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.