Lila Valencia, Miguel Flores, & Nazrul Hoque
University of Texas at San Antonio
Applied Demography Conference
January 2012
Background

 Texas is characterized by large and rapid growth.
 One of the fastest growing states in the nation.
 Second in population only to California.
2000
Population*
United States
Texas
California
Florida
Georgia
North Carolina
Arizona
281,421,906
20,851,820
33,871,648
15,982,378
8,186,453
8,049,313
5,130,632
2010
Population*
308,745,538
25,145,561
37,253,956
18,801,310
9,687,653
9,535,483
6,392,017
Population values are decennial census counts for April 1, 2000 and April 1, 2010.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2000 and 2010 Apportionment Data.
Numerical
Change
2000-2010
27,323,632
4,293,741
3,382,308
2,818,932
1,501,200
1,486,170
1,261,385
Percent
Change
2000-2010
9.7%
20.6%
10.0%
17.6%
18.3%
18.5%
24.6%
15.7% of numerical change in U.S.
Background

 Texas has had a net surplus of migrants dating back to 1960.
 In the last decade, net migration contributed a little less than
half to the Texas total population growth.
Percent Change Due to
Year*
Population
Numerical
Change
Natural
Increase
Net
Migration
Percent
Change
--
--
--
--
Natural
Increase
Net
Migration
--
--
1950
7,711,194
1960
9,579,677
1,868,483
1,754,652
113,831
24.2
93.91
6.09
1970
11,196,730
1,617,053
1,402,683
214,370
16.9
86.74
13.26
1980
14,229,191
3,032,461
1,260,794
1,771,667
27.1
41.58
58.42
1990
16,986,510
2,757,319
1,815,670
941,649
19.9
65.85
34.15
2000
20,851,028
3,865,310
1,919,281
1,946,029
22.8
49.65
50.35
2009
24,782,302
3,930,484
2,124,124
1,781,785
18.8
54.04
45.33
*All values for the decennial dates are for the indicated census year. Values for 2011 are for July 1 as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Note: Residual values are not presented in this table.
Source: Derived from U.S. Census Bureau Estimates for dates indicated by the Texas State Data Center .
Literature Review

 Common data sources used in estimating domestic
migration include the decennial census, ACS, CPS,
SIPP, and IRS.
 Hughes et al. (2007) and officials at the North Dakota
State Data Center have used tax returns and
exemptions as a proxy for net population flows.
 The U.S. Census Bureau incorporates IRS data in
their estimates of net internal migration.
ACS – IRS Comparison

State-State Total Outflow of Migrants, Texas 2001-2008
ACS estimates vs. IRS data
550,000
500,000
450,000
400,000
Upper Bound (90% CI)
350,000
ACS estimates
Lower Bound (90% CI)
300,000
IRS data
250,000
200,000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Source: Derived by authors from ACS 1-Year Estimates and IRS State-to-State Migration Flows data.
ACS – IRS Comparison

State-State Total Inflow of Migrants, Texas 2001-2008
ACS estimates vs. IRS data
700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
Upper Bound (90% CI)
400,000
ACS estimates
Lower Bound (90% CI)
350,000
IRS data
300,000
250,000
200,000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Source: Derived by authors from ACS 1-Year Estimates and IRS State-to-State Migration Flows.
2008
Objectives

 Take two distinct approaches to explore who is
moving to Texas and how these characteristics may
impact the Texas economy
 Exploring economic impact using aggregate adjusted
gross income generated from net gains of migrants.
 Estimating demographic and socioeconomic
characteristics of domestic migrants to Texas
Data Sources

 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey,
Single-Year estimates
 U.S. Internal Revenue Service State-to-State
Migration Data based on individual income tax
returns
Methods

 ACS 1-Year Estimates characteristics of domestic migrants to
Texas
 Sex
 Age group (Under 18, 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+)
 Race/Ethnicity (NH White, NH Black, NH Asian, NH Other,
Hispanic)
 Educational attainment (<HS, HS or GED, some college, college
grad, graduate or professional degree)
 Occupation (including Management, Business, & Finance;
Computer, Engineering, & Science; Service; and Construction &
Extraction occupations)
 Industry (20 NAICS general categories, including Utilities;
Construction; Manufacturing, Wholesale and Retail Trade)
Methods

 Inflow – taxpayers who filed federal tax returns in Texas
but filed from a different state in the previous year.
 Outflow – taxpayers who filed federal tax returns in a
state other than Texas but filed from Texas the previous
year.
 Net Flow – the difference between inflow tax returns and
outflow tax returns. A positive net flow indicates more
inflow than outflow in Texas, and vice versa.
 Adjusted gross income – gross income (total non-taxexempt money, goods, property, and services) minus
adjustments to income.
 Exemptions – the characteristics of a taxpayer, such as age
or number of dependents, that allow the taxpayer to make
certain deductions from taxable income.
Statistical Methods

 Descriptive analysis evaluating similarities and
differences between IRS and ACS estimates
 Descriptive analysis of IRS State-to-State Migration
data to determine state of origin of inflows to Texas,
destination state of outflows in Texas, and the
associated aggregate adjusted gross income of these
in/outflows.
 Bivariate analysis of ACS 1-Year Estimates of
characteristics of domestic migrants to Texas,
including a Chi-square test of independence with the
cellchi2 option.
Results

Sex Composition of Texas Domestic Migrants, 2005 to
2010
53
52
51
Percent
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
2005
2006
2007
Male
Female
2008
2009
Results

Age Composition of Texas Domestic Migrants, 2005 to 2010
30
25
Percent
20
15
10
5
0
2005
Under 18
2006
18 to 24
2007
25 to 34
35 to 44
2008
45 to 54
55 to 64
2009
65 plus
Results

Educational Attainment of Texas Domestic Migrants,
2005 to 2010
35
Percent
30
25
20
15
10
2005
2006
2007
2008
No high school
High school or GED
Some college
College graduate
Graduate or professional degree
2009
Results

Employment Status of Texas Domestic Migrants, 2005
to 2010
50
45
40
Percent
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2005
2006
Not in labor force
2007
Employed
2008
Unemployed
2009
2010
Armed forces
Results

Flows of Federal Tax Returns in Texas
Flows of Exemptions in Texas
Year
Inflow
Outflow
Net Flow
Year
Inflow
Outflow
Net Flow
2004
174,524
157,728
16,796
2004
367,442
321,719
45,723
2005
228,934
160,307
68,627
2005
497,625
328,077
169,548
2006
214,272
165,976
48,296
2006
461,085
340,178
120,907
2007
221,169
168,206
52,963
2007
463,563
337,997
125,566
2008
219,308
163,782
55,526
2008
456,286
329,215
127,071
Results

Flows of Income into and out of Texas
Average AGI, Net Returns, and Net
Aggregate AGI
Aggregate AGI ($ 000)
Year
Inflow
Outflow
Net Flow
2004
8,249,134
7,160,794
1,088,340
Year
Into Texas
Out of Texas
2005
10,556,998
7,643,970
2,913,028
2004
$47,266
$45,400
2006
10,948,655
8,018,668
2,929,987
2005
$46,114
$47,683
2007
11,340,728
8,563,093
2,777,635
2006
$51,097
$48,312
2008
10,667,787
8,002,155
2,665,632
2007
$51,276
$50,908
Total
51,763,302
39,388,680
12,374,622
2008
$48,643
$48,859
Average AGI per Return
Results

Exemptions and Income Outflow from Texas:
Top Ten Destination States, 2008
Exemptions and Income Inflow into Texas:
Top Ten Origin States, 2008
Rank*
Origin State
Exemptions
Aggregate Adjusted
Gross Income ($ 000)
Rank*
Destination State
Exemptions
Aggregate Adjusted
Gross Income ($ 000)
1
CALIFORNIA
56,682
1,316,386
1
CALIFORNIA
34,010
909,746
2
FLORIDA
35,455
730,009
2
LOUISIANA
22,522
403,484
3
LOUISIANA
24,485
538,274
3
OKLAHOMA
20,711
437,429
4
OKLAHOMA
20,164
468,619
4
FLORIDA
19,223
484,651
5
GEORGIA
18,622
377,599
5
COLORADO
14,195
394,268
6
ILLINOIS
17,154
498,060
6
GEORGIA
13,492
305,186
7
ARIZONA
16,933
349,336
7
VIRGINIA
12,021
333,493
8
COLORADO
15,813
370,367
8
NEW MEXICO
11,759
227,224
9
VIRGINIA
ARIZONA
11,003
268,751
NEW YORK
411,287
412,660
9
10
14,640
14,129
10
NEW YORK
9,628
315,488
TX Total Mig - US
456,286
10,667,787
329,215
8,002,155
51.3
51.3
51.2
51.0
% Top Ten State
*Ranking by total number of exemptions.
TX Total Mig - US
% Top Ten State
Conclusions

Push Factors
 Minimal safety net
 High property taxes
 Relatively lowerperforming public
schools
 Low insurance rates
 High pollution rates
Pull Factors
 No state income tax
 Lower than average
unemployment
 Relatively affordable
housing
 Relatively affordable
higher education
Conclusions

 Increases in net AGI can produce related increases in
consumer expenditures, jobs, GDP, and state
sales/property, and income taxes.
 Future studies could evaluate economic impact of net
migration flows, particularly net AGI’s, in states with and
without state income tax.
 Compare ACS household incomes of in- versus outmigrants with IRS inflow and outflow AGIs.
 While it is clear migration is an important part of Texas’
growth, motivations for migrating to or from Texas are
less clear, but there is some evidence of an economic pull.