Rural Hispanic Population Growth:
Industrial Restructuring and the
Changing LowLow-skilled Labor Force
William Kandel, Economic Research Service, USDA
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium
Washington DC, January 77-9, 2008
Outline
Rural demographic change
Hispanic population growth and geographic dispersion
Causes of rural immigrant population growth
Example: restructuring of meat processing industry
Hispanic population emphasized
Trends apply to much recent foreign-born in-migration
In 2005, NonNon-Hispanic Whites and Blacks were the
largest racial/ethnic groups in nonmetro counties
82%
64%
16%
13%
8%
1% 2%
White
Black
Native
American
Metro
6%
5%
1%
Asian
1% 1%
Mixed Race
Nonmetro
Source: Computed by ERS with data from Census 2000 and 2005 County Estimates
Hispanic
Yet, between 20002000-2005, Hispanics grew faster
than any other racial and ethnic group
25%
20%
20%
19%
18%
17%
14%
15%
10%
8%
7%
6%
4%
5%
1% 1%
1%
0%
White
Black
Native
American
Metro
Mixed Race
Asian
Nonmetro
Source: Computed by ERS with data from Census 2000 and 2005 County Estimates
Hispanic
In 1990, the Hispanic population was concentrated
in the West, particularly the Southwest
Less than 1 percent
1-10 percent
10 percent or higher
work193g
Source: 1990 Census data, STF1 file
By 2000, Hispanics were settling in the
nonmetro Midwest and Southeast
Less than 1 percent
1-10 percent
10 percent or higher
work193f
Source: 2000 Census data, SF1 file
A Trend that continued through 2006 …
Less than 1 percent
1-10 percent
10 percent or higher
Source: 2006 Census county estimates
Hispanic Population Change,
Emergent Nonmetro Migrant Destinations, 1990
1990--2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
North Carolina
Delaware
Alabama
South Carolina
Georgia
Tennessee
Arkansas
Virginia
Mississippi
Minnesota
Iowa
Indiana
Kentucky
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Missouri
Pennsylvania
Nonmetro
Population
1990
2000
2,252,775
2,612,257
113,229
156,638
1,330,857
1,453,233
1,064,088
1,205,050
2,126,654
2,519,789
1,579,336
1,842,679
1,310,724
1,434,529
1,407,096
1,550,447
1,797,542
1,932,670
1,364,205
1,456,119
1,576,857
1,600,191
1,581,713
1,690,582
1,905,535
2,068,667
791,050
811,425
1,560,597
1,723,367
1,626,202
1,800,410
1,798,645
1,889,525
Chg
16%
38%
9%
13%
18%
17%
9%
10%
8%
7%
1%
7%
9%
3%
10%
11%
5%
Nonmetro
Hispanic Population
1990
2000
Chg
16,714
98,846 491%
1,221
6,915 466%
5,198
26,155 403%
5,830
27,853 378%
26,270 124,296 373%
7,119
32,737 360%
9,559
36,504 282%
8,136
28,258 247%
7,774
24,321 213%
11,283
34,860 209%
11,807
35,611 202%
12,260
36,921 201%
8,479
24,465 189%
16,641
44,564 168%
11,098
28,893 160%
10,822
27,807 157%
11,004
27,403 149%
Source: Current Population Survey, 1989-91 used for 1990, 1999-01 used for 2000.
Hispanic
Share
1990
2000
1%
4%
1%
4%
0%
2%
1%
2%
1%
5%
0%
2%
1%
3%
1%
2%
0%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
0%
1%
2%
5%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
Hispanic Population Change,
Emergent Nonmetro Migrant Destinations, 2000
2000--2005
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
South Dakota
New Hampshire
South Carolina
Virginia
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Tennessee
Alabama
North Carolina
Massachusetts
Georgia
Kentucky
Maryland
North Dakota
Arkansas
Missouri
Iowa
Nonmetro
Population
2000
2005
493,867
488,885
465,353
494,558
1,205,050
1,238,297
1,550,447
1,594,342
1,889,525
1,916,124
156,638
176,548
1,842,679
1,912,579
1,453,233
1,456,960
2,612,257
2,732,190
96,042
98,094
2,519,789
2,669,745
2,068,667
2,126,014
385,446
410,229
358,234
340,372
1,434,529
1,443,279
1,800,410
1,848,712
1,600,191
1,583,752
Source: Census 2000 and Census County Estimates 2005
Chg
-1%
6%
3%
3%
1%
13%
4%
0%
5%
2%
6%
3%
6%
-5%
1%
3%
-1%
Nonmetro
Hispanic Population
2000
2005
Chg
4,807
7,646 59%
3,419
5,413 58%
26,538
40,766 54%
27,094
41,610 54%
26,743
41,026 53%
6,736
10,309 53%
31,730
48,104 52%
24,751
37,197 50%
94,801 137,877 45%
1,634
2,365 45%
122,834 176,451 44%
22,835
32,775 44%
6,790
9,696 43%
4,035
5,753 43%
35,571
50,164 41%
26,553
37,245 40%
34,813
48,758 40%
Hispanic
Share
2000
2005
1.0%
1.6%
0.7%
1.1%
2.2%
3.3%
1.7%
2.6%
1.4%
2.1%
4.3%
5.8%
1.7%
2.5%
1.7%
2.6%
3.6%
5.0%
1.7%
2.4%
4.9%
6.6%
1.1%
1.5%
1.8%
2.4%
1.1%
1.7%
2.5%
3.5%
1.5%
2.0%
2.2%
3.1%
What are the forces attracting Hispanics
to new rural destinations?
Some explanations:
• IRCA (1986
(1986--89)
• Economic and political climate of
California, 19851985-95
• Increased U.S.
U.S.--Mexico border enforcement
• Quality of life preferences for rural areas
• Private sector recruitment
Rural Employment by Industry: Hispanic vs All Workers
Northeast
1990
2000
Midwest
1990
2000
Southeast
1990
2000
Northwest
1990
2000
Southwest
1990
2000
HISPANIC
Agriculture
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Skilled services
Unskilled services
Government
4%
0%
5%
19%
4%
3%
17%
19%
24%
6%
4%
0%
4%
17%
6%
4%
12%
22%
27%
5%
6%
1%
5%
34%
5%
3%
17%
10%
17%
3%
5%
0%
6%
43%
4%
3%
8%
11%
18%
2%
19%
1%
6%
23%
4%
3%
15%
10%
15%
4%
14%
0%
11%
33%
3%
4%
7%
10%
15%
2%
23%
3%
5%
16%
5%
4%
15%
9%
17%
4%
18%
1%
6%
15%
4%
5%
9%
13%
25%
3%
12%
4%
8%
12%
6%
3%
19%
13%
17%
6%
8%
3%
9%
11%
6%
3%
12%
17%
25%
6%
ALL NONMETRO
Agriculture
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Skilled services
Unskilled services
Government
4%
1%
7%
21%
6%
3%
17%
19%
18%
5%
3%
0%
7%
17%
7%
3%
12%
23%
23%
5%
9%
1%
6%
22%
6%
4%
17%
16%
17%
4%
5%
0%
7%
21%
7%
3%
12%
19%
22%
4%
5%
2%
7%
26%
6%
3%
16%
15%
16%
4%
4%
1%
8%
21%
7%
3%
12%
19%
21%
5%
9%
2%
7%
13%
7%
3%
18%
18%
18%
6%
6%
2%
8%
9%
7%
3%
12%
23%
24%
6%
8%
4%
8%
11%
7%
3%
18%
18%
18%
6%
6%
2%
9%
9%
7%
3%
12%
22%
24%
7%
DISSIMILARITY
.070
.060
.140
.220
.210
.320
.260
.275
.085
.075
Source: 1990 and 2000 Census data, SF4 files
A Case Study of Rural Labor Demand:
The Meat Processing Industry
Meat Processing Industry Restructuring
•
•
•
•
•
Changing food consumption patterns
Industry concentration
Vertical integration
Functional consolidation within large plants
Location of plants in rural areas
Result: Growing demand for lowlow-skilled
workers in nonnon-traditional rural areas
outside of the Southwest
Total U.S. Meat Consumption
Consumption,, 19711971-2005
70
Billions of pounds in retail sales
60
50
40
Red meat
Pork
30
Chicken
Turkey
Total
20
10
0
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
Source: Economic Research Service, USDA
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
Meat Processing Exports, 19701970-2000
6,000
millions of pounds
5,000
4,000
Be ef
Pork
C hicke n
3,000
2,000
1,000
1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ERS
Boxed and CutCut-up Shipments
as a Share of Total Shipments, 19631963-97
100%
90%
80%
70%
Beef
Pork
C h ick e n
Tu rk e y
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1963
1972
1982
Source: MacDonald et al, 2000; Ollinger et al, 2000
1992
1997
Shipment Value, Meat Processing Plants
with 400+ Employees, 19631963-97
100%
90%
80%
70%
Beef
Pork
Chicken
Turkey
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1963
1967
Source: MacDonald et al 2000
1972
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
Shipment Value Produced by the
Four Largest Meat Processing Firms, 19631963-97
90%
80%
70%
60%
Be e f
Pork
C h ick e n
Tu rk e y
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1963
1967
1972
Source: MacDonald et al 2000
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
Nonmetro County Meat Processing Employment,
1981-- 2000
1981
Northeast
Midwest
South
Northwest
Southwest
TOTAL
Total number of
meat processing
employees
1981
31,882
117,417
115,856
9,262
44,194
319,336
Source: Enhanced County Business Patterns Data, 1981 and 2000.
Percent in
nonmetro counties
1981
14%
45%
66%
30%
27%
46%
Nonmetro County Meat Processing Employment,
1981-- 2000
1981
Northeast
Midwest
South
Northwest
Southwest
TOTAL
Total number of
meat processing
employees
1981
2000
31,882
26,745
117,417
162,370
115,856
225,026
9,262
12,207
44,194
63,785
319,336
490,621
Source: Enhanced County Business Patterns Data, 1981 and 2000.
Percent in
nonmetro counties
1981
14%
45%
66%
30%
27%
46%
2000
13%
58%
76%
51%
35%
60%
Rapid Hispanic Growth Counties in the Nonmetro South
Hispanics
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990, 2000.
Top Poultry Producing Counties (nonmetro & metro)
Poultry
Source: Census of Agriculture, 1987, 1992, 1997, National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Overlap (yellow) of Hispanic Growth and Poultry Counties
Both
Payroll Expense per Employee
Meat Processing, 19941994-2005
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Current dollars
Source: County Business Patterns data, 1994-2005
2000
2001
2002
Real dollars ($1994)
2003
2004
2005
Wages in Selected Industries/Occupations
Relative to Meat Processing Wages, 19721972-2002
200%
180%
160%
Du rable s
C on stru cti on
Tran sportati on
C om m u n i cation s
W h ol sal e Trade
Re tai l Trade
FIRE
Au to Re pai r
Hote l s
Park i n g C ars
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1972
1975
1978
1981
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
Injuries and Illnesses,
Selected Industrial Sectors, 19891989-2001
50
45
per 100 full-time employees
40
Me at pack i n g
Pou l try proce ss in g
S au sage s, pre pare d m e ats
Du rabl e goods
C on stru ction
Non du rabl e goods
Fore stry & fi sh in g
Tran sport & Uti l iti e s
Min i n g
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Labor: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv
Union Membership and Coverage,
Meat Processing Workers, 19901990-2005
30%
25%
20%
1990
1995
2000
2005
15%
10%
5%
0%
Belong to
union
Covered by
union contract
All workers
Belong to
union
Covered by
union contract
Hispanic workers
Source: Current Population Survey Earnings File, 1989-2005, 3 year averages
Reported Turnover Rates
60%
(Kay 1997, all red meat)
72-96%
(Stull and Broadway 1995)
100%
(Kay 1997; Horowitz and Miller 1997)
80-120%
(Grey 1999)
144%
(Gouveia and Stull 1995)
200-400% (NIOSH, 1988, selected plant)
Racial and Ethnic Composition,
U.S. Meat Processing Industry
All Industries
1990
2000
2006
All Areas
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Other
Hispanic
All Metro Areas
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Other
Hispanic
All Nonmetro Areas
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Other
Hispanic
Meat Processing
1990
2000
2006
79.6
9.2
3.5
72.8
10.1
6.0
70.0
11.7
5.2
66.2
17.1
3.3
48.4
18.5
4.5
40.6
20.4
3.0
7.7
11.1
13.1
13.5
28.6
36.0
75.1
10.5
4.3
67.8
11.6
7.1
67.2
12.4
5.7
59.9
13.5
4.7
42.0
17.1
6.9
41.3
19.7
4.8
10.1
13.6
14.6
21.9
34.1
34.3
88.2
6.6
2.0
85.0
6.6
3.5
84.3
7.7
2.4
68.8
18.6
2.7
51.9
19.2
3.3
40.6
20.4
3.0
3.2
4.9
5.6
9.9
25.7
36.0
Source: 1990, & 2000 IPUMS data, 5% sample, 2006 CPS Earnings File (full)
Implications for Wages and
Immigrants’ Economic Progress
How have these trends altered the
socioeconomic composition of the meat
processing labor force?
How do these changes correlate with ethnicethnicspecific wages?
SES Characteristics of the
Meat Processing Labor Force
Percent
foreignborn
1990
2000
2005
Non-Hisp White
2.5
3.1
3.2
Non-Hisp Black
0.9
1.8
4.5
Other
60.2
62
68.8
Hispanic
70.5
81.9
80.7
Source: 1990, & 2000 IPUMS data, 5% sample, 2005 ACS PUMS, 5% sample
SES Characteristics of the
Meat Processing Labor Force
Percent
foreignborn
Percent with
less than
high school
1990
2000
2005
1990
2000
2005
Non-Hisp White
2.5
3.1
3.2
16.4
11.8
18.9
Non-Hisp Black
0.9
1.8
4.5
21.4
14.3
27.1
Other
60.2
62
68.8
35.3
31.6
42.5
Hispanic
70.5
81.9
80.7
60.7
62.5
68.0
Source: 1990, & 2000 IPUMS data, 5% sample, 2005 ACS PUMS, 5% sample
SES Characteristics of the
Meat Processing Labor Force
Percent
foreignborn
Percent with
less than
high school
Average
annual wage
income ($2000)
1990
2000
2005
1990
2000
2005
Non-Hisp White
2.5
3.1
3.2
16.4
11.8
18.9
$27,439 $30,519 $26,145
Non-Hisp Black
0.9
1.8
4.5
21.4
14.3
27.1
$18,591 $20,561 $14,411
Other
60.2
62
68.8
35.3
31.6
42.5
$21,996 $24,103 $17,992
Hispanic
70.5
81.9
80.7
60.7
62.5
68.0
$21,049 $20,825 $15,620
Source: 1990, & 2000 IPUMS data, 5% sample, 2005 ACS PUMS, 5% sample
1990
2000
2005
Discussion
Rural Hispanic population growth:
Industrial restructuring in meat processing:
• Inverse relationship between (stock) and (growth & dispersion)
• Closely linked to changing labor demand in low skilled industries (e.g.
meat processing)
• Implies a changing socioeconomic profile of nonmetro labor force
• Industry represents pointpoint-ofof-entry for rural immigrants
Both trends illustrate an industry and rural communities that
are increasingly reliant upon foreignforeign-born labor
Changes in immigration policy could substantially alter the
meat processing industry and many rural communities