Pennsylvania: Current Outlook and Disruptive Demographic Trends September 2019 Allan M. Parnell Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Cedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Pennsylvania: Current Outlook and
Disruptive Demographic Trends
September 2019
Allan M. ParnellFrank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise
University of North Carolina at Chapel HillCedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities
OVERVIEW
• Demographic Trends
• Challenges & Opportunities
• Inclusive & Equitable Development as a Key to
Maintaining & Enhancing America’s
Competitiveness
• Discussion
DISRUPTIVE TRENDS
• The South Rises – Regional Patterns of Growth– Demographic Trends in Southwest Pennsylvania
• The Browning of America
• The Silver Tsunami is Hitting
• The End of Men?
SOUTH’S SHARE OF U.S. NET POPULATION
GROWTH, 1910-2017
55%
49%
50%
30%
33%
27%
2010-2017
1990-2010
1970-1990
1950-1970
1930-1950
1910-1930
Years South's Share U.S. AbsolutePopulation Change
30,974,129
28,123,138
51,886,128
45,497,947
60,035,665
16,668,362
NET REGIONAL MIGRATION FLOWS, 2010-2015
Source: CPS, General Mobility, 2010-2015*Population 5 years and older
SHARES OF NET POPULATION GROWTH
BY REGION, 2010-2017
Region
Absolute
Population
Change Percent of Total
UNITED
STATES16,668,362 100.0
NORTHEAST 1,053,270 6.3
MIDWEST 1,206,464 7.2
SOUTH 9,102,880 54.6
WEST 5,154,439 30.9
NET MIGRATION TRENDS BY REGION & MAJOR
DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP, 2010-2015
Demographic Dynamics in
Southwest Pennsylvania
Balance of Population Change
Equation
• Population Change = In-Flows – Out-Flows
whereIn-flows = [Births + In-Migrants]
& Out-Flows =[Deaths + Out-Migrants]
Demographic Components of
Change
2010-2018Area Total
Population Change
Natural Change
Net Migration
Pennsylvania 104,187 89,641 22,862
Southwest
Region -43,086 -32,862 -8,271
Allegheny -4,871 -4,936 946
Armstrong -3,681 -1,557 -2,084
Beaver -5,807 -3,540 -2,097
Butler 4,032 -734 4,933
Fayette -6,154 -3,576 -2,461
Demographic Components of
Change
2010-2018Area Total
Population Change
Natural Change
Net Migration
Greene -2,183 -360 -1,818
Indiana -4,388 -556 -3,825
Lawrence -4,956 -2,123 -2,797
Washington -495 -4,268 3,990
Westmoreland -14,583 -11,212 -3,058
Net Migration
2010-2018
Area Total Net Migration
International Net Migration
Domestic Net Migration
Pennsylvania 22,862 259,739 -236,877
Southwest
Region -8,271 30,197 -38,468
Allegheny 946 26,393 -25,447
Armstrong -2,084 27 -2,111
Beaver -2,097 134 -2,231
Butler 4,933 694 4,239
Fayette -2,461 500 -2,961
Net Migration
2010-2018
Area Total Net Migration
International Net Migration
Domestic Net Migration
Greene -1,818 8 -1,826
Indiana -3,825 674 -4,499
Lawrence -2,797 229 -3,026
Washington 3,990 853 3,137
Westmoreland -3,058 685 -3,743
The “Browning” of
America
Immigration-driven population change
U.S. Immigrant Population,
1900-2017
10.313.5 13.9 14.2
11.610.3 9.7 9.6
14.1
19.8
31.1
35.2
43.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2017
Nu
mb
er
of
Imm
igra
nts
(in
mill
ion
s)
Year
U.S. POPULATION CHANGE BY
RACE & ETHNICITY, 2000-2010
Race 2010 Population
Absolute Change
2000 – 2010
Percentage
Change
2000 - 2010
Total 308,745,538 27,323,632 9.7%
Non-Hispanic 258,267,944 12,151,856 4.9%
White 196,817,552 2,264,778 1.2%
Black 37,685,848 3,738,011 11.0%
AI/AN 2,247,098 178,215 8.6%
Asian 14,465,124 4,341,955 42.9%
NH/PI 481,576 128,067 36.2%
2 or More Races 5,966,481 1,364,335 29.6%
Hispanic 50,477,594 15,171,776 43.0%
U.S. POPULATION GROWTH BY NATIVITY,
RACE, & ETHNICITY, 2010-2017
0.4%
3.2%4.8%
5.6%6.3%
11.3%12.4%
18.4%
21.1%
White NotHispanic
Native TotalPopulation
Black Immigrant PacificIslander
Hispanic Asian
RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF U.S.
BIRTHS BY RACE / ETHNICITY
Race/Ethnicity 1990 2008 2011
White 66% 50% 49.6%
Blacks 17% 16% 15.0%
Hispanics 15% 26% 26.0%
Other 2% 8% 9.4%
Source: Johnson and Lichter (2010); Tavernise (2011).
RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF U.S.
POPULATION BY RACE / ETHNICITY
Race/Ethnicity 2005 2050
White 67% 47%
Blacks 12.8% 13%
Hispanics 14% 29%
Asian 5% 9%
Source: Pew Research Center, 2008 *projected.
Southwest Pennsylvania Region:
Race/Ethnicity, 2010-2018
Race 2018 Population Percentage
White 2,174,890 85.9%
Black 201,981 8.0%
AI/AN 2,996 0.1%
Asian 61,168 2.4%
NH/PI 989 0.0%
Two or More 44,625 1.8%
Hispanic 45,285 1.8%
Southwest Pennsylvania Region:
Population Change by Race/Ethnicity,
2010-2018
Race 2018 Population
Absolute Change
2010 – 2018
Percentage
Change
2010 - 2018
Total 2,531,934 -43,025 -1.7%White 2,174,890 -84,108 -3.7%Black 201,981 -540 -0.3%AI/AN 2,996 275 10.1%Asian 61,168 18,282 42.6%NH/PI 989 504 103.9%Two or More 44,625 9,589 27.4%Hispanic 45,285 12,973 40.1%
Allegheny County: Race/Ethnicity,
2010-2018
Race 2018 Population Percentage
White 954,940 78.4%
Black 160,519 13.2%
AI/AN 1,431 0.1%
Asian 49,614 4.1%
NH/PI 310 0.0%
Two or More 25,076 2.1%
Hispanic 26,562 2.2%
Allegheny County: Population Change by
Race/Ethnicity, 2010-2018
Race 2018 Population
Absolute Change
2010 – 2018
Percentage
Change
2010 - 2018
Total 1,218,452 -4,896 -0.4%White 954,940 -33,009 -3.3%Black 160,519 -222 -0.1%AI/AN 1,431 -16 -1.1%Asian 49,614 15,163 44.0%NH/PI 310 49 18.8%Two or More 25,076 5,647 29.1%Hispanic 26,562 7,492 39.3%
Armstrong County Race/Ethnicity,
2010-2018
Race 2018 Population Percentage of Total
White 63,304 97.0%
Black 573 0.9%
AI/AN 76 0.1%
Asian 189 0.3%
NH/PI 7 0.0%
Two or More 595 0.9%
Hispanic 519 0.8%
Beaver County: Population Change by
Race/Ethnicity, 2010-2018
Race 2018 Population
Absolute Change
2010 – 2018
Percentage
Change
2010 - 2018
Total 164,742 -5,797 -3.4%
White 147,259 -7,105 -4.6%
Black 10,310 -325 -3.1%
AI/AN 214 54 33.8%
Asian 927 204 28.2%
NH/PI 42 10 31.3%
Two or More 3,296 669 25.5%
Hispanic 2,694 696 34.8%
MEDIAN AGE OF U.S. POPULATION BY RACE,
HISPANIC ORIGIN & GENDER, 2017
Race Total Male Female
United States 38.1 36.8 39.4
White Alone 40.7 39.4 42.1
White, Non-Hispanic 43.5 42.0 45.0
Black Alone 34.2 32.3 35.9
AI/AN Alone 33.5 34.5 35.5
Asian Alone 37.1 35.6 38.3
NH/PI Alone 32.2 31.5 33.1
Two or More Races 20.2 19.6 20.7
Hispanic 29.2 28.7 29.8
December2018 26
Median Age and Fertility Rates for Females inAllegheny County, 2017
Demographic GroupAll FemalesWhite, Not HispanicBlackAmerican Indian & Alaskan NativeAsianNative Hawaiian & Pacific IslanderSome other raceTwo or more racesHispanicNative BornForeign Born
Source: American Community Survey, www.census.gov*Women 15 to 50 with births in past12 months.
Median Age43.046.635.342.030.8NA
28.618.028.043.340.1
Fertility/1000women*
525160NA61NANANA617051
Median Age and Fertility Rates for Females inWashington County, 2017
Demographic GroupAll FemalesWhite, Not HispanicBlackAmerican Indian & Alaskan NativeAsianNative Hawaiian & Pacific IslanderSome other raceTwo or more racesHispanicNative BornForeign Born
Source: American Community Survey, www.census.gov*Women 15 to 50 with births in past12 months.
Median Age45.747.039.3NA34.4NA
NA19.624.945.843.4
Fertility/1000women*
5151NANANANANANANA51NA
The “Graying” of
America
The Silver Tsunami is hitting
Key Drivers
• Changes in Longevity
• Declining Fertility
• Aging of Boomer Cohort
U.S. LIFE EXPECTANCY AT
BIRTHYEAR AGE
1900 47.3
1930 59.7
1960 69.7
1997 76.5
2007 77.9
2010 78.3
COMPLETED FERTILITY FOR
WOMEN 40 - 44 YEARS OLD
YearPercent
Childless
Avg. Number of
Children
Percent Higher Order
Births*
2006 20 1.9 28
1976 10 3.1 59
*Three or more Children
TOTAL FERTILITY RATES FOR U.S.
WOMEN BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2016
Race/Ethnicity Total Fertility Rate
All Races 1.8
Hispanic 2.1
Non-Hispanic White 1.7
Blacks 1.8
Asian 1.7
Native American 1.8
U.S. POPULATION TURNING 50, 55, 62,
AND 65 YEARS OF AGE, (2007-2015)
Age
50
Age
55
Age
62
Age
65
Average Number/Day 12,344 11,541 9,221 8,032
Average Number/Minute 8.6 8.0 6.4 5.6
April 2019 34
Percentage Age 65+
2018
United States 16.0%
Pennsylvania 17.8%
Southwest Region 19.6%
Allegheny 18.5%
Armstrong 21.5%
Beaver 21.0%
Butler 18.3%
Fayette 20.7%
Percentage Age 65+
2018
Greene 18.3%
Indiana 18.9%
Lawrence 21.5%
Washington 20.1%
Westmoreland 22.2%
PENNSYLVANIA POPULATION
CHANGE BY AGE, 2010-2017
Age 2017
Absolute
Change
2010 - 2017
Percentage
Change
2010 - 2017
<25 3,834,646 -218,890 -5.4%
25-44 3,169,273 42,485 1.4%
45-643,506,662 -56,086 -1.6%
65+ 2,279,866 320,559 16.4%
TOTAL 12,790,447 88,068 0.7%
ALLEGHENY COUNTY
POPULATION CHANGE BY AGE,
2010-2017
Age 2017
Absolute
Change
2010 - 2017
Percentage
Change
2010 - 2017
<25 338,021 -27,255 -7.5%
25-44 327,241 23,798 7.8%
45-64329,648 -19,922 -5.7%
65+ 225,746 20,687 10.1%
TOTAL 1,220,656 -2,692 -0.2%
SOUTHWEST PENNSYLVANIA
REGION POPULATION CHANGE BY
AGE, 2010-2017
Age 2017
Absolute
Change
2010 - 2017
Percentage
Change
2010 - 2017
<25 703,367 -57,439 -7.5%
25-44 619,227 7,401 1.2%
45-64718,813 -39,429 -5.2%
65+ 497,256 53,171 12.0%
TOTAL 2,538,663 -36,296 -1.4%
WESTMORELAND COUNTY
POPULATION CHANGE BY AGE,
2010-2017
Age 2017
Absolute
Change
2010 - 2017
Percentage
Change
2010 - 2017
<25 91,915 -8,345 -8.3%
25-44 74,771 -6,994 -8.6%
45-64107,540 -6,727 -5.9%
65+ 78,095 9,218 13.4%
TOTAL 352,321 -12,848 -3.5%
Disability Among Seniors
• Prevalence from American Community Survey data
• Disability-Free Life Expectancy
• Impact of Obesity and Other Health Risks
Disability-Free Life Expectancy
• Trend has been increases in life expectancy at older ages and postponement of disability
• 2016 American Journal of Public Health– Men: Continued increases in life expectancy at older ages
and continued postponement of disability
– Women: Smaller increases in life expectancy at older ages and smaller postponement of disability
– Reversal of long-standing trend
– Data from 2004-2011
Increased Mortality Rates Among
Middle-Aged White Americans
• Anne Casey and Angus Deaton
• “Deaths of Despair”
• Long-range impact?
The Drug Overdose Crisis in 1999
The Drug Overdose Crisis in 2014
The End of Men?
FEMALE WORKFORCE
REPRESENTATION
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010% Female
THE PLIGHT OF MEN
• Today, three times as many men of working age do not work at all compared to 1969.
• Selective male withdrawal from labor market—rising non-employment due largely to skills mismatches, disabilities & incarceration.
• The percentage of prime-aged men receiving disability insurance doubled between 1970 (2.4%) and 2009 (4.8%).
• Since 1969 median wage of the American male has declined by almost $13,000 after accounting for inflation.
• After peaking in 1977, male college completion rates have barely changed over the past 35 years.
COLLEGE CLASS OF 2010
DEGREE MALE FEMALE DIFFERENCE
Associate’s 293,000 486,000 193,000
Bachelor’s 702,000 946,000 244,000
Master’s 257,000 391,000 134,000
Professional 46,800 46,400 -400
Doctor’s 31,500 32,900 1,400
TOTAL 1,330,300 1,902,300 572,000
Gender Composition of Student Head Count
Enrollment in NC Colleges & Universities, Fall 2014
Type of Institution Total Enrollment Male Enrollment Percent Male Enrollment
All Institutions 554,505 230,672 41.6
Bible Colleges 3,880 2,720 70.1
Public Institutions 459,651 189,749 41.3
UNC System 220,121 95,435 43.3
PWIs 181,246 81,304 44.9
MSIs 38,875 14,131 36.3
HBUs 32,653 11,835 36.2
Community Colleges 239,530 104,313 43.5
Private Institutions 90,974 38,204 42.0
Senior Colleges &Universities
90,296 37,755 41.8
Junior Colleges 678 449 66.2
RACIAL TYPOLOGY
COUNTY LEVEL RACE/ETHNIC MIX
The BIG Opportunity
More Inclusive and Equitable Community Economic
Development
What is inclusive development?
• Inclusive development ensures that all marginalized and excluded groups are stakeholders in development processes.
• Source: Parilla (2017).
What is Equitable Development?
• Equitable development unlocks the full potential of the local economy by dismantling barriers and expanding opportunities for low-income people and communities of color. Through accountable public action and investment, it grows quality jobs and increases entrepreneurship, ownership, and wealth. The result is a stronger, more competitive city.
Source: PolicyLink, 2017/
What is inclusive growth?
“… Growth that not only creates new economic opportunities, but also …ensures equal access to the opportunities created for all segments of society, particularly for the poor…It focuses on increasing per capita income through economic growth and greater access to non-income aspects of wellbeing enhanced by proactive policymaking by the state and contributions from other actors…”
Source: Gupta, et. al. (2015).
Communities Leverage 5 Key
Drivers of Inclusive & Equitable
Development #1: Leads as an engine of opportunity.
#2: Develops a more inclusive/equitable entrepreneurial/business ecosystem.
#3:Establishes an equitable development venture fund.
#4: Builds “collective ambition” to execute on the strategy.
#5: Creates a sustainability scorecard.
Keys to Successful Execution
• Unlearn olds way of thinking and doing.
• Develop a “glass is half full even when it is half empty” entrepreneurial mindset.
• Demonstrate an unwavering commitment to innovation.
• Engage in collaboration across local government departments.
• Leverage an inclusive & equitable policy tool kit.
The Policy Tool Kit
• Economic Inclusion Tools
• Inclusive and equitable workforce development tools.
• Community stabilization policies
• Commercial stabilization policies.
Doing Inclusive &
Equitable Development
in Durham, NC THE ROAD MAP
Aging as an Economic
Engine
Innovation, Business Development, & Employment
Growth
BIG Opportunity I
The Boomer Segment of the Older Adult Market
The Aging Boomer
Market
A $15 Trillion Prize Globally
Bloomberg BusinessWeek
Advertising & Marketing
Challenges
• Developing a deep understanding of this demographic group.
• Adapting product portfolios & sales approaches to meet their evolving needs.
• Design, label, and package products with equality in mind.
The Aging Consumer Paradox
• Seniors don’t like to be singled out and reminded that they are old.
• The company that does a great job of making products for seniors takes great pains not to make products for seniors.
BIG Opportunity II
The Senior Care Worker Challenge
Opportunities for Employers &
HR Staffing Agencies
• 1.2 million additional senior care workers needed by 2025
• New models of recruitment & retention needed that address:Cultural barriers Linguistic barriers Family challengesTransportation constraints
• Advocate for comprehensive immigration reform
Urban Design Principles
• Visitability of institutional settings
• Senior playgrounds & fitness parks
• Universally accessible transport systems
• Complete street ordinances
• Extended walk times at pedestrian cross-walks
• Senior friendly street signage
The BIG Aging in Place
Challenge—and Opportunity
Innovations for the Most Vulnerable Older Adults
Three Groups at Greatest Risk
• Older adults who are burdened by excessive housing costs.
• Older adults who rent their homes.
• Older adults who are African American.
Target Markets for Innovation
• “Rich and young at heart”
• “Poor and Weak of Limb”
• Urgent need to realign innovation priorities
Other Critical Research Needs in
the Business of Aging
• Slowing the growth of health care spending
• Financing retirement income
• Financing long-term services and supports
• Securing the safety net for seniors
• Reducing elderly fraud and exploitation
THE END
Related Documents
