Michigan State University Extension
Home-Based Business - 09159437
10/01/98
East Lansing June 1993 Research Report 528 Demographic Characteristics
I. Introduction Our presentation reviews the demographic characteristics of Michigan labor markets based on the 1980 and the 1990 U.S.Census of Population. It focuses on benefits from demographic analyses of labor market area population and change; the contrast of non-metropolitan, mixed and metropolitan labor market areas in economic, social and family characteristics in 1980 and 1990; and the comparison of changes in population growth, composition and family structure by type of labor market area.
II. Sources This study uses data from the 1980 and 1990 U.S. population censuses. The Center for the Redevelopment of Industrialized States (CRIS) file at Michigan State University (Social Science Research Bureau, 1990) organized these census data for the state of Michigan, and we found the CRIS file helpful in developing this study.
III. Area Definition Metro/Non-metropolitan Labor Market Areas We define a labor market as a set of relationships between buyers and sellers of labor, including such phenomena as exchanges of labor and wages between employers and workers. Implied in the notion of labor markets is the idea that these exchanges and relationships occur in a particular locale, what we call a labor market area. A labor market area (LMA) represents the geographical arena in which people seek work and employers find workers.
To investigate social and economic characteristics of labor markets, it is necessary to provide a geographical delineation of labor market areas. Approximate measures that have been used include Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs), counties, states and regions. A fairly common shortcoming of these is the inability to utilize micro-data to examine rural areas, particularly isolated rural areas.
To respond to this and to establish improved studies of rural labor markets, a regional research group sponsored by the Economic Research Service, Agricultural and Rural Economic Division of USDA, met and identified labor market areas using 1980 census data on commuting patterns of American workers. Labor market areas (LMAs) are groups of counties that encompass the county of residence and the county of work (Tolbert and Killian, 1987). A majority of the population live and work in these groups of counties.
People often cross state lines to work, so this designation of labor market areas does not limit consideration to counties within specific state boundaries. Matrices of U.S. census data for county of residence and county of employment were analyzed using hierarchical cluster analysis to group counties into areas representing flows of workers and residents. Counties were grouped into areas with minimum populations of 100,000 to meet Bureau of Census confidentiality requirements (Tolbert and Killian). These new groupings represent empirically defined labor market areas and come closer to representing the locations of the exchange of labor and jobs than previously utilized geographical proxies (Tickamyer and Bokemeier, 1988). These labor market areas are not restricted by state lines or necessarily centered on urban areas. A 5 per-cent 1980 census micro-data file was redrawn using Public Use Micro-data Sample D (PUMS-D).
Why a labor market area and not another unit of analysis
It is important to maintain the distinction between geographic proxies for local social organization of production (such as a county or standard metropolitan statistical area) and labor markets, which represent actual social relations. Care must be taken in conceptual work to avoid reducing social structure to geography. Similarly, it is important that the county group schema not be converted by equating geography with labor market. "The most serious problem is a tendency to think of labor markets not as sets of relations, but as mere cities, or other geographical units" (Tolbert, 12).
The standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) has been used as the unit of analysis because it most closely corresponds to the concept of a unified labor market. A metropolitan area contains both the supply and the demand components of labor and possesses a high degree of labor mobility within its boundaries. In addition, the large populations of SMSAs meet the confidentiality requirements of federal data sets. Because we focus on both the metropolitan and the non-metropolitan labor market areas, however, using the SMSA is not appropriate.
Unlike the SMSA, the county does not necessarily exclude non-metropolitan areas from analyses. Nevertheless, the social and economic concept of a market area is not bounded by arbitrary political dimensions such as county lines. Counties vary in geographic size and population. Some counties are too small to be considered central places to live and work. Often people cross county boundaries to work in counties other than those in which they live, as is typical in "bedroom" or suburban communities. Thus, it is often necessary to conceptualize rural labor market areas as county groups.
This county groups approach can overcome problems with single counties and include non-metropolitan areas, but it still depends on conceptual criteria to construct groupings. In this study, labor market areas are county groups derived from the 1980 U.S. Census of Population. The attractive aspect of the LMA is its conceptualization as a region that encompasses both the place of residence and the place of work of a local population. A labor market area is appropriate here to study economic conditions, and it allows us to analyze non-metropolitan areas.
Case of Michigan For Michigan, this analysis grouped counties into 13 labor market areas, which can be classified as either metropolitan or non-metropolitan, based on county classifications. We have added a category, mixed LMAs, to represent labor market areas with a substantial population in metro and non-metro areas. The general concept of a metropolitan area, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, is an area with a large population nucleus, including adjacent communities that are socially and economically integrated with that nucleus. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) are counties classified on the basis of population size that include an urban area with at least 50,000 inhabitants that has economic and social ties with surrounding counties. Counties that do not have an urban area with 50,000 inhabitants are classified as non-metropolitan. Non- metropolitan areas are rural counties. In Michigan, 61 counties are classified as non-metropolitan (Social Science Research Bureau, 1990). These include counties in the Upper Peninsula, the northern Lower Peninsula, five counties that border Indiana and Ohio, and three counties on the eastern border of the state. Two out of 13 labor market areas in Michigan (Detroit and Lansing) are characterized as metropolitan (see map). The Detroit LMA comprises the Detroit, Ann Arbor and Flint metropolitan areas (labor market areas have been arbitrarily named for cities or counties within them). The Lansing LMA encompasses the Lansing metropolitan area plus Gratiot County. Six labor market areas are considered mixed because they include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties. Those LMAs considered mixed are the Saginaw, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Jackson, Monroe and Berrien labor market areas. The Saginaw LMA takes in the Saginaw metropolitan area and Tuscola and Huron counties. The Grand Rapids LMA includes the Grand Rapids and Muskegon metropolitan areas, plus Allegan, Ionia, Montcalm, Newaygo and Oceana rural counties. The Kalamazoo LMA comprises the Kalamazoo and Battle Creek metropolitan areas with Barry County and two rural counties at the border of Indiana: St. Joseph and Branch. The Jackson LMA takes in the Jackson metropolitan area and two rural counties at the border of Ohio: Hillsdale and Lenawee. The Berrien LMA includes the Benton Harbor metropolitan area and Cass County at the border of Indiana, plus counties in Indiana. The last mixed LMA is the Southeastern, which encompasses Monroe and the metropolitan area of Toledo,Ohio.
The remaining five LMAs in Michigan - Oscoda, Antrim, Wexford, Marquette and Forest - are considered non- metropolitan (see map). The Oscoda LMA is made up of Alcona, Alpena, Crawford, Iosco, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle and Roscommon counties. The Antrim LMA comprises Emmet, Cheboygan, Charlevoix, Antrim, Leelanau, Benzie, Grand Traverse and Kalkaska counties. Wexford contains Manistee, Wexford, Missaukee, Mason, Lake, Osceola and Mecosta counties. Marquette, the Upper Peninsula LMA, embraces Mackinac, Chippewa, Luce, Schoolcraft, Alger, Delta, Marquette, Baraga, Houghton, Keweenaw, Ontonagon and Gogebic counties, plus Iron County in Wisconsin. The Forest LMA contains three counties in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan - Menominee, Dickinson and Iron - and several counties in Wisconsin - Villas, Florence, Marinette, Forest and Oneida.
The analysis will be limited to those LMAs composed wholly of Michigan counties. We are acquiring data from neighboring states for analysis of LMAs with counties from Michigan and other states. The Berrien and Monroe mixed LMAs and the Forest non-metropolitan LMA are, therefore, not included in this analysis, and the Michigan counties of Monroe, Berrien, Menominee, Dickinson and Iron were excluded in the computation of our statistics . In future analyses, we will include all LMAs that include Michigan counties. We will also incorporate data on people who reside in other states but work in labor markets with Michigan people. In this analysis, our data will not coincide with state statistics. For this paper, we have included state-level statistics to show the impact of this research design (to help avoid confusion). Also, in this preliminary study, we have used the Michigan state totals as the base number in calculating proportions and population distributions.
IV. Economic and Employment Analysis Analysis of labor market areas is a powerful tool for understanding economic and employment activities. Our analysis of the 1990 census data will focus primarily on these types of social activities. At this time, the 1990 census files containing relevant data on economic and employment status of the population have not been released. Analyses of 1980 data on employment, unemployment and poverty will illustrate the usefulness of the LMA approach in examining intrastate differences. We will then turn to an examination of personal and family characteristics of the population in Michigan LMAs. For these factors, we have data from 1980 and 1990 and, therefore, can examine trends and demographic changes 1.
1. Employment The employment rate is defined as the number of employed persons expressed as a percentage of the number economically active or in the civilian labor force. In 1980, 89 per-cent of the civilian labor force was employed. Of those employed, more employed were male (58.16 percent) than female (41.84 percent).
Mixed LMAs have a higher rate of employment (90.4 percent) than the metropolitan (88.8 percent) and non- metropolitan (86.5 percent) ones. The Lansing and Grand Rapids LMAs present the highest percentage of the civilian labor force employed (92.3 percent and 92 percent, respectively), while the Oscoda non-metropolitan LMA has the lowest percentage of its civilian labor force employed (84.1 percent).
Labor force participation rates are the percentage of a population at risk of being employed that is employed. Most researchers include both employed and unemployed persons looking for work in the labor force. In this study, we developed a measure of male and female employment rates - that is, the percentage of women or men ages 15 to 64 who are employed.
For the state, the male labor force participation rate is 70.4 percent and the female labor force participation rate is 51.7 percent. As with the employment rate, the levels of men and women employed are much lower in non- metropolitan labor market areas than in metropolitan or mixed LMAs.
A number of explanations have been offered for the lower levels of employment of women in non-metropolitan LMAs: non-metropolitan attitudes and values are more conservative and disapprove of women's employment; more households are headed by married couples in non-metro areas; and employment opportunities are more restricted in non-metro LMAs. In a future study, we will examine the relationship between children in the home and women's employment. We expect to find that this association has weakened over the past decade.
2. Unemployment The unemployment rate is defined as a percentage of the number of persons economically active or in the civilian labor force. In 1980, 11 percent of the civilian labor force in Michigan LMAs was unemployed for some length of time. Among the un-employed people, 39.31 percent were unemployed for 15 or more weeks (see Table 2).
Non-metropolitan labor market areas have a higher rate of unemployment, with 13.5 percent of the population unemployed, while metropolitan and mixed labor market areas have 11.2 percent and 9.6 percent unemployment, respectively. Also, we find some interesting differences among local LMAs of the non-metropolitan LMAs. Oscoda people report the highest level of unemployment of all state LMAs (including metro LMAs), with a rate of 15.9 percent, compared with about 13 percent in the Oscoda, Antrim and Marquette rural LMAs. Table 2 shows that periods of unemployment tend to be much longer in non-metropolitan labor market areas than in metropolitan and mixed ones. In rural LMAs, 48.7 percent of the unemployed have been unemployed 15 weeks or more, compared with 38 percent of the unemployed in metro and mixed LMAs. The Oscoda LMA has the highest percentage of unemployed workers who are unemployed for spells of 15 weeks and more (53.34 percent). The average length of unemployment is shortest in the Lansing LMA.
3. Poverty Another indicator of the economic status of a place is the poverty rate. The poverty rate was determined in the 1980 census by classifying families and unrelated individuals as above or below the poverty level by comparing their total 1979 income to an income cutoff or poverty threshold that varies by family size, number of children and age of the family householder. This threshold is computed on a national basis only and is not adjusted for regional, state or local variations in the cost of living.
Table 3 shows the poverty rates of the state and Michigan labor market areas. The 1980 population census reveals that 10.2 percent of Michigan people have incomes below the official poverty level.
Because the Michigan population is much larger in urban areas, the actual number of poor people is higher in metro labor market areas. However, we find that people in non-metro labor market areas are more likely to be poor. In non-metropolitan LMAs, 12.2 percent of the people live with incomes below the poverty level, and this is much higher than for those living in mixed (9.9 percent) and metropolitan LMAs (10.1 percent).
Among Michigan LMAs, the highest poverty rates - that is, the percentage of people reporting family incomes below the poverty level - are in the Wexford LMA, with 13.7 percent of its population below poverty, and the Oscoda LMA, with 13.3 percent below poverty. Both of these rural labor market areas have a higher percentage of the population with incomes below the poverty level than the Detroit LMA, which had a 1980 poverty rate of 10.1 percent.
The LMAs with the lowest poverty levels are the mixed LMAs. Of the mixed labor market areas, Grand Rapids and Jackson have, respectively, 9.1 percent and 8.9 percent of the people below the poverty level. These are the lowest levels of poverty within the Michigan LMAs. Antrim has the lowest percentage of people below the poverty level in non-metropolitan labor market areas (10.4 percent), and this is higher than either metro LMA.
Summary of findings on employment, unemployment and poverty
Though the common image of economically distressed populations is of poor urban unemployed, our study suggests that people living in non-metro areas are actually more vulnerable and more likely to experience economic distress than people in other areas. We base this on these findings:
-The rate of employment is higher in mixed LMAs than in metropolitan and non-metropolitan ones. The Grand Rapids LMA has the highest percentage of its labor force employed.
-The unemployment rate is higher in non-metropolitan LMAs than in metropolitan and mixed LMAs, and the length of unemployment is much longer in non-metropolitan LMAs than elsewhere. Of the Michigan LMAs, Oscoda has the highest unemployment rate (15.9 percent). The length of unemployment is much longer in the Oscoda LMA - 53.3 percent of the unemployed are unemployed more than 15 weeks.
-The poverty rate is higher in non-metropolitan LMAs than in mixed and metropolitan LMAs. Among Michigan LMAs, the highest poverty rate is in the Wexford LMA - 13.73 percent of its residents have incomes below the poverty level.
V. Descriptive Analysis
1. Total population change Results of the 1990 population census show that the Michigan LMAs included in this preliminary study have a total population of 8,841,467. The population of Michigan in 1990 is 9,295,297. Of that total, 59.6 percent live in the Detroit and Lansing metropolitan labor market areas and 8.2 percent in non-metropolitan labor markets. The rest live in mixed labor market areas (see Figure 5).
Comparing the 1990 to 1980 population data shows population change. Overall, the state population increased slightly (.36 percent) from 1980 to 1990. We find an increase in the percentage of the total Michigan population living in non-metropolitan and mixed labor market areas, and a decrease in the population living in metropolitan labor market areas. In fact, the population in metropolitan labor market areas decreased by approximately 2 percent, while non-metropolitan and mixed labor market areas gained 4.02 percent and 4.19 percent, respectively.
We also can compare the population change in specific LMAs. Two rural LMAs, the Antrim and Oscoda labor market areas, tremendously increased in population size, with changes of 12.4 percent and 8.5 percent, respectively. The Grand Rapids (mixed) LMA also increased substantially in population and accounted for most of the population growth among the mixed LMAs. Analyses of economic data for the decade and from the 1990 census that are yet to be released may shed some light on why this growth occurred in these rural areas.
In contrast, the Detroit (urban) LMA, Saginaw (mixed) LMA and Marquette (rural Upper Peninsula) LMA lost 2.5 percent, 3.8 percent and 2.6 percent of their population between 1980 and 1990, respectively. Common explanations for decreasing population are the effects of mortality and fertility, and migration in search of opportunity or personal fulfillment. Population change is often associated with industries leaving an area and loss of jobs. Analyses of 1990 census data on migration will be insightful regarding these possible explanations.
2. Population by Race
Racial and ethnic group identification is based on self- reporting in the census. The 1990 population census found the racial composition of Michigan to be 84.4 percent whites, 13.9 percent blacks, 0.6 percent Native Americans, 1.1 percent Asian/Pacific Islanders and 1.9 percent other races. Racial groups are not randomly distributed geographically through the state. Rather, there are marked differences in areas where people of color and whites predominate. If there were no differences, then the same population distribution pattern would be found for all racial categories.
Metropolitan LMAs are substantially more diverse racially than other LMAs. In 1990, about 55.5 percent of the white population, 84.3 percent of all blacks and 43.1 percent of all Native Americans lived in metropolitan labor market areas (compared with 60 percent of the total population in metro LMAs). In contrast, in 1990, about 9.5 percent of the white population, a half percent of all blacks, and 27.1 percent of all Native Americans lived in non-metropolitan labor market areas (compared with 8.2 percent of the total population in non-metro LMAs).
Thus we find that black Michiganians are more likely to live in metro LMAs than elsewhere, and Native American Michiganians are more likely to live in non-metro LMAs. The 1990 census found that 19.4 percent of those living in metro LMAs are black, compared with 1 percent of those living in non-metro LMAs. In the Detroit LMA, the percentage of the population that is black increased from 19.3 to 20.9 percent between 1980 and 1990. The rural LMA with the highest percentage of blacks is the Marquette LMA, with 1.6 percent in 1990.
This marked difference between metro and non-metro black population concentration may be decreasing slightly. Over the past decade, the proportion of Michigan blacks who live in urban LMAs has declined by 1 percent, while the proportion of all blacks that live in rural and mixed LMAs has increased by 7.8 and 36.4 percent, respectively.
There is a greater proportion of Native Americans in rural LMAs, and this increased between 1980 and 1990, with Native American Michiganians more likely to live in the non-metro LMAs. Native Americans are concentrated in certain areas of the state: two-thirds of the state's Native Americans live in the Marquette, Grand Rapids and Detroit LMAs. We also looked at the percentage of Native Americans within each LMA and found that, in 1990, 4 percent of the Marquette (non-metro) LMA and 1.6 percent of the Antrim (non-metro) LMA were Native American, compared with .4 percent of the Detroit and Jackson LMAs.
In 1990, people reporting their race as Asian or Pacific Islander totalled 104,983. Asian/Pacific Islanders are more likely to live in metro LMAs - metro LMAs have a higher percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander population than mixed and non-metropolitan LMAs.
The category "other races" includes Hispanics, Mexicans, Cubans, South Americans, Eskimos and others not elsewhere classified. The percentage of the population of other races in Michigan increased from 1 percent in 1980 to 2 percent in 1990. This increase in diversity was greatest in the metro and mixed LMAs. The LMA with the highest proportion of other races is the Lansing metro LMA, with 3.8 percent in 1990. In this aspect of racial diversity, mixed LMAs are more similar to metro than to non-metro LMAs.
The increasing racial diversity of Michigan is indicated by a slight decrease - about .5 percent for the state population- in the proportion of residents identifying themselves as Caucasian in the 1990 census. This change differed by LMA. The percentage of the Michigan white population living in the Detroit labor market area declined 3.3 percent but increased in the Grand Rapids, Oscoda and Antrim labor market areas by 10.9 percent, 10 percent and 13.8 percent, respectively.
Study of change based on the percentage of change in a distribution may be deceptive. If the percentage of a given racial group in a certain area was low in 1980, then a small increase in numbers results in a large percentage change. If we look at percentage changes in the relative concentration by race within LMAs, we get a slightly different picture.
Change in the proportion of racial categories within the LMAs suggests that the white population decreased between 1980 and 1990, while the percentage of blacks and other racial categories increased. For example, in the Marquette rural LMA, blacks made up .8 percent of the population in 1980. This doubled to 1.6 percent in 1990. The percentage of blacks within the Lansing metropolitan LMA and the Jackson mixed LMA increased by 31.7 percent and 15.1 percent, respectively, but decreased in the Detroit (metropolitan) LMA (3.3 percent), in the Saginaw (mixed) LMA (2.8 percent) and in the Marquette (non- metropolitan) LMA. The LMAs that significantly gained white residents are the Antrim (rural) LMA and the Grand Rapids (mixed) LMA.
In the proportion of Asian/Pacific residents, the Lansing metropolitan LMA had the highest increase - 37.3 percent. In the Detroit LMA, the Asian/Pacific population decreased by 5 percent. Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo mixed LMAs saw the Asian/Pacific population increase by 26 percent and 14 percent, respectively. The Asian/Pacific population decreased in the Jackson LMA by 25.5 percent and in Saginaw by 12.7 percent. Among the rural LMAs, those characterized by a significant change in Asian/Pacific residents were the Wexford LMA, with a 29.6 percent decrease, and the Marquette LMA, with a 5 percent increase in Asian/Pacific population. The Oscoda rural LMA observed a 3.7 percent decline in Asian-Pacific population.
3. Population by gender
In 1990 the Michigan population was 48.6 percent male and 51.4 percent female. The sex ratio in these Michigan LMAs is estimated at 94.4 - that is, for every 100 females there are 94.4 males. There is a greater proportion of females in all Michigan labor market areas except in the Marquette, rural Upper Peninsula and Jackson LMAs.
A comparison of population size by gender based on the 1980 and 1990 population censuses shows the same patterns as total population size change. For both male and female, a population decrease occurred in metropolitan LMAs and an increase occurred in both non-metropolitan and mixed labor market areas.
Some change occurred in the percentages of the LMAs that are male and female. In the Detroit and Lansing metro LMAs, the percentage of females increased by .7 percent, while the percentage of males declined .8 percent. In mixed LMAs, the percentage of males increased by .2 percent and the percentage of females decreased by .2 percent.
4. Population by age
To study the differences in the age of populations in Michigan LMAs, we have compared the distribution and percentage of those who are 15 to 64 years old (the economically active age group) and those who are over 64 years old (the elderly age group). We use the term "economically active" rather loosely to imply membership in the age group in which most economic activity occurs. It does not imply that this many are indeed employed. The overall change of population by age in the 1980-90 decade shows that the economically active population declined in Michigan LMAs while the number of elderly significantly increased. The dependency ratio in 1980 was 51 percent, compared with 51.7 in 1990, as the relative size of the population of children and the elderly - that is, of dependents - increased.
In 1990, 65.9 percent of the Michigan population was in the 15-64 age bracket and 11.9 percent were 65 years and older. Between 1980 and 1990, the proportion of the population over 64 years old substantially increased in all LMAs. There was a higher proportion of elderly people in non-metropolitan (15.6 percent) than in metropolitan (11.3 percent) or mixed (11.9 percent) labor market areas. Another way to look at it is that the proportion of Michigan elderly persons who live in rural LMAs has increased in the past 10 years while the proportion in mixed LMAs has stayed about the same and the proportion in urban LMAs has declined slightly.
Considerable differences exist, however, among rural and mixed LMAs in the age compositions of their populations. Rural LMAs have the lowest proportion of population 15 to 64 years old (i.e., those economically active), and the rate of decline in this age group is the greatest among rural LMAs. In rural LMAs in 1990, 62.8 percent of the population was 15 to 64 years old. That is 1.1 percent less than in 1980. The Oscoda LMA has the lowest proportion of economically active persons of all the LMAs and the highest percentage of elderly people.
The Lansing LMA is the only area in the state with an increase in the percentage of economically active residents. The distribution of the state population among these LMAs is such that more of those economically active people were living in mixed and non-metro LMAs in 1990 than in 1980. This apparent discrepancy between changes in the percentage of an area's population that is economically active and the proportion of the state's economically active in an area is related to shifts in the proportion of other age categories - i.e., children and elderly - in the population.
5. Changes in numbers of households headed by male householder (no wife), female householder (no husband) and married couples and non-family households.
According to the census, a household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. A family household is one in which persons are related by blood, marriage or adoption. In Michigan, the percentage of non-family households increased from 25.1 percent in 1980 to 28.7 percent in 1990. Metro LMAs have the highest percentage of non-family households, and mixed LMAs have the lowest.
We focused our analyses on family households. In 1990, 55.1 percent of Michigan households were headed by married couples. This represents a 3.3 percent decrease from the 1980 level. Rural LMAs have a significantly higher rate of married-couple heads of households, with 59.9 percent in 1990, compared with 59.2 percent and 52.2 percent in mixed and urban LMAs, respectively.
The decline in married-couple households is associated with an increase in single head of household units. In fact, the proportion of Michigan households headed by either a woman (no husband) or a man (no wife) has increased considerably since 1980. The overall percentage of female-headed households increased by 24.4 percent and male-headed households by 36.6 percent between 1980 and 1990.
In 1990, the number of households headed by women in Michigan LMAs had increased to 12.9 percent, compared with 11.3 percent in 1980. The proportion of female households is higher in metropolitan LMAs than in non- metropolitan and mixed LMAs.
Urban LMAs have fewer married-couple households and, thus, a much higher proportion of households headed by only a man or only a woman - 3.6 percent and 14.6 percent, respectively, in 1990. Households in mixed LMAs have a higher proportion of female-headed households (10.9 percent) than rural LMAs (8.7 percent). Variation in these rates within mixed and rural LMAs is limited.
Between 1980 and 1990, the increase in the proportion of households headed by women was 15 percent in urban and rural LMAs. The LMAs that had the greatest increase in the percentage of female householders were the Wexford rural LMA and the Saginaw mixed LMA.
The 1990 population census shows that the number of married-couple family households declined 3.3 percent and the number of households headed by men (no wife) and the number of households headed by women (no husband) increased by 36.6 percent and 24.4 percent, respectively, between 1980 and 1990.
The decline in the number of married-couple households may be a result of several trends, such as lower rates of marriage due to economic conditions associated with financial distress, increasing age at marriage, increasing cohabitation, and changes in the age and gender composition of the state. The number of households headed by women increased by 24.4 percent between 1980 and 1990. The increase in the number of households headed by women may be the consequence of higher rates of divorce and/or separation of couples in combination with higher rates of out-of- wedlock childbirth.
Poverty rates have been associated with female heads of households. We do not have data to examine the association of household type and poverty in 1980 and 1990. It is interesting to note, however, that in 1980, non-metro LMA households were significantly more likely than metro LMAs to be headed by married couples, but the proportion of those in non-metro LMAs with incomes below poverty level was higher than in metro LMAs.
VI. Conclusion
This preliminary study of demographic differences among metro and non-metro labor markets in Michigan has identified differences in population distribution by race, age and gender, as well as different rates of unemployment, poverty and family structure among labor market areas. Future research will extend this work by including economic variables yet to be released from the 1990 census and by including LMAs with non-Michigan counties.
One purpose of this work is to provide information that will facilitate the policy process in Michigan. One consideration in policy development is to anticipate the differential impact of selected programs. Because demographic patterns differ among rural and urban labor markets, policies may affect residents of those areas differently.
Thus, one implication drawn from these results would be the need to consider the different policy needs of these areas and policy impacts on rural, mixed and urban labor markets. For example, programs to address economic distress by increasing the minimum wage may more positively affect workers in rural LMAs where there is a higher rate of working poor. Similarly, spells of unemployment in rural LMAs were longer in 1980. If data show that this trend persisted in 1990, we would suggest that extension of unemployment benefits may be relatively more important in these LMAs. Rural LMAs have a higher proportion of elderly persons in their populations, so increased Social Security benefits and elderly housing credits would greatly benefit these areas. An increase in job opportunities in rural areas is recommended to decrease the length of unemployment. Urban LMAs have a higher proportion of female-headed households, so benefits such as AFDC might be relatively more effective in addressing urban economic distress.
FOOTNOTES********************************(1) 1 The data used in the following analyses are from the total population and not from a sample; therefore, statistical significance tests are not used. Metropolitan and Non- Metropolitan Labor Market Areas in Michigan: Demographic Characteristics Prepared for Briefing on the 1990 Census Results and Michigan Population -General Population Characteristics and Trends By Janet L. Bokemeier, Professor of Sociology and Jean Kayitsinga, Graduate Research Assistant, Sociology
Table 1. Labor Market Areas in Michigan
Metropolitan Mixed Non-
metropolitan
266 Detroit 263 Grand Rapids 268 Oscoda
264 Lansing 267 Jackson 269 Antrim
262 Kalamazoo 270 Wexford
265 Saginaw 279 Marquette
261 Berrien* 280 Forest*
253 Monroe*
* Not in preliminary study
Table 2. Distribution of Population Employed and Unemployed and Length of Unemployment by Labor Market Areas.
Labor Market % % Male % Female Female Male
Areas Employed Employed Employed Labor Labor
Force Force
Partic Partic.
Percent Metro LMAs 88.76 57.93 42.07 51.80 70.76 Detroit 88.44 58.14 41.86 51.16 70.72 Lansing 92.29 55.77 44.23 58.91 71.15
Mixed LMAs 90.38 58.30 41.70 53.11 71.93 Grand Rapids 92.00 58.21 41.79 55.71 75.71 Jackson 89.52 59.22 40.78 51.79 68.88 Kalamazoo 91.20 57.13 42.87 56.00 72.52 Saginaw 87.15 59.23 40.77 46.97 66.82
Non-metro LMAs86.49 58.68 41.32 46.43 61.22 Oscoda 84.08 58.74 41.26 41.45 57.28 Antrim 87.30 57.63 42.37 51.94 69.24 Wexford 86.90 58.63 41.37 46.89 61.72 Marquette 87.04 59.49 40.51 45.40 58.14
Michigan 89.05 58.16 41.84 51.67 70.40
Labor Market % 1-4 Weeks 5-14 Weeks 15+ Weeks Areas Unempl. Unempl. Unempl. Unempl.
Metro LMAs 11.24 28.96 32.60 38.44 Detroit 11.56 28.05 32.75 39.21 Lansing 7.71 38.92 30.97 30.11
Mixed LMAs 9.62 29.37 32.38 38.25 Grand Rapids 8.00 30.76 33.16 36.09 Jackson 10.48 27.88 31.68 40.43 Kalamazoo 8.80 30.19 33.59 36.21 Saginaw 12.85 27.35 30.49 42.17
Non-metro LMAs 13.51 21.12 30.15 48.73 Oscoda 15.92 15.52 31.13 53.34 Antrim 12.70 20.62 30.74 48.64 Wexford 13.10 25.78 32.39 41.83 Marquette 12.96 21.46 27.67 50.87
Michigan 10.95 28.31 32.37 39.31
Source: Population census, 1980 Notes: 1.The percentage of the civilian labor force employed is presented in column 2 of Table 2. It is computed by dividing the number of people employed during the period of the 1980 census by the total civilian labor force. The percentage of the civilian labor force male employed, represented in column 3 of Table 2, is the total number of men employed divided by the total civilian labor force during the period of the 1980 census. The percentage of the civilian labor force female employed is the total number of women employed divided by the total civilian labor force during the 1980 census. The female labor force participation is presented in column 5 of Table 2 and is the total number of females employed divided by the total number of females in the civilian labor force. The male labor force participation is presented in column 6 of Table 2 and is computed as the total number of males employed divided by the total number of males in the civilian labor force.
2. The percentage of the civilian labor force unemployed is described in column 7 of Table 2. It is computed as the number of people unemployed during the period of the 1980 census divided by the total civilian labor force. Contrary to the official federal unemployment rate, which is computed based on estimations from the current population surveys, the calculation of the unemployment rate is based on the total civilian labor force in the population. Columns 8, 9 and 10 display the percentage of people unemployed per year by the length of the unemployment (in weeks).
Table 3. Distribution of Population by Poverty Rate by Labor Market Areas in 1980.
Labor Market Below Above Total % Below % Above Areas Poverty Poverty Pop. 1980 Poverty Poverty (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Metro LMAs 567754 4969079 5640737 10.07 88.09 Detroit 521265 4579701 5180539 10.06 88.40 Lansing 46489 389378 460198 10.10 84.61
Mixed LMAs 245053 2157325 2470961 9.92 87.31 Grand Rapids 90590 883270 997113 9.09 88.58 Jackson 25189 246668 283514 8.88 87.00 Kalamazoo 58518 486293 562801 10.40 86.41 Saginaw 70756 541094 627533 11.28 86.23
Non-metro LMAs88975 614046 729769 12.19 84.14 Oscoda 20751 132441 156289 13.28 84.74 Antrim 17691 149548 170805 10.36 87.55 Wexford 20337 120892 148095 13.73 81.63 Marquette 30196 211165 254580 11.86 82.95
Michigan 945874 8111535 9262078 10.21 87.58
Source: Population census, 1980
Note:Columns 5 and 6 of Table 3 display the percentage of people below and above poverty, respectively. The percentage of people below poverty is computed as the number of people with incomes below poverty in 1980 divided by the total population. The percentage of people above poverty is computed as the number of people with incomes above poverty in 1980 divided by the total population.
Table 4. Distribution and Change of Total Population by Labor Market Areas, 1980-1990.
Labor Market Pop. in Pop. in % in % in % Areas 1980 1990 1980 1990 Change (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Metro LMAs 5640737 5543449 60.90 59.64 -2.08 Detroit 5180539 5071793 55.93 54.56 -2.45 Lansing 460198 471656 4.97 5.07 2.12
Mixed LMAs 2470961 2579390 26.68 27.75 4.02 Grand Rapids 997113 1108630 10.71 12.09 10.79 Jackson 283514 284663 3.06 3.06 0.05 Kalamazoo 562801 579925 6.08 6.24 2.67 Saginaw 627533 606172 6.78 6.52 -3.75
Non-metro LMAs 729769 763077 7.88 8.21 4.19 Oscoda 156289 170154 1.69 1.83 8.48 Antrim 170805 192588 1.84 2.07 12.35 Wexford 148095 151346 1.60 1.63 1.83 Marquette 254580 248989 2.75 2.68 -2.55
Michigan 9262078 9295297 100.00 100.00 0.36
Source: Population censuses, 1980 and 1990 Note: The percentage change in column 6 is computed as the percentage of the difference between column 5 and column 4 divided by column 4. Column 4 displays the percentage of population in each LMA in 1980, while column 5 shows the percentage of population in each LMA in 1990. We have used the percentage of population in the computation of the percentage change instead of the total population to take into account the factor size of each LMA.
Table 5a. Distribution of Population by Race and by Labor Market Areas in 1990.
Labor Market % % % % %
Areas Whites Blacks Asian/ Nat. Other
Pac. Am. Races
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Metro LMAs 77.63 19.64 1.45 0.43 2.06 Detroit 76.59 20.85 1.42 0.42 1.90 Lansing 88.88 6.72 1.78 0.59 3.77
Mixed LMAs 90.95 6.35 0.73 0.55 2.30 Grand Rapids90.82 6.21 0.83 0.57 2.81 Jackson 93.02 4.75 0.44 0.39 2.04 Kalamazoo 90.65 7.13 0.86 0.52 1.76 Saginaw 90.50 6.60 0.55 0.63 2.00
Non-metro LMAs96.35 1.05 0.42 1.98 0.54 Oscoda 98.31 0.61 0.35 0.59 0.31 Antrim 97.62 0.26 0.32 1.61 0.26 Wexford 97.02 1.60 0.32 0.72 0.41 Marquette 93.61 1.63 0.61 3.97 1.00
Michigan 84.44 13.90 1.13 0.60 1.93
Source: Population census, 1990
Note: This table highlights the distribution of population by race in Michigan and in each LMA in 1990. Columns 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are computed similarly using the formula (x/y)*100, where x is the number of x race and y the total population in 1990. For example, column 2 is the number of whites divided by the total population in 1990.
Table 5b. Distribution of Population by Race and by Labor Market Areas in 1980
Labor Market % % % % %
Areas Whites Blacks Asian/ Nat. Other
Pac. Am. Races
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Metro LMAs 79.76 18.10 0.79 0.33 1.02 Detroit 78.70 19.26 0.79 0.31 0.93 Lansing 91.67 5.10 0.72 0.46 2.04
Mixed LMAs 92.19 5.71 0.38 0.42 1.30 Grand Rapids92.39 5.52 0.40 0.47 1.22 Jackson 94.08 4.13 0.32 0.26 1.21 Kalamazoo 91.94 6.39 0.42 0.35 0.89 Saginaw 91.26 6.10 0.33 0.47 1.83
Non-metro LMAs97.40 0.75 0.25 1.32 0.28 Oscoda 98.73 0.48 0.21 0.36 0.21 Antrim 98.19 0.21 0.19 1.19 0.22 Wexford 97.27 1.57 0.25 0.52 0.39 Marquette 96.13 0.79 0.31 2.47 0.30
Michigan 84.99 12.95 0.61 0.43 1.01
Source: Population census, 1980 Note: Columns 3, 4, 5 and 6 are computed as in Table 5a. The 1980 population census is used here.
Table 5c. Change of Population by Race and by Labor Market Areas, 1980-1990.
Labor Market % % % % %
Areas Whites Blacks Asian/ Nat. Other
Pac. Am. Races
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Metro LMAs -2.67 8.50 32.41 84.68 101.40 Detroit -2.69 8.24 32.75 71.49 103.98 Lansing -3.05 31.73 28.16 147.69 84.30
Mixed LMAs -1.35 11.23 31.34 93.50 77.14 Grand Rapids1.70 12.43 21.41 109.41 130.36 Jackson -1.13 15.16 47.39 37.22 69.19 Kalamazoo -1.40 11.60 45.50 104.50 98.56 Saginaw -0.84 8.18 33.69 67.00 9.10
Non-metro LMAs-1.08 40.55 49.23 68.80 93.75 Oscoda -0.43 26.63 63.40 63.51 48.31 Antrim -0.58 22.89 35.88 64.48 18.09 Wexford -0.26 2.23 37.70 27.29 5.88 Marquette -2.61 105.30 60.41 98.45 231.63
Michigan -1.83 7.34 38.43 84.20 90.40
Source: Population censuses, 1980 and 1990
Note: The change of population by race in LMAs between 1980 and 1990 is computed as the difference between the percentage of each race in 1990 presented in Table 5c and the percentage of each race in 1980 presented in Table 5d, divided by the percentage of each race in 1980.
Table 5d. Change in White Population by Labor Market Areas, 1980-1990.
Labor Market White, White, % in % in % of Areas 1980 1990 1980 1990 Change 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Metro LMAs 4498978 4303433 57.15 55.48 -2.91 Detroit 4077107 3884235 51.79 50.78 -3.30 Lansing 421871 419198 5.36 5.40 0.85
Mixed LMAs 2278091 2345911 28.94 30.25 4.52 Grand Rapids 921184 1006804 11.70 12.98 10.93 Jackson 266741 264799 3.39 3.41 0.76 Kalamazoo 517457 525721 6.57 6.78 3.12 Saginaw 572709 548587 7.28 7.07 -2.78 Nonmetro LMAs 710796 735211 9.03 9.48 4.98 Oscoda 154311 167279 1.96 2.16 10.03 Antrim 167710 188008 2.13 2.42 13.78 Wexford 144059 146838 1.83 1.89 3.46 Marquette 244716 233086 3.11 3.01 -3.33
Michigan 7872241 7756086 100.00 100.00 -1.48
Source: Population censuses, 1980 and 1990
Note: The percentage change of white population in column 6 is computed as the difference between column 5 and column 4 divided by column 4. Column 4 displays the percentage of white population in each LMA in 1980, while column 5 shows the percentage of white population in each LMA in 1990.
Table 5e. Change in Black Population by Labor Market Areas, 1980-1990.
Labor Market Black, Black, % in % in % of Areas 1980 1990 1980 1990 change (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Metro LMAs 1021216 1088942 85.17 84.30 -1.02 Detroit 997742 1057249 83.21 81.85 -1.64 Lansing 23474 31693 1.96 2.45 25.33
Mixed LMAs 141049 163767 11.76 12.68 7.78 Grand Rapids 55089 68865 4.59 5.33 16.04 Jackson 11699 13527 0.98 1.05 7.33 Kalamazoo 35969 41361 3.00 3.20 6.74 Saginaw 38292 40014 3.19 3.10 -3.00
Non-metro LMAs 5462 8027 0.46 0.62 36.42 Oscoda 758 1045 0.06 0.08 27.97 Antrim 363 503 0.03 0.04 28.62 Wexford 2323 2427 0.19 0.19 -3.02 Marquette 2018 4052 0.17 0.31 86.39
Michigan 1199023 1291706 100.00 100.00 7.7
Source: Population censuses, 1980 and 1990
Note: Column 6 in Table 5e is computed in the same manner as column 6 in Table 5d.
Table 5f. Change in Native American Population by Labor Market Areas, 1980-1990.
Labor Market Nat. Am., Nat. Am., % in % in % of Areas 1980 1990 1980 1990 change (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Metro LMAs 18446 24003 46.06 43.14 -6.33 Detroit 16315 21204 40.74 38.11 -6.45 Lansing 2131 2799 5.32 5.03 -5.45
Mixed LMAs 10435 14307 26.06 25.71 -1.31 Grand Rapids 4719 6370 11.78 11.45 -2.84 Jackson 744 1101 1.86 1.98 6.52 Kalamazoo 1997 2994 4.99 5.38 7.92 Saginaw 2975 3842 7.43 6.91 -7.04
Non-metro LMAs 9660 15074 24.12 27.09 12.32 Oscoda 561 998 1.40 1.79 28.05 Antrim 2028 3107 5.06 5.58 10.28 Wexford 771 1085 1.93 1.95 1.30 Marquette 6300 9884 15.73 17.76 12.93
Michigan 40049 55638 38.9
Source: Population censuses, 1980 and 1990 Note: Column 6 in Table 5f is computed in the same manner as column 6 in Table 5d.
Table 5g. Change in Asian/Pacific Population by Labor Market Areas, 1980-1990.
Labor Market Asian/P., Asian/P., % in % in % Areas 1980 1990 1980 1990 change (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Metro LMAs 44351 80494 78.10 76.67 -1.82 Detroit 41035 72076 72.26 68.65 -4.99 Lansing 3316 8418 5.84 8.02 37.32
Mixed LMAs 9330 18846 16.43 17.95 9.27 Grand Rapids 3963 9227 6.98 8.79 25.95 Jackson 908 1251 1.60 1.19 -25.47 Kalamazoo 2378 5011 4.19 4.77 13.99 Saginaw 2081 3357 3.66 3.20 -12.74
Non-metro LMAs 1809 3193 3.19 3.04 -4.52 Oscoda 332 591 0.58 0.56 -3.71 Antrim 330 612 0.58 0.58 0.32 Wexford 369 480 0.65 0.46 -29.63 Marquette 778 1510 1.37 1.44 4.99
Michigan 56790 104983 100.00 100.00 0.00
Source: Population censuses, 1980 and 1990 Note: Column 6 in Table 5g is computed in the same manner as column 6 in Table 5d.
Table 5h. Change in Other Races Population by Labor Market Areas, 1980-1990
Labor Market Other, Other, % in % in % Areas 1980 1990 1980 1990 change (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Metro LMAs 57746 114303 61.45 63.65 3.59 Detroit 48340 96536 51.44 53.76 4.51 Lansing 9406 17767 10.01 9.89 -1.15
Mixed LMAs 32056 59277 34.11 33.01 -3.23 Grand Rapids 12158 31140 12.94 17.34 34.04 Jackson 3422 5813 3.64 3.24 -11.10 Kalamazoo 5000 10230 5.32 5.70 7.08 Saginaw 11476 12094 12.21 6.74 -44.85
Non-metro LMAs 2042 4137 2.17 2.30 6.03 Oscoda 327 528 0.35 0.29 -15.50 Antrim 374 498 0.40 0.28 -30.31 Wexford 573 620 0.61 0.35 -43.37 Marquette 768 2491 0.82 1.39 69.75
Michigan 93975 179567 100.00 100.00 91.08
Source: Population censuses, 1980 and 1990 Note: Column 6 in Table 5h is computed in the same manner as column 6 inTable 5d.
Table 6. Population by Gender.
1980
Labor Market % %
Areas Male Female Male Female
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Metro LMAs 2738696 2902041 48.55 51.45 Detroit 2514278 2666261 48.53 51.47 Lansing 224418 235780 48.77 51.23
Mixed LMAs 1208565 1262396 48.91 51.09 Grand Rapids486648 510465 48.81 51.19 Jackson 141057 142457 49.75 50.25 Kalamazoo 274338 288463 48.75 51.25 Saginaw 306522 321011 48.85 51.15
Non-metro LMAs363368 366401 49.79 50.21 Oscoda 77189 79100 49.39 50.61 Antrim 83679 87126 48.99 51.01 Wexford 73260 74835 49.47 50.53 Marquette 129240 125340 50.77 49.23
Michigan 4516189 4745889 48.76 51.24
1990
Labor Market
Total % % % change
Male Female Male Female Male Female
(1) (6) (5) (8) (9) (10) (11)
Metro LMAs 2670985 2872464 48.18 51.82 -0.76 0.72 Detroit 2442716 2629077 48.16 51.84 -0.76 0.72 Lansing 228269 243387 48.40 51.60 -0.76 0.72
Mixed LMAs 1266615 1317175 49.02 50.98 0.23 -0.22 Grand Rapids544714 563916 49.13 50.87 0.67 -0.64 Jackson 142474 142189 50.05 49.95 0.60 -0.59 Kalamazoo 281717 298208 48.58 51.42 -0.34 0.33 Saginaw 293310 312862 48.39 51.61 -0.94 0.90
Non-Metro LMAs380358 382719 49.85 50.15 0.11 -0.11
Oscoda 83986 86168 49.36 50.64 -0.06 0.06
Antrim 94224 98364 48.93 51.07 -0.13 0.13 Wexford 74971 76375 49.54 50.46 0.14 -0.13 Marquette 127177 121812 51.08 48.92 0.61 -0.63
Michigan 4512781 4782516 48.55 51.45 -0.43 0.41
Source: Population censuses, 1980 and 1990 Note: This table represents the distribution of population by gender in 1980 (columns 4 and 5) and in 1990 (columns 8 and 9). Columns 10 and 11, respectively, show the percentage of change of males and females. Column 10 is computed as the difference between column 8 and column 4 divided by column 4. Column 11 is computed the same way as column 10 and represents the percentage of change for females, which is the difference between column 9 and column 5 divided by column 5.
Table 7a. Distribution and Change of the Population Economically Active by Age, 1980 AND 1990.
Labor Market 1980 Pers. 1990 Pers. % in % in % of Areas 15-64 15-64 1980 1990 Change (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Metro LMAs 3785428 3711365 61.69 60.59 -1.80 Detroit 3468793 3386444 56.53 55.28 -2.21 Lansing 316635 324921 5.16 5.30 2.79
Mixed LMAs 1614752 1673601 26.32 27.32 3.81 Grand Rapids 648338 713730 10.57 11.65 10.27 Jackson 185603 185561 3.02 3.03 0.14 Kalamazoo 372326 380862 6.07 6.22 2.46 Saginaw 408485 393448 6.66 6.42 -3.52
Non-metro LMAs466537 479519 7.60 7.83 2.95 Oscoda 97800 103382 1.59 1.69 5.88 Antrim 108986 121418 1.78 1.98 11.59 Wexford 95450 95806 1.56 1.56 0.54 Marquette 164301 158913 2.68 2.59 -3.12
Michigan 6135713 6125665 100.00 100.00 -0.16
Labor Market % of total % OF Total % of change
Population, Population,
1980 1990
(1) (7) (8) (9)
Metro LMAs 67.11 66.95 -0.24
Detroit 66.96 66.77 -0.28
Lansing 68.80 68.89 0.12
Mixed LMAs 65.35 64.88 -0.71 Grand Rapids 65.02 64.38 -0.99 Jackson 65.47 65.19 -0.43 Kalamazoo 66.16 65.67 -0.73 Saginaw 65.09 64.91 -0.29
Non-Metro LMAs 63.93 62.84 -1.70 Oscoda 62.58 60.76 -2.91 Antrim 63.81 63.05 -1.19 Wexford 64.45 63.30 -1.78 Marquette 64.54 63.82 -1.11
Michigan 66.25 65.90 (0.52)
Source: Population censuses, 1980 and 1990 Note: The table describes the distribution and change in population of age group 15-64 in 1980 and in 1990 (columns 3, 4 and 5). Columns 7, 8 and 9 represent, respectively, the percentage of the population age-group 15-64 compared with the total population in 1980, the percentage of the population age 15-64 compared with the total population in 1990, and the percentage change between column 7 and column 8.
Table 7b. Distribution and Change of the Elderly Population by Age, 1980 and 1990.
Labor Market 1980 Pers.1990 Pers. % in % in % Areas 65+ 65+ 1980 1990 change (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Metro LMAs 515827 628088 56.54 56.66 0.21 Detroit 479348 583757 52.55 52.66 0.23 Lansing 36479 44331 4.00 4.00 0.01
Mixed LMAs 252726 305873 27.70 27.59 -0.39
Grand Rapids 102434 124306 11.23 11.21 -0.13 Jackson 29369 35327 3.22 3.19 -1.00 Kalamazoo 59058 69792 6.47 6.30 -2.74 Saginaw 61865 76448 6.78 6.90 1.70
Non-metro LMAs97287 119282 10.66 10.76 0.91
Oscoda 22822 30539 2.50 2.76 10.13
Antrim 21340 27745 2.34 2.50 7.00 Wexford 19535 22551 2.14 2.03 -4.99 Marquette 33590 38447 3.68 3.47 -5.80
Michigan 912258 1108461 100.00 100.00 0.00
Labor Market % of Total % OF Total % of change
Population, Population,
1980 1990
(1) (7) (8) (9)
Metro LMAs 9.14 11.33 23.90
Detroit 9.25 11.51 24.39
Lansing 7.93 9.40 18.57
Mixed LMAs 10.23 11.86 15.94 Grand Rapids 10.27 11.21 9.15 Jackson 10.36 12.41 19.80 Kalamazoo 10.49 12.03 14.69 Saginaw 9.86 12.61 27.93
Non-metro LMAs 13.33 15.63 17.26 Oscoda 14.60 17.95 22.91 Antrim 12.49 14.41 15.31 Wexford 13.19 14.90 12.96 Marquette 13.19 15.44 17.03
Michigan 9.85 11.92 21.07
Source: Population censuses, 1980 and 1990
Note: The table describes the distribution and change in population of age group 65 and older in 1980 and in 1990 (columns 3, 4 and 5). Columns 7, 8 and 9 represent, respectively, the percentage of the population age group 65 and older compared with the total population in 1980, the percentage of the population age group 65 and more compared with the total population in 1990, and the percentage change between column 7 and column 8.
Table 8a. Distribution of Households Headed by Male, Female and Married-Couple Households, in 1980 and 1990.
Labor Market Total HH.,% MHH.,% FHH., % MCHH., Total HH., Areas 1980 1980 1980 1980 1990 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Metro LMAs 1950316 2.88 12.68 58.49 2048334 Detroit 1793926 2.94 12.95 58.39 1877788 Lansing 156390 2.21 9.54 59.57 170546
Mixed LMAs 844425 2.12 9.53 64.51 931139 Grand Rapid 340130 2.00 9.48 65.15 392768 Jackson 95401 2.17 9.08 66.17 100932 Kalamazoo 198890 2.17 9.72 61.84 215179 Saginaw 210004 2.23 9.62 65.26 222260
Non-metro LMAs 255601 2.29 7.53 65.47 288032 Oscoda 56062 2.19 7.33 68.12 66492 Antrim 60156 2.10 7.65 66.10 72885 Wexford 51335 2.14 7.36 65.57 56019 Marquette 88048 2.55 7.68 63.31 92636
Michigan 3195213 2.61 11.30 60.97 3419331
Labor Market % MHH % FHH % MCHH % Change % Change %
Change
1990 1990 1990 MALHH. FEMHH. MCHH.
(1) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Metro LMAs 3.61 14.58 52.21 25.35 14.99 -10.73 Detroit 3.67 14.91 52.02 24.92 15.08 -10.91 Lansing 2.94 10.99 54.28 33.22 15.20 -8.89
Mixed LMAs 2.89 10.92 59.15 36.55 14.59 -8.31
Grand Rapids2.81 10.56 60.48 40.35 11.39 -7.17 Jackson 3.18 10.59 60.34 46.32 16.71 -8.82 Kalamazoo 2.99 11.09 56.49 38.27 14.12 -8.65 Saginaw 2.80 11.52 58.84 25.57 19.72 -9.84
Non-metro 2.89 8.67 59.89 26.33 15.11 -8.53 Oscoda 2.76 8.12 62.32 25.78 10.75 -8.52 Antrim 2.83 8.77 61.35 34.73 14.71 -7.18 Wexford 2.95 9.02 59.76 37.46 22.48 -8.87 Marquette 2.99 8.78 57.08 17.03 14.27 -9.83
Michigan 3.33 12.93 55.07 27.63 1 (9.67)
Source: Population censuses, 1980 and 1990 Note: Columns 3, 4 and 5 represent, respectively, the percentage distribution of households headed by males (no wife), by females (no husband) and by married couples divided by the total number of households in 1980. Columns 7, 8 and 9 show, respectively, the percentage of households headed by males (no wife), by females (no husband) and by married couples divided by the total number of households in 1990. Columns 10, 11 and 12 show the percentage of change of households headed by males, households headed by females and households headed by married-couples, respectively.
Table 8b. Distribution and Change of Households Headed by Men and Households Headed by Women.
Male Households
Labor Market Total Total % in % in %
of Areas in 1980 in 1990 1980 1990
change
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Metro LMAs 56148 73918 67.40 64.96 -3.62 Detroit 52694 68900 63.25 60.55 -4.27 Lansing 3454 5018 4.15 4.41 6.37
Mixed LMAs 17878 26919 21.46 23.66 10.24 Grand Rapids 6810 11037 8.17 9.70 18.66 Jackson 2071 3206 2.49 2.82 13.34 Kalamazoo 4307 6443 5.17 5.66 9.52 Saginaw 4690 6233 5.63 5.48 -2.70
Non-metro LMAs 5841 8315 7.01 7.31 4.22 Oscoda 1228 1832 1.47 1.61 9.22 Antrim 1265 2065 1.52 1.81 19.51 Wexford 1100 1650 1.32 1.45 9.82 Marquette 2248 2768 2.70 2.43 (9.85)
Michigan 83309 113789 100.00 100.00 36.59
Female Households
Labor Markets
Areas Total Total % in % in % of
in 1980 in 1990 1980 1990 change
(1) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
Metro LMAs 247297 298662 68.47 67.53 -1.37 Detroit 232378 279920 64.34 63.30 -1.62 Lansing 14919 18742 4.13 4.24 2.60
Mixed LMAs 80463 101667 22.28 22.99 3.19 Grand Rapids 32259 41495 8.93 9.38 5.05 Jackson 8659 10692 2.40 2.42 0.85 Kalamazoo 19337 23874 5.35 5.40 0.83 Saginaw 20208 25606 5.59 5.79 3.49
Non-metro LMAs19250 24971 5.33 5.65 5.94 Oscoda 4108 5396 1.14 1.22 7.28 Antrim 4599 6392 1.27 1.45 13.51 Wexford 3779 5051 1.05 1.14 9.16 Marquette 6764 8132 1.87 1.84 -1.81
Michigan 361180 442239 100.00 100.00 22.44
Source: Population censuses, 1980 and 1990
Note: Columns 4, 5 and 6 of this table show, respectively, the distribution of households headed by men in 1980 and in 1990, and the percentage change between the two years by each LMA. Columns 9, 10 and 11 show respectively, the distribution of households headed by women in 1980 and in 1990, and the percentage change between the two years by each LMA.
Table 8c. Distribution and Change of Married-Couple Households and Non-family Households, 1980-1990
Married-Couple Households
Labor Market Married Married % in % in % of
Areas couple couple 1980 1990 change
in 1980 in 1990
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(6)
Metro LMAs 1140689 1069422 58.56 56.79 -3.02 Detroit 1047521 976855 53.77 51.87 -3.53 Lansing 93168 92567 4.78 4.92 2.78
Mixed LMAs 544770 550784 27.97 29.25 4.59
Grand Rapids 221586 237537 11.37 12.61 10.89 Jackson 63130 60899 3.24 3.23 -0.21 Kalamazoo 123002 121565 6.31 6.46 2.24 Saginaw 137052 130783 7.04 6.94 -1.29
Non-metro LMAs 167353 172509 8.59 9.16 6.63
Oscoda 38189 41435 1.96 2.20 12.24 Antrim 39764 44718 2.04 2.37 16.33 Wexford 33661 33476 1.73 1.78 2.88 Marquette 55739 52880 2.86 2.81 -1.86
Michigan 1948015 1883143 100.00 100.00 -3.33
Non-Family Households
Labor Market % in % in %
Areas 1980 1990 change
(7) (8) (9)
Metro LMAs 25.95 29.60 14.05
Detroit 25.72 29.40 14.33
Lansing 28.68 31.79 10.86
Mixed LMAs 23.84 27.04 13.42 Grand Rapids 23.37 26.15 11.90 Jackson 22.58 25.89 14.68 Kalamazoo 26.27 29.42 11.98 Saginaw 22.88 26.83 17.26
Non-metro LMAs24.71 28.55 15.55 Oscoda 22.36 26.81 19.90 Antrim 24.15 27.04 11.98 Wexford 24.92 28.28 13.46 Marquette 26.46 31.15 17.73
Michigan 25.12 28.67 14.10
Source: Population censuses, 1980 and 1990
Note: Columns 4, 5 and 6 of this table show, respectively, the distribution of married-couple households in 1980 and in 1990, and the percentage change between the two years by each LMA. Columns 7, 8 and 9 show the distribution of non-family households in 1980 and in 1990, and the percentage change between the two years by each LMA.
The Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station is an equal opportunity employer and complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.6:93-2M-New-LJ- (Mlbrk)