Ohioans head for exit

Pace of departures faster than a decade ago

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Tim Doulin

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

 

Ohioans are leaving the state even faster than they were a decade ago, the Census Bureau says.

 

From 2000 to 2004, 126,452 more people moved out of Ohio than moved in, according to estimates contained in a report the bureau issued today.

 

For more, click the link

 

[email protected]

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/04/20/20060420-A1-00.html

 

Link to chart: http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/04/20/20060420-A4-05.html

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060420/NEWS17/604200424/-1/NEWS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article published April 20, 2006

 

Lucas County population drops by 11,635 as Monroe County gains

 

By TAD VEZNER

BLADE STAFF WRITER

 

 

Where jobs go, people follow. And Census statistics released today indicate Lucas County - and Ohio as a whole - is a perfect example of that axiom, experts say.

 

Census "migration" totals from April, 2000, to July, 2004 - meaning population changes from people moving into or out of an area, while ignoring shifts from births or deaths - showed a continuation of Lucas County's population decline: a loss of 11,635 people, or 2.6 percent of the population.

 

For more, click the link

Contact Tad Vezner at:

[email protected]

or 419-724-6050.

 

...and in Cleveland...

 

Cuyahoga, Ohio losing population at high rate

Census: State's migration is sixth worst

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Each day, 43 people pull up stakes and leave Cuyahoga County, new estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau show.

 

It may not seem like much, but in one year, the outflow totals about 15,700 people - an exodus of wealth, human capital and investment that troubles those who care about the future of Greater Cleveland.

 

For more, click the link

www.plaindealer.com

I read this article and then I read that almost all metro areas are experiencing similar trends (except for the suburban south). While I am not saying that we don't have a problem, I am a little sick of how the PD paints it as if this problem only pertains to Ohio and Cleveland.  The PD needs to provide a proper perspective in its reporting.

If Columbus and Cincinnati are creating so many more jobs than they're losing then why such a big decline in population?

^ Those numbers are just net migration.  When you factor in natural increase (i.e. births), there is an overall gain, for Cincinnati anyway.

 

    "If Columbus and Cincinnati are creating so many more jobs than they're losing then why such a big decline in population?"

 

    Say in 1955 a family had a mother, father, and 3 kids, and dad was the only one with a job.

 

  In 2005 a family has a mother, father, and 2 kids, and both parents work.

 

  If the number of families is constant, and the average family followed this trend, then from 1955 to 2005, population dropped by 20% and employment increased by 100%.

 

    Of course it's a simplification, but does this make sense?

 

 

 

 

 

I found a real estate site that had detailed this information.  I had no idea metro Cincinnati had lost population a few times in the mid 70's.  I copied from '91 to present, when they include all the stats.  This really illustrates how the different components affect growth, and while many east coast cities, for example, are losing domestic population they more than make up for it in a international migration. 

 

Going right to left, population, percentage increase, total increase, births, deaths, net international migration, and net domestic migration.  At least for 2005 Cincy is getting closer to the right side of the ledger for domestic migration.  I also added Cleveland and Columbus.

 

Cincinnati     

1991  1,871,593 1.4 26,705 37,243 19,567 841 6,682

1992  1,891,232 1.0 19,639 29,532 16,186 836 4,167

1993  1,912,760 1.1 21,528 28,985 16,334 886 6,665

1994  1,926,253 0.7 13,493 28,225 17,013 712 187

1995  1,940,325 0.7 14,072 28,278 16,644 1,131 842

1996  1,953,606 0.7 13,281 27,863 17,065 1,178 1,022

1997  1,970,246 0.9 16,640 27,912 17,145 1,275 3,818

1998  1,985,506 0.8 15,260 28,058 17,066 1,287 2,125

1999  1,999,126 0.7 13,620 28,062 17,143 1,345 458

2000  2,009,632 0.5 10,506 - - - -

2001  2,026,218 0.8 16,586 37,002 21,764 3,634 -1,463

2002  2,034,678 0.4 8,460 28,349 18,030 2,882 -4,127

2003  2,046,078 0.6 11,400 28,763 17,592 2,725 -1,833

2004  2,056,843 0.5 10,765 29,233 17,462 2,474 -2,747

2005  2,070,441 0.7 13,598 29,457 17,626 2,262 -492

 

Cleveland

 

1991  2,117,512 0.7 15,305 41,419 25,500 1,175 -9,325

1992  2,131,036 0.6 13,524 32,892 20,716 2,017 -8,110

1993  2,140,398 0.4 9,362 32,152 20,814 2,068 -11,136

1994  2,146,303 0.3 5,905 30,883 21,519 1,699 -12,018

1995  2,150,203 0.2 3,900 29,993 21,633 2,134 -10,016

1996  2,153,598 0.2 3,395 29,660 21,221 2,287 -10,534

1997  2,152,676 0.0 -922 29,167 21,620 2,018 -14,360

1998  2,151,568 -0.1 -1,108 29,005 21,047 1,850 -14,757

1999  2,149,943 -0.1 -1,625 29,107 21,526 1,937 -12,918

2000  2,148,143 -0.1 -1,800 - - - -

2001  2,144,558 -0.2 -3,585 35,765 26,827 4,965 -17,261

2002  2,141,634 -0.1 -2,924 27,136 21,740 4,024 -12,309

2003  2,139,568 -0.1 -2,066 26,911 21,361 3,835 -11,373

2004  2,133,778 -0.3 -5,790 26,792 21,090 3,493 -14,283

2005  2,126,318 -0.3 -7,460 26,596 21,348 3,207 -15,970

 

Columbus

1991  1,434,940 2.1 29,762 28,711 13,262 990 9,650

1992  1,458,981 1.7 24,041 22,594 11,074 1,133 8,351

1993  1,481,280 1.5 22,299 22,863 10,381 1,087 5,624

1994  1,500,144 1.3 18,864 22,603 11,624 1,077 4,069

1995  1,518,671 1.2 18,527 22,648 11,524 1,241 3,001

1996  1,531,611 0.9 12,940 22,338 11,806 1,635 1,659

1997  1,551,212 1.3 19,601 22,786 11,887 1,673 3,290

1998  1,574,663 1.5 23,451 22,692 11,872 1,666 2,934

1999  1,596,012 1.4 21,349 22,802 11,905 1,799 5,422

2000  1,612,694 1.0 16,682 - - - -

2001  1,639,208 1.6 26,514 31,328 15,684 6,245 4,159

2002  1,655,234 1.0 16,026 24,835 12,598 5,040 -1,596

2003  1,675,010 1.2 19,776 25,077 12,737 4,804 2,255

2004  1,690,721 0.9 15,711 25,323 12,796 4,366 -675

2005  1,708,625 1.1 17,904 25,374 12,971 3,975 1,473

 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census

 

 

 

 

 

 

    "If Columbus and Cincinnati are creating so many more jobs than they're losing then why such a big decline in population?"

 

    Say in 1955 a family had a mother, father, and 3 kids, and dad was the only one with a job.

 

  In 2005 a family has a mother, father, and 2 kids, and both parents work.

 

  If the number of families is constant, and the average family followed this trend, then from 1955 to 2005, population dropped by 20% and employment increased by 100%.

 

    Of course it's a simplification, but does this make sense?

 

 

 

 

 

 

so everyone start having lots of baby's, then the numbers will look great. :-D

Just a small correction - I think I inadvertently sold Cleveland a little short.  The earlier set of numbers was for Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, but apparently the site has two views and this is for Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria:

 

1991  2,217,767 0.7 15,680 43,223 26,756 1,166 -9,377

1992  2,231,693 0.6 13,926 34,315 21,744 2,013 -8,012

1993  2,241,490 0.4 9,797 33,559 21,863 2,083 -10,986

1994  2,247,782 0.3 6,292 32,179 22,641 1,703 -11,720

1995  2,252,024 0.2 4,242 31,401 22,706 2,141 -9,922

1996  2,255,726 0.2 3,702 30,991 22,325 2,316 -10,382

1997  2,255,379 0.0 -347 30,502 22,665 2,021 -14,026

1998  2,254,404 0.0 -975 30,350 22,095 1,864 -14,821

1999  2,252,739 -0.1 -1,665 30,449 22,583 1,940 -13,063

2000  2,250,871 -0.1 -1,868 - - - -

2001  2,247,498 -0.1 -3,373 37,446 28,328 5,020 -17,240

2002  2,244,618 -0.1 -2,880 28,365 22,864 4,070 -12,381

2003  2,242,653 -0.1 -1,965 28,088 22,459 3,880 -11,358

2004  2,236,770 -0.3 -5,883 27,962 22,154 3,534 -14,491

2005  2,229,539 -0.3 -7,231 27,794 22,394 3,247 -15,968

 

My god..all these numbers and statistics are overloading my brain. Theres a reason people get paid to analyze this stuff.

^Or a reason people go to college :).

A USA Today article that runs counter to this negative perspective, featuring some focus on Cleveland:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-20-cities_x.htm

^ Good article.

Ohio is really much bigger. People use Florida as their 1st home, but Ohio as their second homes. I guess they do it for income tax purposes since there is no income trac in Florida. Since you can't count people twice. Ohio gets screwed and lose a house seat.

Poor leadership in Ohio. They still think GM and Goodyear will save them, but those days are gone. It would take some very forward looking leadership to turn Ohio around. Getting rid of the state income tax would be a good start. Demolish all the bad parts of the major cities and give the the land to developers. No restrictions, no "affordable housing", no public housing, give loans to the cronic unemployed to either leave the state or go back to college and get employable degree...