Minnesota Demographic Trends In A Changing World
Tom Gillaspy, State Demographer
Mn Dept of Administration
August 2008
Minnesota Has Been Very Successful
(Especially For A Cold Weather State at the End of the Road)
• Our economic growth rate has exceeded the national average
• Our population growth rate leads the frost belt
• We rank with the leaders on many social and economic indicators
• Education has been a key contributor to the state’s success
2007 Minnesota Per Capita GDP Is 8.8% Above The National Average
BEA
Minnesota Per Capita Income Has Grown Faster Than The Nation’s
85%
90%
95%
100%
105%
110%
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007p
Per Capita Income
Per Capita DisposableIncome
Minnesota & New Hampshire Have Long Led The Frost Belt In Population Growth
0.97%
0.23%
0.06%
0.34%
0.86%
1.60%
0.67%
1.21%
0.75%
0.29%
-0.03%
0.75%
0.59%
0.85%
0.37%
0.96%
-0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%
Minnesota
Iowa
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wisconsin
New Hampshire
Frost Belt
U.S.
Annual Average Change
2000-07
1950-07
Minnesota Ranks Highly in Many Social/Economic Indicators
• 2nd percent of 16-64 employed (76.9%)
• 2nd cost of living adjusted per capita income (OK DOC)
• 8th lowest poverty rate
• 1st percent with health insurance 2004-06 ave
• 9th median family income in 2006
• 2nd Kids Count 2007
• 4th most livable state (Morgan Quinto Press)
• 4th lowest rate of disability among people age 16-64
• 1st with at least high school degree (90.7%)
• 12th with at least a bachelor’s degree
• 1st home ownership
• 2nd United Health Foundation ranking of state healthiness 2007
Updated July 2008
Past PerformanceDoes Not EnsureFuture Results
From 2004 to 2007 Minnesota Underperformed the US Averages
• Personal income growthUS 6.2% MN 4.4%
• Per capita personal income growth US 16.6% MN 13.5%
• GDP growthUS 8.4% MN 4.8%
• GDP per capita growthUS 5.4% MN 2.6%
Four Mega-Forces Will Shape Minnesota’s Economy
• Globalization
• Technology
• Energy prices
• Demography
Population Change
Loss
Gain Under 1,000
Gain 5,000 to 1,000
Gain More Than 5,000
Population Change 2000-04Census Bureau Estimate
Upper Midwest Becoming More Diverse But Still Less Than The Nation
4%
6%
6%
9%
9%
24%
9%
14%
9%
13%
14%
33%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Iowa
Minnesota
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wisconsin
United States
Percent Population of Color
2005
1990
Note: Population except white alone, not Hispanic, 2005 Census Bureau estimate
Minnesota’s Children Are More Diverse Than Older People
20%
16%17%
12%
8%6%
5%3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Under 1
0
10 to
19
20 to
29
30 to
39
40 to
49
50 to
59
60 to
69
70+
Age Group
Pe
rce
nt
Min
ori
ty
2000 Census
Students Of Color Are Increasing While White Students Are Declining
4585,923
19,533 19,515
-59,202
-13,773
-70,000
-60,000
-50,000
-40,000
-30,000
-20,000
-10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
Am Indian Asian Hispanic Black White Total
Ch
an
ge
En
roll
me
nt
20
00
-01
to
20
06
-07
Mn Dept of Education data
Students Speaking Non-English Language At Home: Much Of The Growth In ESL Enrollment Is Directly Related To Growth In
Local Employment
27.6%30.5%30.6%
31.6%32.8%
36.6%37.3%37.5%
43.4%18.7%
11.0%9.8%
3.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Westbrook-Walnut GroveSleepy Eye
MinneapolisColumbia Heights
Pelican RapidsBrooklyn Center
RichfieldWorthington
St. PaulNational 03State 06-07State 04-05State 93-94
Percent of Students in 2006-07
Source: Mn Dept of Education data, Districts of more than 100 enrollment.
From 2005 to 2015, Largest Growth in Minnesota Will Be in Ages 55 to 69
16,2003,9006,700
44,50098,000
119,400107,200
55,500-43,400
-64,100-700
67,20051,800
-9,600-29,200
7,40049,100
37,600
85+80-8475-7970-7465-6960-6455-5950-5445-4940-4435-3930-3425-2920-2415-1910-14
5-90-4
Source: Minnesota State Demographic CenterNumbers are rounded
Minnesota Will See a 30 Percent Jump in Workers Turning Age 62 Beginning 2008
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
7/05 to7/06
7/06 to7/07
7/07 to7/08
7/08 to7/09
7/09 to7/10
7/10 to7/11
7/11 to7/12
Year Turning Age 62
Wo
rke
d W
ith
in P
as
t 5
ye
ars
2005 ACS
Competition For The Future Workforce Will Increase
6.8%
4.5%
-1.6%-2.2%
13.0%
-1.2%
-3.5% -3.0%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
2000-05 2005-10 2010-15 2015-20
Per
cen
t C
han
ge
18-2
4 US
Mn
Census Bureau US Proj, Mn State Demographer revised 2007
Projected Openings In Minnesota Occupations 2006-16
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
To
tal,
All
Oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
Ed
uc
ati
on
,tr
ain
ing
,L
ibra
ry
Co
mp
ute
r a
nd
Ma
the
ma
tic
al
Oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
Co
mm
un
ity
an
d S
oc
ial
Se
rvic
es
Oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
Pro
tec
tiv
eS
erv
ice
Oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
Arc
hit
ec
ture
an
dE
ng
ine
eri
ng
Oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
He
alt
hc
are
Pra
cti
tio
ne
rsa
nd
Te
ch
nic
al
Oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
Tra
ns
po
rta
tio
na
nd
Ma
teri
al
Mo
vin
gO
cc
up
ati
on
s
Replacement
Growth
DEED projections. Percent of 2006 level
Migration Will Become the Largest Source of New Workers in Minnesota
-100,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
2000-10 2010-20 2020-30
Total Natural Partic. Rate Migration
Net Labor Force Growth
Percent of Mn Labor Force Born In Another Country
3.3%
8.5%
12.6%
3.1%3.6%
4.8%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
1990 2000 2006
25-34
55-64
PUMS microdata from 1990 & 2000 Census & 2006 ACS
Thoughts On Economic Theory
Economic growth depends on
Growth in the workforce
Growth in productivity per worker
Productivity per worker depends on
Technology and machines
Public infrastructure
Knowledge, skills, training and education
High School Graduation Rates In Minnesota Have Drifted Downward And Are Lower For
Males And Minorities
89%92%
67%
78%
87%
92%
62%
72%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
White Male White Female Minority Male MinorityFemale
1990-93
2003-06
Three year averages of 10th grade graduation rate.
Median Earnings For Minnesota Workers By Education & Age
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49
<High SchoolHigh SchoolSome CollegeBachelors+
2006 ACS
And, In Conclusion
• Minnesota has been very successful
• We are in a period of rapid and critical change
• Demographic forces will shape our future for the next quarter century
• Aging and slower labor force growth encourages migration and immigration
• Slower labor force growth heightens importance of productivity growth
Top Related