1. US Demographics in the New Century: Diversity but not a Melting Pot William H. Frey Milken Institute & University of Michigan www.frey-demographer.org

2. Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census Fastest Growing, 1990 - 2000

3. Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census Immigrant Magnet States

4. Selected New Sunbelt and Old Sunbelt States Growth 1980s and 1990s 80s 90s Nevada Colorado Georgia Florida Texas California Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

5. New Sunbelt, Immigrant Magnet, and Heartland States New Sunbelt Immigrant Magnets Heartland States

6. 10 “Classic” Immigrant Magnet Metros 90 - 99 Immigrants 1. New York ------------- 1,408,543 2. Los Angeles ----------- 1,257,925 3. San Francisco --------- 494,189 4. Miami ------------------ 420,488 5. Chicago ----------------- 363,662 6. Washington ------------ 267,175 7. Houston ---------------- 214,262 8. Dallas-Fort ------------- 173,500 9. San Diego -------------- 159,691 10. Boston ------------------ 137,634 Source: William Frey. University of Michigan & Milken Institute

7. Domestic Migrant Magnet Metros 90 - 99 Net Migration 1. Atlanta ---------------- 498,283 2. Phoenix --------------- 396,092 3. Las Vegas ------------- 394,331 4. Dallas ------------------ 235,611 5. Denver ----------------- 200,658 6. Portland, OR ----------- 198,896 7. Austin ------------------ 168,817 8. Orlando ---------------- 167,120 9. Tampa ----------------- 157,209 10. Charlotte -------------- 154,320 Source: William Frey. University of Michigan & Milken Institute

8. Demographic Components, 1990s Source: William Frey. University of Michigan & Milken Institute California New York Texas ImmigrationDomestic MigrationNatural Increase

9. Demographic Components, 1990s Source: William Frey. University of Michigan & Milken Institute ColoradoGeorgiaPennsylvania ImmigrationDomestic MigrationNatural Increase

10. Population Dynamics in the 1990s Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

11. 10 “Classic” Immigrant Magnet Metros Are Home to 30% of Total Population 65% of 1990s Immigration 54% of Hispanic Population 57% of Asian Population Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

12. 1990 - 2000 Greatest Hispanic Gainers 1. Los Angeles 1,819,370 2. New York 992,185 3. Chicago 600,810 4. Dallas 594,836 5. Houston 575,098 6. Miami 501,543 Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

13. Up- and Coming Hispanic Growth Magnets % Growth 1. Greensboro 694 2. Charlotte622 3. Raleigh569 4. Atlanta362 5. Las Vegas262 6. Portland, OR175 7. Orlando170 8. Minn -St. Paul162 9. Reno145 10. Grand Rapids136 11. Salt Lake City133 2000 Populations > 50,000 Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

14. Hispanic Concentration 2000 Source: William H Frey, Milken Institute

15. 1990 – 2000 Greatest Asian Gainers 1. New York710,809 2. Los Angeles611,201 3. San Francisco554,326 Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

16. Up- and Coming Asian Growth Magnets % Growth 1. Las Vegas286 2. Atlanta200 3. Austin175 4. Orlando171 5. Tampa149 6. Phoenix149 7. Dallas133 8. Portland OR119 9. Minn. - St. Paul118 10. Denver115 11.Miami113 2000 Populations > 50,000 Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

17. Asian Concentration 2000 Source: William H Frey, Milken Institute

18. 1990 - 2000 Greatest Black Gainers 1. Los Angeles459,582 2. New York450,725 3. Washington DC358,727 4. Miami241,492 5. Chicago181,101 6. Dallas176,293 7. Philadelphia162,932 8. Houston142,304 Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

19. 1990 - 2000 Major Black Growth Centers % Growth 1. Orlando62.2 2. Atlanta61.9 3. Miami43.4 4. Tampa36.8 5. Charlotte34.7 6. Columbus, OH34.6 7. Jacksonville, FL34.3 8. Boston33.8 9. Raleigh33.1 10. Dallas 31.7 (Over 200,000 blacks and 30% growth) Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

20. Black Concentration 2000 Source: William H Frey, Milken Institute

21. Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census Blacks outnumber Hispanic in the South Blacks outnumber Hispanic Both group comprise less than 5% of state population Ratio GT 4:1 Ratio LT 4:1 Ratio GT 4:1 Ratio LT 4:1

22. 1990 - 2000 Greatest White Gainers 1. Phoenix434,195 2. Atlanta359,299 3. Las Vegas326,145 4. Denver278,445 5. Dallas255,208 6. Portland OR230,535 7. Seattle199,172 8. Minn.St. Paul191,127 9. Austin 187,426 10. Raleigh 171,168 11. Charlotte162,258 12. Nashville146,615 Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

23. 1990 - 2000 Greatest White Decliners 1. Los Angeles-843.065 2. New York-679,790 3. San Francisco-269,844 4. Philadelphia-199,359 5. Miami-118,506 6. Chicago-93,794 7. San Diego-84,448 8. Pittsburgh-81,900 Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

24. White Concentration 2000 Source: William H Frey, Milken Institute

25. America’s Patchwork Quilt Source: William H Frey, Milken Institute

26. "Multiple Melting Pot” Typology of US States Melting Pot States White-Black Gainers Mostly White Gainers Slow Growth/Declining Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

27. “Melting Pot” Metro Profiles, 2000 Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census Whites Los Angeles MiamiHouston BlacksHispanicsAsians American Indians

28. “New Sunbelt” Metro Profiles, 2000 Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census Whites AtlantaDenverPortland BlacksHispanicsAsians American Indians

29. Metro and Nonmetro Residence, 2000 Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census Large MetroSmall MetroNon-Metro WhiteNon-White

30. City, Suburb, Nonmetro Residence, 2000 Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census CitySuburbNon Metro WhiteNon-White

31. International & Domestic Migration 1990s InternationalDomesticCalifornia Rest of West Source: William Frey. University of Michigan & Milken Institute

32. Population Change By Race, 1990s whiteblackIndianAsianHispanic CaliforniaRest of West Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census

33. Migration by Education Attainment California 1990 - 99 Source: William Frey. Milken Institute Domestic Migration Immigration Less than High School HS GradSome CollegeCollege Grads

34. Education Attainment by Race Los Angeles Metro 1999 Source: William Frey. Milken Institute Age 25 - 64 Less than High School HS GradSome CollegeCollege Grads WhiteBlackAsianHispanic

35. Hispanic Education Attainment Los Angeles 1999 Source: William Frey. Milken Institute Age 25 - 64 Native BornArrived Before 1980Arrived Since 1980 Less than High School HS GradSome CollegeCollege Grads

36. Race Profiles for Occupations Los Angeles 1999 Source: William Frey. Milken Institute Professional & Mgrs Clerical & Sales Skilled Blue Collar Unskilled & Services Black Indian HispanicWhite Asian

37. Race Profiles for Family’s Income Los Angeles 1999 Source: William Frey. Milken Institute Black Indian HispanicWhite Asian Upper 25 % Second 25 %Third 25 %Lower 25 %

38. Home-Ownership by Race Los Angeles Metro 1999 Source: William Frey. Milken Institute White 63 % OwnersRenterBlack 50 %Asian 47 %Hispanic 41 %

39. Hispanic Home-Ownership Los Angeles Metro 1999 Source: William Frey. Milken Institute Native Born 56 % OwnersRenter Arrived Before 1980 Arrived Since 1980 50 % 21.6 %

40. Household Changes in the Next Decade Source: William Frey. University of Michigan & Milken Institute

41. The Senior Explosion Projected Senior Growth, 2000-2025 60% and below Over 100 % 81 % - 100 % 60% ~80% Percent Senior Growth Source: William Frey. University of Michigan & Milken Institute

42. Child & Elderly Dependency Rate United States 1995 - 2025WhitesHispanicsAsians Child Elderly Source: William Frey. University of Michigan & Milken Institute

43. ”Non-Whites among Adults and Children, 2000 Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census Over 40%25% to 40%Under 25% Adults Children

44. Largest “Racial Generation Gaps” Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census StateAdultsChildren Arizona31%50% New Mexico51%67% California49%65% Nevada31%46% Texas44%57% % Non-Whites

45. Smallest “Racial Generation Gaps” Source: William H. Frey, analysis of 2000 Census StateAdultsChildren Vermont 3%5% Maine 3%5% West Virginia 5%7% New Hampshire 4%7% Kentucky10%14% % Non-Whites

46. Race Profiles for Age Groups L.A. County, 1998 Under Age 18 Age 18 - 64 Age 65 + 22 %34% 58 % whiteblackIndianAsianHispanic Source: William Frey. University of Michigan & Milken Institute

47. California Projected Race Compositions, 2025 Age 0 - 17 Age 18 - 64 Age 65 + 25%34% 52% whiteblackIndianAsianHispanic Source: William Frey. University of Michigan & Milken Institute

48. Rest of West Projected Race Compositions, 2025 Age 0 - 17 Age 18 - 64 Age 65 + 58%67%81% whiteblackIndianAsian Hispanic Source: William Frey. University of Michigan & Milken Institute

49. Georgia Projected Race Compositions, 2025 Age 0 - 17 Age 18 - 64 Age 65 + 53 % 60 % 73 % NH-WhiteNH-BlackNH- IndianNH-AsianHispanic Source: William Frey. University of Michigan & Milken Institute

50. United States Projected Race Compositions, 2025 Under Age 18 52 % whiteblackIndianAsianHispanic 62 % Age 18 -64 76 % Age 65+ Source: William Frey. University of Michigan & Milken Institute

51. www.census.gov www.ameristat.org www.ssdan.net www.frey-demographer.org Useful Websites