New Geography

Category: Demographics

  • Millennials: Key to Post-ethnic America?

    One of the most widely observed, yet least understood, attributes about the emerging Millennial generation is their ethnic and cultural heterogeneity. While they represent the most ethnically varied cohort in American history—far more than any previous U.S. generation—few social commentators actually agree on what this remarkable demographic detail really portends. Will Millennials usher in a new post-ethnic America—or simply reconfigure some different version of identity politics? Will they carry on the mantle of the civil rights movement—or eliminate antiquated racial-ethnic categories altogether? Are they even cohesive enough as a group to assert any meaningful, broad-based cultural agenda?

    Whatever paths they pave, one thing is certain: Millennials are poised to fundamentally reshape the way America has historically thought about race—and, as a result, will likely reconceive our nation’s own ethnic and cultural self-identity in the process.


    By their sheer numbers, Millennials are already reshaping the nation’s ethnic makeup. Not only do they represent a “baby boomlet” in terms of population size, but according to recent figures from the 2008 Current Population Survey, 44 percent of those born since the beginning of the 80’s belong to some racial or ethnic category other than “non-Hispanic white”. Millennials are revealing themselves to be the demographic precursor to Census Bureau projections showing whites as a minority by 2050. Slightly more than half of Millennials—56 percent—are white (non-Hispanic). Age itself is inversely correlated to diversity levels—the younger in age, the higher the proportion of “ethnic” populations within each age bracket. Contrast these figures to the 28 percent of current Baby Boomers who are non-white, and one begins to see a profoundly different look and hue for future generations of Americans to come, led by Millennials.


    Undeniably, Hispanics are at the forefront of this Millennial diversity. Slightly more than 20 percent of Millennials are Hispanics—twice as large as their Baby Boomer counterparts. Millennials also encompass a significantly larger share of Black and mixed-race folks than previous generations, but Hispanics are the driving force fueling the Millennial-led ethnic demographic makeover. Accelerated Hispanic population growth over the past several decades have provoked dire warnings about the perils of Hispanic immigration—threatening to “divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages,” in the words of Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington.

    Yet nothing could be further from the truth—particularly when it comes to Hispanic Millennials. Approximately 86 percent of Hispanics under the age of 18 are in fact born in the U.S. (as a whole, 95 percent of Millennials are U.S. born). Many are the offspring of immigrants, but their birthright is firmly rooted in the United States. Unlike their immigrant parents, this group strongly exhibits a preference for English as their primary mode of communication. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 88 percent of second generation Hispanics and 94 percent of third generation Hispanics are highly English fluent (speak “very well”). Many second generation Hispanics tend to be bilingual, but English dominates by the third generation.


    Broadly speaking, a distinguishing characteristic of multi-ethnic Millennials is their heavily “second generation” orientation (nearly 30 percent are children of immigrants). Since they are more likely children of immigrants than immigrants themselves, the proportion of foreign born Millennials is relatively small compared to their immediate generational forebears: Generation X and Baby Boomers. Foreign-born persons comprise 13 percent of all Millennials (includes all those born since the 80s), but they make up 22 percent of the Generation X cohort (born between 1965 to 1979) and 16 percent of Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964).

    Given their more varied disposition, it should hardly be surprising that Millennials are blurring the color lines that have long-marked previous American generations. According to market research firm Teen Research Unlimited, 60 percent of American teens say they have friends of different ethnic backgrounds. More telling, however, is a 2006 Gallup Poll showing that 95 percent of young people (ages 18 to 29) approved interracial dating—compared to only 45 percent among respondents over the age of 64. Likewise, a USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted last year among teens showed that 57 percent have dated someone of another race or ethnic group—up 40 percent from when Gallup last polled teens the question back in 1980.

    Perhaps more astounding is the casual mix-and-match cultural sensibilities of Millennials. Not content to cleave to any single ethnic or cultural influence, they are free to engage in the variety with no restrictions. One example is “Mashups”—entire compositions reconfigured from samples drawn from disparate musical genres—so popular on mp3 players. Millennial choices in popular culture are drawn from a broad pool of influences, and anything can be customized and suited to one’s personal preferences—just as easily as an iPod playlist. Likewise, the aesthetics of Millennial fashion, movies, and video games increasingly reflect a broad range of influences—from Japanese anime to East L.A. graffiti art.

    In my own marketing research and consulting practice, I’ve been able to witness firsthand the eclectic, dynamic nature of Millennials, usually behind a focus group window (our firm focuses on ethnic consumers for a range of Fortune 500 companies). Increasingly, today’s young consumer shun direct overtures aimed at appealing to their ethnic background. Similarly, they tend to discard traditional cultural labels in favor of their own self-created monikers like “Mexipino”, “Blaxican”, “China Latina”.

    As a market segment, Millennials represent a precarious consumer. In the marketing world, they are shaking the foundations of advertising and media. Enabled by technology, they are contributing to a fragmented media landscape that grows ever more disparate and porous. Forced to keep up, advertisers question whether they can ever again rely on traditional media to broadcast messages for a lifestyle characterized by instant text messaging, mobile media, and virtual social networking.

    But beyond the business challenges posed by this growing crop of emerging consumers, the most lasting social contribution of Millennials is not likely the next media or pop culture trend, but how they—by simple virtue of who they are— will redefine race and ethnicity for the rest of America.

    Thomas Tseng is a principal at New American Dimensions, a multi-cultural marketing firm based in Los Angeles.

  • Millennial Values, Involvement, and Social Capital

    “American history carefully examined,” argued political scientist Robert Putnam in his notable book Bowling Alone, “is a story of ups and downs in civic engagement . . . a story of collapse and of renewal.” According to Putnam, the passage of the civic-minded World War II generation from American society has led to deterioration in social capital.

    Putnam defines social capital as “connections among individuals,” and the “social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” According to Putnam, the last several decades of the twentieth century, largely coinciding with the rise to preeminence of the Baby Boomers and Generation X, were marked by a huge decline in community involvement and social engagement, which led, by the end of the twentieth century to a “sense of civic malaise,” throughout the nation.

    Since the publication of Putnam’s book in 2000, there has been increased focus on (and criticism of) the concept of social capital in American society. During this period, there has also been a new interest in the latest generation – the Millennials. Born in the last two decades of the 20th century, this new generation has the potential to challenge the previously sacrosanct view of young people as uninvolved and disinterested in civic life, which has become part of the conventional wisdom over the past several decades. This new impulse, when shaped by and combined with their set of unique values, may give the Millennial generation the opportunity to be the force for renewal and change in American society.

    According to research published in 2007 by the National Conference on Citizenship (NCoC), the Millennial generation is showing signs of potentially emerging as a “new civic generation.” Rates of volunteerism have “rose substantially for young Americans over the last generation and remain at historically high levels.” In addition, the NCoC reports, the Millennial generation has the lowest levels of distrust in government, and while they are still the least enthusiastic age group about voting, they “are more favorable toward citizen-centered politics than Gen Xers or Matures.”

    However, it should be noted that youth voting rates have been going up recently. Millennials are interested in getting involved, however, perhaps not in the same ways as previous generations. Shaped by their vast exposure to technology, and a different set of values inculcated during their childhoods, Millennials are looking for new ways to become active participants in their communities, that transcend simply voting or joining a local organization. According to the NCoC Millennials “lack – but want – venues for citizen-centered politics.” They’re in search of “more opportunities for discussion and civic action.” As a generation, Millennials are in search of a way to make their voice and values heard, in a way that suits their particular sense of what it means to be involved.

    Born in 1981, I am considered a “cusp” Millennial. Born on the demarcation line between the allegedly more skeptical, less involved Generation-X, and the supposedly more civic, upbeat Millennial generation, I had the chance during my college years to observe the entry of the Millennials into the environment of higher education. While there is always some danger in placing too much stock in anecdotal evidence, there was some sense, to steal the lyrics of a song familiar to baby boomers, that “something is happening here, but what it is, ain’t exactly clear.”

    As one Millennial once put it to me recently, we seem to be a “backwards generation.” Echoing those who point to a renaissance in civic culture among Millennials, she noted that our generation seems to embracing older values, and recognizing their importance in a balanced life. However, according to her, Millennials were doing this in their own way, complementing these “old” values with our own, increasingly globalized, green, earth-friendly outlook, while also embracing the use of technology as a major part of our everyday life.

    One thing that is clear is the major influence technology has had upon our values, involvement, and interaction. In 1993, as a seventh grade student, I was introduced to the internet. Soon, much to the amazement of our baby-boomer librarians, I was exchanging e-mails with students from all over the world. They found the concept of instantaneous communication between a student in North Dakota and one in Germany novel enough to merit a write up in the school newsletter!

    To Millennials, use of electronic mediums of communication for political and social interaction has become second nature. It is, to echo Putnam, our means of building social capital.

    However, with this embrace of new technology, has come an acceptance of less privacy in our lives. For example, the amount of information that some are willing to share on social networking sites is often shocking. While it may be a force for opening minds and expanding our boundaries, technology also opens us to others in ways that other generations might find unacceptable.

    Another area reflecting our generation’s need to find new ways to become engaged and involved is our view towards work. There is a belief that work should reflect your values, but at the same time, one must be about more than “just work.” Jobs aren’t seen as a life commitment. The value of a job is measured in what it can contribute to our development as an individual, how it helps us meet our personal goals, and what quality of life it allows us to pursue. Work is not viewed as an end in itself, but as an enabler.

    During my time at university, professors remarked to me on more than one occasion that enrollment in political science classes was up by leaps and bounds. One professor felt that the war in Iraq was the driving force behind this. While this might be important, and may be serving to shape the values of my generation, there seems to be more at play. Trying to stick our involvement in the same frame as that of the Vietnam era boomers seems shortsighted. To my generation, the battles of the culture wars seem to have receded, with a more pragmatic, live and let-live attitude being adopted by many Millenials, who approach problems by looking for consensus. The rise of a politician such as Barack Obama, calling for change based on collective action, has been driven in large part by young people across the country, inspired by such a message.

    Robert Putnam, reflecting on the slow wane in American social culture, prior to the rise of the Millennials, argued that above all else, “Americans need to reconnect with one another.” In its own way, the Millennial Generation is going about this process, expressing its unique values, seeking to develop an identity, and becoming engaged in our communities. Some may view this as constructive renewal and others as destructive change to the status quo. As a member of my generation, let me simply assure you, in language that boomers might appreciate, that while Millennials may have their own way of doing things, the kids are alright.

    Matthew is a Research and Development Analyst for Praxis Strategy Group. A native of Crary, ND, Matthew graduated from the University of North Dakota in 2007 with a master’s degree in public administration. As a student, Matthew’s research focuses included community and economic development, intergovernmental relationships, and public policy development and implementation. He has also collaborated on research studying small business start-ups and challenges facing new entrepreneurs.

    In addition to his graduate degree, Matthew also holds a B.A. in political science and history from the University of North Dakota. Prior to joining Praxis Strategy Group, he served as an intern for the North Dakota Legislative Council, in Bismarck, ND, conducting policy research and support work for legislators.

  • Home is Where the Wi-Fi is: Millennials and a Sense of Community

    The modern day forums for which people are able to express themselves and ‘stay connected’ include the much talked about websites Facebook, MySpace, Youtube, among many others. It seems like not a day goes by where there is not another article discussing the revolutionary merits these websites have on changing the socio-cultural landscape.

    Another hot topic that has been getting an abundance of press coverage lately is that of the so-called ‘Millennial Generation’ – the primary users of these ‘social-networking’ tools. Much of the information reported about the Millennials tends to focus on profiling this generation, born between approximately 1980 and 2003, and how to manage their supposedly fickle and entitled dispositions in the workplace. Yet there has not been much discussion regarding the effect that this generation is going to have on the future of our cities.

    Of utmost importance to the Millennials and their sense of identity are the places in which they reside and have traveled to. In every MySpace and Facebook profile, photos abound showing the user in a plethora of different environments. Recently a viral video called ‘Where the hell is Matt?’ has been making the rounds on the internet. In the video, the young man Matt is shown dancing a jig in every corner of the globe with locals joining him wherever he happens to be. He covers enough ground to make even the most well-traveled Millennials envious. The message of the video is clear: that we are all united on this earth and can connect with each other through the universal languages of bad dancing and the internet. The final cut of the video, edited in a manner which shows each location for only a few fleeting seconds, causes one to wonder if the notion of place is of any value in contemporary society. At the end of ‘Where the hell is Matt?’ we are left with the feeling that the means which enabled Matt to produce and distribute the video are more relevant than the actual places he visited.

    The privilege of mobility, coupled with ‘experiencing’ a multitude of locales, both exotic and domestic, has contributed to Millennials having a complex frame of reference regarding civic milieu. Encouraged by their parents, Millennials will oftentimes attend college in cities far from their home – not to mention the obligatory semester studying abroad and even the possibility of attending graduate school in yet another place. Others choose to join organizations like the Peace Corps that enables them to participate in community service and live somewhere off the beaten path simultaneously.

    Due to the ease of movement and the blasé attitude towards staying put, the city becomes a commodity – another item to be consumed and talked about fashionably at cocktail parties. Whereas migration patterns have traditionally been based on economic opportunity, the ability to choose one’s city based on lifestyle is the equivalent of making a selection from a platter of pastries.

    There is even a growing discourse regarding this concept. Earlier this year, a book titled ‘Who’s Your City?’ by the urban theorist Richard Florida came out touting itself as a guide for choosing which city to live in. Though Florida does factor in considerations like what cities are good for certain industries, the premise still weighs heavily on the idea of the city as a fashionable piece of merchandise for consumption.

    The disjointed and schizophrenic city hopping would lead most to believe that Millennials, perennially insatiable, would be deep in a perpetual state of malaise due to frayed social connections. On the contrary, it is the new geography of communication technology, easy access to email, and the aforementioned social networking websites that has allowed them to stay in contact with their peers no matter where they happen to be.

    The transient nature of Millennials begs the question of where they will ultimately end up settling. With older Millennials now approaching their late 20s, settling down, getting married and starting a family is becoming more of a consideration. Despite all the hype of a return to the inner city, the jury is still out on whether the majority of Millennials will choose to raise families in a part of town where there is a dearth of amenities for children. Though young and single Millennials may have momentary love affairs with the much sought after superstar cities like New York, San Francisco and Boston, the restrictive cost of living coupled with questions of safety and quality of public schools will weigh heavily on their decision.

    Coincidentally, it is the climate of connectivity that will allow Millennials to keep in touch with aspects of city life, even as they move back to suburbs to raise families. Though the desire for a larger living space, a backyard and a clean neighborhood may become more important than being in close proximity to the newest nightclubs and celebrity chef owned restaurants, an interest in civic engagement will most likely not wane.

    One thing Millennials excel at compared to other generations is their ability to distill vast quantities of information – simply because they have been exposed to much more of it. This in turn has made them much more open to diversity – both in terms of culture and modes of thought. The implication here is that if they are to move back to the suburbs, the concept of a ‘suburb’ to them is no longer that of a homogenous place where life is ultimately dull and boring. Some prime examples of this new concept of the suburb can be found on the San Francisco Bay Peninsula with the renaissance of towns like Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Redwood City, where tech companies, both large and small, are in close proximity to many of their employee’s homes. Each of these towns has a thriving downtown, an assortment of ethnic restaurants, and even independent coffee shops and art house movie theaters.

    What exactly does this mean for the future of the big cities? Big cities are definitely not going away – even as Millennials begin leaving to start families. Big cities may no longer have the edge up over suburbs when it comes to diversity, access to information and social cohesion, but the physical form of older cities, including density and architecture, will become a living museum to times before the age of the internet when physical proximity was necessary for commerce and personal interaction. In the future, Millennials will most likely reflect positively on the time when they lived in Manhattan in their 20s and paid $1800 a month for that cramped studio apartment they found on Craigslist. By that time, chances are they may even be encouraging their own children to ‘go out and discover the world’ just like their Baby Boomer parents did for them.

  • Millennials: A Quick Overview

    Perhaps nothing will shape the future of the country more than the emergence of the so-called Millennial generation. They have already put their stamp on the election, as Carl Cannon suggests in his insightful article in Reader’s Digest, becoming a key driver for Senator Barack Obama’s Presidential run.

    But as Morley Winograd and Michael Hais, authors of the best-selling “Millenial Makeover,” point out, the Millennial generation — roughly those born between 1983 and 2003 — represent far more than a rerun of 60s’ generation liberalism. They share as well many traditionalist views about home, family and religion that may impact the nation’s geography and attitudes on everything from race relations to suburbia for decades to come.

    Not everyone is thrilled with the current celebration of Millennials. Some, like the insightful Lisa Chamberlain point out that many of the optimistic predictions made for her generation — the so-called Xers — turned out to be off target. She maintains that powerful outside influences, such as high energy prices, may constrain the normative optimism widely identified with the Millennials.

    But however they might turn out, one thing is certain: by the sheer weight of numbers the Millennials will shape the nation in profound ways. By 2010 this generation will be entering adulthood and will equal or surpass the boomers. They will become the new force in the housing market, forming the base for a new wave of homeowners.

    Although it is far too early to predict where they will settle, authors Winograd and Hais argue, the first groups of older Millennials appear to be following their predecessors to the suburbs. They point out that this group values homeownership even more than earlier generations, seems more amenable to living near their parents and have expressed strong interest in raising children.

    Of course, other factors, as Lisa Chamberlain argues, could force the Millennials to live more in dense urban areas. The imposition of draconian planning regimes — in part based on the idea that suburbs promote global warming — could leave them with little other choice. And finally land prices could force suburban developers to densify and all but eliminate the single-family residence.

    But history suggests none of this is likely. People will locate in those areas that provide quality of life, affordable housing and economic opportunity. Our snapshot of educated Millennials between 25 and 30, which may be considered the vanguard of that generation, shows a preference for the generally affordable Western and Sunbelt regions like Charlotte, Austin, Denver, Portland, Riverside-San Bernardino, Phoenix and Dallas.

    One place on balance the older Millennials are not going: the big metropolitan areas of California and the Northeast. In 2006, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston all lost more educated Millennials than they gained. As the impact of the financial meltdown shifts to these cities, particularly the financial centers, this trend could accelerate, particularly in the New York area.

    Yet in the end, predicting the future is a tricky business. In the hippy heyday of 1968 few people would have expected the Boomers to follow their parents into suburbia and, as a group, flock to the banner of Ronald Reagan and become the bulkwark of a great conservative resurgence. That’s why, while it’s always good to tap as much good data as possible, prognostication remains more as an art than a science.

    Joel Kotkin is Executive Editor of www.newgeography.com.

  • Response to A Return to ‘Avalon’

    It’s interesting that the authors of an article about the youngest generation (Generation Y or Millennials) title their piece “A Return to ‘Avalon,’” a cultural reference that people born between 1982 and 2003 surely know nothing about. “Avalon” is a movie from 1990 directed by Barry Levinson (born in 1942) which takes place at the turn of the last century. I’m not sure whom the authors are writing for, but I’ve never seen “Avalon” and had to look up the plot on IMDB — and I’m almost 40 years old!

    Okay, this is picking nits. Nonetheless, writing about generations is pretty tricky stuff. To make sweeping generalizations is perilous at best, and forecasting the preferences of a group whose oldest members are only 26 years of age seems to me of marginal utility. And this comes from the author of a recently released generational book “Slackonomics: Generation X in the Age of Creative Destruction.” So I know wherefore I speak. Taking stock of things as they are is one thing, but as the saying goes, prediction is very hard, especially about the future.

    The authors write, “Millennials, born between 1982 and 2003, members of the largest, most diverse … generation in American history are becoming adults, entering the workforce, getting married and settling down.” Really? I’m guessing nearly 80 percent of the group they’re talking about isn’t even out of school yet, and some only recently out of diapers! Even the definition of “Millennials” is likely to change over time as it did for Generation X (which started out as Boomerangers or Baby-Busters until Douglas Coupland published his demographically defining novel). Are today’s five year-olds going to have similar preferences for things such as housing as people in their early to mid-twenties in 2008?

    Just for fun, let’s just take a look at a few of the predictions about Generation X.

    Circa 1985, before Generation X was known as such, we were going to have it pretty cushy in almost every way. As Baby-Boomers aged their way through society, vast opportunities would open up for the next, smaller generation — from colleges competing for applicants, to magnificent career opportunities as companies needed labor, to an abundance of affordable housing as Boomers traded up. But when Gen X was entering college, not only had it become increasingly competitive, that was the beginning of the student loan explosion as costs escalated. Moving up the corporate ladder has not been quite so easy as the world of work radically changed since the 1980s and Boomers continue to work into their 60s. Abundant affordable housing has hardly been the case, even after the housing bubble began to deflate. No matter how cheap housing gets, if you can’t get a mortgage, it’s not affordable.

    So Alex P. Keaton of the TV show “Family Ties” — a garden-variety suburban kid from Ohio who rebelled against his hippy-dippy parents with his “conservative” politics (which look pretty moderate by today’s standards) — was supposed to be a millionaire by the age of 30. But things didn’t quite work out that way, not even on TV. Nonetheless, predictions were made about the “preferences” of this generation based on circumstances at the time.

    This was, of course, before Generation X morphed from Reagan Youth-wannabe yuppies in the 1980s to politically apathetic and cynical Slackers in the 1990s — as if being under-employed was a personal choice and not a consequence of the economic conditions brought about by globalization and technological efficiencies that eliminated jobs and put downward pressure on entry-level wages. But then came the dot.com bubble and Xers were back to the future of “greed is good,” albeit it this time in Silicon Valley instead of on Wall Street. And on it goes as we continue to be whipsawed by the economy.

    So for the authors to dismiss out of hand changing economic circumstances, as they do with the following statement, is to skate on some very thin ice, indeed:

    “Despite the problems posed by high gas prices and the mortgage crisis, suburban growth is still outpacing that of both urban and rural areas, as not only homeowners but also businesses continue to locate in the suburbs. The desire of Americans for their own plot of land likely will continue well into the 21st century as well. The community- and family-orientation of the Millennial Generation will only reinforce the continued growth of America’s suburbs.”

    High gas prices and the mortgage crisis have only been an issue for about a year now — hardly enough time to reverse suburbanization, a decades-long pattern of development. Due to its very nature, the real estate market is slow to adapt to changing circumstances. So Americans might “prefer” to own their own plot of land in suburbia, but fewer people are going to be able to, and that might be a good thing. I might prefer to eat a big juicy steak every night for dinner — but it’s not necessarily good for me or the rest of the environment. I’m not predicting the demise of suburbia, but people are going to change their “preferences” as external circumstances warrant, from taking mass transit to living in more densely populated, walkable neighborhoods — whether in cities or suburbs.

    Lastly, to say that people who are “community and family-oriented” prefer the suburbs strikes me as a notion from another era — like Jefferson arguing in favor of an agrarian society because it’s more community and family-oriented. “Community” and “family-oriented” are pretty nebulous terms to begin with, but assuming we agree on what they mean and are good things, clearly “community” and “family” can be created and found in all kinds of environments – and found lacking in all kinds of environments.

    So one thing I think we can safely say to people under the age of 30: don’t trust people over 30 who are trying to make predictions about your future. They will be wrong. Heck, given the food crisis, we may be headed back to a Jeffersonian agrarian society!

    Lisa Chamberlain is the author of “Slackonomics: Generation X in the Age of Creative Destruction.” She lives in New York City.

  • A Return to ‘Avalon’

    By Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais

    In his autobiographical film, “Avalon,” Barry Levinson captured what he believed to be the impact of America’s suburban exodus on his large and fractious family. He suggested that the weakening of the ties that bound his previously close-knit family was due to its dispersal to the suburbs rather than the social upheavals of the 1960s that he captured so well in the other two films in his Baltimore trilogy – “Diner” and “Liberty Heights.”

    It is true that from 1940 to 1960 the percentage of Americans living in suburbs doubled – from 15 to 30 percent. However, the weakening of family ties, as measured by such social indicators as rising teenage crime and pregnancy rates and declining school test scores just after that period of rising suburbanization, had more to do with the cycles of generational archetypes than the place where American families lived and were raised. Members of the Silent Generation, like Levinson and the two of us, as well as the older GI Generation, battled with the new, idealistic values of their Baby Boomer children. The intergenerational tensions, captured popularly and colorfully in the TV sitcom, “All in the Family,” simply overwhelmed the idyllic picture of American family life in the 1950s.

    But, these, like all generational trends, are cyclical. The very same generational forces that pulled American families apart in the late 1960s and 1970s, are about to return full circle to the attitudes and beliefs of a “civic” era very much like those of the 1950s and early 1960s, the golden years in Levinson’s memories. Millennials, born between 1982 and 2003, members of the largest, most diverse and newest “civic” generation in American history are becoming adults, entering the workforce, getting married and settling down. Civic generations, like Millennials and the GI generation of the 1930s, believe in adhering to social rules, care deeply about the welfare of the group, and tend to create stable, law-abiding communities as they mature. As a result, where and how Millennials choose to live and raise their families will be the single most important force in shaping America’s housing and communities for the next two decades.

    Like their civic GI Generation grandparents or great grandparents, Millennials have a deep and abiding interest in the communities in which they live and participate. As Millennials grew up, this interest in forming communities was both enabled and demonstrated by the enormous popularity of social networks, such as MySpace and Facebook. Over eighty percent of all Millennials have a personal site on at least one of these networks, through which they interact and plan their activities with one another on a constant and ongoing basis.

    This desire to connect to their friends and, at the same time, build better communities is also evidenced in the strikingly high volunteer participation rates of Millennials, especially in comparison to those of their older Generation-X siblings or parents. Eighty percent of Millennials performed some sort of community service while in high school, triple the rate of high school-aged Gen-Xers back in the 1980s. Not only do seventy-percent of college-age Millennials report having done voluntary community service, but 85 percent of them also consider it an effective way to solve the nation’s problems.

    It is no coincidence that, during the week leading up to the 4th of July, America’s most important civic holiday, Senator Barack Obama, the presidential candidate with the greatest demonstrated appeal to Millennials, issued a call for mandatory programs of community service for high school and college students. As was the case with the civic GI Generation six decades ago, Obama proposed that this service be rewarded with financial assistance to help pay for higher education. In Obama’s words, community service “will be a central cause of my presidency.”

    The first initial indications of how this sense of community will impact the behavior of Millennials as they enter young adulthood are now becoming available. They contain good news for America’s suburbs and for those remaining in family-oriented neighborhoods in our nation’s cities.

    One thing seems clear: Millennials generally lack the animus against suburbs that have been a major element of Baby Boomer urbanist ideology over the past few decades. According to survey data from Frank N. Magid Associates, America’s leading entertainment and media research firm, young Millennials already reside in the suburbs to at least the same extent as members of older generations. The Magid data also suggest that this residential preference is not likely to change as the Millennial Generation matures and “settles down.” Once Millennials marry their firm preference is to live in a single-family home, and not in a typical urban setting of lofts, condos or apartments. Almost half of “settled” Millennials (those who are married, many with children) own their home. Only about a quarter are renters.

    Virtually none of the “settled” Millennials still reside with their parents or other relatives. This represents a significant difference from the status of Millennials of about the same age (mid-twenties) who are working, but single. About half of this latter group rent their home, either alone or with others, while only 13 percent are homeowners. About a quarter of the unmarried Millennials live with their parents, which often earns them disdainful comments from older generations. Early evidence seems to suggest that this “return to the nest” phenomenon has more to do with the economics of graduating from college with large student loans unpaid and entry level pay than it does to any lack of energy or unwillingness to accept adult responsibilities. It also has to do with one of the defining characteristics of Millennials: they get along better with their parents than either Boomers or Gen-Xers.

    This generational trait is especially important for the future of America’s suburbs. Unlike Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers, Millennials tend to be friends with and enjoy staying connected to their parents, if not in person than on a constant basis on cell phones or the Internet. In contrast, during the 1960s and 1970s, Boomers moved as far away as they could from their parents’ home in order to “find themselves” and express their own unique values. In the 1980s and 1990s, Gen-Xers often reacted to their relatively unloving upbringing (think “Married…with Children” vs. “Leave it to Beaver”) by rejecting every aspect of their childhood, including leafy lawns and spacious suburban housing. By contrast, Millennials actually like and respect their parents, and often prefer to live as their parents do, preferably in a place that’s close to their parents.

    America’s love of suburban living is continuing unabated long after the time in American history captured so poignantly in “Avalon.” In the 1970s, racial tensions and the general deterioration of central cities pushed more Americans into the suburbs. A plurality (38%) lived in the suburbs as early as 1970 and 45 percent did so by 1980. In 2000, around the time the last members of the Millennial Generation were being born, fully half of all Americans were living either in older suburbs or the new exurbs beyond them. Despite the problems posed by high gas prices and the mortgage crisis, suburban growth is still outpacing that of both urban and rural areas, as not only homeowners but also businesses continue to locate in the suburbs. The desire of Americans for their own plot of land likely will continue well into the 21st century as well.

    The community- and family-orientation of the Millennial Generation will only reinforce the continued growth of America’s suburbs. Levinson’s experience growing up with his extended family in a tight-knit urban ethnic neighborhood will likely never return in quite the same way. After all, America’s rising ethnic minorities are also moving heavily to the suburbs as well as to remaining family-friendly moderate-density neighborhoods closer to the city.

    Yet the suburban tilt of this migration does not mean that communities sharing the joys of family and friends that Levinson longed for have become extinct. The main difference is that this time, most Americans will share that experience, not in central city ethnic enclaves, but in suburbs or moderate density urban communities with houses located conveniently to their work – if not actually in their Internet-wired home. This return to “Avalon” will occur thanks, in large part, to the civic spirit and community orientation of America’s next great generation, the Millennials.

    Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are co-authors of “Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics,” published by Rutgers University Press.

  • Election Geography

    For the past eight years our politics has been riven by the red versus blue state narrative. While the popular media cast red versus blue as a culture war rooted in the ‘60s, subsequent research shows our divisions have much to do with geography. As Obama and McCain distance themselves from partisan stereotypes, many hope the upcoming election will break this pattern, but recent primary results should give us pause. (We should note that explaining overall election results is different than explaining geographic patterns. For instance, all women voters could vote the same and since women voters are a majority of the electorate, that would explain how their candidate won. But since women are fairly evenly distributed across the population, no geographic pattern would emerge.)

    Our political geography has been deciphered by several studies by the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, political scientist James Gimpel with The Christian Science Monitor’s Patchwork Nation website, and journalist Bill Bishop in his book titled, The Big Sort. All these studies show how the basic divisions plays out among urban, rural, and suburban communities. The best way to examine this phenomenon is with census demographic data by county.

    The following table shows how presidential voting in 2000 and 2004 broke down by county characteristics. The relevant county data include population per sq. mi., median family income, share of married households, share of female heads-of-household, as well as shares of white and black households.

    Regression analysis confirms that population density and marriage status explain most of the differences in voting patterns. One might guess that race was a more significant factor, but female heads-of-household and black households were very highly correlated—at .81, where 1.0 is perfect correlation—and female heads-of-household dominated the racial factor.

    Fast forward to 2008 and this is where it gets interesting. We apply this same methodology to recent hotly contested Democratic primaries and what we discover about how different communities voted may surprise those banking on a new post-partisan geography.

    The following table displays the county profiles of three state primaries in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana compared to the national profile. Amazingly, these 259 counties offer almost a perfect demographic sample for the total set of the nation’s counties, so these three primaries taken together offer a good proxy for the national profile.

    Comparing the primary results for these three states to the election results for the same counties in 2000 and 2004, yields the following results.

    We see that the voters in these three states’ counties voted in a distinct red vs. blue pattern. Counties that voted for Obama align closely with those who voted for Gore and Kerry and those that voted for Clinton align almost perfectly with Bush. But remember, all these voters were Democrats! So partisanship has been taken out of the equation and what we’re left with is political preference based upon lifestyle, economic, and community interests.

    Regression results are a bit more mixed for these votes because of how identity groups voted. For example, black households and female heads-of-household were even more highly correlated (.9), but black women tended to vote for Obama and white women tended to vote for Clinton. In general, exit polls confirmed that urban, black and college-educated voters favored Obama while older women, suburban and rural, working class whites favored Clinton.

    Unless something else changes, the upcoming presidential campaign’s increased ideological rhetoric will likely push voters toward their communal red vs. blue comfort zones. It’s doubtful the personal strengths and campaign strategies of McCain and Obama will be enough to overcome this. Rather, campaign incentives to win at any cost will probably exploit it.

    See more of Michael Harrington’s work at Red State Blue State Movie and his blog at Purple Nation Blog.

  • Demography of the Battleground States

    William Frey of the Milken Institute and Brookings Institution breaks down the race demographics of the presidential battleground states in this month’s Milken Institute Review. Frey groups the states into what he calls the Fast Growing Battlegrounds, Slow Growing Battlegrounds, and Fast-Growing South Longshots.

    His conclusion? The rapid growth in racial minorities in the fast growing battleground states make them prime targets for Obama. A similar trend in the longshot states, along with recent migration from blue states, give him a chance there as well. On the other hand, white dominated slow growth battleground states where Obama fared poorly in the primaries leave plenty of room for McCain to move in.

    Check out Frey’s analysis.

  • Suburbs Thriving, Cities Stagnating in Keystone State

    The headline in the Philadelphia Inquirer said it all, “Philadelphia’s population shrinking, though region’s is growing.” This in the midst of what is purported to be a condominium boom in its thriving center city.

    But facts are facts: Philadelphia’s population has dropped 4.5 percent. This ranks it first among the top-25 U.S. cities in population loss from 2000-2007. This data causes you to pause and rethink the real impact of major public investments in the city spurred on by a governor who is the city’s former two-term mayor.

    For one, gambling was supposed to bring good jobs to the city. The two winning bidders each created projects on the Delaware River, but these projects are stuck in a protracted political battle and their fate at these riverfront locations is uncertain along with the thousands of jobs they have promised.

    Part of the problem for the casinos is that a new vision has been created for the Delaware Riverfront. The Penn Praxis plan envisions recreation and greenways, not gambling for this area of the city. As a result, the gaming interests are being asked to consider building somewhere else within the city.

    There is also the Pennsylvania Convention Center. The first phase was built into the old Reading Railroad terminal on east Market Street. Supporters contend that it has spurred a hotel and restaurant boom in the city and there is validity to this position.

    But work rules issues have plagued the center since its inception. The result has been that most convention groups have chosen not to return because of arcane union rules that made it beyond difficult to do simple things like set up a booth or get electric power to a display. Negotiations have brought some relief, but problems remain to be solved.

    Despite these problems the convention center is now slated to expand about two blocks west of its current location. The costs have escalated dramatically and now exceed $800 million . This is an increase of nearly $100 million since the deal to move forward was approved and buildings were condemned and razed.

    On July 12, Governor Rendell hinted that he was having second thoughts about the viability of the expanded center when he said that the center is “getting to the point where the cost will outweigh the benefit.” These remarks were made while the governor was signing legislation that would increase the taxes on a hotel room in Philadelphia by more than 15 percent to pay for tourism promotion and the convention center.

    Stadium Economics
    Public dollars have also helped to fund a new football and baseball stadium in South Philadelphia. Citizens Bank Park is a real gem of a baseball stadium – a fun family entertainment venue where the Philadelphia Phillies play 82 games a year. Across the street is Lincoln Financial Field where the Philadelphia Eagles play their games as well as Temple University. There are only 20 – 25 games played there each year. The Phillies stadium cost $458 million and the Eagles complex $512 million, most of which came from public investment.

    What has been the economic impact of this investment? Has the neighborhood been revitalized by this investment? The short answer is no. They are basically commuter stadiums where fans come, see, and go.

    Rick Eckstein, who is a professor at a local university and author of Public Dollars, Private Stadiums: The Battle over Building Sports Stadiums, has studied the economic impact of public investment in stadium projects. He concludes, “I have been studying and writing about publicly financed stadiums for more than 10 years and cannot name a single stadium project that has delivered on its original grandiose economic promises, although they do bring benefits to team owners, sports leagues and sometimes players.”

    Over the years billions of dollars has been invested in tourism and entertainment projects and the results are clear: the projects required more dollars than originally thought and the promises of profound economic benefits have never materialized as expected.

    Philadelphia is a lot more fun than it was 20 years ago, but its economy remains stagnant and its core population continues to leave to find opportunity elsewhere.

    There is also another trend resulting from this kind of pubic investment. The more public money that is poured into a region the more taxes and fees follow.

    In Pennsylvania, these kinds of investment go far beyond Philadelphia. Pittsburgh has two new stadiums costing a total of more than $1 billion and a new $375 million convention center that is touted as, “the cornerstone of western Pennsylvania’s hospitality industry.”

    Erie has the Bayfront Convention Center at $44 million and funded it with a new five percent hotel room tax. The Altoona region has Blair County Convention Center & Sports Facility Authority a $50 million project funded with $48 million in federal and state grants. The City of York invested economic and political capital in securing a $28 million revenue bond to fund a minor league baseball stadium. The City of Chester just was awarded a soccer franchise and is planning a new stadium to go along with the new casino as core projects to revitalize its economy.

    When we look back at the billions of dollars that has been spent on these projects and the results, you are left to wonder whether or not these dollars could have been spent more wisely in other areas to build an economy on sturdier foundation.

    The results have not been encouraging. Population growth in Pennsylvania between April 2000 and July 2006 was a mere 1.3 percent. Private non-farm employment decreased 0.1 percent according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Pennsylvania’s senior population continues to be among the highest in the nation at 15.2 percent in 2006.

    Philadelphia lagged behind the national average of the percent of the population with a bachelor’s degree by 4.5 percentage points in 2000; Pittsburgh’s mean household income was nearly $12,000 below the national average. None of the major cities in Pennsylvania gained population during the early years of this century.

    Suburban Growth
    Meanwhile there is a very different story in suburban and rural counties. Montgomery County’s population grew at a rate nearly three times that of the State of Pennsylvania and Bucks County grew by nearly four times. In Berks County, the next county beyond Philadelphia’s four suburban collar counties, population growth was a healthy 7.4 percent and household income exceeded the national average.

    In rural Monroe County, located outside of Wilkes-Barre, population spiked by nearly 20 percent over six years while in Pike County, northeast of Scranton, we saw staggering growth of 25.7 percent and household income exceeding the national average.

    The people of Pennsylvania want what every other American wants for their families: a nice home, good schools, quality government services and a safe community. They are abandoning cities because they cannot keep this promise to their middle-income wage earners.

    However, they are finding what they want in Pennsylvania’s first and second ring suburbs and in rural communities that don’t invest in stadiums, convention centers or entertainment to build their economies. Instead these communities provide a quality of life that attracts people and the jobs are following.

    An economy built on tourism and entertainment provides very few family wage jobs. These funds would likely be better invested in quality of life and infrastructure in order to create high wage, blue collar jobs in the global economy.

    If not, people will continue to vote with their feet as they look for opportunity beyond the casino, restaurant and tourism industries and a better quality of life outside of cities that are increasingly being viewed as opportunity-free zones.

    Dennis M. Powell is president and CEO of Massey Powell an issues management consulting company located in Plymouth Meeting, PA.

  • Source of Population Growth In Milwaukee

    Where is the growth in Wisconsin? The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel checked in last week with a glowing review of the recent city census numbers. Our friend, Milwaukee native, and former Playboy Magazine editor Bob Carr sends his reaction:

    Milwaukee is having to put quite a spin on the latest census figures. A recent Journal-Sentinel article trumpets the the city’s decade-long population plateauing as a sign of “steadiness.” Cities losing the most population in Wisconsin included Whitefish Bay, Wauwatosa, West Allis and Brown Deer. Guess what they are — Milwaukee suburbs. With the city losing people at the edges, the newspaper was lucky enough to find someone who had actually moved from Whitefish Bay to Milwaukee to help take the sting out.

    Here’s a rundown of the recent population trends in the State of Wisconsin.