Commuting In Amercia: Part 2

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


2006 Pisarski Report on Commuting in America


<ul><li>1.PART 2 COMMUTERS IN THE NINETIESPopulation and Worker Growth 3SOME SURPRISESIt is reasonable to expect very few surprises in popu-Why does this shift in growth matter for com-lation growth trends. The factors to be consideredmuting? Had the increase come about as the resultare relatively clear cut and demographers understandof increased birth rates it would have had a very lim-them well. In most cases, the changes in those fac- ited impact on commuting, at least for another 18torsbirth rates, death rates, population migra-to 20 years. Had the increase come from unexpectedtionshift at something like a glacial pace. What increases in longevity it would have had almost noa disconcerting surprise then when Census 2000effect. Because the increase was the result of immi-results revealed about 6 million people more than gration, it indicates almost an instant increase inexpected; instead of 275 million, the count was overcommuters. Most of the immigrant arrivals are of281 million.working age and quickly join the labor force. TheA very simple but roughly reliable approach toforeign-born population arriving in the 1990s wasunderstanding the nations population growth and itsparticularly concentrated in the 25-45 age group.7projections into the future that served well for the last Only 29% of the native population was in thishalf of the past century was that about 25 million in group but 44% of immigrants were in that range.population were added each decade from 1950-1990, Thus, a shift in population due to immigration canand about 25 million per decade were expected, as have an immediate impact on the number of work- FIGURE 2-1 Population Change, 1950-2050 30 Over 80%Population change (millions) 25 of immigrants 20arriving in the 155 years prior to the census were 10 in the 16-65 age5 group, the main0working age2040-20502030-20401970-19801990-20002010-20201950-19601980-1990 1960-19702020-20302000-2010 group, with very few older than 65.Actual Projectedshown in Figure 2-1, to be added out to 2050. Thus, ers and commuting. In this case, the size of the agethe expectation was for 100 years of very stable, pre-group from 16-65 years old, the main working agedictable growth.6 Instead of about 25 million in thegroup, reached a level in 2000 that had not beenperiod from 1990-2000, however, the census showed expected until increase of almost 33 million. The growth rate ofover 13% for the decade was well beyond the rate of 6Census Bureau, U.S. population trends as of September 13, 1999.less than 10% that had been expected. The simple7 Throughout this report, numbers in a range go to, but do notanswer to what happened is immigration. include, the ending number in the range.C O M M U T I N G I N A M E RI C A III | 15</li></ul> <p>2. centage terms, was expected (Commuting in AmericaTABLE 2-1 Worker and Population Increase, 1950-2000II earmarked 1990 as the turning point that signaledTotal WorkersWorker Increase Worker IncreasePopulationthe end of the worker boom). However, many are Year(Millions) (Millions) (%)Increase (%) hard-pressed to understand the sharper-than-expected 1950 58.9N/AN/A N/Adeclines, particularly given the larger-than-expectedincreases in immigrants who largely were of working 1960 65.8 6.9 11.718.5age. This situation, critical to commuting, will be 1970 78.612.8 19.513.3 discussed later in this chapter. 1980 96.718.1 23.011.4 Another point of note in the table is that the 1990115.118.4 19.2 9.7 30-year decline in the rate of population growth asthe baby boom waned took a sharp reversal in 2000 2000128.313.2 11.513.2and returned to the growth rates of the 1970s. SinceOverall Change69.4117.8 86.02000, worker growth has been quite limited giventhe events of 9/11 and the recession that followed.Between 2000 and 2003, only 1.4 million work-TABLE 2-2 Workers Age 65 and Olderers were added, about a 1.1% increase, accordingto the American Community Survey (ACS). In Age Group 19902000Change 2004, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) employment 65- 752,947,7443,305,563357,819statistics showed worker growth surged, adding 1.7 75+ 549,718 942,575 392,857million from December 2003 to December 2004,but were still an anemic 2.4% growth since 2000. 65+ 3,497,4624,248,138750,676The worker/population ratio of 62.4 was the same atthe end of 2004 as at the start of the year.A key concern for commuting is the rate of Perhaps the best example of the effects of immi- growth within the work-age segment of the popula- gration is the preCensus 2000 projections for the tion (ages 16-65). BLS has traditionally used 16 number of 18-year-olds, a useful indicator of newor over as their base measure of the labor force age labor force arrivals. According to projections, this group, but in the coming years that approach may age group, which had dropped below 4 million after prove misleading, as the baby boom ages and the 1990, would not reach 4 million again until 2008;share of population over 65 surges. The key point, in fact, 4 million was reached in 2000.and one to monitor carefully in the future, is that in2000 only 3.3% of workers were age 65 and older,not much greater than the 3% registered for 1990. PARALLEL LABOR FORCE TRENDSThe population at work among those 65 and older The boom in workers can be measured by the periodrose by roughly 750,000 from 3.5 million in 1990 to from 1970-1990 when the rates of increase in workers 4.25 million in 2000, about half of the growth com- exceeded population increase, as seen in Table from those age 75 and older as shown in Table Note also that in the overall period from 1950-2000, 2-2. The number of workers age 65 and older rose by workers in the population more than doubled. All ofover 21% in the period while the population in that this said, the sharp decline in the number and the rategroup only rose about 12%. As that groups share of of growth in workers in the 1990s comes as another the population increases sharply after 2010, a key demographic surprise. Some decline, certainly in per-question for commuting will be the extent to whichFIGURE 2-2 Workers by Age Group50Worker Nonworker40 Workers (millions)3020100 16-2525-35 35-4545-5555-6565-75 75+ Age group16| COMMUTING IN AMERICA III 3. TABLE 2-3 Population Growth Rates by Age Group, 1990-2000 Age Group1990 (Millions)2000 (Millions)Change (%) 1990 Distribution (%) 2000 Distribution (%)&lt; 16 56.9 64.3 13.022.922.816 - 65160.6 182.2 13.464.664.765+31.2 35.0 12.112.512.4All 248.7 281.413.1100.0 100.0 Note: Data include both household and general quarters population.8Figure 2-3 does a good jobFIGURE 2-3 Population and Labor Force Trends,of explaining the effects of the 1960-2000baby boom on commuting. Itshows how divergent the rate35of growth of the 16-65 age30group has been over the last25half of the twentieth century, Growth (percent) The numberonly moving in synch with20 of workers agethe total population since151990. But note that a new65 and older10factor is signicant: the civil- rose by moreian labor force did not grow 5in tandem with the 16-65 age than 21% in the 0group as it has since 1970.period while the 19601970 1980 19902000 If these data are expanded population in thatto examine the patterns bygender, as in Figure 2-4, it group only rose Total populationAge 16-65 Civilian labor forceis clear that both male andabout 12%. Asfemale labor force growth that groups sharerates have declined somewhatpersons in that age group continue to work.and that female growth rates show a sharper decline.of the populationAnother point is the percentage of these age This gure also displays the prominent role playedincreases sharplygroups that are workers. Figure 2-2 shows how this by women joining the labor force in extraordinary after 2010, astatistic plays out within the age groups. About 55% numbers over the period.of those in the 16-25 age group are workers, rising toAnother perspective on the data is shown in Fig- key question for75% in the main working years, until the 55-65 age ure 2-5, which starkly depicts some of the dramatic commuting willgroup when it again drops to 55%. From age 65-75,shifts of the era. Perhaps most fascinating is the be the extent toonly about 18% or 19% of the population works, decade from 1970-1980, in which total population,falling to 6% for those 75 and older. These values the 16-65 age group, and the civilian labor force all which persons invary distinctly by gender. The peak for men is 84% grew by almost exactly the same amount. The periodthat age groupin the 35-45 age group, whereas the peak for women from 1980-1990 shows a sharp drop in the increase continue to only 70% and it occurs in the 35 through 54 age of those 16-65 as the tail end of the baby boomergroups. In the 65-75 age group, it is 24% men versus group arrived. Finally, the 1990-2000 group shows14% women and 10% men versus 4% women forthe small growth in labor force relative to the growththose 75 and older. So, despite the fact that there arein population. In that sense, the period appearsmany more women than men 65 and older, a greater reminiscent of 1950-1960, when most of the babynumber of men in the over-65 age group work, boomers were rst born.roughly 2.5 million men to 1.7 million women.As can be seen from Table 2-3, the rates ofchange in numbers were about the same for all ofthe main age segments of interest here, and the dis-tribution of the population between the age groupsremained effectively identical for 2000.8 In tables throughout this report, numbers may not add due torounding.C OMMUT I NG I N A MER I CA III | 17 4. FIGURE 2-4MaleFemale Labor Force Trends, Looking Beyond the Numbers1960-2000 The Group Quarters Population50 Most of the U.S. population is organized into house-holds, and further classied into family and nonfamily45households. There is a segment of the population, however,that is not household based. These individuals are gener-40ally referred to as being in group quarters. The Census35Bureau recognizes two general categories of people ingroup quarters: 1.) the institutionalized population, which Growth (percent)30includes people under formally authorized, supervised careor custody in institutions (such as correctional institutions,25nursing homes, and juvenile institutions) at the time of20enumeration and 2.) the noninstitutionalized population,which includes all people who live in group quarters other15than institutions (such as college dormitories, military quar-ters, and group homes). From a commuting point of view,10only that segment of the group quarters population not in 5institutionalized settings is of interest and many of theseindividualswho may be college students, members of 0the military, farm camp workers, or members of religious 1960197019801990 2000ordersoften work on the same site where they live, sotheir work travel has limited impact on others. The total group quarters population in 2000 numberedPopulation age 16-65 Total civilian labor forceabout 7.8 million, just below 3% of the population, with aWomen in civilian labor forceMen in civilian labor forcehigher share for men than women. Of this group, it is thenoninstitutional population of about 3.7 million (2 millionmen and 1.7 million women) that has the potential to beFIGURE 2-5Population and Labor Force Increase,commuters. Of these, about 2 million are college students,1950-2000 about 600,000 are in the military, and the remainder arein other group arrangements. Generally, this report addresses the travel behavior2000of the 273.6 million members of the household popula-tion. The household population includes both families1990and nonfamilies. An example of a nonfamily householdis several unrelated people sharing an apartment wherethere are common kitchen and bath facilities. This would be1980considered a nonfamily household and not a group quartersarrangement.19701960BABY BOOM WORKERSAPPROACHING RETIREMENT 0510 1520 25 30 35 Even with the population growth surge fromIncrease (millions) immigrants, the strong impact of the baby boomgeneration still remains very clear. Figure 2-6 showsTotal populationAge 16-65Civilian labor force the sharp shifts in net population change by 5-yearage group. The leading edge of the baby boom isvery clear at ages 55-60 and the trailing edge at ages35-40. Something of a surprise is that the 65-70 agegroup actually registers a decline in population, lag-ging previous cohorts, as a result of the lack of birthsduring the Depression Era.18| COMMUTIN G IN AM E RICA III 5. FIGURE 2-6 Net Population Change, 1990-2000765Population change (millions)43210-1-2-3</p>


View more >