UNC Charlotte students survey buildings in downtown Charlotte

Change Since 1790 Net Migration Components of Change Distribution of Change Within the State Urbanization Total Population Internal Distribution of Net Migration Age Structure

Changes Since 1790

North Carolina continues its vigorous growth, as shown by estimates prepared by the US Census Bureau (Figure 1). Total population reached an estimated total of over 8.7 million by July 1, 2005, a gain of 633,929 since the last census was taken in 2000. The 2000-2005 gain was the sixth largest among all US states and most of the other five states with greater increases had larger populations to begin with, including California, Florida and Texas. As a result of this growth, the state's share of the national total continued to rise, as noted in the North Carolina Atlas, rising from 2.67 percent of the national total in 1990 to 2.93 percent in 2005.

Net Migration

The most dynamic element of population change is net migration, the difference between the number of people moving into the state and the number who left. As Figure 2 indicates, in the past the state tended to lose more people this way than it gained. The heaviest losses were experienced in the 1950s but by the 1970s, for the first time in modern history, a substantial net in-migration was recorded. This continued to increase rapidly in more recent years. reaching nearly 1.4 million between 1990 and 2005.

The implications of this flood of new residents are profound. Historically, most North Carolina residents were natives, almost entirely either white or black. Now, thousands of new residents are from various parts of the country and from over seas. They bring with them different names, languages, attitudes, skin colors and eating habits. Mexican or Thai restaurants compete with Bubba’s barbeque pit for diners. In many cases this increased diversity is a welcome change but sometimes it’s a cause for discontent when, for example, allegations that in-migrants are taking jobs from natives surface. Or, as will be seen in the chapter on politics, many in-migrants to urban areas are Republicans and they have helped shift North Carolina voters away from Democratic candidates and programs.

US Census shows that North Carolina ranked third nationally in terms of net domestic migration between 1995 and 2000 for the population that was 5 years or older in 2000. Only Florida and Georgia exceeded the state’s net influx of 337,883 people during the five-year period. These data do not include migration to or from international sites. These numbers are based on Census reports of changes in residence between 1995 and 2000 for the population that was alive in 1995. They do not compare with the preceding data, which include all people and a longer time period. The primary insight that they offer is that they include information on the state-to-state movements of people during the five-year period. The net in-migration of 337,883 people into North Carolina is the difference between the total domestic in-migration of 919,336 (5th largest among US states) and the out-migration of 581,453 (11th largest among US states) to other states.

New York was the leading source of in-migrants to North Carolina, with a net influx of 80,465 people. It was followed by Florida, with a net in-migration of 38,691. Six other states each contributed 10,000 or more: California, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Of these eight stares, only Florida and Virginia recorded overall net in-migration flows while the other six lost more than they gained. These data make it apparent that North Carolina has become a magnet for people from many parts of the country.

The Census migration data also showed that North Carolina ranked first nationally in terms of the rate of increase in its foreign-born population, with a 274 percent jump between 1995 and 2000. All told, a net of 139,381 foreign-born people moved into the state from abroad and another 44,358 moved in from a different state. These domestic foreign-born in-migrants came mostly from the major "Gateway" states, California, New York, Florida, and Texas, led by the influx of over 16,000 from California. Most of these in-migrants came from Mexico, followed by a smaller number of Asians. Only a little more than a quarter of these new foreign-born residents have become US citizens, the lowest proportion among all of the states. Apparently this low proportion is a reflection of the recency of their arrival in North Carolina, coupled with the length of time that the naturalization process takes.

The 1995-2000 values show that 196,337 people 5 years or older moved into North Carolina from overseas, the ninth largest total among US states. Over one-quarter of the statewide total arrived in Mecklenburg and Wake counties while most of the rest went to other metro areas, especially Cumberland, Durham, and Guilford counties.

Components of Change

Net migration and natural increase are the two ways in which the population of a place changes. The latter is the difference between the number of births and deaths that occur to residents. Figure 3 illustrates the inter-play between these two components that North Carolina has experienced since 1940. In the first several decades the state grew only because natural increase was large enough to offset losses due to out-migration. However, this began to change dramatically after 1960 when declining birth rates and improved health care caused the natural increase to decline and the state began to experience in-migration. In fact, in-migration accounted for 71 percent of the state’s growth between 1990 and 2000. In the 2000 to 2005 period its share of the net increase fell to just under 61 percent, perhaps reflecting the economic slowdown in 2001-2002 since the state’s robust economy appears to have been the primary attraction for most of the in-migrants.

A significant aspect of the in-migrants during the 2000-2005 period is that 48 percent were from international destinations, the rest coming from other parts of the US. In contrast, 24 other states, primarily in the Northeast and Mid-West, experienced net domestic out-migration during the 2000-2003 period.

Distribution of Change Within the State

Figures 4(a) and 4(b) display population growth for the 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2004 periods, respectively. Both show that growth has been strongest within the Piedmont corridor, especially in and around the state’s largest metro areas. In addition, the other metro areas, especially Wilmington, recorded substantial increases. Some rural counties, mostly along the coast or in the mountains, can be described as “recreational/retirement areas” and they also grew faster than did the state generally. They include Currituck, Dare, and Brunswick on the coast , Henderson in the mountains and the Pinehurst/Southern Pines golf and retirement communities in Moore County. Otherwise, slower growth was the rule throughout much of the rest of the state.

Click Here for Larger Image

Click Here for Larger Image

Figure 4(b), suggests that a major trend may be developing in the state, a throwback to earlier decades. Between 1990 and 2000, as shown in Figure 4(a), despite the strong shift in growth toward Piedmont metro areas, only three rural counties recorded actual population losses, all in the northeastern corner of the state. However, this changed dramatically during the 2000 to 2004 era, when no less than 16 counties showed a loss of people. Some of these losses are probably related to the decline in textile and apparel jobs in rural areas. Many of the losing counties are concentrated in the northeast, extending from some coastal areas inland onto the Inner Coastal Plain. Craven, Wayne and Onslow Counties host major military facilities and their slow growth is likely related to shifts of military personnel to other places, including deployments overseas. Otherwise, these northeastern counties are sparsely populated and have heavily agricultural economies that have been hurt by the drop in the domestic demand for tobacco, as well as the closing of textile and apparel factories. Most, however, don’t serve as recreational/retirement areas since they lack access to the beaches or are too remote to attract many retirees.

This pattern of population decline can be thought of as a throwback to earlier decades, such as the 1960s when many of the same counties lost people. Thus, it appears that, as noted in the Manufacturing chapter, strong efforts by the state to promote economic development in rural North Carolina have not succeeded in holding people in these areas. More decisive are shifts in the national economy that have undercut the economic bases of these rural areas while favoring larger urban areas.

The patterns displayed in Figure 4(b) are, of course, only estimates for a four-year period and it remains to be seen whether or not this striking pattern of rural loss and metro gains holds up over more time. If it does, it may signal an acceleration of growth in metro areas, accompanied by a dramatic emptying out of large parts of rural North Carolina.

This shift is displayed in another way and over more time in Figure 5. It shows that the state’s two most populous counties, Mecklenburg and Wake, grew by 59.1% during the 1990-2004 span, more than twice the statewide growth rate. And they, along with the state’s eight other largest counties, grew by nearly 35%. In contrast, the remaining 90 counties gained by less than 25%. The 12 counties in that group that had populations of less than 15,000 in 2004 grew by 12% during the 14 year period, less than half the statewide rate.

Urbanization

After the 2000 Census, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget revised previous definitions of metropolitan areas that are used in Federal statistical reports and elsewhere (Figures 6a-c). The original Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) have been replaced by a two-tier system. One includes more narrowly defined MSAs, resulting in the break up of several of them in North Carolina. For example, the previous one Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point MSA has been broken into three MSAs: Greensboro-High Point, Winston-Salem, and Burlington. Similarly, the Raleigh-Durham MSA has been split into the Durham and the Raleigh-Cary MSAs. In other cases, the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-NC MSA lost Rown and Lincoln Counties and gained Anson. Asheville added Haywood and Henderson Counties and Wilmington gained Pender County. The net result of these changes is that the number of MSAs increased from 12 to 15 and the number of counties in an MSA increased from 37 to 39.

The reasons for changing the previous composition of MSAs in North Carolina are not clear. As before, the delineation of an MSA starts with identifying a county that contains a core urban area with a population of at least 50,000 residents. Other counties may be attached to this urban core if the level of commuting between them and the core represent at least 25 percent of the labor force.

The second and new layer in the first tier are Micropolitan Statistical Areas. (Figure 6c). They are non-MSA counties with at least one urban cluster of between 10,000 and 50,000 population, plus any adjacent counties that have “a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting data.” Again the requisite level of commuting is usually 25 percent of the labor force. Of the 27 Micropolitan Areas identified in North Carolina, only three (Elizabeth City, New Bern, and Roanoke Rapids) include more than one county. All told, the Micropolitan Areas include 31 counties. This leaves 30 counties that are classified as neither MSA nor Micropolitan. This new system replaces the previous designation of counties being either “metro” or “non-metro,” in which case non-metro was often made synonymous with “rural.” Now the 30 counties that do not fall into either the MSA or Micropolitan categories can more accurately be designated as rural.

The second tier introduced after the 2000 Census is the Combined Statistical Area, a second definition of metropolitan areas. There are only five of these larger areas recognized in North Carolina. Four involve the state’s four most populous urban regions: Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro/Winston-Salem and Raleigh/Durham. These are formed out of six of the MSAs, plus some of the adjacent Micropolitan Areas. An exception to the MSA inclusion in these Combined Statistical Areas is the Lumberton-Laurinburg Combined Area, which consists entirely of two adjacent Micropolitan Area counties. On the other hand, the remaining nine MSAs are not included in this new metropolitan area category, even though most are more populous than the Lumberton-Laurinburg area.

These newly defined MSAs dominated statewide growth in the 2000-2007 period, accounting for almost 90 percent of the state’s net increase. Leaders among the MSAs (Figure 6b and Table 1a) were Raleigh-Cary (+31.4%), Wilmington (23.3%), and Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord (NC part, +26.5%). By 2007 the MSAs contained over 70 percent of the state’s population. They grew by 16.7 percent between 2000 and 2007, more than the statewide growth of 12.6 percent. By contrast, the Micropolitan Areas grew more slowly, 6.6 percent, less than the statewide growth rate. They accounted for 12.2 percent of the state’s growth between 2000 and 2007 and in that later year they contained just under 22 percent of the North Carolina population. Despite the overall vigorous statewide growth, the remaining 30 predominantly rural counties saw their populations actually decrease by over 18,500. Their share of the state total dropped from 9.2 percent in 2000 to less than 8 percent in 2007.

The state's 5 Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs) accounted for nearly 61 percent of its total population in 2007 and 81 percent of the net gain between 2000 and 2007. Most of this was attributable to the Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury and Raleigh-Durham-Cary CSAs, which collectively contained nearly 40 percent of the state's population in 2007. Further, they combined for over 66 percent of the state's total growth in the seven year period.

These figures indicate that North Carolina is continuing to become a more urban state, much like the rest of the nation. The only exception to this trend is seen in some coastal and mountain counties, such as Brunswick and Macon. These counties have attracted numerous tourists and retirees to their environmental assets, causing their growth rates to exceed the statewide averages. Otherwise, this statistics strongly indicate North Carolina's future will be an urban future.

Click Here for Larger Image

Click Here For Larger Image

Click Here for Larger Image

Table 1(b) summarizes US Census population estimates for those North Carolina cities that had populations of at least 50,000 people in 2004. Charlotte ranked 20th largest among US cities while Raleigh ranked 55th Both cities, along with Greensboro and Durham, ranked among the 100 largest in the US. Charlotte, Raleigh, Cary, High Point, Wilmington, Greenville, Jacksonville, and Concord each had growth rates that exceeded the statewide increase of 6.1 percent, led by Wilmington’s jump of 23 percent. However, Charlotte and the Raleigh together had an estimated increase of 104,091 people, more than all of the remaining 13 cities combined. These 15 cities contained 27.6 percent of the state’s total population in 2004. As a group, they grew by 8.7 percent between 2000 and 2004, in contrast with the rest of the state's growth rate of 5.1 percent.

It should be noted that some of the population growth of these cities is more apparent than real. Part of it was due to an expansion of the corporate limits through annexation. North Carolina has relatively liberal enabling legislation that allows cities to rather easily annex adjacent areas that meet minimal density requirements. For example, the NC State Demographer has estimated that between 2000 and 2003, the state's four largest cities collectively grew by a total of 116,428 residents. Fully 63,733 of this growth (54.7%) was through annexation during the three year period.

Small Towns

Small towns are a common feature in North Carolina. In 1990 there were 455 of them with populations of less than 5,000. A common metaphor for them, and indeed for much of the state, is the mythical village of “Mayberry,” the site of Andy Griffith’s popular TV show in the 1970’s. As noted in the Manufacturing chapter, it seems that state policy for decades has emphasized trying to direct a large share of economic development to them through the use of financial incentives and other means. An example of this occurred in 1978 (October 13) when the NC Department of Commerce placed a two-page, centerfold advertisement in the Wall Street Journal that touted the business appeal of “Communities where Main Street is four blocks long. Trees outnumber people. And the County fair is the big event. Large companies like these quiet places. They’re uncongested and liveable.” About the only mention of cities in the ad was a comment about how small they are.

However, despite these efforts, the state’s Mayberrys are not sharing in the general growth of the state. Virtually the only “big companies” that were attracted to them were labor-intensive, low-wage employers and they are now going out of business or leaving the state. As shown in Table 1(c) nearly 30% of the towns with less than 5,000 residents lost population between 1990 and 2002, a period in which the state generally experienced very strong growth.

These losses were not distributed evenly among the various types of counties because the context in which these towns were located was a critical determinant of whether or not they grew. For example, over 82% of the small towns located within one of the state’s five largest MSAs gained population. Obviously, most of the growing towns in them have become bedroom communities for their burgeoning metro areas. Striking examples of this are Mecklenburg County’s town of Huntersville, whose population grew nine-fold during the 12-year period, and the Wake County town of Apex, which saw its population quadruple during the same time.

These high growth rates for towns within larger metro areas are symptomatic of urban sprawl in the state. The sprawling growth of suburban areas is largely responsible for the fact that, between 1997 and 2002, North Carolina lost almost a half million acres of farmland. Currently, land use is increasing four times faster than the rate of population growth.. This illustrates the inefficiency of urban sprawl as more and more land goes toward low-density housing subdivisions, streets, golf courses, strip malls and other related developments. Some areas are attempting to control this sprawling growth by imposing more stringent controls on new subdivision approvals. An instance of this is illustrated within the Charlotte region, where 10 communities or counties have recently imposed moratoria on subdivision approvals until such new regulations can be developed.

Another measure of sprawl is provided by estimates of net population migration between April, 2000 and July, 2004. These provisional estimates were prepared by the NC State Demographer. They show that five suburban counties had net in-migrations of 10,000 or more residents. Three ware in the Charlotte area: Cabarrus, Iredell, and Union (the leader with 21,891). The others are Johnston, suburban to Raleigh, and Brunswick, adjacent to Wilmington.

The proportion of towns that experienced growth was about 78% in the smaller MSAs and 64% in the non-MSA counties. However, there was an important variation among the non-MSA counties. Those that are major recreational or retirement destinations experienced substantial growth in their small towns. For examples, Dare County, site of the Outer Banks and Moore County, site of the Pinehurst and Southern Pines retirement communities, together had 15 small towns and all of them gained and none lost population. Similarly, six western counties (Ashe, Avery, Jackson, Mitchell, Watauga, and Yancey) collectively had 16 growing towns and only 3 that declined. When the total for these eight counties is subtracted from that for all non-MSA counties, the result is 134 towns that grew and 89 that lost, a loss proportion of 40% in the remaining counties.

Four rural counties in the northeastern sector of the state, inland from the coastal beaches, illustrate this trend. Halifax, Hertford, Martin, and Northampton counties together have 29 small towns and in the 1990-2002 period nearly 80% of them saw their populations decline.

Mayberry may yet have a hold on the hearts of many North Carolinians, including state policy makers, but it seems clear that the state’s future is increasingly an urban future. Most small towns will continue to exist, of course, especially those that are within metro areas or those which contain environmental and historic attractions for retirees and visitors. But it seems that the state would do better to help them remain livable places for those who choose to remain in them by improving health care and education, rather than spending millions of dollars on vain attempts to lure businesses to them.

More recently, estimates released by the US Census in June, 2004 show that there were 436 towns in North Carolina that had populations of less than 5,000 in 2003. The decline in the previously reported number of these small towns is due principally to the fact that several dozen of them, almost all in metro areas, have grown to have more than 5,000 residents since 1990.

A bare majority (224) of these small towns were part of an MSA while the remaining 212 were not. Of the total of small towns, some 212 (49%) lost population between 2000 and 2003. As before, only 37% of those that were within an MSA lost people while the majority (56%) that were not in an MSA saw their populations decline during this most recent period. All together, non-metro areas accounted for 70% of the towns that experienced population declines.

Thus, it appears that the tendency for most of the small towns in metro areas to grow continued into the first years of the 21st century. On the other hand, losses by towns in the more rural parts of the state have accelerated, even though some continued to attract new residents to their beaches or mountain valleys. Mayberry seems to be becoming a figment of North Carolina’s past.

Click Here for Larger Image

Figure 7 portrays the proportion of each county's population that resided within an incorporated municipality in 2001. This figure exceeded 80 percent only in Durham and Mecklenburg counties. Proportions of 60 to 80 percent were common on the Piedmont, as well as on a large area of the Coastal Plain. The difference is, of course, that the cities on the Piedmont include the state's largest while the east is characterized by a greater number of smaller places.

The proportion of the statewide population that resides within one of the state's 543 active municipalities is about 51 percent, far less than the 80 percent residing within metro areas. This apparent contradiction is due to the fact that metro areas are comprised of entire counties, which typically include large unincorporated areas as well as one or more towns and cities.

Total Population

Click Here for Larger Image

Figure 8 shows that only five counties had populations of 250,000 or more in 2004. They are the host counties of Charlotte, Fayetteville, Greensboro, Raleigh, and Winston-Salem. Mecklenburg leads this group, with 771,617, followed by Wake with 719,520 people. Many of the counties in the 100,000 to 250,000 range are suburban to these larger ones, especially along the Piedmont corridor. Others in this size range include those central to the state’s other metro areas. In fact, almost all of the counties with populations of 100,000 or more are in one of the state’s metro areas. In contrast, the less populous counties are concentrated in northeastern North Carolina or along the state’s mountainous western fringe.

Internal Distribution of Net Migration

Click Here for Larger Image

Click Here for Larger Image

Figures 9 (a) and 9(b) show the distribution within the state of net migration for the 1990-2000 and 2000-2004 periods, respectively. As noted earlier in the analysis of total population change, these maps show a remarkable change during the most recent period. Figure 9(a) displays the expected strong movement into metro areas, especially into Charlotte and Raleigh. Note, for example, that no fewer than 280,888 more moved in to than left Wake and Mecklenburg between 1990 and 2000, together accounting for over 28% of the state total. Large shares also went into counties suburban to those cities, including Johnston and Union. Out-migration was limited to just eight counties, mostly in the northeastern sector. Far and away the largest losses through out-migration, over 10,000 in both cases, were attributed to the counties containing the state’s largest military bases, Cumberland and Onslow.

In Figure 9(b), displaying the 2000-2004 trends, the urban shift remains apparent. What is different is that 22 counties are estimated to have lost more people than they gained through migration. This is a major and perhaps prophetic shift from the total of eight that was recorded in the previous decade. That more areas experienced net out-migration than had population losses is explained by the fact that in some cases the excess of births over deaths (natural increase) was sufficient to offset losses due to out-migration. However, out-migration, even if the total population increases, usually involves younger and more capable people who leave in an attempt to find better opportunities elsewhere, including college students who typically do not return after graduation. Left behind are the elderly and the less capable. This “negative selectivity” generates a downward spiral that feeds on itself as people leave, stores close, tax revenues shrink and the place becomes less attractive to new businesses. The loss of tax revenues, in turn, hampers the ability of local governments to provide public services such as health care, clean water, waste disposal, education and roads. As these infrastructure elements decline in quality it then become further difficult to attract the economic development that is needed to break the downward spiral that these places are experiencing.

Again, the largest losses through out-migration were associated with places that have large military facilities in them, notably Cumberland and Onslow Counties. Otherwise, the losses through out-migration were predictably clustered in the northeastern part of the state, where it was previously shown that populations declined. In addition, a cluster in the southeastern quarter of the state also lost people, presumably associated with the loss there of textile and apparel factory jobs. The net out-migration from Burke County is probably associated with a decline in jobs in its furniture factories. The net out-migrations from Montgomery, Robeson, Vance, and Watauga counties totaled less than 500 each.

Table 2(a) shows the net migration for the 2000-2004 period for all of the counties that had 10,000 or more net in-migrants during that time. Note that all 8 are parts of larger urban regions. Two are in the Raleigh-Durham-Cary Combined Statistical Area (CSA) and four are parts of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury CSA. Together these 8 counties accounted for almost 62% of the state’s total in-migration. Another 70 counties had smaller amounts of in-migration and, as noted previously, 22 recorded net out-migration.

The US Internal Revenue Service used changes of addresses on income tax forms to estimate inter-county population migration patterns between 2000 and 2005. A sample of their data for the state's two most populous counties, Mecklenburg and Wake, as reported by the Charlotte Observer, is contained in Table 2(b). It shows the leading out-of-state sources of migrants into those two counties and the counter flows from the leading them to those other places. In both cases, both North Carolina counties recorded a substantial net gain. The Raleigh area drew heavily from northern Virginia and several California areas whereas Charlotte in-migrants came more heavily from around New York City. These variations may reflect local variations in regional economies, with Charlotte's strength as a financial center and Raleigh's emphasis on high-tech industries.

The primary reasons given by a sample of some of these in-migrants for their relocation decisions included North Carolina's strong economy (jobs), more reasonable costs of living, a more moderate climate, and the fact that so many friends and relatives have already moved here. Several former residents of Long Island reported that North Carolina has become something of a "buzz word" among many residents in the New York area.

Age Structure

Click Here for Larger Image

Click Here for Larger Image

Click Here for Larger Image

One of the more significant aspects of the state’s demography is its age structure. Figure 10 shows that the counties with median ages of less than 34 years are in three types of situations, some areas having some or all of the three. They are: (1) metro areas, especially Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte, (2) college or universities, such as Orange, Pitt and Watauga, (3) military bases, notably Cumberland and Onslow counties. On the other hand, median ages of greater than 42 years are clustered either in the western mountains or in several coastal counties. Figure 11 profiles recent and projected changes in the state’s age structure. Perhaps most striking component of these changes is the dramatic increase in the proportion aged 65 or more. This reflects the general “graying” of the US population, caused by improving health care and greater longevity. This elderly cohort is projected to rise from just over 10 percent of the total in 1980 to about 18 percent by 2030. In consequence, all other age cohorts are expected to decline in their proportions of the state total. However, it should be pointed out that these smaller proportions will apply to larger totals so the actual numbers in each will actually increase. For example, Table 3 shows that the school age group, those aged 6 to 17 years, will increase by over 553 thousand even though it is expected to decline from 16.3 to 15.2 percent of the total between 2001 and 2030.

The recent distribution of North Carolina’s senior population is illustrated in Figure 12. The proportion of those aged 65 or older was less than 10 percent in most of the larger metro counties. In contrast, there were two situations in which the proportion exceeded 19 percent. One was in either western mountain counties or in the northeastern part of the state. These are places which have experienced out-migration or slow growth. In these cases it is typical for younger age groups to leave, in search of better economic opportunities elsewhere. This “negative selectivity” leaves behind most of the elderly population. The other situation is generally also in the mountains or along the coast. North Carolina is a major destination for retirees. Most of them are attracted to places such as Moore County, site of Southern Pines and Pinehurst, to Polk and Henderson Counties in the west, or to some coastal beach communities.

Population Chapter Index