2019 – Page 14 – Center for Business And Economic Research

Population Gains Strongest in Alabama’s Metro Areas

July 29th, 2019

Population Gains Strongest in Alabama’s Metro Areas

Three Alabama metropolitan areas are identified in the list of the nation’s fastest growing metro areas, according to a recent Census Bureau report. Huntsville ranked 48^th in the report with a 16.2 percent increase in population between 1990 and 1998, making it Alabama’s fastest growing metro area. Auburn-Opelika observed a 15.3 percent growth rate to finish 57^th nationally. Mobile was the third fastest growing area in the state with a population gain of 11.6 percent, ranking 86^th nationally.Montgomery, with an estimated population increase from 1990 to 1998 of 10.0 percent, was the only other metro area in the state to report growth above the national average of 8.7 percent. Decatur, Birmingham, and Tuscaloosa followed with estimates of 8.6, 8.2, and 6.8 percent growth, respectively. Population growth in the remainder of Alabama’s metropolitan areas was slow—from 1990 to 1998, population gains amounted to 4.5 percent in the Florence metropolitan area, 4.1 percent in Gadsden, 2.9 percent in Dothan, and 0.8 percent in Anniston.

The South as a whole was second only to the West in terms of growth for a geographic area with an average growth rate of 13.1 percent in metropolitan areas; 7.5 percent in non-metro areas. While Alabama’s overall population increase lagged the South’s average, a similar metro/non-metro growth discrepancy was seen—population in the state’s metropolitan areas increased by 9.1 percent from 1990 to 1998 while the non-metro areas saw a gain of just 4.8 percent. Alabama’s population residing in its metro areas in 1998 was a substantial 70.1 percent of the total; still, however, below the U.S. average of 80.1 percent.

Three metro areas in the state either met or exceeded the national average of 1.0 percent population growth for the year July 1, 1997 through July 1, 1998. Auburn-Opelika’s population increased from 98,412 to 100,444 during this period, a gain of 2.1 percent. Huntsville also reported an increase of 2.1 percent as its population grew from 333,521 to 340,428. Mobile tied the national average with an increase from 527,052 to 532,257. Birmingham, Montgomery, and Decatur all posted increases of 0.8 percent for the one-year period.

Median Family Income for FY99

July 26th, 2019

Median Family Income for FY99

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently released estimates of median family income for Fiscal Year 1999. Median family income is calculated annually for each metropolitan area and for each nonmetropolitan county. Separate estimates for counties within metropolitan areas are not available. Fiscal year median family income estimates are based on median family income from the 1990 census updated with Bureau of Labor Statistics earnings and employment data and Census divisional P-60 median family income data.

Alabama’s FY99 median family income was $41,500, 86.8 percent of the United States median of $47,800. Alabama ranked 39th among the 50 states on median family income. From FY98 to FY99, median family income in the state rose 7.2 percent compared to a national increase of 5.5 percent.

Five of Alabama’s ten metropolitan areas had FY99 median family incomes above the statewide median. Median family incomes of $54,600 in the Huntsville MA and $47,900 in Birmingham were also above the national median. Other metro areas above the statewide median include Montgomery ($47,000), Decatur ($46,500), and Tuscaloosa ($42,400). Among the state’s 46 nonmetropolitan counties, only Henry and Lee were at or above the statewide median family income. At $23,000, Wilcox County’s median was the lowest in the state.

**02/99

School District Poverty Data

July 26th, 2019

School District Poverty Data

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994 directed the Department of Education to consider distributing Title I basic and concentration grants directly to school districts for the 1999-2000 school year. The Department of Education asked the Census Bureau to provide the data at a school district level that would make this possible. The Census Bureau recently completed its work, which was reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). NAS recommended to the Secretaries of Education and Commerce that the Census Bureau’s 1995 school district estimates of poor school-age children be used to make direct Title I allocations to school districts for the 1999-2000 year. The Secretaries of Education and Commerce have decided to follow the Academy’s recommendation. The $7.6 billion available for Title I, Part A funds will be allocated through each state’s Department of Education to local educational agencies (LEAs) for school year 1999-2000 using the Census Bureau’s 1995 school district poverty estimates.

Previously, Title I grants were distributed on a county basis, with the individual states having responsibility to redistribute the funds from counties to school districts. This redistribution was done using a variety of techniques that varied by state. Many states used 1990 census data, or 1990 census data combined with data from other programs targeting a poor population, such as

Aid to Families with Dependent Children,
The Food Stamp Program
Medicaid
The Foster Care Program, and
The School Lunch Program.

Other states used these alternative data sources only. Under the legislation that allocates funds directly to school districts, states can aggregate and then redistribute funds for school districts with a population of less than 20,000.

The poverty estimates are based on school districts, frequently called school systems in Alabama, as they existed in school year 1995-96. The U.S. Department of Education will provide guidance for state departments of education to use in accounting for eligible systems not on the Census Bureau’s list. The statute provides that a state, with Department of Education approval, may use alternative poverty data to redistribute allocations for all school systems serving fewer than 20,000 total residents. The Department will provide guidance for state education agencies seeking such approval.

Three estimates are provided for each school district: total population in 1995, the number of school-age children (ages 5-17) related to the head of household, and the number of related school-age children in families in poverty.

The school district estimates were created using a “synthetic estimator.” This was done by multiplying the number of poor children in a district from the 1990 census by the proportional change in child poverty in the county in which the district is located. The county change is computed as the change from the 1990 census to the Census Bureau’s county model estimates for 1995. School district poverty estimates were adjusted to sum to the county estimates. Note that the school district estimates consider all children in the district, irrespective of whether they attend public school. Estimates are generally more reliable for the larger districts. The “synthetic” estimates for school districts do not have the degree of precision normally associated with Census Bureau estimates.

**02/99

Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates

July 26th, 2019

Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates

At the direction of the Congress, the Census Bureau initiated a program to provide estimates of income and poverty for states and counties between decennial censuses. Each year, billions of government dollars are divided among, and billions of business dollars are targeted to, states and communities based on their economic profiles as described by the last census. Since economic conditions can change considerably between censuses, more current estimates of income and poverty could improve the administration of public programs and the allocation of federal and state funds to local jurisdictions. Up-to-date appraisals could permit businesses to make more efficient plans and more appropriate decisions.

Along with the Census Bureau, five federal departments that use these data have supported the development of the estimates:

The Department of Agriculture (Food and Consumer Service),
The Department of Education (National Center for Education Statistics),
The Department of Health and Human Services (Head Start Program),
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (Office of Policy Development and Research), and
The Department of Labor (Employment and Training Administration).

Numerous other federal and state programs that rely on decennial Census estimates of income and poverty in their allocation formulas may also elect to use the new estimates.

Statistical models are the only practical way to make consistent estimates for all states and counties in the country. The statistical models for the state and county estimates relate income and poverty to indicators based on

Summary data from federal income tax returns,
Data about participation in the Food Stamp and Supplemental Security Income programs, and
The 1990 census.

These estimates are then combined with survey data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) to provide figures that are more precise than either set alone. This is a standard method for making statistical estimates for small areas.

Estimates for counties are controlled to sum, using a ratio method, to the independently estimated state totals. State totals were previously controlled to sum to the official national poverty estimates derived from the March CPS for the year being estimated.

The estimates are based, in part, on summary data from federal income tax returns. Because tax returns for a given year are filed throughout the year that follows, statistical data files are not available until two years after a particular tax year. State and county income and poverty estimates for income year 1995 could not be produced until 1998 and were released to the public in February 1999. Revised estimates of state and county median household income and poverty for 1989 and 1993 were issued in January 1999.

**02/99

Population Estimates Methodology

July 26th, 2019

Population Estimates Methodology

The annual population estimates are the computed number of persons living in an area as of July 1. The computations used to make the estimates take into account births, deaths, and people moving into and out of the state, both from other states and from abroad. The estimates are for the resident population. The resident population includes all the residents, both civilian and Armed Forces, living in the state, but excludes U.S. citizens residing abroad.

Migration is an important component of population change. Domestic in-migration and out-migration consist of moves where both the origins and destinations are within the United States, excluding Puerto Rico. International migration consists of

legal immigration to the United States as reported by the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
an estimate of undocumented immigration from abroad
an estimate of emigration from the United States, and
movement between Puerto Rico and the United States.

In-migration is an important part of Alabama’s population growth. Whereas we were the 23rd largest state, we ranked 13th in the nation for people moving to our state from other states. Thirty-seven percent of Alabama’s population growth during the 1990s has come because of people from other states who have chosen to move here. On the other hand, Alabama is one of the last choices for people from other countries who move to the United States. Alabama ranked 39 of 51 (including the District of Columbia) for net international migration. Only 4 percent of Alabama’s growth during the last 8 years has been because of people moving here from abroad.

Population estimates for all states and for Alabama counties can be found in the Data section.

**03/99

Sixty-Five in Alabama

July 26th, 2019

Sixty-Five in Alabama

During the 20th century, the number of persons in the United States aged 65 or older jumped by a factor of 11. The elderly, who comprised only one in every 25 Americans (3.1 million) in 1900, made up one in eight (34.1 million) in 1997. Declining fertility and mortality rates also have led to a sharp rise in the median age of our nation’s population—from 23 years old in 1900 to 35 in 1997. Between 2000 and 2025, the 65 and over population in the United States is expected to increase 78.5 percent, according to the Census Bureau’s middle series projections.Alabama’s elderly population growth is following similar trends. The number of residents 65 and over increased from just 54,306 in 1900 to 565,197 in 1997, while the median age climbed from 18.9 to 35.2. From 2000 to 2025, the state’s elderly population is projected to increase almost 84 percent, from 582,000 to 1,069,000. By 2025 one in five Alabamians could be elderly. Most of this growth will occur after 2010 when the leading edge of the baby boomers (those born in 1946) have had their 65th birthdays. Between 2010 and 2025 the growth rate of the population over 65 will be about 16 percent every five years. By comparison, the total population of Alabama will increase about three percent every five years.

Back when the United States was founded, life expectancy at birth stood at only about 35 years. It reached 47 years in1900, jumped to 68 years in 1950, and steadily rose to 76 years in 1996. In 1996 life expectancy was higher for women (79 years) than for men (73 years). By 2010 life expectancy will be 74 years for men and nearly 81 years for women. Once Alabama baby boomers reach 65 they can expect to live another 15 to 17 years.

Many assume health among the elderly has improved because they, as a group, are living longer. Others hold a contradictory image of the elderly as dependent and frail. The truth actually lies somewhere in between. Poor health is not as prevalent as many assume. On the other hand, as more people live to the oldest ages, there may also be more who face chronic, limiting illnesses or conditions, such as arthritis, diabetes, osteoporosis, and senile dementia. People with these conditions may become dependent on others for help in performing the activities of daily living. Aging brings increased chances of being dependent.According to the Alabama Center for Health Statistics, heart disease, cancer, and stroke, in that order, are the leading causes of death among the elderly. Though death rates from heart disease have declined for the elderly nationwide, it is not clear that heart disease for elderly Alabamians is decreasing. Death rates from cancer, on the other hand, have been increasing both in Alabama and the nation.

The perception of “elderly” and “poor” as practically synonymous has changed in recent years to a view that the noninstitutionalized elderly are better off than other Americans. Both views are simplistic. Age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, living arrangements, educational attainment, former occupation, and work history are characteristics associated with significant income differences. For instance, elderly white men have higher median incomes than other groups. Research has shown that the better educated tend to be healthier longer and better off economically. Fortunately, educational attainment among men and women, blacks and whites, has increased significantly in our state during the past two decades. When these people enter the sixty-five-plus age group, we can hope for an elderly Alabama population with less poverty and fewer health problems than is now the case.

Annette Jones Watters and
Carolyn Trent

Editor’s Note: This article is based in part on a Census Bureau monograph in the Statistical Brief series, “Sixty-Five Plus in the United States,” SB/95-8, May, 1995.

Who Pays for Cutting Smog-Causing Emissions?

July 26th, 2019

Who Pays for Cutting Smog-Causing Emissions?

On September 24, 1998 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered 22 states east of the Mississippi to reduce smog-causing emissions in a move to halt wind-borne air pollution in the Northeast. The order requires states to have a clean-air plan in place by September of this year and controls by 2003. The move is expected to prevent thousands of cases each year of smog-related illnesses such as bronchitis and exacerbated cases of childhood asthma. Nitrogen oxides, referred to collectively as NO_x, are the main smog-causing pollutants. The EPA order requires that by 2003 the 22 states (actually 21 states, since Rhode Island does not have to reduce its emissions) reduce their NO_x emissions by a total of 1.16 million tons annually from 1997 levels. See page 4 for the specific list of states and their required reductions.Large, fossil-fuel burning power plants and automobiles are the major sources of NO_x emissions. The EPA estimates that it will cost $1,500 per ton of NO_x reduction by utilities, compared to $3,400 per ton by automobiles. Thus, the EPA advocates focusing on power plants and estimates that the reduction can be achieved by adding $1 to the average consumer’s bill. Some industry and state environmental officials disagree. They distrust EPA’s estimates regarding wind-borne smog traveling to the Northeast and EPA’s estimate of the pollution-reducing cost per electricity consumer. These concerns raise the question: Who pays for NO_x reduction to benefit only the Northeast? In other words, does the EPA Order burden the states equitably?

Trendline analyses between states’ required NO_x reductions and selected economic and demographic data reveal several interesting facts.

On cursory inspection it would seem that states with larger populations are being required to reduce more; however, the percentage reduction is independent of population size. States with lower per capita income are being required to reduce more, in both amount of and percent reduction, so that the poor are being asked to bear a greater burden. States that use more electricity are required to reduce more emissions, making the EPA Order seem fair. However, states that generate and export electricity have an even higher burden.Although automobile NO_x emission reduction is more costly, some experts advocate placing the burden on the driver who is using the road and causing the smog. But automobiles are not the main focus of the EPA Order. Electricity is being targeted, even though it is not fair to burden every electricity consumer equally, when the benefits are primarily for one section of the country.

What does all this mean for Alabama? Alabama’s low per capita income indicates a lower ability to afford clean air and health benefits for our northeastern sisters, even if we are willing to pay for that. Alabama is also a net exporter of electricity—a factor for which the state should receive credits rather than blame. Thus, the state is being targeted unfairly to bear the cost of benefits to the Northeast.

Alabama has local emissions problems to deal with. The air in some of our own counties is not clean. Adopting emissions controls on vehicles would help alleviate the local pollution. And, we are also required, somehow, to help pay for cleaning the air in the Northeast.

Samuel N. Addy

States Required to Reduce Smop-Causing Emissions

	Nitrogen Oxide Emissions
	to be Cut by the Year 2003
		Percent	Electricity, 1997		Miles of	Federal, Public,
		Reduction from	Use	Generation	and Interstate	Per Capita
STATE	Tons	1997 Levels	(million KWh)	(million KWh)	Road, 1995	Income, 1997

Alabama	59,934	27	73,410	113,684	117,714	$20,599
Connecticut	3,234	7	28,377	13,228	26,569	35,954
Delaware	2,413	12	10,025	6,579	7,110	28,443
Georgia	63,158	26	100,400	101,780	142,671	23,893
Illinois	100,965	32	125,882	131,138	173,627	27,927
Indiana	114,169	36	88,400	110,466	116,053	23,183
Kentucky	75,298	33	75,748	91,558	88,143	20,599
Maryland	21,182	23	56,481	44,553	37,586	28,571
Massachusetts	1,647	2	47,543	33,899	42,013	31,207
Michigan	88,842	30	97,029	89,565	151,991	24,998
Missouri	60,556	35	65,268	71,073	154,148	23,723
New Jersey	9,961	9	66,495	23,761	45,498	32,233
New York	10,590	6	131,602	108,099	139,775	30,299
North Carolina	61,449	29	108,439	107,371	118,159	23,174
Ohio	132,728	36	156,606	141,249	144,019	24,203
Pennsylvania	79,338	24	126,512	177,167	147,396	25,578
Rhode Island	–	–	6,680	3,563	7,547	25,589
South Carolina	29,281	21	67,798	78,374	82,414	20,551
Tennessee	69,950	28	86,001	93,293	103,428	22,752
Virginia	35,331	18	87,242	58,986	91,340	26,172
West Virginia	97,967	51	26,224	88,284	45,920	18,734
Wisconsin	38,851	27	59,943	48,560	139,776	24,199

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration; U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; and Environmental Protection Agency.

Alabama Retail Sales Show Strong Increase in 1998

July 26th, 2019

Alabama Retail Sales Show Strong Increase in 1998

Alabama merchants rang up $37.8 billion in taxable retail sales during 1998, according to the Center for Business and Economic Research at The University of Alabama. The Center compiles its reports using data from the Alabama Department of Revenue. Total 1998 sales were 5.8 percent above the $35.7 billion tallied in 1997. Retail sales across the U.S. rose 5.0 percent in 1998. With inflation for the year at just 1.6 percent, Alabama’s 5.8 percent gain translates to a real increase of 4.2 percent. In contrast, the real gain in total sales in the state in 1997 was only 1.8 percent.

Retail sales growth for the year was strongest in the general merchandise category, where 1998 sales were 10.1 percent above 1997 sales. This outpaced average U.S. gains of 6.6 percent. While Alabama hardware and lumber store sales posted a 7.9 percent gain, growth fell short of the 10.4 percent increase nationwide. The state’s automotive group saw sales climb 7.5 percent for the year, above the average U.S. increase of 5.7 percent.

Across Alabama, apparel sales gained 6.7 percent during 1998 and sales at eating places rose 5.2 percent. Nationally, apparel sales were up a lesser 5.2 percent, while furniture stores saw stronger sales gains averaging 8.6 percent. Although Alabama retail sales increased in all categories, sales growth was slow at food stores, up 2.0 percent, and gas service stations, which posted a 1.0 percent gain.

Automotive purchases claimed the largest share of Alabama’s retail sales in 1998, with 18.9 percent of the total. General merchandise stores captured 15.7 percent of the retail dollar, while food stores took in 15.0 percent during the year. Sales shares by category have shifted during the 1990s. In 1990, food stores claimed the largest share of sales with 18.4 percent, while automotive sales were second at 17.3 percent, and general merchandise stores accounted for 13.7 percent.

From 1990 to 1998, total retail sales in Alabama increased 54.3 percent. Lumber and hardware sales led the way with an 83.1 percent climb. Sales of general merchandise were up 77.2 percent, while furniture sales climbed 74.2 percent. The first eight years of the decade also saw gains of 68.3 percent in automotive sales and 66.7 percent in sales at eating places.

The Center for Business and Economic Research has been compiling data on retail trade in Alabama for almost 70 years. Graphs and tables of retail trade data published in the May 1999 issue of Alabama Business & Economic Indicators may also be accessed.

Carolyn Trent

Alabama Gains Residents from Migration in 1997-98

July 26th, 2019

Alabama Gains Residents from Migration in 1997-98

Alabama continued to gain new residents from interstate and international migration between 1997 and 1998, but at a slower pace than during the previous year. According to IRS data, 96,693 individuals moved into Alabama from other states and foreign countries, while 88,740 moved out. This amounts to a net increase of 7,953, below the 10,423 new residents added during 1996-97.

The largest exchanges of residents were between Alabama and Georgia and Florida. From 1997 to 1998, 15,682 Alabamians moved to Georgia, while 14,181 Georgians moved to Alabama, for a net loss to Alabama of 1,501 residents. In contrast, the exchange of 12,621 Floridians moving in and 12,060 Alabamians moving out to Florida netted the state 561 residents.

Overall, the largest net gains of new Alabamians were from Missouri (2,495), Illinois (1,532), New York (848), Michigan (608), and California (562). While Alabama lost residents to 12 states and the District of Columbia, most of the outflows were about 100 or less. After Georgia, only Tennessee (768) and North Carolina (388) netted many Alabama residents.

While Alabama experienced population growth from migration during 1997-98, the gain of 7,953 reported by the IRS is well below that of many southern states. Florida saw the largest net influx of residents (114,483), followed by Georgia (59,982), North Carolina (54,234), South Carolina (23,775), and Tennessee (21,972). Louisiana saw the loss of 12,642 residents during this period, while Mississippi gained 2,702 and Kentucky netted 6,113.

The Internal Revenue Service also calculates median adjusted gross income (AGI) for in-migrants and out-migrants. Alabama was one of four southern states where the median AGI of those moving in ($19,778) exceeded that of those moving out ($19,564). And, at $22,655, the median AGI of Alabamians who stayed in the state was substantially higher than for those who moved in or out.

Note that these IRS data do not provide a complete count of migrants since they only count taxpayers and their dependents. The Census Bureau uses additional records to arrive at its estimate of total net migration into Alabama from 1997 to 1998 of 11,431. By Census Bureau estimates, Alabama gained 126,168 residents from migration between April 1, 1990 and July 1, 1998. However, no detail of interstate movement is available for these totals.

**05/99

Alabama’s Median Age Climbs between 1990 and 1998

July 26th, 2019

Alabama’s Median Age Climbs between 1990 and 1998

The median age of Alabama’s population rose to 35.5 years in 1998, compared to a median of 32.9 in 1990. This means that equal numbers of Alabamians are older and younger than 35.5. Alabama’s median age was higher than that of the South and the U.S. as a whole—both had medians of 35.2 years.

Alabama’s estimated median age climbed from 32.9 in the 1990 census, an increase of 2.6 years, while the U.S. population aged by 2.4 years. This difference is reflected in the growth of the 65 and over population between 1990 and 1998—while Alabama’s elderly population grew by 10.8 percent during this time, the U.S. saw a 9.4 percent gain. In 1998, 13.1 percent of Alabama’s population was 65 and over, compared to 12.7 percent of the U.S. population.

Median age for the state’s men reached 34.1 years in 1998, right at the U.S. median and just above the median for the South of 34.0 years. With more elderly women than men, the median age for women in Alabama was 36.8 years. This compares to 36.3 years for both the South and the U.S. Median age for Alabama’s men rose more rapidly than the median age for women between 1990 and 1998.

Among the states, West Virginia’s population was the oldest with a median age of 38.6 years, while Utah was the youngest with a median age of 26.7 years. By region, the highest median age in 1998 was in the Northeast (36.6 years), followed by the Midwest (35.4 years), the South (35.2 years), and the West (33.9 years).

Year: 2019

Year: 2019

Median Family Income for FY99

School District Poverty Data

Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates

Population Estimates Methodology

Alabama Gains Residents from Migration in 1997-98