48 other states show growth
December 27, 2007
BY M.L. ELRICK and ROBIN ERB
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
Michigan is one of only two states in the nation to lose population over the past year, according to U.S. Census figures released today.
It's a dubious distinction shared only by Rhode Island. While the Ocean State's population dipped 0.4%, Michigan's slipped 0.3%.
That's an estimated loss of 30,500 Michiganders.
And while this is hardly a cause for celebration, state demographer Ken Darga said the erosion is far from the seismic shift in population that Michigan experienced in the early 1980s.
Darga attributed the loss to high unemployment, people enlisting in the military or being called to active duty, and more students going to college out of state than Michigan brings in.
Michigan's birth rate also is falling, he said.
Still, with an estimated 10,071,822 Michiganders as of July 1, the state has more people than the census bureau actually counted in 2000, when it said Michigan's population was 9,938,444.
The states with the largest percentage increase in population are Nevada and Arizona, which grew 2.9% and 2.8%, respectively.
No Midwestern state was in the top 20 growth states.
University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes said the census figures suggest Michigan is experiencing a brain drain.
"Younger, more educated people ... are the mobile ones," he said.
Michigan's population loss also may be a bit of statistical burp, Grimes said, explaining that buyouts in the auto industry could have created an artificial spike in the number of retirees on the move.
Michigan State University economics professor Charles Ballard cautioned that growth isn't always a good thing.
He said Michigan's population would be about 17 million, if it had grown as much as some predicted in the 1970s -- meaning more air pollution, congestion and more farmland replaced by asphalt and subdivisions.
Liz Boyd, spokeswoman for Gov. Jennifer Granholm, said Michigan is still the eighth-largest state. But Granholm is working to create jobs and improve education to halt the state's population loss, Boyd added.
"We want to be growing our economy," Boyd said. "We want to be gaining population instead of losing population."
Michael LaFaive of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy said Michigan has high taxes and regulations that discourage businesses from staying in Michigan or coming to the state.
He said government programs designed to bring business to Michigan have been failing for decades.
Anne Masterson of Detroit Renaissance, a group of business leaders working to boost southeastern Michigan's economy, said the nonprofit is trying to raise $100 million in venture capital to promote new businesses.
And if there's a hint of hope, it's in the story of Michigan vs. Massachusetts more than 30 years ago, Grimes said.
Energized by the auto industry, Michigan's average household income trumped the national average by 20% or more at that time, while Massachusetts' households were among the poorest.
These days, the reverse is true, he said.
"The good news is that essentially that we're not permanently wedded to this underachieving status ... that things do change," he said.
December 27, 2007
BY M.L. ELRICK and ROBIN ERB
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
Michigan is one of only two states in the nation to lose population over the past year, according to U.S. Census figures released today.
It's a dubious distinction shared only by Rhode Island. While the Ocean State's population dipped 0.4%, Michigan's slipped 0.3%.
That's an estimated loss of 30,500 Michiganders.
And while this is hardly a cause for celebration, state demographer Ken Darga said the erosion is far from the seismic shift in population that Michigan experienced in the early 1980s.
Darga attributed the loss to high unemployment, people enlisting in the military or being called to active duty, and more students going to college out of state than Michigan brings in.
Michigan's birth rate also is falling, he said.
Still, with an estimated 10,071,822 Michiganders as of July 1, the state has more people than the census bureau actually counted in 2000, when it said Michigan's population was 9,938,444.
The states with the largest percentage increase in population are Nevada and Arizona, which grew 2.9% and 2.8%, respectively.
No Midwestern state was in the top 20 growth states.
University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes said the census figures suggest Michigan is experiencing a brain drain.
"Younger, more educated people ... are the mobile ones," he said.
Michigan's population loss also may be a bit of statistical burp, Grimes said, explaining that buyouts in the auto industry could have created an artificial spike in the number of retirees on the move.
Michigan State University economics professor Charles Ballard cautioned that growth isn't always a good thing.
He said Michigan's population would be about 17 million, if it had grown as much as some predicted in the 1970s -- meaning more air pollution, congestion and more farmland replaced by asphalt and subdivisions.
Liz Boyd, spokeswoman for Gov. Jennifer Granholm, said Michigan is still the eighth-largest state. But Granholm is working to create jobs and improve education to halt the state's population loss, Boyd added.
"We want to be growing our economy," Boyd said. "We want to be gaining population instead of losing population."
Michael LaFaive of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy said Michigan has high taxes and regulations that discourage businesses from staying in Michigan or coming to the state.
He said government programs designed to bring business to Michigan have been failing for decades.
Anne Masterson of Detroit Renaissance, a group of business leaders working to boost southeastern Michigan's economy, said the nonprofit is trying to raise $100 million in venture capital to promote new businesses.
And if there's a hint of hope, it's in the story of Michigan vs. Massachusetts more than 30 years ago, Grimes said.
Energized by the auto industry, Michigan's average household income trumped the national average by 20% or more at that time, while Massachusetts' households were among the poorest.
These days, the reverse is true, he said.
"The good news is that essentially that we're not permanently wedded to this underachieving status ... that things do change," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment