Where Have all the Yutes Gone?

Vinny Gambini: It is possible that the two yutes... 
Judge Chamberlain Haller: ...Ah, the two what? Uh... uh, what was that word? 
Vinny Gambini: Uh... what word? 
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Two what? 
Vinny Gambini: What? 
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Uh... did you say 'yutes'? 
Vinny Gambini: Yeah, two yutes. 
Judge Chamberlain Haller: What is a yute? 
Vinny Gambini: [beat] Oh, excuse me, your honor... 
[exaggerated] 
Vinny Gambini: Two YOUTHS. 

Joe Pesci and Fred Gwynne (My Cousin Vinny, 1992)

First there was a brain drain.  But by now kidneys, lungs, and all other organ parts have long blown the joint.  The yutes of Connecticut are all gone.  Between 2000 and 2010 Connecticut’s population increased by 168,532 individuals, a 4.9 percent increase.  Yes – an increase.  But hold off a tad before you start planning a welcoming party for all these folks.  Despite the positive spin from the state of Connecticut via the deft hand of Patrick Flaherty who proceeds to make lemonade “Young People Aren’t Fleeing and the Cities Arent’ Dying” things are pretty grim.  It turns out stark and alarming trends emerge once we take a look at how the different age groups fared relative to each other within Connecticut and how Connecticut fared when compared to the rest of the country.  What do we find? Practically the entire gain in people in the state was seniors age 55 or older. And most of Connecticut’s youngun’s are gone - and going: the under 20 crowd declined by 1.1 percent and the 20-34 group barely budged at a measly 1.4 percent. 

Let’s take a closer look.  What are others saying?  A study on the relocation habits of recent college grads– here - by Alicia Sasser Modestino at the Boston Federal Reserve Bank reveals an interesting statistic.  How many of our kids stay in Connecticut after they graduate from one of our colleges?  I have recalculated Table 1 to reflect the information for Connecticut (as opposed to Massachusetts in Appendix Table 2 – here - of the Sasser Modestino Report). 

Table 1

Percent of Recent Graduates Educated Within the

State – 1 Year After Graduation

State	Class of 2008	Class of 2000	Class of 1993
Connecticut	47.9	59.2	58.4
Connecticut Rank	41	38	34
Competitor states
California	87.3	84.4	86.9
Illinois	78.2	77.1	81.7
New York	76.4	70.7	71.2
North Carolina	66.7	69.7	69.5
Pennsylvania	67.6	63.4	67.0
Texas	86.8	86.7	87.3
Washington	82.8	71.1	73.3

Pretty darn poor record – less than half of those we educate and train stay around; and by comparison with the class of 1993 Connecticut’s performance in keeping those we educate is getting worse.  And in case you were wondering - the Same Boston Fed report concludes that “recent college graduates are leaving the region primarily for employment-related reasons.”  But we already knew that (see my lack-of-jobs rant here).

Let’s check some more.  Using readily available Bureau of the Census 2010 census data we ask - how has Connecticut fared?  Then – second – we ask how Connecticut should have fared had it resembled the broader (United States) experience – its relative performance.

How did Connecticut fare?  In table 2 below  is data for Connecticut.  “Pre-adults” consists of the population under 20, the 20 to 34 year-olds are considered “Young Workers,” “Mid-Career” the 35-54 year olds, “Older Workers” are those between 55-64 years of age, and “Retirees” are age 65 and older. All data is from the Bureau of the Census for the respective years and geographical unit.[1]

Table 2

	2000	2010	Change	% Change
Total Population	3,405,565	3,574,097	168,532	4.9%
Age Group
Pre-Adults (Under 20)	925,702	915,773	(9,929)	-1.1%
Young Workers (20-34)	639,211	648,275	9,064	1.4%
Mid-Career Workers (35-54)	1,061,856	1,060,035	(1,821)	-0.2%
Older Workers (55-64)	308,613	443,452	134,839	43.7%
Retirees (65 and Over)	470,183	506,559	36,376	7.7%
	3,405,565	3,574,094	168,529	4.9%

What do we find? The Young Workers segment increased at a rate of 1.4 percent.  Although positive the gain is middling compared to the increase of 6.4 percent nationally for the same age group.  And pity the Mid-Career workers of our state.  Whereas nationally this group increased by a tad under 4 percent, we registered a decline of 20 basis points.  The figure below visually reproduces the data table.

Figure 1

Source: US Bureau of the Census

And as you can see – we did really well with the energetic, entrepreneurial, innovative silver-hair set.

Still, let us put things into perspective.  And it looks even worse.  It is possible and important to distinguish the relative influence of national forces from State-wide forces.  A shift-share analysis identifies what portion of each group’s change in Connecticut resembles change in the United States – and what portion is unique to Connecticut.[2] 

The table below contains national data on the same age groups for the same period. 

Table 3

	United States
	2000	2010	Change	% Change
Total Population	281,421,906	308,745,538	27,323,632	9.7%
Age Group
Pre-Adults (Under 20)	80,473,265	83,267,556	2,794,291	3.5%
Young Workers (20-34)	58,855,725	62,649,947	3,794,222	6.4%
Mid-Career Workers (35-54)	82,826,479	86,077,322	3,250,843	3.9%
Older Workers (55-64)	24,274,684	36,462,729	12,188,045	50.2%
Retirees (65 and Over)	34,991,753	40,267,984	5,276,231	15.1%

Table 4 nets out the portion of each Connecticut group’s reported change that is attributable to common national patterns.  This net effect is the Connecticut “sauce” – our doing, our’s alone.  For example, Connecticut’s Pre-Adult (under 20) population shrank by 9,929 from 2000 to 2010.  Had Connecticut mirrored the national average, we would have experienced a net gain of 32,143 individuals. Consequently, the Connecticut effect is -42,072    (-9,929 – 32,143 = -42,072) or almost 5 percent of the average size of the group.[3] Same calculation is documented for all the groups.

Table 4

Age Group	Average Population	CT Effect	Percent
Pre-Adults (Under 20)	920,738	(42,072)	-5%
Young Workers (20-34)	643,743	(32,144)	-5%
Mid-Career Workers (35-54)	1,060,946	(43,498)	-4%
Older Workers (55-64)	376,033	(20,112)	-5%
Retirees (65 and Over)	488,371	(34,521)	-7%

Connecticut’s birth and death rates do not differ much from national averages.  Thus, we can surmise that net out-migration is the most likely cause of the observed population changes.[4] The figure below conveys the table information graphically.

Figure 2

Interesting – the senior set proportion increased in Connecticut but less so than for the United States.  And as for the yutes – forget about it.  Folks left – have been leaving, and will continue to leave – simply put.  They are voting with their feet.  The only ones interested in coming up here are Rick Perry and other state governors angling to take more work to friendlier climes.  Gail Collins – what do you say about that?  Here’s what your state – Connecticut - has to boast: no jobs, hyper-expensive housing, taxes up the wazoo, no jobs, a regulations morass, no jobs, regulatory paralysis, no confidence on the political leadership, no jobs, – can you blame folks for leaving? 

arod

arodriguez@newhaven.edu

---

[1] http://www.census.gov (visited 11/25/2012).

[2] See James R. Moor, “Connecticut’s Workforce Drain,” The Connecticut Economy (Summer 2002), pp: 6-7; See, for example, Steven P. Lanza, “Connecticut Job Losses: Our Share of National Effects? Or Are We Shifting Ourselves? The Connecticut Economy (Spring 2004), pp: 6-7. I draw from Lanza for the analysis here. 

[3] The average size of the group is obtained by adding up the 2000 and 2010 recorded group population and dividing by two.

[4] In 2007, the United States death rate was 803.6 per 100,000 whereas Connecticut’s was 818.1.  Source: CDC/NCHS National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.  In turn, the United States reported birth rate in 2010 was 13.0 births per 1,000 population (3,999,386 births); Connecticut reported 10.6 births per 1,000 population (37,708). Source: Births: Final Data for 2010, National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 61, No.1 (August 2012). US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control & Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.