January 12, 2015: Recent Population Trends
January 12, 2015
(PowerPoint file has some trend data on the economy, only partly reflected in these notes)
Recent Population Trends
In the last several decades the Northwest has experienced major swings in population growth rates, impacted by:
(1) Baby Boom
(2) Business Cycles
(3) Specific projects beginning/termination
Leading to variations in growth rates at the local level:
some places experiencing continuous growth
others varying dramatically - boom &bust conditions
------
Trends in the Atlas – 1990-2000.
LR Trend: Net Inmigration: components of population change:
Natural increase = births - deaths
Net Increase = migration + natural increase
But, periods with very different histories...
Long run trend towards lower levels of fertility
lower levels of population growth,
from indigenous populations, yet
the continued strength of migration.
------
1960 -70 as the typical period after the great depression:
rural stagnation
Population growth dominated by the largest urban places
Central Puget Sound region accounted for 80% of statewide population growth in this time period, compared to having about 55% of the state’s population.
Why? 1. tech change in resource oriented industry
multiplier effects from this
2. resource depletion (Holden-mining; West. Wn.Forest products)
3. Interregional competition: declines in agriculture in w. wn
`4., lack of new industry in econ base? tourism?
probably not the latter;;;
New bases for urban focussed settlement:
1. footloose industry
`
2. export services
3. transport system improvements redistributing consumer shopping; Northgate
4. multiplier effects of 1=3
5. government - UW/WSU/other higher ed; federal centers/. state capitals
---
pockets of rural growth: BlaineCounty; Deschutes San Juan
coast like G.H.
Internal redistribution: Seattle;, Tacoma, POrtland.
------
1970's: Decentralization A real turnaround from the 1960’s.
slowing of growth in the Central Puget Sound Region/Silicon Forest (Oregon)
few counties with losses
strong role of amenities; WPPSS
What is going on here? Why this change?
1. Demise of Boeing in Seattle in 1969/72
2. Impact of housing downturn on wood products in the wake of high interest rates at the end of the Vietnam War.
3. Amenity led growth spreads
4. The growth of the silicon forest in Oregon
5. Mormon culture region - high birth rates
6. WPPSS nuclear plant program
7. state governments
8. completion of the interstates: easier access
9. Other factors?
------
1980's: pop change 1980-90
resumption of metro dominated growth
slow population growth in smaller counties, and a broad band of losses in eastern Oregon, Washington, and central/s. Idaho.
absolute population change dominated by Portland and Seattle metro area growth, plus smaller amounts in Boise, Spokane, and Whatcom county.
This urban-fueled growth is led by the recovery at Boeing, which added 50,000 jobs in the late 1980’s, and the strong growth of other high-tech mfg and information-oriented service industries in the central Puget Sound region. A slower period of growth transpired for the increasingly high-tech dominated Vancouver-Portland-Eugene Axis, while Spokane and Boise were relatively sleepy until the late 1980’s.
continued strong growth in amenity counties, but losses again over the HighDesert in Eastern Oregon, many RockyMountain counties of Idaho, and in some dryland counties on the Snake River plain.
The 1990’s
In the 1990's, we see a very different pattern of development as depicted in the Atlas on page 26 See also Map from U.S. Census website: popchg.ppt
Oregon: slow growth initially in the Portland area, but now a picking up of investment in high technology industries in the SiliconForest, and amenity-based growth in a broad set of regions elsewhere. Oregon has again become a “darling” in the computer chip and related industries, with billions in new investment in the mid-1990’s.
Idaho: one of the fastest growth states in the U.S., especially fueled by high-technology industry in Boise, N. Idaho, and amenity based development elsewhere.
Washington: No counties with decline during the recession of the early 1990s, and a pattern of development that favored in % terms the rural parts of the state. In the early 1990’s we experienced low growth rates of jobs in KingCounty - reflecting Boeing layoffs, but continued expansion other sectors located primarily in suburban areas. Services, such as software, the new Navy homeport in Everett, redeployment of military from California to Ft.Lewis and other bases, and continued growth in services essentially offset big employment declines at Boeing in the 1990-1995 time period. However, through the mid 1990's there was a rapid turnaround at Boeing, with the company adding almost 10,000 jobs in the Puget Sound region in 1996, and bouyant expansion in other sectors. Employment at Boeing peaked in 1998, and then slid downwards until 2004, but at the same time other key industries in the central Puget Sound region are experiencing growth, more than offsetting the impacts of declines at Boeing.
In the 1990’s we can see rapid growth in a tier of counties beyond the central Puget Sound region-- amenity based and state govt. led in the lower sound. Portland impacts on Clark county, but also Skamania!! which has been for ages been in a stressed state.
Slow growth again in the Palouse, but stronger growth in some interior counties, such as Kittitas, Chelan, Douglas,
Ferry-Stevens-Pend Orielle: these are not all amenity counties in the sense of Chelan: look at Grant. What is fueling this rapid growth? High tech, agriculture, even related services. A certain amount of this is spillover
from metro cores--such as Franklin in relation to Benton, or Pend Orielle related to Spokane.
Taken collectively, this is not the pattern of the 1970’s, but a much more balanced pattern of development than seen in WashingtonState in recent history. It remains to be seen as to exactly why---but work by Don Dillman at WSU on recent migrants to rural counties suggests many are very well educated, and engaged in computer-savvy occupations. We need to wait a bit to see what is exactly at work here.
Later in the term I intend to spend a day on current rural development trends.
However, several forces seem to be at work in rural revitalization in the 1990’s:
1. strong markets for traditional natural-resource based commodities, esp. agriculture
2. adaptation of producers of traditional products to new markets - “value added” food products, forestry, such as log homes, furniture, and dried fruits.
3. continued inmigration of retirees and the Rich
for example: Paul Allen’s ranch in Driggs
4. footloose “technoyuppies.”
5. people working who can live anywhere: airline pilots, sports figures, movie stars, writers, artists, etc.
6. goverment offices
7. Induced by all of this, the network of services that support this kind of development trend. Such as:
commuter airlines; courier services, internet providers.
Manifestations - the new built environment in many Western communities.
2000-2010 Trends
Inthe 2000 to 2010 time period, all three Northwest states grow more rapidly than the U.S. (9.7%), while California growth (10.0%) slows to the national average.
Idaho’s growth (21.2%) significantly outpaces Oregon and Washington; Washington grows more rapidly (14.1%) than Oregon (12%).
Many more counties with losses in population than in the 1990’s, with the pattern quite similar to that found in the 1980’s. Losses over much of Eastern Oregon, and scattered losses in Idaho, and two small wheat counties in Washington (Garfield and Columbia).
Slower growth in some of the rural counties that have had persistently high growth rates for decades, such as BlaineID, San JuanWA, LincolnOR. However, still some rural counties with very rapid growth – Teton ID. Deschutes OR shows rapid growth; now an Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Suburban growth evident in counties such as ClarkWA, Franklin WA, Kootenai ID, Canyon ID.
Post 2010 Trends
Data not available for metro areas; many non-metro appear to
move from gains to losses. For the U.S. as a whole there has been a loss of rural population in the last few years (see diagram in PowerPoint file). Rural populations have moved to losses in counties adjacent to metro areas, as well as those that are non-adjacent without a town. Rural nonadjacent counties with a town have continued to have population growth in the 2010-2013 time period, but at a much slower rate than between 2004 and 2007 (see PowerPoint file). Data for the Northwest may have different trends.
1