www.headwaterseconomics.org

Components of Population Change

April 12, 2007

New Mexico

Texas

Ariz

ona

ColoradoUtah

Okl

ahom

a

Otero

Lea

CatronSocorro

Eddy

Chaves

Cibola

Union

Sierra

Grant

Lincoln

Rio ArribaColfax

McKinley

San Juan

Luna

Quay

Taos

San Miguel

Hidalgo

Sandoval

Mora

Torrance

Dona Ana

Harding

Guadalupe

De Baca

Curry

Roosevelt

Santa Fe

Bernalillo

Valencia

Los Alamos

®

Components of Population Change 2000-2006Natural vs. Migration

Components of Population Change1 Dot = 75NatPosNatNegMigPosMigNeg6 County Region

The dot density in each county represents the number of people (75 people per dot). The dots are randomly scattered throughout the counties.

Source: US Census and Headwaters EconomicsMap Date: April 12, 2007

Natural Growth (More Births than Deaths)Natural LossIn-migrationOut-migration

County Total Births Deaths Natural

Net Internation

al Migration

Net Internal

MigrationTotal Net Migration Residual

New Mexico, New Mexico 135,553 174,378 89,316 85,062 32,967 22,887 55,854 (5,363) Bernalillo County, New Mexico 59,097 54,947 27,708 27,239 11,807 21,834 33,641 (1,783) Catron County, New Mexico (67) 151 227 (76) - 30 30 (21) Chaves County, New Mexico 1,092 5,910 3,838 2,072 1,085 (1,876) (791) (189) Cibola County, New Mexico 1,886 2,596 1,286 1,310 86 571 657 (81) Colfax County, New Mexico (675) 995 909 86 38 (764) (726) (35) Curry County, New Mexico 469 5,436 2,301 3,135 320 (2,843) (2,523) (143) De Baca County, New Mexico (249) 124 158 (34) (2) (204) (206) (9) Dona Ana County, New Mexico 19,206 19,886 7,318 12,568 5,299 1,871 7,170 (532) Eddy County, New Mexico 157 4,599 3,352 1,247 269 (1,182) (913) (177) Grant County, New Mexico (1,210) 2,322 1,974 348 81 (1,583) (1,502) (56) Guadalupe County, New Mexico (315) 345 312 33 44 (372) (328) (20) Harding County, New Mexico (92) 23 57 (34) (2) (54) (56) (2) Hidalgo County, New Mexico (845) 421 318 103 109 (1,046) (937) (11) Lea County, New Mexico 1,801 5,736 2,939 2,797 639 (1,476) (837) (159) Lincoln County, New Mexico 1,812 1,392 1,000 392 232 1,242 1,474 (54) Los Alamos County, New Mexico 679 1,211 681 530 404 (232) 172 (23) Luna County, New Mexico 2,189 2,559 1,531 1,028 1,073 173 1,246 (85) McKinley County, New Mexico (2,923) 8,492 2,950 5,542 312 (8,686) (8,374) (91) Mora County, New Mexico (29) 296 286 10 8 (29) (21) (18) Otero County, New Mexico 446 5,363 3,036 2,327 2,125 (3,840) (1,715) (166) Quay County, New Mexico (1,000) 690 799 (109) 77 (939) (862) (29) Rio Arriba County, New Mexico (242) 4,241 2,072 2,169 587 (2,912) (2,325) (86) Roosevelt County, New Mexico 273 1,927 900 1,027 113 (804) (691) (63) Sandoval County, New Mexico 23,188 7,985 3,912 4,073 486 18,986 19,472 (357) San Juan County, New Mexico 12,672 12,439 4,845 7,594 865 4,477 5,342 (264) San Miguel County, New Mexico (801) 2,338 1,613 725 255 (1,702) (1,447) (79) Santa Fe County, New Mexico 13,120 10,017 5,131 4,886 4,790 3,818 8,608 (374) Sierra County, New Mexico (601) 692 1,315 (623) 151 (103) 48 (26) Socorro County, New Mexico 162 1,545 860 685 332 (797) (465) (58) Taos County, New Mexico 1,853 2,286 1,457 829 397 719 1,116 (92) Torrance County, New Mexico 636 1,181 732 449 121 95 216 (29) Union County, New Mexico (373) 270 314 (44) 39 (360) (321) (8) Valencia County, New Mexico 4,237 5,963 3,185 2,778 827 875 1,702 (243)

6 County Region (shaded in gray) 35,915 26,088 13,695 12,393 6,530 17,929 24,459 (937)

Red highlights negatives.Source: US Census Population Population EstimatesData Source: www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2006-compchg2000_2006.htmlMethods: www.census.gov/popest/topics/methodology/2006_st_co_meth.html

US CensusComponents of Population Change - 4/1/2000 to 7/1/2006

6 County Aggregation Population Trends

Population

•

•

Population Growth Compared to the State and the Nation

•

•

Source: BEA REIS 2004 Table CA30

Population growth is not generally impacted by national recessions.

Over the last 34 years population growth in 6 County Aggregation has outpaced that of the state and the nation.

From 1970 to 2004 population grew by 196,015 people, a 140% increase in population.

At an annual rate, this represents an increase of 2.6%.

The vertical shaded bars on the figure below represent the last five recession periods: November 1973 to March 1975; January 1980 to July 1980; July 1981 to November 1982; July 1990 to March 1991; March 2001 to November 2001. More information about recessions is available on the next page.

Population Trends

336,090

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

Thou

sand

s of

Peo

ple

Population Comparison

- -

240

186

144

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Pop

ulat

ion

(Inde

x 19

70=1

00)

Recession Bars 6 County Aggregation State United States

Population Comparison

- -

240

186

144

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Pop

ulat

ion

(Inde

x 19

70=1

00)

Recession Bars 6 County Aggregation State United States

Demographic, Employment and Income Trends Page 3

6 County Aggregation Population

How well do we recover from recessions?

An important indicator of economic performance is the ability to recover quickly from recessions.

See http://www.nber.org/cycles.html for more information about business cycles.

•

•

•

Source: BEA REIS 2004 Table CA30

A recession is defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research as “a significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail sales.” The graph below shows how well we have recovered from the last five recessions. The recovery period used is from the end of one recession (the trough) to the beginning of the next recession (the peak).

This type of graph is repeated throughout the profile to show how the region recovers from recessions compared to the state and the nation.

Similarly, in the last recovery (1991 to 2001), 6 County Aggregation (up 2.4%) grew the fastest.

In the latest recovery (2001 to 2004), population growth in 6 County Aggregation (up 1.8%) outpaced State and the United States.

In the recovery from 1982 to 1990, 6 County Aggregation (up 3.1%) grew the fastest.

Population Growth During Recent Recoveries - Annualized % Change from trough to following peak

2.3%

1.5%

3.1%

2.4%

1.8%

2.4%

1.8%

1.4%

1.7%

1.3%

1.1%1.0% 0.9%

1.2%

1.0%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

1975 to 1980 1980 to 1981 1982 to 1990 1991 to 2001 2001 to 2004

Ann

ual %

Cha

nge

(200

4 $)

6 County Aggregation - Population State - Population United States - Population

Demographic, Employment and Income Trends Page 3

6 County Aggregation Age and Gender(From EPSC)

• Population by Age and Sex

TotalMedian

AgeNumber NumberShare NumberShare NumberShare

Total Population 2000 314,039 92,188 29% 75,373 24% 34,483 11% 36.6 17

• 1990 244,734 77,562 32% 45,931 19% 25,054 10% 32.6 13 10 Yr. Change 69,305 14,626 -2% 29,442 5% 9,429 1% 4.0 4 10 Yr. % Change 28% 19% 64% 38% 12% 28%2000 Sex Breakout Male 154,143 46,931 30% 36,595 24% 15,179 10% 35.7

• Female 159,896 45,257 28% 38,778 24% 19,304 12% 37.6 Male/Female Split 49% / 51%

2000 Table SF1 - P12 & 1990 SF1 Table P05 & P12

•

Source: Census 2000 and Census 1990

Note: In aggregated profiles, medians are interpolated.

51% / 49%

In the graphs below, changes in population by age are shown two ways. The "Change in Population" graph illustrates how each age bracket has changed in the last 10 years. The "Change in Share" graph illustrates how each category has changed as a share of total. Note that an age bracket can have an increase in population while declining as a share of total. The "Change in Share" graph usually demonstrates how the baby boom has caused a demographic shift in the population (growth in the 40-60 age brackets).

Under 20 years

Density (Pop.

per sq. mi.)

49% / 51% 44% / 56%

65 years and over

40 - 54 (Baby Boom in 2000)

The population has gotten older since 1990. The median age in 2000 is 36.6 years, up from 32.6 years in 1990.

The age group that has grown the fastest, as a share of total, is 50 to 54 years , up 11,629 people. Their share of total rose by 2.7%

The largest age category is 40 to 44 years old (26,520 people or 8.4% of the total).

Total Population in 2000 was 314,039 people, up 28% from 244,734 in 1990.

2000 Breakout

10,409

11,838

12,753

11,931

8,735

9,298

10,421

12,714

12,921

12,410

11,264

8,114

6,156

4,975

3,993

3,192

1,801

1,218

10,333

11,474

12,322

11,128

8,333

9,497

10,458

12,934

13,599

13,366

11,813

8,782

6,553

5,481

4,797

3,963

2,532

2,531

15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

Under 5 years 5 to 9 years

10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years

60 and 64 years 65 and 69 years

70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years 80 to 84 years

85 years and over

Thousands of People

Male Female

Change in Population (90-2000)

577

2,428

5,966

5,655

2,878

521

918

3,932

11,100

11,629

7,036

3,401

1,593

2,371

2,482

1,326

1,657

6,713

-5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

Thousands of People

Change 1990-2000

Change in Share of Total (90-2000)

-1.6%

-1.1%

0.2%

0.2%

-0.4%

-1.9%

-2.3%

-0.7%

0.4%

2.2%

2.7%

1.4%

0.2%

-0.3%

0.2%

0.4%

0.2%

0.3%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0% 2.0% 4.0%

Thousands of People

Change in Share

Demographic, Employment and Income TrendsPage 4