{"id":874,"date":"2020-07-22T01:34:18","date_gmt":"2020-07-22T01:34:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/chelandouglastrends.com\/newsletter\/?page_id=874"},"modified":"2020-07-30T21:16:10","modified_gmt":"2020-07-30T21:16:10","slug":"migration-q2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/chelandouglastrends.com\/newsletter\/migration-q2\/","title":{"rendered":"Residual Net Migration: Our area logs a dramatic uptick"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

by <\/strong>Dr. Patrick Jones<\/strong><\/p>

Communities grow via two routes. The obvious one is the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths every year. Demographers refer to this as the natural increase. The second path consists of the difference between people moving into an area and the number of people moving out. Since this number comes about as a by-product of demographers\u2019 calculations, it is referred to as residual<\/em> net migration.<\/p>

Most growing western U.S. communities can trace their population increases largely to net migration, not a natural increase. In eastern Washington an exception is Yakima County. Chelan and Douglas Counties\u2019 demographic experience parallels that of most western U.S. communities that are growing.<\/p>

Chelan & Douglas Trends Indicator 0.2.1<\/a> lays out the path of net migration over the past 40 years for the two counties. Immediately noticeable are the cycles, with three groups of years showing relatively high numbers:\u00a0 the early 1990s, the mid-00s, and over the immediate past five years. Note, too, that there have been a few years in which more people left than came. The most recent occurrence took place in 2011.<\/p>

As we examine the past few years, a few things stand out. First is the current recovery from the slow years of 2010-2013. Second is the more modest size of this recovery, relative to prior growth cycles, that is, until very recently. It is startling to observe the large number of in-migrants over the 2019-2020 period. The Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) estimated this to be 1,873. This makes 2020 the 2nd<\/sup> highest year on recent record. (Population estimates are made on April 1 of every year.)<\/p>

The lines in this graph portray the strength of net migration to total population. This allows a comparison with benchmark, for this graph Washington State. It is easy to observe that for most of the 1990s, net migration was more important here than to the state in explaining population growth. Since the end of the last century, however, the roles have reversed:\u00a0 Washington can credit its population growth more to migration than the two counties can. Until this year. The indicator reveals that net migration amounted to 1.5% of the total population here versus 1.1% statewide.<\/p>

This most recent result for Chelan and Douglas Counties is higher than any metro area in Eastern Washington. The closest community is the fast-growing Tri Cities, as Benton & Franklin Trends Indicator 0.3.1<\/a> reveals. Net migration for the 2020 OFM estimate was 1.3% of its population. On the lower side has been Yakima, as seen here<\/a>. For the most recent year, net migration into that county amounted to 0.3% of its total population. Lying in between is Grant Count, as one can observe from the most recent estimate<\/a>.<\/p>

Why should we care about this phenomenon? First, unless one is a zero population growth advocate, some population growth is positive across a range of domains. Certainly more residents are good for business in the aggregate. An increase also brings higher tax flows to local government coffers. If associated with job creation and firm growth, in-migration will rapidly augment the tax base and help with school levies. Of course, downsides lurk:\u00a0 very rapid growth can stretch school and local infrastructure, and in some cases, lead to environmental degradation.<\/p>

Migration also brings new ideas and skills into a community. I think it is fair to characterize the two counties as welcoming and appreciative of those benefits, so these talents will be embraced. On the other hand, some long-time residents may object to a different worldviews brought by in-migrants, which can also lead to cultural and political tensions.<\/p>

The strength of positive in-migration usually reflects the strength of economic opportunity. People follow job postings, be they service, agricultural, industrial or commercial. But the strength of migration into a community also serves as a popularity contest, especially for those who are, from a job perspective, footloose. Today, many workers, especially knowledge workers, can operate independently of their home office as long as there are good internet connections. (Transportation connections also matter.)<\/p>

For in-migrating retirees the calculation is a bit different. Here, quality of life, cost of living and good health care are the likely drivers. In some combination of all these new resident pools, the two counties have recently become a lot more popular than a few years ago.<\/p>

Which locales are the newcomers leaving? The U.S. Census gives us a glimpse, via its \u201ccounty to county migration\u201d database. Since the data include five years and since the most recent interval is 2013-2017, we won\u2019t gain any insights into the most recent spike. But the data do capture the general upcycle noticeable since 2014.<\/p>

Is the biggest source the west side of the state? On a single county basis, yes. Snohomish takes first place as a net provider of new residents to the Chelan and Douglas Counties. But three eastern Washington Counties land in the top 10 over the five-year period:\u00a0 Yakima (2nd<\/sup>), Benton (3rd<\/sup>) and Grant (7th<\/sup>). Among the top 10 contributing counties are two from the Central Valley of California:\u00a0 Tulare (4th<\/sup>) and Stanislaus (9th<\/sup>). Alaska shows one on that list \u2013 Juneau (5th<\/sup>), and Oregon does as well \u2013 Clatsop (8th<\/sup>). Kitsap is the other west side county landing among the top 10 contributors to net migration.<\/p>

Notably, King County appears in the county-to-county migration data as a net recipient <\/em>of local residents. There may well be an inflow into the two counties from Washington\u2019s largest county. But the outflow of local residents is greater. The trek by area students to King County for higher education might be behind this. Or more generally, King County might well be a desirable landing spot for many of the area\u2019s young adults, whether students or not.<\/p>

Will in-migration next year repeat the strong levels of this year? If so, will COVID-19 play a role? Speculation abounds about a flight from urban centers to more suburban or even rural communities as an easier way of socially distancing or even self-quarantining. This will be difficult to discern from the Census data, since the migration flows are in 5-year bundles and 2020 will not be available to us for two more years. Undoubtedly, some new residents will be urban refugees. But it is this observer\u2019s hunch, that on a net basis, in-migration from agricultural counties will remain the main driver.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div> <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t