More Americans staying put

In addition to rising unemployment and declining retail sales, the recession also has more people staying put in their current residence. According to statistics from the 2010 American Community Survey, only 15 percent of Americans lived in a different home a year ago, down from more than 16 percent of the population moving in 2005. According to the Brookings Institution fewer U.S. residents moved in 2010 than in any year since 1948.*

The map shows the proportion of population that lived in a different house the prior year (data 2006-2010), with the darkest colors representing areas with the highest proportion of people who stayed in the same house, and lightest colors representing areas with the most movers. Not surprisingly, given the housing bubble, Arizona, Nevada had relatively high rates of movers, while rural areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama had few movers.

Percent of the population who reported living in the "same house" the prior year (2008-2010).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, author's calculations

This changing migration dynamic has important repercussions for states like California, which historically were high in-migration states. Despite California's reputation as being a state of newcomers, in 2010 a majority (54 percent) of residents were California-born. (U.S. Census Bureau, Lifetime Mobility in the United States). As a result of this change, Dowell Myers asks in his article "The New Homegrown Majority in California"

"How is the stance taken by voters with regard to taxation and services different if California is growing because of migration by outsiders rather than growing from California-born residents? What does the shift from a reliance on high migration to a homegrown majority mean for today's taxpayers?"

California is not yet approaching the level of "homegrown" population seen in states like Louisiana (79 percent) or Michigan (77 percent). But neither is it like Florida, Alaska, Arizona, or Washington DC, all of which have 60 percent or more of their population born out-of-state.

*Note: Brookings puts the number of movers at 35.1 million, but I pulled the figures from the American Community Suvey for 2010 and found more than 45 million, so take the "lowest since 1948" quote with the proverbial grain of salt.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2010),
"Selected Social Characteristics in the United States" - downloaded 12/9/11

Let the wedding bells ring

Anyone who has ever glanced at a bridal magazine or received a wedding invitation knows that June is usually the hottest month for weddings. So in honor of all the happy couples, let's take a look at marriage statistics.

Not surprisingly, destination wedding locations have the highest marriage rates (per 1,000 population). The current rate (40.9) in Nevada is more than five times higher than the national average (6.8), and Hawaii rings in at more than double (17.9) the national average.

Some of the lowest rates, on the other hand, are in and around the nation's capitol. (With a decade of congressional infidelity scandals, the low marriage rate in D.C. is probably no surprise to readers.)

Marriage rates have been falling nationwide for the past decade, from 8.2 in 2000 to 6.8 in 2009 (data from the CDC). Falling marriage rates are part of a long-term trend toward delayed marriage. The average age at first marriage back in 1956 was only age 20 for women (age 22 for men) and has risen to age 26 for women (28 for men) today.

In marriage rates, Nevada declined the most, dropping from 72.2 in 2000 to 40.9 in 2009, and falling by more than 50 percent from a 1990 level of 99 marriages per 1,000 population. (Maybe being married by Elvis at a drive-through chapels is losing it's appeal?)

However, divorce rates are also falling. In fact, the number of "long-lasting" marriages is starting to increase. Divorce rates peaked in the years following mid-1970s changes in divorce laws, but then leveled off and fell slightly. Some of this can be attributed to lower marriage rates (fewer marriages likely lead to fewer divorces), but some is likely a result of people waiting longer to get married in the first place.

Image Credits:
Charts by author, with data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Photo courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/bjornb/

How American Productivity is like the Kentucky Derby

Throughout the first three quarters of the Kentucky Derby on May 7, Shackleford was way out front. However, something interesting happened in the final stretch. Other horses started to break away from the pack, and despite the jockey's strenuous whipping of Shackleford's flanks, the horse could go no faster.

This scene reminded me of the productivity news released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics two days earlier. (What can I say, I am an inveterate data geek.)

The past couple of years have seen incredible gains in the productivity of the average American worker, measured as output per hour worked. 2009 saw an increase of 3.7 percent over 2008. 2010 was even stronger, with productivity increasing by 3.9 percent over 2009 (one quarter saw a jump of 6.7 percent). The nation hasn't seen that level of productivity growth since 2002, when people were recovering from the shock of the prior September. In 2002 people were just learning how to use their iPods and Google was just getting it's legs, so rapid productivity growth that year can, at least in part, be linked to technology gains.

So, what is behind this recent productivity boom?
And more importantly:
Why did productivity growth start slowing toward the end of 2010, falling to only 1.6 percent in the first quarter of 2011?

While it is possible that companies merely cut the "dead weight" in their laborforce with layoffs, I think the answer is more basic. This brings me back to the Derby analogy... With unemployment rates hovering between 9 and 10 percent in 2009 and 2010, I strongly suspect that American workers were working harder for fear of losing their jobs. Plus, with companies cutting their workforce, the remaining workers had to work harder (or smarter) to keep up with corporate demands for the same (or higher) level of output.

In addition, the majority of those who lost jobs and have since been re-employed report being overqualified for their current gig, according to Pew Research. This would undoubtedly give another, temporary, bump to productivity levels.

But with no major advances in technology, American workers are like Shackleton in the home stretch: there is only so much more performance to be squeezed out of a worker before he or she has nothing left to give.

So productivity growth is likely to tail off for the near-term. This might be troublesome for the corporate bottom line, but may be an unexpected boon for the 14 million unemployed Americans. As the economy recovers and demand picks back up, companies that have already stretched their existing workforce as far as they can will have to begin hiring to keep up with demand.

Photo courtesy of TheRichBrooks: http://www.flickr.com/photos/therichbrooks/

Recession is bad for the baby business

For another sign that The Great Recession is taking a toll on the population, look no further than the local maternity ward. The birth rate is falling after many years of slow but steady increase. Research that I presented at the 2010 Applied Demography conference tracked the trend in fertility during recessions, controlling for factors such as female labor force participation, contraceptive technologies, and other social trends. Recent publications from the Pew Research Center arrived at the same conclusion: births fall during recessions.

This trend may be contrary to popular logic. It is common to assume that for two-income families, a layoff means that one member of the family has more time on his (or her) hands for child-rearing and for... to be delicate... the activities that lead to child-rearing. However, research suggests that economically depressed times drag down more than just the stock market.

According to a survey conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, "Sixty-four percent of women agree with the statement, 'With the economy the way it is, I can’t afford to have a baby right now'."

Overall the survey suggests that women want to delay having a child because of financial instability resulting from the recession, and that most (but not all) are being more careful about contraception as a result. Data from the Nielsen market research company confirms that condom sales have increased since the recession started.

The survey responses mirror a trend that is beginning to show up in birth certificates. Nationwide the birth rate fell by 4 percent (from 4.3 million to 4.1 million) between 2007 and 2009. To put that into perspective, 185,000 fewer births is equivalent to the population of Little Rock, AR. Data for the first half of 2010 shows a continuing decline (data from CDC).

Declines were sharpest in the southeast and western states - those hit earliest, and perhaps hardest by the recession (see map). For example, the number of babies born to residents of California fell by nearly 24,800 (4.5%) between 2008 and 2009, and by more than 40,000 (7%) between 2007 and 2009, according to records from the California Department of Health.

The falling number of births can be linked to declining fertility across almost all population groups. This means that across all race and ethnic groups, and across almost all age groups, women are having fewer babies in 2009 than in 2007. Only women over age 40 saw any increase in birth rate over the past two years, and those minor increases were not sufficient to offset declines in all other groups.

So for as long as the economy remains in the doldrums, savvy market watchers should be investing in condoms, not in baby gifts.