Census: Wayne County tops in U.S. population drop

[LMich]

This isn't really a surprised considering the state number released for 2008, last year, which is base they use for calculating the 2008 county and municipal numbers. A quick look through the major metros in the state showed only Grand Rapids' MSA 'growing', gaining slightly less than 2,000.

What I was surprised to see for metro Detroit is that Macomb County (and not also Livingston) is the only one posting a gain, and also that the Census Bureau has finally taken away the metro's growth from earlier in the decade so that the new metro number shows a net loss since 2000; the first time they've showed that this decade.

State loses more people to migration

The Detroit News, March 19, 2009

More than two-thirds of all counties in Michigan lost population last year, according to estimates released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

As has been the case for the three years the state has lost population, the culprit has been the continued movement of people out of the state -- many seeking work or retiring.

Wayne County, the state's largest county, had the biggest net loss -- an estimated 31,725 people.

Advertisement

But the counties to lose the next highest number of people were not the next largest ones. They were Genesee, Jackson, Saginaw and St. Clair, which lost between 1,000 and 5,000 people.

Most counties had more births than deaths. The increase in migration has caused the state to shrink, demographers said. Wayne County lost more than 45,000 people to migration, up from 41,633 the year before.

Even Livingston County, which was one of the last in the area to experience loss from migration, saw its migrants triple last year, from 401 in 2007 to 1,253.

A silver lining may reside in the downturn in the economy: Demographers say it has made it more difficult for Michigan residents to leave.

They've also registered what I think is an abnormally large loss from Flint's metro (Genesee County) since 2000, estimating that almost all of the loss occured between 2007-2008, which seems highly suspect, to me.

Census database: 2008 metropolitan population estimates

The Detroit Free Press, March 19, 2009

The Detroit Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) lost the largest number of residents in the nation between 2007 and 2008, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates. The Flint MSA in Michigan ranked third in terms of greatest number of residents lost. The Detroit MSA cited by the census includes Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Lapeer, St. Clair and Livingston counties, while the Flint MSA includes Genesee county.

Search the database below to find 2008 metropolitan population estimates for Michigan and the U.S.

Population & percent change (2007-2008):

Detroit: 4,457,523 - 4,425,110 (-0.7%)

Grand Rapids: 774,931 - 776,833 (+0.2)

Lansing: 455,071 - 454,035 (-0.2%)

Flint: 434,027 - 428,790 (-1.2%)

Ann Arbor: 347,969 - 347,376 (-0.2%)

Kalamazoo: 322,340 - 323,713 (+0.4%)

Holland: 258,461 - 260,364 (+0.7%)

Saginaw: 202,272 - 200,745 (-0.8%)

Population & percent change (2000-2008):

Detroit: 4,441,551 - 4,425,110 (-0.6%)

Grand Rapids: 740,482 - 776,833 (+4.9)

Lansing: 447,728 - 454,035 (+1.4%)

Flint: 436,141 - 428,790 (-1.7%)

Ann Arbor: 322,895 - 347,376 (+7.6%)

Kalamazoo: 314,866 - 323,713 (+2.8%)

Holland: 238,314 - 260,364 (+9.3%)

Saginaw: 210,039 - 200,745 (-4.4%)

[hudkina]

I can't wait until the actual count to see how accurate these estimates really are...

[LMich]

BTW, I calculated the tri-county area population for 2008 from the Census and SEMCOG:

Census (July 2008): 3,982,766
SEMCOG (Feb. 2009): 4,005,435

They are pretty close, but SEMCOG is not registering quite the decline that the Census is, and SEMCOG's numbers go through the current recession, to boot. There numbers seem to be very close on Macomb and Oakland (and Livingston), but the Census seems to believe that Wayne dropped off a cliff sometime between 2007 and 2008. lol The Census also seems to believe that Washtenaw didn't grow as quickly as SEMCOG is predicting it to.

My take is that I think they (the Census) may end up bring pretty close to right on most of the suburban counties, but I think they've significantly overstated the loss within Wayne County. Any organization showing Dearborn and Hamtramck (like the Census is estimating) losing population is an organization I take with a grain of salt.

[subterranean]

I would assume that the only growth in Midland and Bay counties is from the exodus of Saginaw. And although Kent had a net gain, Holland most likely made its gain from the sprawl that is Grand Rapids. As you can see, the sprawl continues in northern metro Lansing as well.

What I find to be most striking is that Kalamazoo gained. Is this the Kzoo Promise paying off?

[the urban politician]

West Michigan is growing. Is that a Chicago thing? A Lake Michigan thing?

[the urban politician]

I HATE what is happening to Michigan, btw. My parents live there. Basically, the home that they spent years paying off will probably be worth less than when they bought it.

Michigan is a beautiful state, and it has a lot of potential. I mean, just look at a satellite map of the place! A pair of peninsulas surrounded by the world's largest collection of freshwater lakes. It's such a unique geography! I just don't get how drab, landlocked places like Georgia and Arizona are fast outgrowing it. What's the appeal?

I will be moving close to Michigan this summer, and even though I won't be a resident I will at least always remain nearby.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by subterranean

What I find to be most striking is that Kalamazoo gained. Is this the Kzoo Promise paying off?

That's what I chalked it up to, because even Big Pharma has been taking a hit these past few years in K'zoo and Michigan as a whole.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

West Michigan is growing. Is that a Chicago thing? A Lake Michigan thing?

No, it's a diversified (diversifying) economy thing?

[NIXPHX77]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

It's such a unique geography! I just don't get how drab, landlocked places like Georgia and Arizona are fast outgrowing it. What's the appeal?

you can't be serious. you'll have to ask the hundreds of thousands of ex-Michiganders here in AZ that question (and the other thousands who are planning/trying to move here from there.)
AZ is anything but drab. it probably has the most diverse landscape outside of Calif. there's a lot more here than desert (which has its own unique beauty), and the Pacific ocean is maybe 100 miles from our border.
also, GA is not landlocked!

[Evergrey]

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by NIXPHX77

you can't be serious. you'll have to ask the hundreds of thousands of ex-Michiganders here in AZ that question (and the other thousands who are planning/trying to move here from there.)
AZ is anything but drab. it probably has the most diverse landscape outside of Calif. there's a lot more here than desert (which has its own unique beauty), and the Pacific ocean is maybe 100 miles from our border.
also, GA is not landlocked!

^ I know, and I'm not here to knock on Arizona. I'm sure there are great qualities to both Arizona and Georgia. But when it comes to water access, none of them come even close. Add to that the fact that much of Georgia's growth is occurring in metro Atlanta, far from the Atlantic seaboard.

The uniqueness of Michigan's geography, ie being a pair of peninsulas immersed in massive freshwater lakes, is really quite extraordinary. It is said that nowhere in Michigan will you be more than 85 miles from one of the Great Lakes.

[the urban politician]

Sorry. Double post

[NIXPHX77]

i once read many years ago that AZ had one of the highest rates of boat ownership per capita. there are a lot of large (not Great!) lakes here in beautiful canyon settings. fishing and waterskiing are very popular here, too. just FYI.
(not knocking Mich. at all.)

[LMich]

I was kind of surprised to find this. Fast-growing Metro Holland (it's almost silly to call it a metro) is now experiencing quite the economic problem, itself. Apparently, it's unemployment rate is now only second to Muskegon (which has perpetually elevated levels of it) in West Michigan.

In a perfect world, this would mean that they wouldn't gloat about their 'growth' (sprawl), but that's not going to happen. I already see that they are talking about how this is all our 'socialist' governor's fault. **bangs head on desk**

Holland city unemployment varies by county

By JEREMY GONSIOR
The Holland Sentinel
Posted Mar 20, 2009 @ 09:08 PM

Holland, MI — Unemployment in the city of Holland — depending on the area — is higher than the percentage for Ottawa and Allegan counties as a whole.

U.S. Census statistics show the city’s overall unemployment rate in January was 14.6 percent, with 2,611 residents unemployed in a workforce of 17,853 people.

The Allegan County portion of the city has a 5 percent unemployment rate, with 155 people needing work.

However, the Ottawa County portion has a 16.6 percent unemployment rate, with 2,456 people out of work.

Officials at the Michigan Works Service Center in Holland said layoffs last month brought many people into their office.

“It’s still very busy in our service center,” said Bill Raymond, director of Michigan Works in Ottawa County.

The current unemployment rate is comparable to what Holland experienced in the early 1980s, Mayor Al McGeehan said. It’s a stark contrast, however, to city life in the late 1990s.

“It’s been a roller coaster over the last 25 years,” he said. “Anyone that would have driven into town (in the 90s) could have found a job before sundown. The change we are experiencing has been dramatic and it’s been rapid. I am not surprised but deeply saddened by the current state of our state economy.”

The only city in West Michigan with a higher unemployment rate is Muskegon with 17.4 percent.

Other nearby cities have slightly less. Grand Rapids came in at 13.5 percent and Kalamazoo had a 11.6 percent unemployment rate.

McGeehan said the struggles of auto suppliers and office furniture manufacturers are the main cause of Holland’s employment woes.

“Both of those industries have taken substantial hits,” he said.

Displaced workers should follow the lead of many local entrepreneurs who started businesses above Eighth Street or in Lakeshore Advantage’s business incubator, he said.

“This is a time for people to take control of their own lives and future,” McGeehan said. “We need to remember that hope is not a strategy for success.”

Unemployment rates in other Michigan cities

• Flint: 24 percent
• Detroit: 22.2 percent
• Saginaw: 20.7 percent
• Muskegon: 17.4 percent
• Lansing: 15 percent
• Grand Rapids: 13.5 percent
• Kalamazoo: 11.6 percent
• Ann Arbor: 7.8 percent

BTW, I'm again impressed with Kzoo. It's becoming quite the stable little city, at least by Michigan standards.

Lastly, anyone interested in more Michigan population trends can check out all of the great charts, tables, and graphs compiled by the Michigan Department of History, Arts, and Libraries, which, ironically enough, is on the governor's chopping block along with every other "non-essential" service and department. Here's one concering total net migration:

Total Net Migration: Michigan 1960-2008


Fallacies that Misinform Our Thinking About Michigan’s Population and Economy

Go take a look.

[vid]

The Keewenaw is growing.

[DecoJim]

Originally Posted by LMich

Lastly, anyone interested in more Michigan population trends can check out all of the great charts, tables, and graphs compiled by the Michigan Department of History, Arts, and Libraries, which, ironically enough, is on the governor's chopping block along with every other "non-essential" service and department. Here's one concering total net migration:

...

Fallacies that Misinform Our Thinking About Michigan’s Population and Economy

Go take a look.

LMich, thanks for the links, quite interesting. It looks like in the past two recessions, the Michigan unemployment trend was "ahead" of the nation as a whole and began its recovery sooner. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that the Big 3 were all still in business and were able to quickly hire workers and ramp up production to replace an aging auto fleet while some other states lost some businesses and new businesses had to start from nothing to replace them.

[LMich]

BTW, I was looking at the components of change for the Detroit MSA that go all the way up to 2007, and while it seems that out migration has sped up, the metro's immigration rate is actually pretty stable and has actually picked up a bit from mid-decade. The same goes for the state as a whole. I bet you everything has slowed down, since then, but I'm glad to see that if we ever get the out-migration back under control that it wouldn't take much to get back to healthy growth, again.

[DecoJim]

I wonder if all those artists buying cheap houses in the city of Detroit will show up as a component of change?
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=166365

[hudkina]

"healthy growth"? You can argue Detroit hasn't had "healthy" growth since the 1920's... It's good for now that Detroit hasn't seen the explosive growth that the sun belt (soon to be dust belt) cities have had this decade. Hopefully if the metro area does ever see a time of steady growth in the future, it will be a more sustainable growth. We need less sprawling exurban messes, and more transit-oriented development!

[LMich]

By healthy growth, I meant simply something at least approaching the national average, for once. lol I don't know what 'healthy' means to everyone else, these days, but 20% and 30% growth wasn't what I was getting at.

[hudkina]

I know, but I think the era of uncontrolled fringe development might be coming to an end, and its good that Detroit wasn't as big of player in that type of development. Hopefully if Metro Detroit starts seeing modest population gain, it will be in places like Detroit, Royal Oak, St. Clair Shores and not in places like Ray TWP, Groveland TWP, or Sumpter TWP.