
12. Pittsburgh: 81,758————–12. Virginia Beach: 79,583—-12. San Antonio: 98,876
13. Virginia Beach: 80,004——–13. San Antonio: 79,307——13. Virginia Beach: 85,867
14. Orlando: 73,736—————–14. Toledo: 75,033————-14. Minneapolis: 78,861
15. Toledo: 72,190——————-15. Pittsburgh: 71,539——–15. Toledo: 76,173
16. Sacramento: 71,452————16. Orlando: 70,988————16. Pittsburgh: 73,012
17. San Antonio: 70,723————17. Minneapolis: 63,749——17. Las Vegas: 68,777
18. Dayton: 60,196——————-18. Sacramento: 61,976——18. Austin: 68,061
19. Akron: 59,810——————–19. Austin: 61,833————–19. Sacramento: 63,477
20. Las Vegas: 59,780————–20. Dayton: 61,402————-20. Orlando: 61,955
21. Austin: 59,583——————-21. Akron: 60,653—————-21. Akron: 58,716
22. Minneapolis: 57,499————22. Las Vegas: 60,187———22.  Omaha: 57,546
23. Omaha: 50,333——————23. Omaha: 55,086————-23. Dayton: 51,896
24. Grand Rapids: 40,408———24. Grand Rapids: 41,848—–24. Portland: 35,362
25. Portland: 30,828—————25. Portland: 37,355————-25. Grand Rapids: 32,423
26. San Jose: 27,446————–26. San Jose: 29,831———–26. San Jose: 30,068
27. Providence: 18,794————27. Providence: 19,265——–27. Providence: 21,484

Columbus moved up from 7th to 5th in total Black, non-Hispanic during the period.

Rank by City of Total Asian, non-Hispanic Population by Year
2005————————————-2010——————————————2015

1. San Jose: 269,186————–1. San Jose: 303,227—————–1. San Jose: 355,777
2. Chicago: 127,686—————-2. Chicago: 148,280——————2. Chicago: 166,771
3. Sacramento: 80,307————3. Sacramento: 84,556————-3. Sacramento: 88,422
4. Portland: 36,278—————–4. Austin: 46,575———————-4. Austin: 69,696
5. Austin: 35,239——————–5. Portland: 43,185——————-5. Charlotte: 50,142
6. Columbus: 27,125—————6. Las Vegas: 37,406—————-6. Portland: 49,811
7. Las Vegas: 25,077————–7. Charlotte: 37,181——————7. Columbus: 42,933
8. Charlotte: 23,356—————-8. Columbus: 35,468—————-8. San Antonio: 41,988
9. Virginia Beach: 22,501———9. San Antonio: 29,200————-9. Las Vegas: 41,782
10. San Antonio: 20,492———10. Virginia Beach: 27,303—–10. Virginia Beach: 28,358
11. Minneapolis: 20,189———-11. Milwaukee: 22,670————11. Minneapolis: 26,958
12. Milwaukee: 19,596————12. Minneapolis: 21,426———–12. Indianapolis: 25,264
13. Nashville: 16,943—————13. Indianapolis: 17,137———-13. Milwaukee: 22,497
14. Indianapolis: 12,312———–14. Nashville: 17,045————–14. Nashville: 20,577
15. Providence: 10,751————15. Pittsburgh: 12,036————-15. Pittsburgh: 18,067
16. Pittsburgh: 10,727————–16. Providence: 11,497———–16. Omaha: 15,243
17. Kansas City: 10,674———-17. Kansas City: 10,263———–17. Kansas City: 13,552
18. Detroit: 9,577——————-18. St. Louis: 8,717—————–18. Providence: 10,842
19. St. Louis: 7,046—————–19. Omaha: 8,397——————19. St. Louis: 8,920
20. Omaha: 6,971——————20. Orlando: 7,870——————20. Detroit: 8,790
21. Cincinnati: 6,874—————21. Detroit: 6,549——————–21. Akron: 8,006
22. Cleveland: 6,289————–22. Cincinnati: 5,938—————–22. Orlando: 7,949
23. Orlando: 5,528—————–23. Cleveland: 5,392—————–23. Cleveland: 7,874
24. Toledo: 4,150——————-24. Akron: 4,567———————-24. Cincinnati: 6,259
25. Akron: 3,497——————–25. Grand Rapids: 3,695———–25. Toledo: 5,008
26. Grand Rapids: 2,847———26. Toledo: 3,125——————-26. Grand Rapids: 4,451
27. Dayton: 1,827——————27. Dayton: 1,231——————-27. Dayton: 1,548

Columbus fell from 6th to 7th in Asian, non-Hispanic population.

Rank by City of Total Hispanic Population by Year

2005——————————————–2010————————————2015

1. Chicago: 778,234—————1. San Antonio: 853,654———-1. San Antonio: 937,607
2. San Antonio: 735,458———–2. Chicago: 763,968—————2. Chicago: 787,725
3. San Jose: 279,420————–3. San Jose: 318,389————–3. San Jose: 331,232
4. Austin: 223,361——————4. Austin: 288,130——————4. Austin: 327,680
5. Las Vegas: 153,813————5. Las Vegas: 181,923————-5. Las Vegas: 204,913
6. Sacramento: 111,559———6. Sacramento: 124,461———–6. Sacramento: 150,153
7. Milwaukee: 80,945————-7. Milwaukee: 104,619————-7. Charlotte: 113,731
8. Providence: 60,008————-8. Charlotte: 96,246—————-8. Milwaukee: 110,335
9. Charlotte: 58,466—————9. Indianapolis: 78,467————-9. Orlando: 89,306
10. Indianapolis: 47,764———10. Providence: 76,645————10. Indianapolis: 83,426
11. Detroit: 46,993—————–11. Nashville: 61,212————–11. Providence: 77,968
12. Orlando: 43,978—————12. Portland: 58,986—————12. Nashville: 67,526
13. Portland: 43,324—————13. Orlando: 56,061—————13. Omaha: 63,516
14. Omaha: 39,674—————–14. Omaha: 53,661—————14. Portland: 61,064
15. Nashville: 37,463—————15. Kansas City: 49,800———15. Detroit: 53,980
16. Minneapolis: 37,017———–16. Detroit: 45,580—————-16. Columbus: 46,855
17. Kansas City: 35,995———–17. Columbus: 43,276————17. Kansas City: 46,037
18. Grand Rapids: 32,368———18. Cleveland: 36,067———-18. Cleveland: 40,603
19. Cleveland: 32,085————–19. Minneapolis: 34,504——-19. Minneapolis: 39,981
20. Columbus: 24,607———–20. Grand Rapids: 30,659——20. Virginia Beach: 36,309
21. Virginia Beach: 20,803——–21. Virginia Beach: 29,206—-21. Grand Rapids: 31,282
22. Toledo: 18,404——————22. Toledo: 21,346————–22. Toledo: 23,614
23. St. Louis: 8,268—————–23. St. Louis: 11,207————-23. St. Louis: 12,261
24. Pittsburgh: 5,018—————24. Cincinnati: 8,710————-24. Pittsburgh: 9,266
25. Cincinnati: 3,855—————25. Pittsburgh: 7,282————-25. Cincinnati: 9,121
26. Akron: 3,485——————–26. Akron: 3,990——————-26. Dayton: 4,945
27. Dayton: 1,693——————-27. Dayton: 3,180—————–27. Akron: 3,684

Columbus moved up from 20th to 16th in the total Hispanic population.

Rank by City of Total Other, non-Hispanic Population by Year

2005——————————————-2010———————————————–2015

1. Chicago: 38,694—————1. Chicago: 37,379————————–1. Chicago: 54,694
2. San Jose: 29,456————2. San Jose: 32,439————————2. San Jose: 40,894
3. Sacramento: 21,370———-3. Sacramento: 30,900——————-3. Portland: 36,398
4. Portland: 21,164————–4. Portland: 28,027————————4. Columbus: 34,357
5. Indianapolis: 20,242———-5. Las Vegas: 24,521—————–5. Sacramento: 32,909
6. Columbus: 20,096————-6. Columbus: 23,738——————6. Las Vegas: 29,853
7. San Antonio: 19,130———-7. San Antonio: 20,778—————7. San Antonio: 26,646
8. Minneapolis: 18,580———-8. Minneapolis: 20,753—————-8. Indianapolis: 26,019
9. Detroit: 18,324—————–9. Virginia Beach: 20,268————-9. Charlotte: 24,285
10. Las Vegas: 18,304———-10. Indianapolis: 20,086————–10. Nashville: 22,658
11. Virginia  Beach: 16,685—-11. Charlotte: 18,360——————11. Austin: 21,765
12. Milwaukee: 14,476———-12. Detroit: 16,776——————–12. Minneapolis: 21,426
13. Kansas City: 13,399——–13. Milwaukee: 16,311———–13. Virginia Beach: 20,525
14. Austin: 13,261—————-14. Omaha: 15,519—————-14. Milwaukee: 19,263
15. Charlotte: 11,771————-15. Austin: 14,915—————–15. Omaha: 13,951
16. Omaha: 8,552—————–16. Kansas City: 14,668———-16. Kansas City: 13,897
17. Toledo: 7,447——————17. Nashville: 14,227————-17. Detroit: 13,316
18. Cincinnati: 7,315————–18. Pittsburgh: 12,080————18. Pittsburgh: 11,853
19. Cleveland: 7,004————–19. Toledo: 10,134—————-19. Cleveland: 11,234
20. Providence: 6,488————-20. Akron: 9,020——————20. Toledo: 10,678
21. Pittsburgh: 6,138————–21. Cleveland: 8,276—————21. Cincinnati: 10,176
22. St. Louis: 6,058—————-22. St. Louis: 7,704—————22. Akron: 9,560
23. Orlando: 5,731—————–23. Grand Rapids: 7,376——-23. St. Louis: 9,401
24. Nashville: 5,687—————24. Orlando: 7,251————–24. Orlando: 8,885
25. Akron: 4,431——————–25. Cincinnati: 7,230———–25. Grand Rapids: 7,815
26. Grand Rapids: 4,154———26. Providence: 6,471———-26. Providence: 7,418
27. Dayton: 1,382——————27. Dayton: 3,025—————27. Dayton: 6,669

Finally, Columbus moved up from 6th to 4th in the total of Other, non-Hispanic population. Overall, Columbus ranks fairly well in totals vs. its peers, as one might expect given that it is one of the largest cities in the grouping. However, to truly find out how it compares with these other cities, you have to look at percentages, which tells how much of the city’s population is made up of each group.

Columbus had the 8th highest White, non-Hispanic % of total population of the city in 2015.

Columbus had the 12th highest Black, non-Hispanic % of total population.

Columbus also had the 12th highest Asian, non-Hispanic % of total population.

Columbus ranks poorly with Hispanics in the group, having only the 22nd highest % of population.

Finally, Columbus ranks 8th again in Other, non-Hispanic % of population.

So what’s the final ranking for where Columbus is with diversity compared to its peers? To find out, I assigned points based on ranked position in each 5 racial categories. The final total determined where the cities ranked overall.

So based on this, Columbus is the 6th most racially diverse city of the 27 cities measured. This is no doubt surprising, but not so much when you get to the numbers.

*Note: Normally, Youngstown would be included, but the data was not available.

Report on Domestic Migration by State

Over the last few decades, much attention has been given to the fact that domestic migration has heavily favored the “Sun Belt”, states made up of the Southeast west to the West Coast. While Northern states weren’t all losing people, the region as a whole sent far more people to the Sun Belt than they retained. This helped fuel the respective Southern boom, and media story after media story over the years have made sweeping predictions of this growing powerhouse region, often centered around the idea that the boom had no foreseeable end. The irony with these predictions is that they ignored history. For more than 2 centuries, the North was where people moved. Its states and cities saw massive influxes of population. As recently as the decade of the 1950s, Ohio grew by nearly 2 million alone. Economic conditions in decline, job losses, particularly in the manufacturing industry, increases in the cost of living and other factors ended the boom and helped to bring about the rise of the South, so to speak. Since at least the 1960s, the story has been about the Sun Belt/West.

The US Census does state migration estimates every year, and there are some interesting things going on in the data that may indicate that the boom in the South is faltering while the North’s fortunes are not looking as grim as they once did.

First, what are the regions?
South: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.
North: Connecticut, Delaware, Washington D.C., Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin.
West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Let’s next look at the states by rank of domestic migration in 2005, the earliest available year for the state data, and compared it to 2012, the most recent year available. This period covers the period just before and just after the Great Recession.

Domestic Migration Rank, 2005 vs. 2012, by Total
2005___________________________________2012
1. Florida: +188,035__________________________1. Florida: +108,823
2. Arizona: +131,501_________________________2. Texas: +105,565
3. Texas: +124,522__________________________3. Colorado: +43,530
4. Georgia: +88,250__________________________4. Washington: +37,187
5. North Carolina: +51,575_____________________5. North Carolina: +34,846
6. Tennessee: +43,901________________________6. South Carolina: +34,149
7. Oregon: +43,360___________________________7. Nevada: +25,835
8. Washington: +38,093________________________8. Arizona: +25,615
9. South Carolina: +32,312______________________9. Georgia: +25,204
10. Arkansas: +30,765_________________________10. Missouri: +20,176
11. Nevada: +26,839__________________________11. North Dakota: +14,254
12. Idaho: +20,308____________________________12. Tennessee: +13,255
13. Colorado: +16,963_________________________13. Virginia: +12,110
14. Oklahoma: +16,372_________________________14. Arkansas: +11,981
15. Alabama: +14,501__________________________15. Oregon: +10,742
16. New Mexico: +13,714_______________________16. New Hampshire: +10,711
17. Delaware: +12,561_________________________17. Delaware: +10,610
18. Virginia: +11,121___________________________18. Kentucky: +8,899
19. Kentucky: +7,451___________________________19. Mississippi: +6,569
20. Missouri: +6,338____________________________20. Oklahoma: +6,402
21. Iowa: +5,406_______________________________21. Utah: +5,717
22. Montana: +4,185____________________________22. Vermont: +4,375
23. Pennsylvania: +2,868________________________23. South Dakota: +3,578
24. Maine: +2,447______________________________24. Montana: +3,410
25. Hawaii: +2,388______________________________25. Idaho: +3,400
26. West Virginia: +998__________________________26. Wisconsin: +1,468
27. New Hampshire: +497________________________27. Iowa: +275
28. South Dakota: +360__________________________28. Ohio: -105
29. Wyoming: -366______________________________29. West Virginia: -300
30. Minnesota: -1,154____________________________30. Wyoming: -639
31. Kansas: -2,244______________________________31. Maryland: -2,821
32. North Dakota: -2,553__________________________32. Rhode Island: -2,948
33. Wisconsin: -2,756____________________________33. Louisiana: -4,741
34. Vermont: -3,580_____________________________34. Kansas: -4,850
35. Nebraska: -5,128____________________________35. Nebraska: -5,174
36. Utah: -5,639________________________________36. Hawaii: -6,364
37. Connecticut: -6,536__________________________37. Connecticut: -6,712
38. Mississippi: -7,120___________________________38. Washington D.C.: -7,470
39. Indiana: -9,222______________________________39. New Mexico: -9,228
40. Maryland: -9,718____________________________40. Alabama: -9,431
41. Washington D.C.: -12,872_____________________41. Indiana: -10,460
42. Rhode Island: -15,037________________________42. Maine: -11,025
43. New Jersey: -22,051_________________________43. Minnesota: -14,904
44. Alaska: -23,567_____________________________44. Massachusetts: -15,579
45. Ohio: -40,841______________________________45. Pennsylvania: -21,656
46. Massachusetts: -52,726______________________46. Michigan: -41,761
47. Michigan: -53,852___________________________47. Alaska: -49,250
48. Illinois: -55,932_____________________________48. Illinois: -68,356
49. Louisiana: -99,684__________________________49. California: -73,345
50. New York: -239,848_________________________50. New Jersey: -89,666
51. California: -266,243_________________________51. New York: -135,149

So in 2005, the breakdown was as follows:
12 of 14 Southern states had positive domestic migration. The only 2 that did not, Louisiana and Mississippi, were heavily influenced in 2005 by Hurricane Katrina, which caused large numbers of displaced residents to leave the states entirely.
7 of 24 Northern states has positive domestic migration. The 7 states were mixed between the Midwest and the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic. Just one Great Lakes State had positive domestic migration in 2005.
9 of 13 Western states had positive domestic migration. Only California and a few Mountain West states had negative numbers.

The 2005 numbers show the overall domestic migration picture as it had been for at least the last few decades, if not much longer. The South and West were the dominant net gainers of domestic migration, while most of the North sent people to those regions.

In 2012, the breakdown was as follows:
11 of 14 Southern states had positive domestic migration. Even with Katrina-hit state Mississippi having net gains in 2012, the overall number of states with positive gains declined.
8 of 24 Northern states had positive domestic migration, a slight improvement over 2005.
8 of 13 Western states had positive domestic migration, a slight decline over 2005.

But the breakdowns don’t tell us the whole story. When trying to compare the two years, trends are very important, and the trends are far more revealing.

Total Change 2005-2012 By Rank
1. California: +192,898
2. New York: +104,699
3. Louisiana: +94,943
4. Ohio: +40,736
5. Massachusetts: +37,147
6. Colorado: +26,567
7. North Dakota: +16,807
8. Missouri: +13,838
9. Mississippi: +13,689
10. Michigan: +12,091
11. Rhode Island: +12,089
12. Utah: +11,356
13. New Hampshire: +10,214
14. Vermont: +7,955
15. Maryland: +6,897
16.Washington, D.C.: +5,402
17. Wisconsin: +4,224
18. South Dakota: +3,218
19. South Carolina: +1,837
20. Kentucky: +1,448
21. Virginia: +989
22. Nebraska: -46
23. Connecticut: -176
24. Wyoming: -273
25. Montana: -775
26. Washington: -906
27. Nevada: -1,004
28. Indiana: -1,238
29. West Virginia: -1,298
30. Delaware: -1,951
31. Kansas: -2,606
32. Iowa: -5,131
33. Hawaii: -8,752
34. Oklahoma: -9,970
35. Illinois: -12,424
36. Maine: -13,472
37. Minnesota: -13,750
38. North Carolina: -16,729
39. Idaho: -16,908
40. Arkansas: -18,784
41. Texas: -18,957
42. New Mexico: -22,942
43. Alabama: -23,932
44. Pennsylvania: -24,524
45. Alaska: -25,683
46. Tennessee: -30,646
47. Oregon: -32,618
48. Georgia: -63,046
49. New Jersey: -67,615
50. Florida: -79,212
51. Arizona: -105,886

5 of 14 Southern states improved their domestic migration rates 2005-2012.
13 of 24 Northern states improved their domestic migration rates 2005-2012.
3 of 13 Western states improved their domestic migration rates 2005-2012.

Ohio had the 4th best improvement over the period, a huge change. But some might ask, is it really a change when the rates may still be positive or negative like they were before? Well, yes and no. 7 years is not that long, and we’re talking about decades-long patterns here. Those won’t change like flipping a switch. It will take time. The point is more that for many states that have faced negative numbers for a long time, there is positive momentum now that they did not have before. Another question some may ask, however, is if the recession during the period reduced mobility. In some cases, I’m sure that it did, but if so, that reduction seems to have been centered on the South. A reduction in mobility would only indicate that migration rates would reduce to levels around 0, neither particularly positive nor negative. That reduction would NOT necessarily support switches from positive to negative or increases in negative or positive rates that already exist. Meaning that reduced mobility would mean that positive would become less positive as fewer people moved in, and negative would become less negative as fewer people left. On a state and regional basis, there is a wide range of results that do not support that geographic mobility alone is the culprit, or even a primary factor.

In Part 2, we’ll look more closely at how regions and individual states are performing relative to each other.

The Diversification of the Columbus Metro vs. Peers

In a related post to the recent metro population comparison of Columbus to its peer 1.5-2.5 million group, I wanted to see where the metros stood as far as their current racial makeup as well as where they are trending.

First, let’s take a look at the breakdown of race by metro in 2012, the last year that data is availabe.

Online Graphing
Graphing

Columbus had the 5th highest % of its metro population as White, non-Hispanic.

Online Graphing
graph

Columbus came in at #8 for the % of its metro population being Black, non Hispanic.

Online Graphing
Graph maker

Columbus ranks 9th for its % of metro population that is Asian, non-Hispanic.

Online Graphing
Make a graph

Columbus ranked poorly in this group, coming in at 15th of 18.

Online Graphing
graph and chart

Finally, Columbus ranked 7th in the population of Other, non-Hispanic as a % of the total metro population.

So currently, what is the overall diversity ranking of the 18 metros? To find out, I used a simple formula: Each metro would be assigned points (1-18) based on the ranking position in each racial group. Here are the final rankings.

Online Graphing
Create a chart

Overall, Columbus comes in as the 8th most-diverse metro in its 18-peer group. So a bit better than average and perhaps a bit surprising to some.

But what about where this diversity is trending? To find out, I looked at 2005 and 2012 and calculated how each racial group had changed over the period.

Online Graphing
graph

Columbus did relatively well with Whites, growing at the 5th best pace.

Online Graphing
graph and chart

The Columbus metro came in the top 10, at #7, for non-Hispanic Black population growth.

Online Graphing
chart

The metro didn’t fare as well on growth in the Asian population, coming in at 10th.

Online Graphing
graph and charts

Columbus came in at #6.

Online Graphing
chart

So using the same point system from above, what are the fastest diversifying metros as of 2012?

Online Graphing
graph and chart

The Columbus metro was the 5th fastest diversifying metro in its peer group in 2012.

Overall, Columbus ranks higher than and much higher than average in both current racial diversity and the rate of racial diversity growth, respectively.