Labor Force Participation Rates

June 24, 2021June 24, 2021 tomkapostasy2 Comments

Rates by Racial Group

Racial Grp	1950	1960	1970	1979	1990	2001	2007	2018	2021
Total	59	59	60	64	67	67	66	63	62
White (non-Hisp)	58	59	60	64	67	67	66	63	61
Black				61	64	65	64	63	61
Hispanic			60	63	68	70	69	67	65
Asian						68	66	63	63
Non-white				62	66	68	67	65	63

The overall US labor force participation rate is the ratio of those employed plus those actively looking for work among the non-institutional (military, prison, etc.) working age (16-64) population. It rose a quite substantial 8 points, from 59% in 1950 to 67% in 1990, mainly due to increased female participation rates. It remained in the 66-67% range through 2007, before declining by 5% in the last 14 years, a quite rapid decline. Note that the years selected are the ends of business cycle expansions plus the current year.

The overall rate mirrors the White rate as White’s make up the largest share of the population and because other racial participation rates are similar to the White rate. Black labor force participation has followed the White pattern, but been 2-3% lower than the White rate for most periods. The Hispanic rate started just below the White rate, but exceeded it by 1990, growing to a 3% advantage in 2021 at 65% versus 62%. The Asian participation rate has matched the White rate, sometimes being 1% higher.

Labor Force Participation Rate (CIVPART) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Labor Force Participation Rate – Black or African American (LNS11300006) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Labor Force Participation Rate – Hispanic or Latino (LNS11300009) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Labor Force Participation Rate – Asian (LNU01332183) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Racial Groups Percent of US Total Population

Racial Group	1950	1960	1970	1979	1990	2001	2007	2018	2021
White (non-Hisp.)	87	85	83	79	76	69	66	60	60
Black	10	11	11	12	12	12	12	12	12
Hispanic	2	3	5	6	9	13	16	18	19
Asian	0	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	6

The decline in the White share of the US population, especially in new births and school age children has been highly publicized and politicized for 40 years. The White share of the population has fallen from 5/6ths to just 3/5ths since 1950. African-American share grew by 2% in the 50’s and 60’s before settling at 12%. The Hispanic population has grown rapidly, from just 2% to 19%, passing the Black share by 2001. The broadly defined Asian population has grown from less than 1% to 6%. This breakdown does not include multi-race categories, which now amount to 3%. For labor force participation purposes, racial composition plays a minor role in the total rate.

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States

Male/Female Rates, Ages 16+

Group	1950	1960	1970	1979	1990	2001	2007	2018	2021
Total	59	59	60	64	67	67	66	63	62
Men	87	84	80	78	77	75	73	69	67
Women	33	37	43	52	58	60	59	57	56
55+ Men	67	61	57	47	40	41	46	46
55+ Women	20	22	26	22	22	27	32	35
25-64 Men	97	97	96	94	93	90	90	88
25-64 Women	39	42	50	62	73	77	76	74

Male participation in the labor force has fallen by 20 percentage points, from 87% to 67%. The increase in the 65+ age group from less than 4% to almost 8% of the total population accounts for more than 4% of this 20% decline, but 3/4ths or more is due to other factors. Female participation rates, working against this same 4% reduction due to the mix of older residents, grew from just 33% to a peak of 60% in 2001 before declining by 4%, about half of the male decline from 2001 to 2021. The expansion of opportunities for women and their choices to pursue the opportunities in the US is well understood. The increased share of aged 65+ women accounts for almost 3% of the 4% female decline. The reduction in male labor force participation is the big story.

Women, aged 55+ averaged just 22% participation through 1990. Most of the increased labor force participation in these 40 years was among younger women. More than one-third (35%) of women aged 55+ are now active labor market participants.

Their male counterparts in this age bracket show a 21 point decline, mirroring the overall male decline, but starting at the lower rate of 67% and ending at 46%. There is a mix variance here, as 55-64 year olds made up 4% of the population in the first 50 years, but now account for 6%, while the 65+ age group started at 4% for the first 25 years and then grew to 8%, so the share of 65+ citizens out of the 55+ total has risen from 45% to 56%. The mix variance accounts for a 5% decline in the participation rate, but the other 16% is due to other factors.

Demographers refer to the 25-54 year age group as the prime labor force. Here, we see women double their participation rate from 1950 (39%) to 2001 (77%) before falling off a bit to 74%.

For prime age men, we see a 9% point drop, from a near universal participation rate (97%) in 1950-60 down to 88% by 2018.

Labor Force Participation Rate – Women (LNS11300002) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Labor Force Participation Rate – Men (LNU01300001) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Participation Rates by Race within Gender

Group	1950	1960	1970	1979	1990	2001	2007	2018	2021
Men	87	84	80	78	77	75	73	69	67
White Men	88	86	83	80	78	77	76	72	70
Black Men			79	76	74	72	71	68	66
Hisp Men			85	85	85	85	84	80	79
Women	33	37	43	52	58	60	59	57	56
White Women	33	36	41	49	58	60	60	58	57
Black Women			51	55	61	65	64	62	60
Hisp Women			45	49	56	60	59	60	58

The White women data follows the total. A majority of Black women were labor force participants in 1970, 10 points higher than White women. They increased their labor force participation by 14 points, to a peak of 65% in 2001, before falling back by 5 points to 60% in 2021. This generally matches the pattern of White women, except that Black women have averaged an extra 4 participation points. Hispanic women started between the other two groups, at 45% in 1970 and then climbing to 60% in 2001. Their participation has remained close to 60%. Overall, relatively minor racial differences in female participation. About a 25 point increase in the second half of the 20th century followed by a 2 point decline in the last 20 years.

White men make up the largest share of the male total, so their data is close to the total, declining by 18 points, from 88% to 70%: from 7 out of 8 in the labor force to just 7 in 10. Black men follow the same Total pattern, but are consistently 4% less active in the labor market versus White men. Hispanic men first appear in the data in 1970, with an 85% participation rate, just above the 83% White male rate. However, Hispanic males stay at this level through 2007, while the White rate falls by 7%. In the last 14 years, the Hispanic male participation rate has dropped by the same 5% as the White and Black male rates, ending at 79%, 9 points above the 70% White rate.

Labor Force Participation Rate – 20 Yrs. & Over, White Men (LNS11300028) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Labor Force Participation Rate – 20 Yrs. & Over, White Women (LNS11300029) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Labor Force Participation Rate – 20 Yrs. & Over, Black or African American Women (LNS11300032) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Labor Force Participation Rate – 20 Yrs. & Over, Black or African American Men (LNS11300031) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Labor Force Participation Rate – 20 Yrs. & Over, Hispanic or Latino Men (LNU01300034) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Labor Force Participation Rate – 20 Yrs. & Over, Hispanic or Latino Women (LNU01300035) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Participation Rates by Age Group

Age Group	1950	1960	1970	1979	1990	2001	2007	2018	2021
Total	59	59	60	64	67	67	66	63	62
16-19	50	44	48	56	53	50	40	34	34
20-24	64	65	68	77	78	78	74	71	70
25-54	65	69	72	78	83	84	83	82	81
55-64	61	61	62	56	56	60	64	65	65
65+	28	20	18	12	11	12	17	20	20
55+	43	41	39	33	30	32	39	40	39
25-64	64	68	70	75	79	81	80	79	78
non-prime	50	47	48	50	46	45	46	44	43

Age Group Percent of Population

Age	1950	1960	1970	1979	1990	2001	2007	2018	2021
0-15	27.2	31.4	28.8	23.8	22.2	22.2	21.2	19.0	18.6
16-19	7.2	7.4	9.4	9.6	7.4	7.4	7.4	6.6	6.6
20-24	7.6	6.2	7.8	9.4	8.0	6.8	7.2	7.0	6.8
25-54	50.6	46.6	45.8	48.0	52.0	53.2	53.8	53.2	52.4
55+	16.4	17.0	17.0	18.2	18.4	19.0	21.0	26.8	28.0
55-64	9.0	8.6	8.8	9.0	8.0	8.6	10.6	12.6	12.4
65+	7.4	8.4	8.2	9.2	10.4	10.4	10.4	14.2	15.6
25-54 % 16-64	69.5	67.9	64.3	63.0	66.8	68.4	68.3	65.7	64.4
non-prime % work age	30.5	32.1	35.7	37.0	33.2	31.6	31.7	34.3	35.6

Let’s start with the prime age labor force (25-54). From 1950 to 2001, we see a 19 point increase, from 65% to 84%. This is all due to the increase in female participation, which more than offset the significant decline in male participation. In total, from an economic point of view, this is great news. The total participation rate has slipped back a bit, from 84% to 81% in the last 2 decades, with men and women both falling back, but men falling faster. Aside from the distortion of the baby boom when it declined to 46%, the prime age group has typically been about 52-53% of the population. It has fallen by 1% in the last decade as the growth in older population groups has been faster than the decline in the childhood group.

The non-working age 0-15 year old childhood group reached a full 31% of the population total in 1960 and has since fallen to 19%. From an economic point of view, this too is good news, as the dependency ratio of non-workers to workers declines.

The teenager participation averaged 46% from 1950-1970. It averaged 55% in the mid-70’s to mid-90’s, but has quickly declined to just 34% in recent years. As teenagers make up 11% of the working age population, this drives a 2% decrease in the overall workforce participation rate. From an economic point of view, it is possible that the other activities of teens today are more valuable in creating human capital than the part-time entry level work that many more were performing in the 1970’s-90’s.

The labor force participation for young 20’s rose quickly from 64% to 77% by 1979 with increased participation by young women in the economy. The rate has declined to 70%. As this group accounts for 11% of the work age population, this has driven a nearly 1% point decrease in the overall work age participation rate.

The 55-64 year old group has a different pattern, averaging 61% in the 1950’s to 1970’s, decreasing 5 points to 56% in the mid-70’s through mid 90’s, before growing all the way back to 65% recently. The increased female participation rate did not impact this group significantly. During the 1975-95 time, more men took advantage of early retirement possibilities, some forced and some voluntary. This group increased from 9% to 12% of the total population. The 9 point participation rate increase since 1990 adds about one and one-half points to the overall participation rate, offsetting some of the 16-25 year old reduction.

The 65+ group pattern is similar to the 55-64 year olds, starting above 20%, falling down to 11% and returning to 20%. Economically, this recovery adds to the nation’s output, even if this group is not considered part of the work age population. This group has more than doubled as a share of the total population, reaching 15%.

With men and women combined, the total participation rate drops 5 points, from 67% in 2001 to 62% in 2021. The prime age group accounts for one-half of the working age population and shows a 3 point decline from 84% to 81%, with a one and one-half percent negative impact on the total rate. The significant declines in the 16-25 age group drives the rest of the 5 point decrease.

An Aging Labor Force and the Challenges of 65+ Jobseekers – AARP Insight on the Issues

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov)

Labor Force Participation Rate – 16-19 Yrs. (LNS11300012) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Labor Force Participation Rate – 20-24 Yrs. (LNS11300036) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Labor Force Participation Rate – 25-54 Yrs. (LNU01300060) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Activity Rate: Aged 55-64: All Persons for the United States (LRAC55TTUSA156S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Labor Force Participation Rate – 55 Yrs. & Over (LNS11324230) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Labor Force Participation Rate – With No Disability, 65 Years and Over (LNU01375379) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Population of United States of America 2019 – PopulationPyramid.net

Rates by Educational Attainment (Ages 25-64)

Group	1970	1979	1990	2001	2007	2018
Total	70	75	79	81	80	79
Less than HS grad	66	61	61	59	63	61
HS grad	70	74	78	76	76	73
Some college	74	80	83	82	82	82
College grad +	82	86	86	87	86	87
Percent of Population
Less than HS grad	45	31	22	16	13	10
HS grad	33	37	38	32	31	29
Some college	10	15	18	26	27	26
College grad +	11	17	21	26	29	35

Data on labor force participation by educational attainment for ages 25-64 is available for 1970 through 2018. During this nearly 50 year period, the total participation rate increased from 70% to 79%, with a peak of 81% in 2001. Recall that the official total participation rate included the 16-24 year age brackets where participation fell significantly. We have only a 2 point decline from 2001 to 2018 rather than 5 points.

The big take-away is that participation rates for each group don’t change much through time. Those who didn’t complete high school average 61% pretty consistently. There are changes in the male and female participation rates and racial composition rippling through the data, but on average 3 of 5 people without a high school diploma participate in the labor market.

High school graduates average 76%, with a 3 point decline to 73% for 2018.

Individuals with some college classes have averaged 82% participation, except in 1970 when it was only 74%.

Those holding a college degree have averaged 86% participation, except in 1970 when they averaged 82%.

The proportion of citizens in each group has changed dramatically. Less than high school graduates dropped from 45% to just 10% of the post college working age population. College degree holders increased from11% to 35%. College attendees grew from 10% to 26%. High school grads started at 33%, increased to 38% and then declined to 29%. In total, the country shifted one-third of the population from non-high school education to college degree holders (BA and AA).

Given the consistency of labor force participation by level of educational attainment, the overall increase from 70% to 79% makes sense. Applying “typical” participation rates to each group (61.8, 74.5, 80.5, 85.7) produces an estimated participation rate for each year: 70, 73, 74, 77, 78 and 79. The 1990 and 2001 years stand out as having significantly higher actual than estimated labor force participation rates (+5 and +4). Perhaps some of the decrease in various rates since 1990 is due to there being an unusually high participation rate during this period as the economy expanded for relatively long periods with relatively mild recessions.

1960 Census: Educational Attainment of the U.S. Population

Educational attainment of workers, March 1981 (bls.gov)

Handout_1.pdf (duke.edu)

ECON 390 – Labor Force Participation Data (fortlewis.edu)

Labor force participation, employment, and unemployment of persons 25 to 64 years old, by sex, race/ethnicity, age group, and educational attainment: 2016, 2017, and 2018

Prime Age Participation (25-64)

Group	1950	1960	1970	1979	1990	2001	2007	2018	2021
Total 25-64	65	69	72	78	83	84	83	82	81
Women	39	42	50	62	73	77	76	76	75
Men	97	97	96	94	93	90	90	89	88
White Men			97	95	94	93	91	89
Hispanic Men			95	94	91	91	90	90
Black Men			90	88	85	83	82	79

The prime age category is more than one-half of the labor force and contains individuals with the greatest earning power. Most attention has been focused on the 3 point drop from 2001 to 2021. It is also important to note the 19 point increase from 1950. We have data for men and women in this age group. Female participation essentially doubled from 1950 to 2001, before flattening out (down 2 points).

The male participation rate declines throughout the 70 year period, not just in the last 20 years. It falls from near universal 97% to 88%, meaning that 1 in 8 prime age males is not in the work force. As usually, the White rate matches the Total rate. Hispanic men have seen a 5 point decline from 1970-2018 while Whites fell 8 points. Hispanic men in 2018 had a higher participation rate than Whites. Black men started 7 points behind Whites at 90% and declined by an even larger 11% to just 79%. Whatever factors are driving prime age White men out of the labor force appear to be negatively impacting Hispanics and Blacks as well.

Activity Rate: Aged 25-54: Males for the United States (LRAC25MAUSM156S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Activity Rate: Aged 25-54: Females for the United States (LRAC25FEUSM156S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Activity Rate: Aged 55-64: All Persons for the United States (LRAC55TTUSM156S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco | The Prime-Age Workforce and Labor Market Polarization (frbsf.org)

Chmura | Prime-Age Participation Rate

20160620_cea_primeage_male_lfp.pdf (archives.gov)

Summary

The overall participation rate for work age individuals (16-64) increased from 59% in 1950 to 67% in 1990 and has since dropped to 62%. The prime age group (25-54) increased from 65% to 84% before sliding back to 81%. For various age groups, the female participation rate doubled from mid 30 percent to high 60 percent range between 1950 and 2000 before slipping back a little. This drove the overall participation increase through 2001. The male participation rate for ages 16+ fell from 87% to 67% between 1950 and 2021. The prime age male (25-54%) rate dropped from 97% to 88%. Similar declines were seen for all races. The Obama white paper above (CEA) provides relevant details. The IBD article below is a good summary of this situation.

Labor Force Participation Rate Mystery: Why Have So Many Americans Stopped Working? | Investor’s Business Daily (investors.com)

The recent rebound in prime-age labor force participation (brookings.edu)

combined—hearing-figures-07-14-2015-final-.pdf (senate.gov)

U.S. Labor Force Trends (prb.org)

US Infant Mortality Rate: It’s Complicated

June 11, 2021October 23, 2021 tomkapostasy1 Comment

The good news is that infant mortality rates (deaths/1,000 live births in 1st year) declined by 80% between 1950 and 2000, from 35 to just 7 and have declined an additional 14% to a little less than 6 by 2018.

• United States: infant mortality rate 1935-2020 | Statista

Infant Mortality Rate for the United States (SPDYNIMRTINUSA) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

The main CDC page highlights the 5 main causes of death, the significant state differences (higher rates in the south central states, Ohio and WV, and differences by race. Black infant mortality rates (IMR) remain more than twice as high as non-Hispanic Whites. Asians have lower rates than Whites. Hispanic White infant mortality rates are “close” to the White rates.

Infant Mortality | Maternal and Infant Health | Reproductive Health | CDC

The Petersen-KFF website provides clear summaries of the main dimensions of this public health area. About 2/3rds of deaths occur in the first month and are termed neonatal. The remainder in the first year of life are termed postnatal. Both neonatal and postnatal death rates have declined in the last 20 years.

Petersen provides more details on state level death rates, showing that the Great Lakes states have high rates similar to the southern states (7), while much of the country has much lower rates (5).

Births for mothers under 20 show death rates almost twice as high as those in their twenties and thirties.

Ten factors account for two-thirds of deaths, lead by congenital defects and early delivery/low birth weight which account for one-third.

The US mortality rate (5.8) is 75% higher than other countries with similar income levels (3.5). The world-class results in Japan and Finland come in at 2. Details in the way the US reports its figures may account for one-third of the difference versus comparable countries. While the US rate has declined from 7 to 5.8 in the last 20 years, the comparable group reduced its rate from 4.6 to 3.3. Various sources propose that socioeconomic inequality, racial differences and health care system differences account for the US’s poor performance.

What do we know about infant mortality in the U.S. and comparable countries? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker

Health status – Infant mortality rates – OECD Data

The racial disparities in infant mortality rates are addressed in various ways.

The very different rates by state seem to show that differing health care policies matter greatly.

Regional variation in Black infant mortality: The contribution of contextual factors (plos.org)

Socioeconomic and racial differences at the county level can be clearly seen in Indiana.

Infant mortality in Indiana | County Health Rankings & Roadmaps

The US Health & Human Services website highlights black-white differences in birth weights, SIDS occurrence, early births/low birth rates and causes of death.

Infant Mortality and African Americans – The Office of Minority Health (hhs.gov)

The statistical analyses to disentangle socioeconomic status and race are very complicated. Most show that socioeconomic status accounts for half of differences, but not nearly 100%. This study found that maternal education, maternal marital status and maternal age “explained” much of the racial differences. Of course, the authors then point to poverty and income differences as underlying factors.

Racial and Ethnic Infant Mortality Gaps and the Role of Socio-Economic Status (nih.gov)

Several more recent studies point to systematic racism working through a large number of lifetime events which impact the mother’s health as the primary cause of racial differences in infant mortality rates.

Exploring African Americans’ High Maternal and Infant Death Rates – Center for American Progress

Eliminating Racial Disparities in Maternal and Infant Mortality – Center for American Progress

One study of Florida births indicated that having a black doctor reduced deaths by 40% for black infant births. White infant mortality was not effected by the race of the doctor.

Black newborns 3 times more likely to die when looked after by White doctors – CNN

In summary, great progress has been made since WW II and continues to be made in the US. However, the reduction in death rates has slowed down. The US death rates are much higher than in other higher income nations and death rates in Europe and Japan have declined faster than in the US. US state death rates range widely, from 4 to 8. Black death rates are twice as high as white death rates.

There remains room for significant progress. World class 2 deaths per 1,000 versus 4.7 for American whites, 11 for American blacks, 4.2 for Californians, 4.6 for New Yorkers, 6.1 for Illinoisans and Floridians, 7.2 for Buckeyes, Hoosiers and Georgians, more than 8 for Mississippians and Arkansans.

US Life Expectancy

June 10, 2021October 23, 2021 tomkapostasyLeave a comment

Historically, this was one of the “good news” items. It went up and up and up.

The results in the last 3 years have not been so positive.

Vital Statistics Rapid Release, Number 010 (February 2021) (cdc.gov)

Life expectancy has dropped by more than one year. The recent COVID effect is overshadowing the role of “deaths of despair”: opioids, alcoholism and suicide.

U.S. Life Expectancy Dropped In First Half Of 2020 : NPR

U.S. life expectancy plummets amid pandemic – POLITICO

The US life expectancy rate is much lower than countries at the same level of economic development. The US suffers from the negative impact of smoking, obesity, homicides, suicides, traffic fatalities, infant mortality and unequal health care access.

Why is life expectancy in the US lower than in other rich countries? – Our World in Data

How does U.S. life expectancy compare to other countries? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker

The difference in expected lifetimes by zip codes (income/wealth) has recently been highlighted, indicating a difference of as much as 30 years between the poorest and wealthiest locations.

ZIP Code Effect: Neighborhood Can Affect Life Expectancy by 30 Years – Blue Zones

Life expectancy in the United States, mapped by neighborhood — Quartz (qz.com)

US Abortion Rates

June 10, 2021October 23, 2021 tomkapostasy2 Comments

US abortion rates have declined significantly for nearly 40 years. Reported abortions increased from near zero through 1967 to 1.5M in 1979 and a peak of 1.6M in 1990, before declining to one-third of that level by 2018. The abortion rate per 1,000 child-bearing women reached 16.3 in 1973 when the US Supreme Court issued its Roe vs. Wade ruling. The rate peaked at nearly twice as high in 1981 at 29.3. The rate fell back to the 1973 level by 2012 and has fallen 20% further in recent years to 13.5.

Historical abortion statistics, United States (johnstonsarchive.net)

Abortion Rate In U.S. Falls To Lowest Level Since Roe v. Wade : The Two-Way : NPR

6 Charts Show How US Abortion Rate Reached Lowest Level Since 1973 (businessinsider.com)

U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Decline, Reaching Historic Low in 2017 | Guttmacher Institute

• Chart: U.S. Abortion Rate Falls to Lowest Level Since Roe v. Wade | Statista

CDCs Abortion Surveillance System FAQs | CDC

Abortion statistics in the United States – Wikipedia

Is Indiana Better Off?

June 10, 2021October 29, 2021 tomkapostasy2 Comments

Population Rank of 50 States

Indiana maintained its 11th place rank from 1920 through 1970.

Since 1970 it has fallen 6 places to just 17th.

Of the 9 “nearby” states, only Iowa, dropping 7 places performs worse at attracting and retaining citizens. Missouri, Wisconsin and West Virginia are essentially the same as Indiana, dropping 5 places each in this half century. Michigan and Kentucky slipped by 3 places. Illinois and Ohio, starting near the top at 5th and 6th place, declined just one place. Tennessee gained one place, from 17th to 16th, moving ahead of Indiana.

Indiana Population 2021 (Demographics, Maps, Graphs) (worldpopulationreview.com)

Indiana’s Population Gains: What’s Our Rank?

90 Years and Indiana Doubles Its Population (January-February 2015)

Census 2020: Indiana population up, Midwest population down in 2020 (indystar.com)

Personal Income Growth Since the Great Recession

The economic recovery between 2007 and 2019 was one of the slowest after a recession. Average U.S. personal income grew by 2.0% overall. Indiana’s 4 way tie for 19th place at 1.9% is above the median state, even though it is slightly below the U.S. 2.0% average. 10 states grew by 2.4% annually or faster. 19 grew by 1.5% or less per year. Among the nearby states, Indiana was the second fastest grower, trailing only Tennessee at 2.2%. Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio and Kentucky grew just a little less quickly, with 1.5-1.6% rates. Michigan (1.4%), Missouri (1.3%), West Virginia (1.1% and Illinois (1.0%) trailed significantly.

States 2020 Personal Income Growth Was Highest in 20 Years | The Pew Charitable Trusts (pewtrusts.org)

Relative Per Capita Income

Year	IN	US	IN/US	Decade IN – US %
1970	3,849	4,218	91.3
1980	9,365	10,204	91.8	+1%
1990	17,768	19,641	90.5	-3%
2000	28,233	30,640	92.1	+3%
2010	35,453	40,518	87.5	-7%
2020	51,340	59,754	85.9	-3%

Indiana per capita income has trailed the national average throughout the last half century, starting at 91% of the national figure. Indiana gained a small amount in the first 30 years, reaching 92%. Indiana has slipped quite significantly to 86% in the last 20 years.

Per Capita Personal Income in Indiana (INPCPI) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Personal income per capita (A792RC0A052NBEA) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

• Indiana: per capita real GDP 2000-2019 | Statista

United States | Per Capita Personal Income Trends over 1958-2020 (reaproject

Per Capita State GDP Rankings

State	1998	2018	Change
IL	11	12	-1
IA	33	21	+12
WI	28	24	+4
OH	20	25	-5
IN	27	32	-5
TN	31	36	-5
MI	26	37	-11
MO	23	38	-15
KY	35	44	-9
WV	47	48	-1

In the 20 years from 1998-2018, Indiana per capita GDP grew by an average level for the heartland, 19%, the same as Ohio, West Virginia and Tennessee. Kentucky, Missouri and Michigan grew by only 10-14%. Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa grew by 24% or more, close to the national average.

During this time, Indiana dropped from a middling 27th rank to a lower 32nd rank. Ohio and Tennessee also dropped by 5 places. Kentucky dropped by 9, Michigan by 11 and Missouri by 15 places. Illinois and West Virginia slipped by 1 notch. Iowa and Wisconsin increased their rankings.

Useful Stats: Per Capita Gross State Product, 1998-2018 | SSTI

Median Household Income Rank

State	1984	2018	Change
IL	14	14	0
IA	29	18	+11
WI	18	26	-8
MO	17	31	-14
OH	19	32	-13
MI	16	33	-17
IN	30	34	-4
TN	47	41	+6
KY	42	44	-2
WV	52	47	+5

Over a slightly longer time period, 1984-2018, Indiana again slipped by a few places, from 30th to 34th place. Four states dropped by 8 or more places: Wisconsin, Ohio, Missouri and Michigan. Illinois and Kentucky maintained their relative positions. West Virginia, Tennessee and Iowa improved their rankings.

Median Household Income by State: 2018 Update – dshort – Advisor Perspectives

Useful Stats: Median Household Income by State, 1984-2018 | SSTI

Summary

Indiana has been average or above average versus its “peer group” of 9 nearby states, but it has lost position versus the nation on all 5 measures. Personal income growth since 2007 is the best result, at 1.9% versus 2.0% national average. Indiana population has fallen 6 spots to 17th in 50 years. Per capita income versus the nation has slipped by 6% to just 86% of the average in 20 or 50 years. Per capita state GDP has dropped 5 places to 32nd place in 20 years. Median household income has fallen 4 places to 34th place in 34 years.

Indiana’s business friendly low tax/low service strategy has helped the state do better than its peers, but has not delivered above average growth by any measure.

How Could We Lose? Democrats Lament.

June 8, 2021June 8, 2021 tomkapostasyLeave a comment

In the 2020 elections, Democrats once again earned a smaller share of votes than expected. Republican candidates in national, state and local election outperformed. Candidate Trump registered 74M votes, 11M more votes than in 2016. Americans were voting for the “real Trump”, not just the imagined populist candidate Trump. He earned 47.0%, up from 46.4%. Biden registered 81M votes, 15M more than Hillary’s performance. The Democratic share increased from 48.5% to 51.3%. A presidential win, a narrow House win and a very narrow Senate win.

“How can this be?” questioned the Democratic party leaders and supporters. “Where is our landslide victory?”

There was a higher voting percentage, which usually helps Democrats.

There were more registered and voting minorities, which always helps Democrats.

There were more young voters and fewer older voters, which helps Democrats.

The “special” negatives of Hillary as a candidate could not effect the results.

America is becoming less religious and less evangelical, which helps Democratic results.

Voter surveys show 60% plus support for many leading Democratic policies.

Despite the 2010 “Citizens United” Supreme Court case that eliminated restrictions on campaign contributions, Democrats raised money as effectively as Republicans.

Obama was able to win convincingly in 2008 and 2012 as a moderate Democrat, increasing the number of independents who would consider voting for Democrats at all levels.

Democrats deliver results on social, environmental, international, military and economic issues.

Like all political parties, Democrats “know we are right”.

Setting aside the “policy content” of the 2020 election for this article, Republicans had their own advantages in these elections.

The “megatrend” in the US and west continues to lean toward conservative politicians since the Reagan/Thatcher switch. There is great momentum in voting.

The U.S. Senate and electoral college provide an advantage to Republican leading states, adding 2-4% to the pure voting totals.

Republicans captured a greater share of state legislatures in 2010 and took advantage of this position to gerrymander state and national districts in their favor. At the national level, this adds 1-2% to the Republican House team.

The Republican supporting media (Fox) and talking heads continue to be more effective than the Democrats who are still “catching up.” Republicans have effectively undercut the legitimacy of the “mainstream media” for many, causing them to abandon centrist platforms and consume only Republican supporting sources.

The Republican advantage in the public policy “think tank” arena continues. See the article aggregators at RealClearPolitics or RealClearMarkets for samples of “policy pieces”. Left-leaning contributors from the academy, unions, not-for-profits, entertainment industry and Democratic party publish fewer articles and generally restrict their content to research articles.

Republicans continue to have an advantage in painting Democrats as extremists, socialists, communists, radicals, anarchists, irresponsible, anti-American, soft on crime, atheists, secularists, relativists, opportunists, special interest supporters, pinkos, big spenders, etc.

While Democrats always considered themselves “the party of the big tent”, Ronald Reagan was able to erect a tent which welcomed various somewhat incompatible streams of “conservativism”: philosophical, main street, wall street, religious, social, economic, libertarian, traditional, military and American. Republicans have leveraged this advantage, cooperating on “conservative” policies and ignoring those with conflicts.

Republicans since Newt Gingrich have effectively defined a very polarized world view. Democrats are the enemy. Party discipline is paramount. Results matter most. Insufficiently conservative or loyal reps have been chased from the party. This means that all Republicans vote for all Republican candidates in the general election. Any Republican is better than any Democrat.

Far left, new left, progressive Democrats take a different stance. They support progressive policies and candidates. They are not sure that a moderate, center-left Democrat is “better” than a Republican. They may not vote, cast a write-in ballot, or choose the libertarian or the socialist option. This costs mainstream Democratic candidates 1-4% of the general election vote. In Europe, they would have a party to vote for and the coalition building stage of a parliamentary government would give them influence, from time to time.

Republicans continue to win the framing and communications wars, better positioning their policies and candidates. Pro-choice versus pro-life. American versus globalist. Free market versus government control. States rights versus central government. Regulations versus necessary limits. Common man versus elites. Balanced budget versus deficit spending! US versus UN.

In recent years, Republicans have started to shape election laws to favor turnout from their supporters and discourage turnout from their opponents. This did not appear to have a major impact on the 2020 results, but could do so in the future.

“politics ain’t beanbag”.

Republicans have very effectively managed their political resources and campaigns in recent years. The Democratic demographic trends are simply not enough to assure wins in the short-run.

Federal Government Employees

June 3, 2021June 3, 2021 tomkapostasy2 Comments

Year	Exec	Postal	Ex+Post	ActMil	Total	SubDef	SubCivilian	U.S. Pop
1955	1.9	.4	2.3	2.9	5.2	4.1	1.1	166
1960	1.8	.4	2.2	2.5	4.7	3.5	1.2	181
1965	1.9	.4	2.4	2.7	5.0	3.7	1.3	194
1970	2.2	.5	2.8	3.1	5.9	4.3	1.6	206
1975	2.1	.6	2.8	2.1	4.9	3.2	1.7	216
1980	2.2	.5	2.8	2.1	4.8	3.0	1.8	227
1985	2.3	.7	3.0	2.2	5.2	3.3	1.9	238
1990	2.3	.8	3.1	2.1	5.1	3.1	2.0	250
1995	2.0	.8	2.8	1.5	4.3	2.3	2.0	265
2000	1.8	.8	2.6	1.4	4.0	2.0	2.0	282
2005	1.9	.7	2.6	1.4	4.0	2.0	2.0	295
2010	2.1	.6	2.8	1.4	4.2	2.2	2.0	309
2015	2.1	.5	2.6	1.3	4.0	2.1	1.9	321
2020	2.2	.5	2.8	1.4	4.1	2.1	2.1	331

Year	Exec	Postal	Ex+Post	ActMil	Total	SubDef	SubCivilian
1955	1.1%	.22%	1.4%	1.8%	3.1%	2.5%	.64%
1960	1.0%	.23%	1.2%	1.4%	2.6%	2.0%	.66%
1965	1.0%	.23%	1.2%	1.4%	2.6%	1.9%	.69%
1970	1.1%	.27%	1.4%	1.5%	2.8%	2.1%	.76%
1975	1.0%	.26%	1.3%	1.0%	2.3%	1.5%	.79%
1980	1.0%	.24%	1.2%	0.9%	2.1%	1.3%	.79%
1985	1.0%	.30%	1.3%	0.9%	2.2%	1.4%	.80%
1990	0.9%	.30%	1.2%	0.8%	2.1%	1.2%	.82%
1995	0.8%	.28%	1.1%	0.6%	1.6%	0.9%	.76%
2000	0.6%	.28%	0.9%	0.5%	1.4%	0.7%	.70%
2005	0.6%	.24%	0.9%	0.5%	1.4%	0.7%	.68%
2010	0.7%	.19%	0.9%	0.5%	1.4%	0.7%	.65%
2015	0.7%	.15%	0.8%	0.4%	1.2%	0.6%	.59%
2020	0.7%	.15%	0.8%	0.4%	1.3%	0.6%	.62%

All Employees, Federal (CES9091000001) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

All Employees, Federal, Except U.S. Postal Service (CES9091100001) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

All Employees, U.S. Postal Service (CES9091912001) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

1970 (usps.com)

US Population by Year (multpl.com)

DCAS Reports – Active Duty Deaths by Year and Manner (osd.mil)

U.S. Military Personnel 1954-2014: The Numbers (historyinpieces.com)

How Many People Does the U.S. Federal Government Employ? (historyinpieces.com)

Federal Workforce Statistics Sources: OPM and OMB (fas.org)

Executive Branch Civilian Employment Since 1940 (opm.gov)

Total Federal Government employment has ranged from 4-5 million across the last 65 years, from 1955, when post WW II changes were in effect until today, 2020.

While Federal Government jobs have been flat to down 20%, the U.S. population has doubled, from 166 million to 331 million people.

Hence, the ratio of federal jobs to population has dropped from 3.1% in 1955, or 2.6% in 1960-1965 to just 1.25% in 2020. The much maligned and mistrusted federal government is less than half as large, in relative terms, as it was from 1955-1965.

The detailed components are somewhat complex. The judicial and legislative branches have employed a relatively immaterial 30,000 to 66,000 during this time, doubling with the population.

The Executive Branch includes both the Department of Defense and other civilian agencies. It does not include active military employees. It typically does not include the postal service (USPS), which is seen as a truly independent agency. The Executive Branch started with 1.860 M employees and ended with 2.206 M in 2020. The low was 1.778 M in 2000 and the high was 2.252 M in 1990. In rough terms, flat employment for 65 years. As a percentage of the population, it has ranged from 1.12% to 0.65%, declining throughout the period.

The postal service started with 367,000 in 1955, grew to 761,000 in 1990, flattened out for 1995-2000, before declining to 492,000 in 2015 and 496,000 in 2020. So, we have a doubling in the first 45 years, adding 400,000 staff, followed by a reduction of one-quarter million in the last 20 years. As a percentage of the population, it grew from 0.22% to 0.30%, before declining to 0.15% in 2015-2020.

Combining the executive, legislative, judicial and postal branches, we get a subtotal that excludes the active military category. This is what most people think of as “federal” employees. This started at 2.3 M in 1955, grew to 3.1 M in 1990 before settling down a bit to 2.8 M in 2020. As a percentage of the population, it began at 1.36% and ended at 0.84%. This is a 38% reduction, removing more than 0.5% of the population from government employment.

The active military population has declined from 2.9M in 1955 and 3.1M in 1970 (Vietnam winding down) to 1.4M in 2000 (peace dividend), where it has remained. As a percentage of the population, this function declined from 1.77% in 1955 to 0.99% in 1975 to 0.49% in 2000 to 0.42% today. This is a 3/4ths reduction. moving 1.25% of the population out of military service.

The “Total” column shows the 5.2M start and 4.2M end. The percent of population falls from 3.13% down to 1.25%. The Federal Government is a much smaller employer today than in the “post-war” era.

The next column combines the Department of Defense in the Executive Branch with the active military to give a total military. This does not include the Veterans Affairs or Department of Homeland Security which serve quasi-military functions. We start with 4.1M in 1955, touch 4.3M in 1970, fall to 3.2M in 1975 and 2.0M in 2000, ending at 2.1M in 2020. The percentage of populations falls from 2.5% down to 0.6%.

The remaining federal employees began with 1.1 M in 1955 and grew fairly constantly to 2.0M in 1990, remaining flat for the next 30 years, ending at 2.05M in 2020. As a percentage of the population, this measure started at 0.64%, peaked at 0.82% in 1990 and has since declined to 0.62%, just below where it started.

After the Clinton/congress budget compromises in the mid-1990’s, criticism of the size and growth of Federal employment quieted down for the next 2 decades. Some criticism has restarted, as Federal agencies have increased the amount and variety of outsourcing employed through contracting and grants. The main summary shows that “contract” employees, those who work directly on Federal contracts, have been in the 3-5 million range since 1985. It reports that grant funded employees have been 1-2 million per year. The total is 4-7 million, the same order of magnitude as “regular” federal employment. I was unable to find comparable numbers for the 1955-1980 timeframe, so cannot be sure that this category has grown faster than the U.S. population. My guess is that there is some degree of “employee shifting” from regular to contracted employment. A subset of this is probably politically motivated, to please congressional oversight committees. On the other hand, corporate America discovered outsourcing to foreign factories and specialized firms in the 1980’s and probably moved 15-25% of jobs out of the Fortune 500. At one point, firms like GM and AT&T had 1 million employees.

Public service and the federal government (brookings.edu)

How big is the federal workforce? Much bigger than you think. – The Washington Post

The True Size of Government | The Volcker Alliance

The true size of government is nearing a record high (brookings.edu)

The sheer size of our government workforce is an alarming problem | TheHill

Indiana Coronavirus May 14

May 22, 2021October 23, 2021 tomkapostasyLeave a comment

Indiana Coronavirus update. Daily cases are a little (-10%) lower. Last 3 weeks averaged 1,032 versus 1,144 in prior 3 weeks. This is up a little from the March average of 800 but way down from the Nov-Jan peak average of 4,700. Daily deaths have dropped even faster, from 75 at the peak to 11 in March to 7 in April/May.

The death rate is now less than 1%, compared with 2% last Fall and 1.6% during the peak infection period (improved treatment and age profile).

Indiana vaccination rate has lagged, after a positive early start, with 31% fully vaccinated. This is 39th best state. Median state is 36% vaccinated. 4 adjacent states are 35-37% vaccinated. Indiana’s vaccination rate (74%) for seniors (65+) is slightly better than the national average (72%).

National vaccines per day increased to 2M by the end of Feb and 3M by the end of Mar, peaking in early April. Daily vaccine rate declined to 2.6M at the end of April and continues to fall. Indiana follows the same pattern with 35,000 per day at the end of Feb, 42,000 at the end of March and April, but just 30,000 in mid-May.

At the county level in metro Indianapolis, the vaccine rates vary widely. Central Marion County is at 28% fully vaccinated. 4 counties are at 30-33% (Morgan, Johnson, Shelby and Madison). 4 others are at 40-41% (Boone, Hendricks, Hancock and Hamilton)

. https://www.npr.org/…/how-is-the-covid-19-vaccination…

https://www.coronavirus.in.gov/vaccine/2680.htm

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/…https://www.coronavirus.in.gov/2393.htm

Illegal Immigration

May 22, 2021June 1, 2021 tomkapostasy2 Comments

U.S. Border Patrol alien apprehensions on the southwest border averaged 1.2M per year from 1990-2006, with a minimum of 931,000 in 2011.

In the 5 years of 2011-2015, apprehensions averaged 390,000. Apprehensions were reduced by two-thirds. This does not prove that the number of alien attempts at illegal entry to the country was down by two-thirds, but absent compelling evidence of negative changes to compliance effectiveness or alternate entry methods, this indicates that the number of successful illegal immigrants also fell by two-thirds between this 17 year period and the 5 years prior to the 2016 election where this was successfully raised as a major issue.

• U.S. border patrol: alien apprehensions 1990-2020 | Statista

The next 3 years, 2016-17-18, averaged the same level, at 376,000. 2020 recorded 405,000, another statistically identical number.

During the base 17 years, the number of non-Mexicans apprehended was 50,000 or less, essentially immaterial. In the last decade, this number has grown to 200,000, meaning that Mexican immigrants have fallen from 1.2M per year to only 0.2M per year. The steps taken by the U.S. (both parties) through these 3 decades have reduced Mexican immigration by 85%.

Migrant apprehensions at U.S.-Mexico border fell sharply in 2020 fiscal year | Pew Research Center

Based on early 2021 figures, the “problem” is clearly not “solved”, despite the construction of 80 miles of new walls and the replacement of 452 miles of wall at a cost of $15B during the Trump presidency. The U.S. has 734 miles of walls along the border today, up from 654 miles before the Trump presidency. Trump representatives claim that the replaced walls were ineffective.

Trump’s wall: How much has been built during his term? – BBC News

Migrant apprehensions at U.S.-Mexico border are surging again | Pew Research Center

The estimated number of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. from all countries grew from 3.5M in 1990 to 11.1M in 2005, and has since slowly declined. The peak year was 2007 with 12.2M people. The latest year (2018) shows 10.5M people. The number of immigrants has declined by 14%, while the U.S. population increased by 9% from 300M to 327M. The ratio of immigrants to population has declined by 23%, from 4.1% (1/25) to 3.2% (1/33). Mexican born individuals are estimated to account for half of the total.

• Unauthorized immigrant population U.S. 2017 | Statista

The U.S. Border Patrol budget has increased by orders of magnitude to address the issue. Early 1990’s budgets average $0.3B per year. Early 2000’s budgets were more than 3 times as high at $1.1M. Budgets doubled again to 2.2M in 2006-8, Budgets grew by another 50% to 3.5M in 2011-2015. That’s 3 times as high as the early 2000’s and 10 times as high as the early 1990’s. The Trump budgets increased by another $1.2B dollars per year to $4.7B per year. Spending is now 4 times as high as in the early 2000’s.

The Cost of Immigration Enforcement and Border Security | American Immigration Council

U.S. aid to Central America fell from $750M to less than $500M (33%) during the Trump administration in an attempt to “force” these countries to control their borders and stop the emigration to the U.S.

U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America: An Overview (fas.org)

The Biden administration has proposed adding $300M to this aid budget.

U.S. unveils $310 mln in Central America aid | Reuters

The Obama administration had increased aid, believing that it could help to stabilize conditions in these countries.

President Obama’s $1 Billion Foreign Aid Request for Central America (fas.org)

FACT SHEET: The United States and Central America: Honoring Our Commitments | whitehouse.gov (archives.gov)

Obama Had A Plan For Central America. Then Came Trump. (buzzfeednews.com)

Some sources show that the net immigration rate from Mexico to the United States turned negative (more moving from the U.S. to Mexico) as early as 1998.

Mexico Net Migration Rate 1950-2021 | MacroTrends

Other sources show that the reversal began around 2010.

Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero—and Perhaps Less | Pew Research Center

More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S. | Pew Research Center

This reverse flow continued throughout the 2010’s. The number of Mexican born residents in the U.S. declined by 800,000, from 11.7M to 10.9M.

Article: Mexican Immigrants in the United States | migrationpolicy.org

Far fewer Mexican immigrants are coming to the US — and those who do are more educated (theconversation.com)

PolitiFact | Yes, we are experiencing a net outflow of illegal, undocumented workers from America back to Mexico

Nearly 1 million of the 11 million estimated “illegal immigrants” comprise one-half of the annual U.S. hired farm labor force. The legal immigrant visa program accounts for one-fourth and domestic workers account for one-fourth. The history of legal and illegal immigrant farm labor is not for those with a weak stomach. Bipartisan efforts exist today to revise existing laws to make them more effective for workers and farmers.

Immigrant Farmworkers and America’s Food Production – 5 Things to Know – FWD.us

Many policy analysts have recommended a formally required, effective citizenship verification for all employment. The U.S. has developed the e-Verify program and required federal agencies to use it. Some states have adopted the same requirement for state employment and contractors. However, the federal government and most states have chosen to not implement this approach to dis-incentivizing illegal immigration.

E-verify-background-web-10-2-2_format.pdf (bipartisanpolicy.org)

Fact Sheet: E-Verify – National Immigration Forum

E-Verify – Wikipedia

The underground, black market or shadow economy in the U.S., where employees are paid in cash and not reported to state or federal agencies, is a relatively small share of the economy compared with other countries. Most estimates are in the 6-12% range.

ACCA finds ‘shadow economy’ is smaller in U.S. than abroad | Accounting Today

How Big Is America’s Underground Economy? (investopedia.com)

Illegal immigration is a complex and emotional topic. Most/many individuals have a deeply felt need/desire to protect their family, community, state or nation from threatening “others”.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion: Haidt, Jonathan: 9780307455772: Amazon.com: Books

The U.S. is an attractive destination for individuals from many other countries. The U.S. has opened and closed its borders through many cycles. U.S. immigration policies have been relatively open and closed to people from outside of western Europe through time.

Historically, U.S. businesses and farmers have supported relatively open legal, restricted and illegal immigration to keep their labor costs low. Labor unions and their political allies have been less welcoming.

Presidential candidate Trump opened his campaign in 2015 highlighting the “threat” of immigrants and illegal immigrants.

Donald Trump’s Presidential Announcement Speech | Time

Illegal immigration has dropped dramatically. U.S. spending on walls and border enforcement has increased dramatically. The political issue remains. It appears that solutions such as aid/threats to Central America, required employment verification and more effective seasonal farm worker programs could “solve” much of the remaining issue.

Indy, Throw Me the Whip!

May 18, 2021June 1, 2021 tomkapostasy1 Comment

We moved to Indy in 1988 from Cleveland by way of Dallas. My wife was transferred to Indy by her employer and I was able to transfer with my employer. We visited for one weekend, noted the quietness and bought a house. We expected to stay for 3 years. We’ve stayed for 30 years.

Once we moved, we saw that Indy presented a “can do” atmosphere that was more like Dallas than like Cleveland. What does the population data say?

From 1970 to 2019, the Indy 9 county area grew from 1.2M to 2.0M people. The growth from 1970 to 1990 was negligible, a little more than 100K in 20 years. But each of the next 3 decades added 200,000 people, more than 10% growth each decade.

On a ranking of metro areas, Indy started in 29th place and has fallen 4 notches to 33rd place, so on that measure it has lost some ground.

Comparing cities across time is complicated, as the census bureau definitions change, but the data tells some stories. I restricted the comparison to the 64 cities that were “top 50” for at least one of the last 7 decades. 5 dropped out by 1970: Scranton, Youngstown, Syracuse, New Haven and Knoxville. 9 dropped out more recently: Dayton, Akron, Albany, Toledo, Rochester, Omaha, Bridgeport, Tucson and Honolulu. No big surprises. Tucson and Honolulu remain close to 50th place. 8 cities grew into the top 50: Virginia Beach/Norfolk, Tampa/St. Pete, Charlotte, Orlando, Raleigh, Austin, Riverside and Las Vegas.

For the US as a whole, 14 cities dropped 8 or more places, 6 dropped 4-7 places, 10 gained 4 or more places and 12 had small changes in rank (+/-3). By this measure across nearly 50 years, the median city dropped 4 places, the same as Indy, so it can claim an average growth rate during this time.

Looking at just the Midwest, Indy looks much better. 6 cities dropped out of the top 50. 6 dropped 8 or more places: Cleveland, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati and Detroit. Minneapolis joins Indy at -4 near the top of this group. Columbus, OH nearly maintained its 31st place rating, slipping to 32nd. Chicago kept its 3rd place ranking.

Other “comparable” central U.S. cities include Buffalo (-26), Pittsburgh (-16), Louisville (-13), Memphis (-8) and Nashville (+11).

The bottom line is that Indy is holding its own at the national level and overperforming in the heartland.

List of metropolitan statistical areas – Wikipedia

From Naptown to Super City – Aaron M. Renn (aaronrenn.com)

Good News

… and commentary

Category: demography

Labor Force Participation Rates

Rates by Racial Group

Racial Groups Percent of US Total Population

Male/Female Rates, Ages 16+

Participation Rates by Race within Gender

Participation Rates by Age Group

Age Group Percent of Population

Rates by Educational Attainment (Ages 25-64)

Prime Age Participation (25-64)

Summary

US Infant Mortality Rate: It’s Complicated

US Life Expectancy

US Abortion Rates

Is Indiana Better Off?

Population Rank of 50 States

Personal Income Growth Since the Great Recession

Relative Per Capita Income

Per Capita State GDP Rankings

Median Household Income Rank

Summary

How Could We Lose? Democrats Lament.

Federal Government Employees

Indiana Coronavirus May 14

Illegal Immigration

Indy, Throw Me the Whip!

State	1998	2018	Change
IL	11	12	-1
IA	33	21	+12
WI	28	24	+4
OH	20	25	-5
IN	27	32	-5
TN	31	36	-5
MI	26	37	-11
MO	23	38	-15
KY	35	44	-9
WV	47	48	-1

State	1984	2018	Change
IL	14	14	0
IA	29	18	+11
WI	18	26	-8
MO	17	31	-14
OH	19	32	-13
MI	16	33	-17
IN	30	34	-4
TN	47	41	+6
KY	42	44	-2
WV	52	47	+5

State	1998	2018	Change
IL	11	12	-1
IA	33	21	+12
WI	28	24	+4
OH	20	25	-5
IN	27	32	-5
TN	31	36	-5
MI	26	37	-11
MO	23	38	-15
KY	35	44	-9
WV	47	48	-1

State	1984	2018	Change
IL	14	14	0
IA	29	18	+11
WI	18	26	-8
MO	17	31	-14
OH	19	32	-13
MI	16	33	-17
IN	30	34	-4
TN	47	41	+6
KY	42	44	-2
WV	52	47	+5

State	1998	2018	Change
IL	11	12	-1
IA	33	21	+12
WI	28	24	+4
OH	20	25	-5
IN	27	32	-5
TN	31	36	-5
MI	26	37	-11
MO	23	38	-15
KY	35	44	-9
WV	47	48	-1

State	1984	2018	Change
IL	14	14	0
IA	29	18	+11
WI	18	26	-8
MO	17	31	-14
OH	19	32	-13
MI	16	33	-17
IN	30	34	-4
TN	47	41	+6
KY	42	44	-2
WV	52	47	+5