What Brain Drain? - Milken Institute · 4 WHAT BRAIN DRAIN? Anecdotal evidence of a brain drain...

California Among the Best in U.S. at Retaining Skilled Workers

What Brain Drain?

oc

to

be

r 2

011

I-Ling Shen and Perry Wong with ross c. DeVol

october 2011

California Among the Best in U.S. at Retaining Skilled Workers

What Brain Drain?

I-Ling Shen and Perry Wong with ross c. DeVol

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Kevin Klowden of the Milken Institute, Hal Salzman of Rutgers University, and seminar participants at the Milken Institute for their valuable suggestions on this manuscript. We are grateful to Melissa Bauman for her editorial expertise and to Armen Bedroussian and Benjamin Yeo for their assistance with the high-tech data.

About the Milken Institute The Milken Institute is an independent economic think tank whose mission is to improve the lives and economic conditions of diverse populations in the United States and around the world by helping business and public policy leaders identify and implement innovative ideas for creating broad-based prosperity. We put research to work with the goal of revitalizing regions and finding new ways to generate capital for people with original ideas.

We focus on:human capital: the talent, knowledge, and experience of people, and their value to organizations, economies, and society;financial capital: innovations that allocate financial resources efficiently, especially to those who ordinarily would not have access to them, but who can best use them to build companies, create jobs, accelerate life-saving medical research, and solve long-standing social and economic problems; andsocial capital: the bonds of society that underlie economic advancement, including schools, health care, cultural institutions, and government services.

By creating ways to spread the benefits of human, financial, and social capital to as many people as possible— by democratizing capital—we hope to contribute to prosperity and freedom in all corners of the globe.

We are nonprofit, nonpartisan, and publicly supported.

© 2011 Milken Institute

Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................3

Profiles of Out-migrants from California ...................................................................6

Out-migration of High-skilled California Natives ...................................................9

Annual Outflows of Skilled Residents ..................................................................... 10

Another Side of the Story: Annual Skill Inflows ................................................... 14

Conclusion and Implications ...................................................................................... 15

References ......................................................................................................................... 16

Appendixes ....................................................................................................................... 17

About the Authors ......................................................................................................... 40

TABlE Of CONTENTS

11

ExECUTIvE SUMMARYThey are familiar refrains in California: “The state is losing its best and brightest to other states, where the cost of living is cheaper and jobs are more plentiful.” “foreign-born students get an excellent education here and then take the knowledge elsewhere and start innovative companies.” “The state’s brain drain is sure to sink its position as a national leader in technology.”

The problem is it’s not true—at least not yet. It’s a fact that California’s share of national high-tech employment has declined1 because the pie has grown bigger and the tech sector has expanded in other states. But the idea that high-skilled workers are leaving en masse is generally fiction.

To evaluate the out-migration of high-skilled residents from California to other states, we utilized representative population data collected by the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey for the period 2000-2009. The findings defy popular perception:2

»» California is second in the nation in its retention of high-skilled natives (those born in-state). Over the past decade, about 35 percent of skilled California natives resided in other states while nearly half of skilled Americans did not live in their birth states. Only Texas performed better with 31 percent of its native residents living out of state.

»» Over the past decade, California has had the least out-migration of any state in proportion to the total number of skilled residents. In 2000-2009, this “skill outflow” averaged 2.2 percent a year, a full percent-age point less than the national rate.

»» The Golden State has been particularly adept at retaining skilled foreign-born residents. California’s outflow rate for this population was the lowest in the nation, and this was also true of foreign-born residents with coveted degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). foreign-born skilled residents were almost as unlikely to leave the state as California natives (see figure ES).

»» Of those who did leave the state in 2009, 12 percent went to Texas, the biggest magnet for skilled Cali-fornia residents. The lone Star State drew 16 percent of out-migrants with STEM degrees. Overall, how-ever, California had a lower skill outflow rate than Texas did.

»» In contrast to its outstanding record for skill retention, California had less success in attracting skilled workers from other states, possibly as a result of slow employment growth in the state’s high-tech industries. However, skill inflows from abroad more than compensated for this deficiency.

1. See figure 1 in the full report.

2. We defined “high-skilled” as holding a bachelor’s degree or above, in keeping with the literature on international migration. Therefore, we excluded people younger than 25 because they may still be studying for a degree. We also excluded seniors older than 64 who were out of the labor force because they were most likely retired and their skills were no longer directly relevant to the economy.

2 W H A T B R A I N D R A I N ?

The major disadvantage of out-migration for any state is the loss of skilled young workers. Not only does a state lose what it has invested in them through public education and different funding programs, but a state’s tax base also erodes when it loses individuals with higher earning and consumption power. Most important in California’s case, the concentration of young innovators with advanced skills has been key to the success of Silicon valley and other innovation clusters. These clusters collectively act as an economic engine that breeds other industries providing professional, financial, and personal services.

Although California has managed to keep skilled individuals within its borders, it can’t rest on its laurels. Other states have developed their own tech industries, so skilled job seekers have considerably more options. And California’s heavy reliance on foreign-born human capital may backfire if skilled immigrants respond to growing opportunities back home and return to their countries of origin.3

Policy and development efforts will be needed to address those issues head-on if the state intends to maintain its competitiveness and keep its leadership position. Nurturing the tech industry, maintaining the state’s higher education system, and further developing a home-grown talent pool will be increasingly important in the years to come.

3. In 2009, roughly 48 percent of all STEM degree holders in California were foreign-born.

Figure ES: Annual skill outflow rate by birthplace, national aggregate vs. California

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

California

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Percent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Percent

National aggregate

—Born in other states — Foreign-born —Born in-state

---Born in other states (excl. returned to home states)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

California

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Percent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Percent

National aggregate


---Born in other states (excl. returned to home states)

Note: Cross signs (x) denote estimates of skill outflow rates. Each trend line is approximated by a sixth order polynomial. The standard error of each estimate can be found in the appendixes. Sources: Integrated Public Use Microdata Series USA (IPUMS-USA), Milken Institute.

33

I N T R O D U C T I O NThe abundance and concentration of high-skilled human capital is an integral part of California’s success in developing high-tech clusters. However, concerns about deterioration in California’s leadership position have been voiced for more than a decade. Observers cite the rollercoaster ride of technology boom and bust, the slower expansion that followed in key technology industries4 (see figure 1), and the overall tax and business climate.5 They are convinced that, as a result, high-skilled workers are leaving California en masse in search of better job prospects and a lower cost of living.

Whether California faces a brain drain is a fair question to ask in a state that has seen an exodus of skilled workers before. The downsizing in aerospace and other defense industries after defense cuts in 1992 dramatically reduced job opportunities for some of the best and brightest, and it reversed California’s longstanding trend of net in-migration (Gabriel et al., 1995).

That 1990s brain drain has haunted Californians. Some pundits point to the Great Recession as the potential trigger of a new brain drain. California’s unemployment rate is the second highest in the nation, and the high-tech sector alone shed more than 75,000 jobs from 2008 to 2009.6 Since the recovery began in 2009, growth has remained slow, causing concerns that knowledge-based firms will relocate or start up elsewhere.

Nevertheless, California remains a worldwide hub of technology innovations, commercialization, and entrepreneurship. In 2009, the concentration of tech employment in California was 50 percent higher than the national average. And high-tech industries accounted for 9.3 percent—or 1.3 million jobs—of the state’s employment and more than 16 percent of the state’s wages.7 California’s economic well-being hinges on its capacity for technological innovation, which depends on a plentiful supply of high-skilled workers to create, attract, and retain high-tech businesses.

4. According to the Milken Institute’s latest “State Technology and Science Index,” the employment growth of California’s high-tech sector has been lagging most of the nation. The average yearly growth rate was actually negative between 2002 and 2008, and many of its high-tech industries have had slower expansion rates than the U.S. average. view the data at www.milkeninstitute.org/tech/tech2010.taf?sub=tcci&sub2=htiayg (accessed August 9, 2011).

5. for examples, see “Is California setup for a brain drain?” Scobleizer blog, March 24, 2009, http://scobleizer.com/2009/03/24/is-california-is-setup-for-a-brain-drain/; “fixing California,” CATO Institute, August 24, 2003, http://www.cato.org/research/articles/reynolds-030824.html (accessed August 22, 2011); and laffer et al. (2009).

6. various studies as well as social analyses have shown that the unemployment rate is among the most important push factors in migration decisions. See, for example, “foon Rhee: State faces a `Brain Drain’ if Grads lack Jobs,” The Sacramento Bee, July 31, 2011, http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/31/3804619/state-faces-a-brain-drain-if-grads.html (accessed August 22, 2011).

7. We follow Devol et al. (1999) in defining the high-tech sector. See Appendix A: High-tech Employment by Industry, California, 2009 for the breakdown of employment figures by each industry and the associated location quotients.

15

16

17

18

19

20

90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08

Percent

Figure 1: California’s share of national high-tech employment

Sources: Moody’s Analytics, Milken Institute.


Anecdotal evidence of a brain drain abounds, but only representative population data can provide an accurate estimate of its scale. The analysis must also be put into perspective. As the tech sector spreads to different locations, it should come as no surprise that skilled workers will grow more mobile.

This paper identifies the out-migration patterns of California’s highly skilled workforce over the past decade. It also assesses how California stacks up against other states in retaining skilled workers. Contrary to popular perception, our findings show that:

»» California is second in the nation in its retention of high-skilled natives (those born in-state). Only Texas performed better in this regard.

»» Over the past decade, California has had the least annual skill out-migration of any state, relative to the total of skilled residents.

»» The Golden State has been particularly capable at retaining skilled foreign-born workers. The outflow rate of foreign-born skilled workers was the lowest in the nation, and this was also true of foreign-born workers with degrees in science, technology, engineering and math.

»» California had less success at attracting skilled workers from other states, but inflows from abroad have more than compensated for this deficiency.

Consistent with the economic literature on international migration (e.g., Beine et al., 2008), we used educational attainment as the proxy for skill level. A high-skilled individual is defined as holding a bachelor’s degree or above.8 We utilized the American Community Survey (ACS), which provides yearly microdata with information aggregated for each calendar year from 2000 to 2009.9

Two types of migration decisions can be identified: individuals who moved from their birth state in the past and still resided out of state in a particular census year, and individuals who relocated from one state to another within the particular census year. Both have significant policy implications.

The first migration pattern results in direct fiscal and economic loss to the home state. California has been investing heavily in its public education system and is projected to continue spending more than 45 percent of its projected $100 billion annual budget on K-14 education through fiscal year 2015-16.10 But the return on that investment is less if our children grow up and move to other states—a possibility that increases after people reach adulthood.11

The second migration pattern—the annual outflow of state residents—tends to fluctuate with economic cycles, and it generally reflects a state’s ability to retain human capital. This ability depends on a series of economic factors, including employment opportunities, industrial structure (the number and size distribution of firms in an industry), competition with other states for human capital, as well as on characteristics such as weather and personal preference.

8. While the tech sector is one of the largest employers of individuals holding a bachelor’s degree or above, our analysis may suffer from conflation by inferring from the outmigration pattern of generally high-skilled workers to that of the tech workforce. However, as shown in Appendix B: Ouflow from California’s High-tech Sector, the outflow patterns of these groups are strikingly similar in the Golden State.

9. Compared to datasets that use point-in-time estimates, ACS provides period estimates that describe the average characteristics of an area over a calendar year. This method helps us avoid overestimating the number of movers by not capturing those who relocate for only a short time.

10. See “The 2011-2012 Budget: California’s fiscal Outlook.”

11. According to the ACS data, in 2009 about 39.5 percent of Americans 25 and older did not live in their birth states; the corresponding figures were 14.1 percent for those under 16 and 17.3 percent for those under 25.

55

The major disadvantage of out-migration for any state is the loss of skilled young workers. Not only does a state lose what it has invested in them through public education and different funding programs, but a state’s tax base also erodes when it loses individuals with higher earning and consumption power. Most important in California’s case, the concentration of young innovators with advanced skills has been key to the success of Silicon valley and other innovation clusters. These clusters collectively act as an economic engine that breeds other industries providing professional, financial, and personal services.12

12. See, for example, Devol et al. (2004).

I N T R O D U C T I O N


PROfIlES Of OUT-MIGRANTS fROM CAlIfORNIA In this section, we compare the age and educational profiles of California’s out-migrants to those who remained in the state. The premise is that, if age or skill is irrelevant to who stays and who leaves, the profiles of both groups would be similar. We adopted the flow concept: That is, we profiled individuals who resided in California in year t-1, then we compared those who out-migrated between year t-1 and t to those who stayed.

Specifically, we looked at the distribution of a characteristic—for instance, age—within each group and com-pared the distribution of movers to that of stayers. (In other words, we looked at the probability mass distribu-tion of a characteristic for each group.)

Because people from different origins may have different degrees of attachment to California, we expected out-migration patterns to vary based on birthplace. for instance, California natives may be less willing to move to Massachusetts than are Massachusetts natives residing in California. In comparison, foreign-born individuals may be relatively indifferent to location choices. To account for this, we also looked at three sub-groups by birthplace: those born in California, those born in other states, and those born in foreign countries.

figure 2 shows that, regardless of birthplace, out-migrants tended to be younger than those who remained in California. The majority of the movers were in their mid-30s or younger; the median age of the movers was 36 while the median age of the stayers was 42. It is worth noting that, for California residents who were born in other states, the age distribution of the population that stayed skewed older, with a median of 47. Therefore, the stayers who were born out-of-state could be mainly those who in-migrated to California many years ago.

Next, let’s turn to the educational profile. figure 3 shows the mover group on average was more educated—or skilled, by our definition—than the group that stayed. This difference can be viewed as measuring the skill bias of mobility. Although the pattern of skill bias is more or less consistent across all groups, it is far more discernible in the foreign-born. We speculate this is a result of the migrant network, which has been shown to be more important to less-skilled immigrants than to skilled immigrants in improving their circumstances in the labor market (Edin and fredriksson, 2003 and Damm, 2009).13 California hosts the largest foreign-born population in the nation; more than a quarter of its residents were born in other countries.14 The size and quality of its migrant networks may have created a disincentive for less-skilled immigrants to leave California. This may have accentuated the mobility differential between less-skilled immigrants and their high-skilled counterparts.

Among the highly educated, the most desirable workers to California’s tech-driven economy are those with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). figure 4 on page 8 displays the distributions of stayers and movers, respectively, in the degree fields of engineering, physical sciences, biology and life sciences, mathematics and statistics, and computer and information sciences.15 A quarter of skilled out-migrants from California held these degrees in 200916 compared to 22.5 percent for the skilled stayers. This suggests that out-migrants were slightly more likely to hold STEM degrees. The differences appeared to be the greatest for physical scientists, and then biologists and life scientists.

13. less-skilled migrants generally have fewer financial resources and are more likely to face language and other barriers. Migrant networks may help lower adjustment costs and enhance the dissemination of job-related information.

14. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2005-2009 ACS five-year estimates, 26.8 percent of California population was foreign-born, compared to 12.4 percent at the national level.

15. The average total personal income of these degree holders also happened to be the highest among all highly educated in California in 2009.

16. The variable of degree field is only available for year 2009.

77

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%All

StayerMover

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%Born in California

StayerMover

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%Born in other states

StayerMover

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65+

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65+

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65+

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65+

Foreign-born

StayerMover

Sources: IPUMS-USA, Milken Institute.

Figure 2: Average age distribution by birthplace, 2000-2009

Stayer Mover

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%Born in other states

High school or less

Associate'sor somecollege

Bachelor's Graduate

Stayer Mover

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%Foreign-born

High school or less


Bachelor's Graduate

Stayer Mover

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%Born in California

High school or less


Bachelor's Graduate

Stayer Mover

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%All

High school or less


Bachelor's Graduate


P R O f I l E S O f O U T - M I G R A N T S f R O M C A l I f O R N I A

Figure 3: Average educational attainment by birthplace, 2000-2009


The overall mobility differential between STEM degree holders and others was far more pronounced for native Californians and foreign-born individuals. Among native Californians, 20.5 percent of the skilled out-migrants held STEM degrees, compared to 15.3 percent among the skilled stayers. The corresponding figures for foreign-born indi-viduals were 41.2 percent versus 33.4 percent. In contrast, the differential was minuscule for those born in other states. One explanation is that, having migrated from other states to California, they were a more homogeneous group in terms of the individual determinants of interstate migra-tion decisions. If the personal characteristics that drove their decisions to move also largely drove their choice of majoring in STEM degree fields, holding STEM degrees may not have a high correlation with subsequent interstate movements because these personal characteristics are already controlled for within this self-selected group.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS

AllStayer Mover Stayer Mover

Stayer Mover Stayer Mover

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS

Born in California

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS

Born in other states

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS

Foreign-born

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS



0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS

Born in California

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS

Foreign-born

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS



0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS

Born in California

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS

Foreign-born

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS



0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS

Born in California

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E PS BLS MS CIS

Foreign-born

E: engineering; PS: physical sciences; BLS: biology and life sciences; MS: mathematics and statistics; CIS: computer and information sciences. Sources: IPUMS-USA, Milken Institute.

Figure 4: Distribution of degree field by birthplace, 2009

99

OUT-MIGRATION Of HIGH-SKIllED CAlIfORNIA NATIvESThe out-migration rate of high-skilled California natives has been quite stable over the past decade at around 35 percent (see figure 5). In contrast, nearly half the high-skilled population nationally lived outside their native states in 2000-2009. Only Texas performed better in this regard with just 31 percent of skilled natives leaving the state. This makes Texas a particularly relevant region for benchmarking against California’s trend.

We also found that the high-skilled native out-migration rate was always higher than the less-skilled out-migration rate in every state and in every year from 2000 to 2009. Still, California stood out as having the least skill bias among all the states in the out-migration of natives. As shown in figure 5, out-migration of high-skilled and less-skilled workers only differed by around 2 percent.17 This implies that the reasons Californians left the state were likely to be similar regardless of skill level.

Overall, California appeared to have a good record of retaining talented natives based on the out-migration rate itself and the skill-bias measure. Accordingly, one can hardly argue that California is threatened by the brain drain of skilled natives.

17. We can roughly gauge the skill bias by taking the ratio of the high-skilled over the less-skilled native out-migration rate, and California indeed turned out to have the lowest ratio.

Note 1: Cross signs (x) denote estimates of native out-migration rates, whose 95 percent confidence intervals are marked by upper and lower bars (-). Each trend line is approximated by a sixth order polynomial.Note 2: Texas has the lowest out-migration rates for both high-skilled and less-skilled natives. Sources: IPUMS-USA, Milken Institute.

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Percent

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Percent

High-skilled native

Less-skilled native

— National aggregate

— California

— Texas

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Percent

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Percent

High-skilled native

Less-skilled native

— National aggregate

— California

— Texas

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 5: Native out-migration rate by skill level


A N N UA l O U T f lO W S O f S K I l l E D R E S I D E N T SExperts use the terms out-migration and outflow interchangeably, but this report uses them to express two different concepts. We use out-migration when referring to the accumulative net outflux of residents over decades (i.e., the stock of out-migrants), and we use outflow to refer to the gross number of residents leaving the state every year. (See Appendix C for further explanation of the methodology.) We will begin this section by examining the outflow rate of skilled residents on an annual basis, regardless of birthplace.

A. Total skill outflows In 2000-2009, an average of 2.24 percent of skilled California residents headed for the exit. This was the lowest rate for any state and about 1 percent less than the national rate (see figure 6), even though the average skill level of Califor-nia residents was similar to the national average.18 It is further proof that skilled workers are not fleeing California.

The economy appeared to play a cyclical role in keeping highly skilled workers in the state. When recession hit in 2001-2003 and 2007-2009, skill mobility decreased as more skilled workers stayed put.19 However, for California in particular, the skill outflow rate picked up during the recovery in 2003-2005 and dropped only when the economy was well into an expansionary mode. This likely reflects the fact that California’s mid-decade recovery, at least in some high-tech industries, was not as strong as that of competing states.20

18. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2005-2009 ACS five-year estimates, 29.7 percent of California’s population 25 and older held a bachelor’s degree or above. The national average was 27.5 percent.

19. The decrease in mobility in the recent Great Recession was compounded by underwater residential properties. frey (2009) found that 2007-2009 marked the lowest point of the overall migration rate in the U.S. since the end of World War II. However, it is not clear to which degree, if any, the downward trend of interstate mobility was affected by “house lock” (Molloy et al., 2011).

20. See footnote 4. frey (2009) also documented that, in the mid-decade, California experienced an accelerated net domestic out-migration (of all residents, not just the highly skilled). He attributed this exodus mainly to the housing bubble. However, using data from 1977-2006, Sasser (2010) found that economic op-portunities, including relative labor market conditions and per capita incomes, have a larger impact than housing affordability on domestic migratory flows. Moreover, Molloy and Wozniak (forthcoming) found that the U.S. internal migration exhibits a procyclical pattern, and they suggest the cyclicality is related to labor market conditions rather than the housing market.

Note: Cross signs (x) denote estimates of skill outflow rates, whose 95 percent confidence intervals are marked by upper and lower bars (-). Each trend line is approximated by a sixth order polynomial. Sources: IPUMS-USA, Milken Institute.

1

2

3

4

5

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Percent

—National aggregate

—California

—Texas

Figure 6: Skill outflow rate

1111

B. Skill outflows by birthplace California hosts a population of great diversity and various origins. Those born in California, those born in other states, and those born outside the U.S. each represent roughly one-third of the state’s skilled residents, though natives make up a slightly higher share.21 Therefore, it is important to study the skill outflow pattern of each group.

As seen in figure 7, at both the national level and in California, skilled individuals who were born in other states had the highest outflow rate, followed by the foreign-born. Highly skilled natives had by far the lowest outflow rate, likely due to home-state attachment.

Home-state attachment is also evidenced by the fact that more than a quarter of high-skilled out-migrants who were born in other states returned to their birth states in the period studied. Interestingly, when we subtracted this subgroup of returnees, we found that the skill outflow rates of out-of-staters who left for locations other than their birth states appeared almost identical to the foreign-born skill outflow rate at the national level. However, this is not the case in California.

In the Golden State, the average annual outflow rate of foreign-born skilled workers was similar to that of skilled natives at 1.62 percent and 1.35 percent, respectively. In fact, California’s outflow rate of foreign-born skilled workers was the lowest in the nation, which suggests California has done particularly well at retaining this group.

21. In 2009, 36.35 percent of skilled residents in California were native-born, 31.19 percent were born in other states, and 32.46 percent were foreign-born.

A N N U A l O U T f l O W S O f S K I l l E D R E S I D E N T S

Note: Cross signs (x) denote estimates of skill outflow rates. Each trend line is approximated by a sixth order polynomial. The standard error of each estimate can be found in the appendixes. Sources: IPUMS-USA, Milken Institute.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

California

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Percent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Percent


--- Born in other states (excl. returned to home states)

National aggregate

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

California

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Percent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Percent


--- Born in other states (excl. returned to home states)

National aggregate

Figure 7: Skill outflow rate by birthplace, national aggregate vs. California


C. Outflows of STEM degree holders

from 2008 to 2009, 2 percent of those with STEM degrees left California for other states. This figure was well below the national outflow rate of 3.52 percent. California is par-ticularly successful at retaining foreign-born STEM degree holders (see figure 8). This mirrors our findings regarding its retention of all skilled residents. The outflow rate for foreign-born workers with STEM degrees was a mere 1.53 percent, the lowest rate of all the states, while the national rate was far higher at 4.16 percent. California’s retention of foreign-born workers with STEM degrees is particularly important in light of figure 9. It shows that, in 2009, more than half of California’s engineers and computer and information scientists were foreign-born. If we take into account all five fields, the foreign-born account for as much as 48.2 percent of those degree holders. To put it in perspective, the foreign-born represent 32.5 percent of all high-skilled workers.

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

E PS BLS MS CIS

Born in-state

National aggregate California Texas

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

E PS BLS MS CIS

Born in other statesNational aggregate California Texas

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

E PS BLS MS CIS

Foreign-bornNational aggregate California Texas

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

E PS BLS MS CIS

All

National aggregate California Texas

E: engineering; PS: physical sciences; BLS: biology and life sciences; MS: mathematics and statistics; CIS: computer and information sciences. Note: The standard errors of each estimate can be found in the appendixes.Sources: IPUMS-USA, Milken Institute.

Figure 8: Outflow rate of STEM degree holders by birthplace, 2009

55.9%

43.1%34.1% 39.0%

54.9%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

E PS BLS MS CIS

Born in other statesForeign-bornBorn in California

Thousands

Figure 9: STEM degree holders by birthplace, California, 2009


1313

D. Destination of California’s skilled out-migrants Table 1 lists the top 10 destinations in 2009 for skilled California out-migrants. Texas was by far the largest magnet: 12 percent of total skill outflow and 16 percent of STEM outflow from California went to Texas in 2009. This could explain some observers’ anxiety that California has been losing ground to Texas, both in high-tech jobs and high-skilled workers, even though California’s skill outflow rate was no greater than that of the lone Star State.

Several forces are at work in these destination choices besides the size effect (i.e., populous states tend to attract more migrants in absolute numbers). first, the migration literature has abundant evidence suggesting that distance matters in people’s relocation decisions. California neighbors Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon all made the list of top 10 destinations. In addition, industrial structure—and therefore employment opportunities—appeared to be crucial. for example, despite being a distant state, Massachusetts was one of the main destinations for Califor-nia’s skilled out-migrants. Thanks to its high-tech and life sciences clusters, Massachusetts attracted dispropor-tionately more STEM degree holders than general skilled workers. finally, many other state governments have either established or already implemented aggressive policies to expand their technology-based industries. Some of them have specifically courted California businesses to relocate to their states.22

Table 1: Top 10 destinations for skilled California out-migrants, 2009

All skilled STEM degree holders

State Share (%) State Share (%)

Texas 12.03 Texas 16.07

Washington 7.33 Washington 6.49

Arizona 6.04 Colorado 6.13

New York 5.86 Massachusetts 5.92

Oregon 4.97 New York 5.38

Colorado 4.90 virginia 4.67

florida 4.84 florida 4.36

virginia 4.78 Arizona 4.31

Massachusetts 4.19 Nevada 3.74

Nevada 4.08 Oregon 3.70


22. See, for example, John fund, “California Dreamin’—of Jobs in Texas,” Wall Street Journal, April 22, 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704570704576275051374356340.html (accessed August 5, 2011).

A N N U A l O U T f l O W S O f S K I l l E D R E S I D E N T S


ANOTHER SIDE Of THE STORY: ANNUAl SKIll INflOWSClearly, California had an outstanding record in retaining highly skilled residents during the past decade. However, it had less success in attracting talents from other states.

California is still the largest magnet for high-skilled workers: 8.9 percent of all domestic skilled workers moved to California in 2009. But the picture becomes less sunny when we consider the skill inflow rate. figure 10 shows that for most of the past decade California’s skill inflow rate was around just 2 percent.23 Due to increased skill outflow during 2004–2007, California in effect experienced a net domestic out-migration of the highly skilled over the same period. This skill loss, however, was more than compensated for by skill inflows from abroad.

It is well-known that California depends heavily on international immigration to maintain its skilled workforce and technology clusters. We found that international skill inflows accounted for more than one-third of California’s total inflows; moreover, throughout 2000-2009, about 18.7 percent of high-skilled foreign-born workers who arrived in the U.S. went to California. One explanation for California’s low domestic skill inflow rate may be that well-qualified immigrants helped to intensify competition for high-skilled jobs, diverting domestic skill flows to other states. On the other hand, however, the cost of living and difficult atmosphere for business expansion may have slowed the inflow of talent from other states.

23. This may help explain why, in California, skilled individuals born in other states tended to be older than the rest of the highly skilled (see figure 2). It also may signal that the state had less success attracting young workers born in other states during the recent decade compared to decades past. According to migration data collected by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service from filed tax exemptions, the number of in-migrants to California dropped from around 0.5 million in the 1980s to 0.3 million in 1994. Since then, the trend has reversed, and the number has leveled off to less than 0.4 million in the last decade. Moreover, by looking at those who held science and engineering occupations in 2004, the Population Reference Bureau also found that California suffered from a negative net in-migration of scientists and engineers in that census year. The 2 percent gross inflow rate was the lowest among the states that made the top 10 in the Milken Institute’s 2004 State Technology and Science Index.

Note: Cross signs (x) denote estimates of skill inflow and outflow rates, whose 95 percent confidence intervals are marked by upper and lower bars (-). Each trend line is approximated by a sixth order polynomial.Sources: IPUMS-USA, Milken Institute.

1

2

3

4

5

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Percent — Skill out�ow— Skill in�ow— Skill in�ow incl. immigrants

Figure 10: Skill inflow vs. skill outflow, California

1515

CONClUSION AND IMPlICATIONSWhile California has performed relatively well in retaining its highly skilled workers, this shouldn’t give the state license to sit back and relax, especially when competition for talent is increasingly fierce. As figure 1 shows, Cali-fornia’s share of high-tech employment has been declining for two decades. At the same time, the national tech-nology sector is growing bigger, more widespread and more important than ever to regional economic growth.

The spread of technology clusters nationwide has been caused in part by the progression of technologies, ever bigger and longer industry supply chains, and various state initiatives aimed at attracting these economic engines. It is only logical that other regions will attempt to appropriate the technology leadership that took the Golden State more than four decades to build.

The downsizing of defense industries in the early 1990s drastically reduced California’s technology base and produced the state’s largest one-time out-migration of highly skilled workers. Although it is not a subject of this report, the loss clearly and concisely illustrates the relationship between a healthy base of technology industries and the retention of high-skilled workers. Without a growing—or at least a stable—base, attracting and retaining these individuals cannot be achieved.

Given this context, California should pay particular attention to the following areas:

COMpETiTiOn: California’s heightened high-skilled outflows during the economic expansion of the mid-2000s (see figure 6) is perhaps more alarming than a one-time “external shock” such as the defense realignment in 1992. The occurrence indicates that California’s recovery, at least in the high-tech sector, has not been as strong as in competing states. California’s tepid record of attracting talent from other states may suggest that the high-tech expansion nationally has simply given skilled workers more places where they can find jobs. Policy and development efforts will be needed to address those issues head-on if the state intends to maintain its competitiveness and keep its leadership position in the years to come.

FOrEign-BOrn wOrkErS: California’s high-tech economy has been highly dependent on bright, talented immigrants. On the upside, our study reveals that foreign-born, high-skilled workers in California are as unlikely to move to other states as native Californians. On the downside, however, there is a good chance that, once they decide to relocate, they will move back to their home countries. Many of the developing economies, especially China and India, are growing at full speed. While this presents unprecedented opportunities for California’s business and trade, it can also pose serious challenges to an economy where the formula for prosperity has always included immigrants seeking better opportunities than were available back home.24 With opportunities in their home countries multiplying on a daily basis, it is even more imperative for California to plan ahead in order to maintain a stable supply of skilled workers. One obvious strategy is to cultivate home-grown human capital, the sort that is least likely to leave California.

HigHEr EDuCATiOn: California excels in the quality and capacity of its higher education institutions. They serve as the cradle of home-grown human capital and are key to keeping the Golden State competitive. Unfortunately, California’s budget woes have led to tuition hikes and enrollment cuts. An economic turnaround will eventually recover lost jobs, but it is harder to recover a generation of lost human capital. As other regions intensify their recruiting efforts, it is more urgent than ever to continuously produce a home-grown talent pool.25

24. See, for example, Wadhwa (2009).

25. Although it is a different issue, Autor (2010) has shown that gains in educational attainment at the national level have not generally kept pace with the steep rise in the differential between the price of skilled and less-skilled labor. This indicates that employers can’t find enough skilled workers and college graduates. However, Salzman and lowell (2008) cautioned: “History suggests that policies designed to stockpile scientists and engineers are counter-productive” because unsound policies may turn excess demand into excess supply.


REfERENCESAutor, David. “The Polarization of Job Opportunities in the U.S. labor Market: Implications for Employment and

Earnings.” Center for American Progress and The Hamilton Project, 2010.

Beine, Michel, fréderic Docquier, and Hillel Rapoport. “Brain Drain and Human Capital formation in Developing Countries: Winners and losers.” The Economic Journal 118, no. 528 (2008): 631-52.

Damm, Anna Piil. “Ethnic Enclaves and Immigrant labour Market Outcomes: Quasi-Experimental Evidence.” Journal of Labor Economics 27, no. 2 (2009): 281-314.

Devol, Ross, Perry Wong, John Catapano, and Greg Robitshek. “America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development, and Risks for Metropolitan Areas.” Milken Institute Research Report. Santa Monica: Milken Institute, 1999.

Devol, Ross, Kevin Klowden, and Benjamin Yeo. “State Technology and Science Index 2010: Enduring lessons for the Intangible Economy.” Milken Institute Research Report. Santa Monica: Milken Institute, 2011.

Devol, Ross, Perry Wong, Junghoon Ki, Armen Bedroussian, and Rob Koepp. “America’s Biotech and life Science Clusters: San Diego’s Position and Economic Contributions.” Milken Institute Research Report. Santa Monica: Milken Institute, 2004.

Edin, Per-Anders, Peter fredriksson, and Olof Åslund. “Ethnic Enclaves and the Economic Success of Immigrants – Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, no. 1 (2003): 329-57.

frey, William H. “The Great American Migration Slowdown: Regional and Metropolitan Dimensions.” Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution, 2009.

Gabriel, Stuart A., Joe P. Mattey, and William l. Wascher. “The Demise of California Reconsidered: Interstate Migration over the Economic Cycle.” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Review (1995): 30-48.

laffer, Arthur B., Stephen Moore, and Jonathan Williams. “Rich States, Poor States: AlEC-laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index.” Washington D.C.: American legislative Exchange Council, 2009.

lee, Marlene, and Dia Adams. “Migration of Workers Affects Supply of Scientists and Engineers in U.S.” Population Reference Bureau, 2007.

Molloy, Raven, Christopher l. Smith, and Abigail Wozniak. “Internal Migration in the United States.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 25, no. 3 (2011): 173-196.

Molloy, Raven, and Abigail Wozniak. “labor Reallocation over the Business Cycle: New Evidence from Internal Migration.” Journal of Labor Economics (forthcoming).

Ruggles, Steven, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2010.

Rytina, Nancy. “Estimates of the legal Permanent Resident Population in 2009.” Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2010.

Salzman, Hal, and lindsay lowell. “Making the Grade.” Nature 453 (2008): 28-30.

Sasser, Alicia C. “voting with Their feet: Relative Economic Conditions and State Migration Patterns.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 40, nos. 2-3 (2010): 122-135.

Taylor, Mac. The 2011-2012 Budget: California’s Fiscal Outlook. Sacramento: California legislative Analyst’s Office, 2010.

Wadhwa, vivek. “A Reverse Brain Drain.” Issues in Science and Technology, Spring (2009).

1717

APPENDIxES

AppEnDix A: HigH-TECH EMplOyMEnT By inDuSTry, CAliFOrniA, 2009

26

26. The U.S. Bureau of labor Statistics defines location quotients as “ratios that compare the concentration of a resource or activity, such as employment, in a defined area to that of a larger area or base.” This table shows that California’s high-tech employment was more than 50 percent more concentrated than that of the U.S.

IndustryEmployment

(in thousands)Location quotient26

(relative to U.S.)

Motion Picture & video Industries 137.82 3.76

Computer & Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing 57.36 3.20

Other Information Services 33.17 2.28

Semiconductor & Other Electronic Component Manufacturing 89.68 2.20

Communications Equipment Manufacturing 27.53 2.13

Nav/Measuring/Medical/Control Instruments Manufacturing 93.24 2.05

Audio & video Equipment Manufacturing 5.66 2.33

Scientific R&D Services 114.88 1.73

Manufacturing & Reproducing Magnetic & Optical Media 5.11 1.71

Medical Equipment & Supplies Manufacturing 49.50 1.50

Software Publishers 44.96 1.62

Pharmaceutical & Medicine Manufacturing 43.48 1.42

Aerospace Products & Parts Manufacturing 71.26 1.34

Computer Systems Design & Related Services 195.44 1.28

Medical & Diagnostic laboratories 28.42 1.21

Architectural, Engineering & Related Services 164.76 1.15

Telecommunications 111.76 1.07

Commercial & Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing 11.32 1.09

Internet Service Providers, Web Search Portals, and Data Processing Services 19.28 0.72

All high-tech industries 1304.63 1.54

Sources: Moody’s Analytics, Milken Institute.


AppEnDix B: OuTFlOw FrOM CAliFOrniA’S HigH-TECH SECTOr

Employment statistics by industry are usually based on establishment survey data provided by the U.S. Bureau of labor Statistics. However, the ACS also identifies an individual’s sector of employment. We used the variable INDNAICS from IPUMS to determine whether an individual belonged to the high-tech sector.27

figure A1 shows the outflow rate of California’s high-tech workers, with the left panel documenting the move-ment of all high-tech workers and the right panel of high-tech workers holding a bachelor’s degree or above. Except year 2000, when the sample size was the smallest and the estimates the least precise, it is observed that the outflow patterns are very similar between generally skilled workers and high-tech workers, especially those who have graduated from a four-year college.

27. See Appendix A: High-tech Employment by Industry, California, 2009 for the detailed industry list. Notice, however, not every industry was included in the computation of high-tech outflow rates because the sample did not contain any individual who reported to work in some of these industries, for example, the industry of medical equipment and supplies manufacturing.

Figure A1: High-tech outflow rate, California

Note: Cross signs (x) denote estimates of outflow rates, whose 95 percent confidence intervals are marked by upper and lower bars (-). Each trend line is approximated by a sixth order polynomial.

A. All high-tech workers

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Percent —Skill out�ow—

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Percent —Skill out�ow—High-tech skill out�owHigh-tech skill out�ow

B. High-tech workers with bachelor’s or higher

19A P P E N D I x E S 19

AppEnDix C: DATA AnD METHODOlOgy

The American Community Survey provides annual statistics that were previously collected in the long form of the decennial census. We used the ACS data compiled by the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) for census years 2000 through 2009. We excluded from the sample two subgroups of population:

Those younger than 25. We choose 25 as the cut-off age because a high-skilled individual is defined by whether she or he holds a bachelor’s degree and above. Otherwise, we might overstate the skill bias of out-migration by listing as less-skilled workers the future college graduates who are not yet in the labor force.

Those older than 64 and not in the labor force. We excluded this sub-population of seniors because they are most likely to have retired and unlikely to rejoin the labor force. As a result, their skill levels are no lon-ger directly relevant to the economy.

for ease of notation, we implicitly exclude these two sub-groups when referring to a certain population. for ex-ample, when we refer to the number of skilled residents in California, we only subscribe to the number of Califor-nia residents holding a bachelor’s degree or above, having subtracted the number of those younger than 25 and older than 64 and out of the labor force. We did not exclude the working-age population that was not in the labor force (in a particular survey year) because those people may return to the labor force later. Hence, when we refer to the workforce in the main report, it is not strictly confined to the total of the employed and the unemployed.

In order to assess the first type of migration pattern in each state, i.e. whether an individual moved from her birth state in the past and remained out of state in a particular census year, we used individual sampling weights to produce estimates for

Notice that this is a stock concept. It approximates the accumulative net outflux of high-skilled natives.

In contrast, the second type of migration pattern concerns the annual outflow of residents in each state. for example, how many people who resided in California a year ago moved to other states within the past year? Again, we apply the individual sampling weights to generate estimates for

2

1


As the ACS data does not track international emigrants,28 both denominators include only people who live in the U.S. It is observed that the approximated standard errors of our estimates are much larger for years 2000–2004 than for years 2005–2009. There are two reasons behind it. first, the sample sizes in earlier years are much smaller.29 Second, using replicate weights to approximate standard errors is generally more accurate than applying design factors. However, as replicate weights are only available from 2005 onwards, design factors were used instead for 2000-2004 estimates.

In addition to the total skill outflow rate for each state, we compute the skill outflow rate of each group of different birthplaces as below:

And the skill outflow rate for STEM degree holders of different birthplaces was computed as follows:

In order to compare state specific outflows (including that of Washington, D.C.) to the national pattern, we compute the national aggregate of skilled native out-migration rate as

And, the national aggregate of skill outflow rate is computed as

finally, the skill inflow rate is computed as below.30

28. In fact, there are no existing datasets that measure emigration from the U.S. The migration patterns identified in this study are both intra-national migration. A report published by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Rytina, 2010) assumed an average annual rate of emigration at 1 percent for legal perma-nent residents. See Appendix D: Global Skill Outflow for the discussion on how the skill outflow rate will differ if international emigrants can be included.

29. The 2000 ACS is approximately a 1-in-750 sample, and each of the 2001-2004 ACS is a 1-in-250 sample. The 2005-2009 samples represent a full 1 percent of the population. See “What is the ACS?” on the IPUMS website, http://usa.ipums.org/usa/acs.shtml (accessed June 28, 2011).

30. Notice that the denominator of the skill inflow rate is the same as that of the skill outflow rate. The inflows are immediately comparable to the outflows.


AppEnDix D: glOBAl Skill OuTFlOw

let us denote S as the total skilled residents in state i at year t-1 who still resided in the U.S. at year t. let M stand for the number of skilled out-migrants from state i to other states between year t-1 and t, and similarly, M’ for the number of skilled out-migrants from state i to foreign countries between year t-1 and t. Hence, the skill outflow rate used in this study of domestic migration is

If we were to compute the global skill outflow rate, which takes into account international emigration, the rate would become

The difference is

And (R-R’) is non-decreasing in M and non-increasing in M’. It means that the gap between these two rates goes up when there are fewer domestic out-migrants and more international emigrants. Compared to the U.S. natives, it is reasonable to assume that this is more likely to be the case for foreign-born individuals, implying our domestic skill outflow rate of the foreign-born population will more seriously underestimate their skill outflow at the global scale. This difference can be significant. for example, assuming that 1 percent of foreign-born skilled residents return to their home countries annually (i.e., M’/(S+M’)=0.01)31 and that their domestic skill outflow rate amounts to 2 percent (i.e., M/S=0.02), we then obtain (R-R’) at about -0.98 percent, implying the global skill outflow rate to be 2.98 percent.

31. See footnote 28.


AppEnDix E: TABlES OF ESTiMATES

Note: The standard error is reported in the parentheses under each estimate.

Table A1: Interstate out-migration of skilled natives

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

u.S.A. 50.21% 49.98% 49.74% 49.48% 49.48% 49.56% 49.03% 49.15% 48.84% 48.76%

(0.0056) (0.0035) (0.0035) (0.0034) (0.0034) (0.0010) (0.0011) (0.0010) (0.0009) (0.0009)

Alabama 48.55% 48.15% 47.05% 48.39% 44.85% 47.53% 47.48% 47.67% 46.55% 46.70%

(0.0437) (0.0283) (0.0275) (0.0266) (0.0270) (0.0082) (0.0071) (0.0068) (0.0077) (0.0073)

Alaska 91.02% 80.00% 78.81% 89.33% 88.12% 87.19% 84.85% 85.03% 84.73% 82.64%

(0.0877) (0.0739) (0.0749) (0.0405) (0.0406) (0.0151) (0.0163) (0.0169) (0.0139) (0.0159)

Arizona 54.25% 61.18% 59.41% 56.73% 55.66% 52.69% 51.29% 52.05% 50.04% 52.26%

(0.0715) (0.0444) (0.0437) (0.0426) (0.0431) (0.0116) (0.0105) (0.0107) (0.0103) (0.0116)

Arkansas 59.33% 55.72% 49.35% 51.27% 55.79% 54.04% 50.54% 51.43% 52.33% 52.83%

(0.0588) (0.0373) (0.0372) (0.0364) (0.0364) (0.0109) (0.0103) (0.0105) (0.0112) (0.0099)

California 33.74% 34.98% 35.18% 33.57% 34.48% 35.38% 34.95% 35.53% 35.34% 35.30%

(0.0191) (0.0120) (0.0117) (0.0114) (0.0113) (0.0029) (0.0030) (0.0031) (0.0028) (0.0029)

Colorado 54.84% 52.99% 56.51% 53.60% 58.03% 51.01% 52.95% 53.26% 53.33% 54.40%

(0.0515) (0.0327) (0.0319) (0.0321) (0.0315) (0.0087) (0.0082) (0.0077) (0.0069) (0.0077)

Connecticut 50.25% 55.87% 56.21% 53.69% 56.81% 54.79% 55.30% 55.23% 54.65% 54.95%

(0.0440) (0.0273) (0.0267) (0.0271) (0.0258) (0.0064) (0.0061) (0.0074) (0.0061) (0.0062)

Delaware 64.09% 65.67% 60.48% 65.43% 63.63% 67.39% 64.11% 66.11% 69.68% 64.49%

(0.1086) (0.0673) (0.0695) (0.0627) (0.0627) (0.0193) (0.0161) (0.0166) (0.0176) (0.0174)

District of Columbia 94.19% 93.17% 93.96% 93.61% 92.47% 94.79% 93.48% 92.55% 93.73% 93.04%

(0.0280) (0.0185) (0.0175) (0.0175) (0.0192) (0.0037) (0.0051) (0.0053) (0.0044) (0.0049)

Florida 50.91% 50.09% 49.94% 48.15% 48.76% 50.06% 47.60% 47.49% 48.51% 48.00%

(0.0391) (0.0248) (0.0242) (0.0236) (0.0227) (0.0079) (0.0059) (0.0056) (0.0059) (0.0063)

georgia 44.09% 41.05% 41.92% 40.16% 41.46% 42.63% 40.49% 41.26% 41.78% 41.62%

(0.0400) (0.0255) (0.0253) (0.0246) (0.0246) (0.0066) (0.0063) (0.0063) (0.0068) (0.0056)

Hawaii 53.01% 48.82% 49.51% 50.10% 51.44% 52.70% 52.97% 53.05% 53.50% 55.64%

(0.0775) (0.0522) (0.0522) (0.0492) (0.0479) (0.0123) (0.0125) (0.0126) (0.0137) (0.0129)

idaho 55.84% 65.91% 60.65% 64.80% 64.70% 65.43% 65.63% 62.94% 61.99% 63.11%

(0.0927) (0.0500) (0.0555) (0.0509) (0.0499) (0.0141) (0.0124) (0.0134) (0.0130) (0.0130)

illinois 52.72% 49.76% 51.60% 50.47% 50.13% 50.17% 49.59% 49.73% 49.88% 49.81%

(0.0225) (0.0143) (0.0138) (0.0140) (0.0138) (0.0035) (0.0036) (0.0038) (0.0037) (0.0032)

indiana 57.85% 51.52% 54.58% 54.03% 53.13% 54.79% 53.65% 53.20% 52.63% 52.49%

(0.0353) (0.0226) (0.0220) (0.0219) (0.0218) (0.0058) (0.0058) (0.0062) (0.0058) (0.0063)

iowa 61.41% 63.03% 62.15% 62.60% 60.30% 61.89% 60.53% 62.08% 60.33% 61.11%

(0.0408) (0.0255) (0.0254) (0.0253) (0.0248) (0.0079) (0.0081) (0.0064) (0.0084) (0.0058)

kansas 59.79% 60.32% 61.10% 59.88% 59.77% 58.16% 56.78% 56.79% 57.25% 58.00%

(0.0493) (0.0299) (0.0294) (0.0288) (0.0292) (0.0084) (0.0081) (0.0093) (0.0075) (0.0072)

kentucky 51.85% 48.96% 46.25% 47.56% 49.47% 49.59% 47.19% 48.24% 47.60% 46.42%

(0.0521) (0.0307) (0.0301) (0.0299) (0.0290) (0.0090) (0.0075) (0.0074) (0.0081) (0.0071)

louisiana 47.37% 49.96% 48.50% 44.59% 44.94% 47.22% 49.61% 51.66% 47.17% 47.44%

(0.0443) (0.0271) (0.0264) (0.0261) (0.0262) (0.0082) (0.0075) (0.0078) (0.0072) (0.0079)


Table A1: Interstate out-migration of skilled natives (continued)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Maine 55.98% 57.17% 51.58% 54.91% 50.01% 56.26% 51.74% 52.85% 58.49% 53.57%

(0.0786) (0.0504) (0.0501) (0.0482) (0.0488) (0.0143) (0.0149) (0.0139) (0.0157) (0.0152)

Maryland 54.38% 52.70% 51.81% 50.74% 51.78% 53.61% 52.58% 53.99% 52.81% 53.09%

(0.0461) (0.0287) (0.0285) (0.0277) (0.0274) (0.0076) (0.0075) (0.0072) (0.0069) (0.0058)

Massachusetts 45.70% 46.84% 47.28% 48.30% 47.76% 48.49% 48.11% 48.08% 47.88% 46.92%

(0.0294) (0.0184) (0.0183) (0.0183) (0.0177) (0.0051) (0.0052) (0.0047) (0.0051) (0.0044)

Michigan 46.78% 45.56% 45.45% 45.83% 46.35% 45.53% 45.84% 46.51% 46.16% 46.92%

(0.0264) (0.0167) (0.0165) (0.0163) (0.0161) (0.0053) (0.0043) (0.0050) (0.0049) (0.0046)

Minnesota 45.05% 44.92% 43.52% 43.34% 44.23% 43.98% 43.21% 42.18% 42.59% 41.92%

(0.0362) (0.0231) (0.0223) (0.0227) (0.0221) (0.0071) (0.0061) (0.0052) (0.0066) (0.0060)

Mississippi 54.99% 51.88% 55.70% 51.99% 53.99% 55.91% 54.82% 54.73% 54.65% 51.46%

(0.0550) (0.0337) (0.0328) (0.0341) (0.0327) (0.0113) (0.0094) (0.0099) (0.0093) (0.0083)

Missouri 54.65% 54.56% 52.68% 52.04% 52.26% 52.89% 51.03% 51.08% 50.88% 51.21%

(0.0356) (0.0230) (0.0226) (0.0223) (0.0221) (0.0060) (0.0067) (0.0065) (0.0055) (0.0060)

Montana 65.65% 64.47% 62.97% 63.46% 64.84% 62.85% 64.39% 64.33% 64.58% 63.41%

(0.0775) (0.0521) (0.0518) (0.0493) (0.0481) (0.0162) (0.0157) (0.0152) (0.0130) (0.0150)

nebraska 58.89% 58.02% 62.40% 59.03% 56.89% 59.29% 58.42% 58.22% 57.36% 58.28%

(0.0543) (0.0359) (0.0342) (0.0346) (0.0343) (0.0099) (0.0097) (0.0102) (0.0091) (0.0096)

nevada 59.89% 73.36% 60.32% 66.94% 67.54% 64.15% 63.44% 62.01% 62.09% 62.12%

(0.1480) (0.0760) (0.0892) (0.0797) (0.0771) (0.0210) (0.0212) (0.0249) (0.0231) (0.0177)

new Hampshire 57.52% 60.41% 60.24% 60.79% 59.12% 64.24% 59.92% 59.69% 60.84% 62.58%

(0.0933) (0.0582) (0.0602) (0.0564) (0.0602) (0.0151) (0.0161) (0.0170) (0.0155) (0.0167)

new Jersey 54.36% 53.39% 54.64% 54.37% 54.78% 54.18% 54.07% 54.86% 54.15% 54.45%

(0.0287) (0.0178) (0.0178) (0.0176) (0.0175) (0.0050) (0.0045) (0.0039) (0.0051) (0.0045)

new Mexico 69.19% 61.72% 62.04% 61.22% 64.32% 61.67% 63.00% 61.32% 60.30% 63.16%

(0.0685) (0.0484) (0.0477) (0.0475) (0.0453) (0.0134) (0.0127) (0.0138) (0.0128) (0.0137)

new york 53.64% 54.89% 54.17% 53.66% 54.46% 53.49% 53.52% 53.93% 53.22% 52.66%

(0.0165) (0.0105) (0.0104) (0.0102) (0.0101) (0.0028) (0.0026) (0.0025) (0.0030) (0.0027)

north Carolina 42.47% 41.54% 42.35% 41.03% 40.31% 40.37% 40.42% 39.80% 39.69% 40.59%

(0.0371) (0.0235) (0.0230) (0.0225) (0.0222) (0.0063) (0.0062) (0.0065) (0.0061) (0.0068)

north Dakota 68.49% 68.06% 70.10% 67.12% 66.49% 67.92% 67.41% 68.44% 68.35% 66.90%

(0.0735) (0.0468) (0.0466) (0.0474) (0.0482) (0.0132) (0.0145) (0.0111) (0.0129) (0.0127)

Ohio 52.28% 50.56% 50.04% 50.24% 50.34% 50.61% 50.91% 49.39% 49.42% 49.46%

(0.0246) (0.0155) (0.0156) (0.0153) (0.0148) (0.0043) (0.0041) (0.0041) (0.0038) (0.0041)

Oklahoma 57.67% 56.53% 56.70% 56.31% 55.47% 53.39% 54.31% 52.76% 52.99% 52.70%

(0.0467) (0.0309) (0.0310) (0.0295) (0.0304) (0.0097) (0.0084) (0.0083) (0.0085) (0.0077)

Oregon 48.79% 50.32% 51.52% 51.71% 50.22% 51.54% 50.95% 50.45% 50.86% 49.45%

(0.0576) (0.0374) (0.0379) (0.0371) (0.0352) (0.0101) (0.0100) (0.0102) (0.0092) (0.0084)

pennsylvania 52.09% 52.33% 51.16% 52.08% 51.39% 50.74% 50.55% 50.24% 50.22% 49.99%

(0.0220) (0.0138) (0.0138) (0.0136) (0.0135) (0.0038) (0.0032) (0.0042) (0.0041) (0.0039)

rhode island 64.75% 57.73% 57.70% 56.04% 60.76% 60.22% 55.51% 58.95% 57.73% 58.25%

(0.0711) (0.0460) (0.0464) (0.0458) (0.0447) (0.0134) (0.0113) (0.0123) (0.0121) (0.0119)

South Carolina 52.99% 46.75% 46.49% 49.46% 48.90% 48.59% 46.10% 46.21% 45.19% 46.12%

(0.0527) (0.0330) (0.0328) (0.0319) (0.0320) (0.0079) (0.0097) (0.0094) (0.0091) (0.0081)


Table A1: Interstate out-migration of skilled natives (continued)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

South Dakota 68.58% 68.89% 67.27% 70.57% 69.10% 68.04% 67.47% 65.22% 65.76% 67.20%

(0.0692) (0.0458) (0.0470) (0.0437) (0.0447) (0.0149) (0.0145) (0.0133) (0.0149) (0.0153)

Tennessee 46.13% 46.23% 46.06% 46.73% 43.26% 46.45% 45.05% 47.07% 45.89% 44.59%

(0.0417) (0.0276) (0.0272) (0.0265) (0.0261) (0.0070) (0.0074) (0.0061) (0.0071) (0.0069)

Texas 30.90% 31.51% 31.73% 31.19% 30.97% 31.05% 30.90% 30.98% 30.62% 31.01%

(0.0229) (0.0146) (0.0143) (0.0141) (0.0137) (0.0042) (0.0038) (0.0036) (0.0037) (0.0038)

utah 45.65% 49.49% 43.51% 49.54% 44.54% 45.56% 45.27% 45.48% 42.82% 42.16%

(0.0672) (0.0411) (0.0395) (0.0401) (0.0390) (0.0103) (0.0100) (0.0096) (0.0104) (0.0081)

Vermont 61.56% 62.96% 66.40% 62.14% 60.80% 62.82% 63.15% 62.87% 62.93% 66.55%

(0.1184) (0.0757) (0.0677) (0.0712) (0.0748) (0.0226) (0.0207) (0.0260) (0.0206) (0.0195)

Virginia 52.36% 52.66% 51.14% 51.46% 53.21% 53.24% 53.28% 53.09% 53.02% 53.42%

(0.0413) (0.0250) (0.0250) (0.0245) (0.0241) (0.0067) (0.0064) (0.0062) (0.0062) (0.0065)

washington 42.58% 43.89% 47.67% 44.81% 44.68% 45.40% 43.84% 44.85% 44.46% 44.32%

(0.0429) (0.0275) (0.0277) (0.0269) (0.0264) (0.0082) (0.0068) (0.0076) (0.0066) (0.0060)

west Virginia 70.55% 68.43% 62.53% 66.22% 66.34% 63.35% 63.94% 62.73% 63.29% 63.85%

(0.0538) (0.0354) (0.0380) (0.0351) (0.0358) (0.0122) (0.0112) (0.0111) (0.0101) (0.0095)

wisconsin 45.53% 48.83% 48.10% 49.08% 47.99% 47.70% 46.32% 47.46% 46.98% 46.66%

(0.0355) (0.0224) (0.0226) (0.0221) (0.0216) (0.0056) (0.0063) (0.0067) (0.0055) (0.0054)

wyoming 71.45% 79.20% 76.09% 76.99% 74.49% 75.92% 76.42% 75.61% 74.86% 75.61%

(0.1148) (0.0623) (0.0672) (0.0645) (0.0635) (0.0170) (0.0187) (0.0156) (0.0147) (0.0172)

Table A2: Interstate out-migration of less-skilled natives

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

u.S.A. 34.61% 34.55% 34.55% 34.51% 34.60% 34.50% 34.29% 34.28% 34.19% 34.03%

(0.0032) (0.0021) (0.0021) (0.0021) (0.0021) (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0005) (0.0006) (0.0006)

Alabama 36.95% 34.82% 34.60% 33.79% 32.65% 33.22% 32.93% 33.30% 32.20% 31.15%

(0.0218) (0.0137) (0.0138) (0.0138) (0.0137) (0.0042) (0.0031) (0.0039) (0.0043) (0.0039)

Alaska 51.34% 57.38% 59.80% 78.06% 78.86% 73.00% 70.62% 69.64% 75.60% 70.10%

(0.0921) (0.0544) (0.0518) (0.0319) (0.0313) (0.0114) (0.0124) (0.0132) (0.0098) (0.0110)

Arizona 45.38% 39.45% 36.56% 39.00% 36.51% 37.70% 36.62% 35.25% 35.55% 34.29%

(0.0377) (0.0230) (0.0223) (0.0229) (0.0226) (0.0067) (0.0071) (0.0069) (0.0069) (0.0062)

Arkansas 47.09% 46.97% 46.40% 44.95% 44.80% 42.32% 41.86% 41.50% 39.64% 39.02%

(0.0298) (0.0191) (0.0188) (0.0193) (0.0189) (0.0066) (0.0055) (0.0061) (0.0047) (0.0051)

California 30.74% 32.63% 31.94% 32.17% 32.83% 33.27% 33.01% 33.21% 33.19% 33.40%

(0.0113) (0.0074) (0.0072) (0.0071) (0.0071) (0.0024) (0.0022) (0.0019) (0.0022) (0.0022)

Colorado 44.93% 44.27% 42.50% 43.55% 43.86% 45.29% 41.69% 42.49% 42.34% 43.46%

(0.0337) (0.0218) (0.0210) (0.0207) (0.0209) (0.0058) (0.0059) (0.0059) (0.0062) (0.0059)

Connecticut 37.25% 35.02% 38.31% 36.45% 38.53% 37.06% 37.40% 37.94% 38.88% 37.80%

(0.0323) (0.0196) (0.0203) (0.0198) (0.0199) (0.0067) (0.0051) (0.0055) (0.0061) (0.0053)

Delaware 31.35% 36.04% 34.73% 35.50% 38.80% 40.50% 42.52% 40.18% 39.90% 39.66%

(0.0661) (0.0429) (0.0426) (0.0422) (0.0426) (0.0156) (0.0133) (0.0133) (0.0132) (0.0144)


Table A2: Interstate out-migration of less-skilled natives (continued)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


(0.0360) (0.0222) (0.0217) (0.0214) (0.0214) (0.0055) (0.0054) (0.0052) (0.0059) (0.0048)

Florida 32.71% 33.90% 32.35% 33.35% 32.27% 33.61% 32.74% 32.69% 32.52% 33.12%

(0.0206) (0.0133) (0.0130) (0.0131) (0.0127) (0.0044) (0.0042) (0.0037) (0.0038) (0.0034)

georgia 26.72% 26.72% 26.24% 27.29% 26.75% 27.98% 26.28% 26.27% 26.31% 25.79%

(0.0176) (0.0114) (0.0112) (0.0115) (0.0114) (0.0034) (0.0036) (0.0033) (0.0033) (0.0034)

Hawaii 38.12% 39.13% 39.24% 38.75% 41.36% 41.46% 40.87% 42.05% 42.91% 42.88%

(0.0508) (0.0333) (0.0328) (0.0326) (0.0334) (0.0097) (0.0088) (0.0094) (0.0090) (0.0082)

idaho 47.22% 48.72% 48.75% 49.72% 49.86% 47.03% 47.15% 46.70% 48.69% 48.06%

(0.0497) (0.0329) (0.0327) (0.0320) (0.0330) (0.0089) (0.0090) (0.0085) (0.0091) (0.0098)

illinois 37.74% 37.60% 37.67% 37.66% 37.99% 37.68% 38.12% 38.14% 38.64% 38.32%

(0.0148) (0.0094) (0.0094) (0.0094) (0.0095) (0.0027) (0.0026) (0.0027) (0.0026) (0.0027)

indiana 32.83% 33.36% 33.62% 32.83% 32.70% 32.52% 31.94% 32.36% 32.84% 32.27%

(0.0190) (0.0121) (0.0121) (0.0120) (0.0121) (0.0033) (0.0034) (0.0032) (0.0036) (0.0031)

iowa 41.71% 41.07% 40.95% 39.45% 41.37% 40.20% 40.15% 38.91% 39.77% 39.51%

(0.0266) (0.0170) (0.0169) (0.0170) (0.0170) (0.0050) (0.0050) (0.0045) (0.0049) (0.0051)

kansas 48.81% 48.92% 48.88% 48.65% 49.02% 46.66% 47.01% 47.12% 46.32% 47.10%

(0.0305) (0.0201) (0.0199) (0.0201) (0.0198) (0.0052) (0.0049) (0.0060) (0.0055) (0.0051)

kentucky 33.67% 34.40% 33.73% 33.16% 32.71% 33.78% 33.13% 32.56% 31.71% 32.24%

(0.0217) (0.0141) (0.0141) (0.0142) (0.0140) (0.0037) (0.0040) (0.0034) (0.0036) (0.0038)

louisiana 30.04% 30.40% 30.40% 30.56% 30.34% 32.10% 33.56% 33.17% 31.87% 32.05%

(0.0214) (0.0137) (0.0136) (0.0135) (0.0135) (0.0047) (0.0039) (0.0046) (0.0040) (0.0034)

Maine 33.63% 33.65% 34.93% 45.67% 45.85% 44.67% 42.88% 42.75% 40.58% 42.43%

(0.0412) (0.0264) (0.0264) (0.0258) (0.0255) (0.0091) (0.0074) (0.0085) (0.0081) (0.0074)

Maryland 34.97% 35.38% 33.31% 34.25% 34.55% 35.23% 35.32% 36.01% 36.69% 35.54%

(0.0264) (0.0168) (0.0165) (0.0168) (0.0167) (0.0053) (0.0044) (0.0050) (0.0056) (0.0044)

Massachusetts 36.47% 36.23% 37.31% 37.66% 37.89% 37.65% 39.00% 38.33% 38.61% 38.42%

(0.0212) (0.0134) (0.0134) (0.0137) (0.0137) (0.0043) (0.0037) (0.0039) (0.0038) (0.0038)

Michigan 28.48% 27.66% 28.56% 28.67% 28.31% 28.59% 28.74% 28.41% 29.01% 29.27%

(0.0145) (0.0091) (0.0092) (0.0092) (0.0091) (0.0030) (0.0024) (0.0025) (0.0029) (0.0026)

Minnesota 28.98% 28.63% 30.88% 29.10% 28.43% 29.30% 28.00% 28.30% 28.52% 27.86%

(0.0222) (0.0138) (0.0143) (0.0141) (0.0140) (0.0049) (0.0037) (0.0037) (0.0040) (0.0036)

Mississippi 42.87% 44.94% 44.10% 42.76% 41.73% 42.92% 42.67% 42.51% 41.07% 41.92%

(0.0264) (0.0171) (0.0169) (0.0172) (0.0171) (0.0059) (0.0048) (0.0055) (0.0049) (0.0046)

Missouri 37.74% 35.71% 34.83% 34.16% 33.02% 33.53% 33.22% 32.26% 32.23% 31.99%

(0.0214) (0.0135) (0.0134) (0.0134) (0.0133) (0.0042) (0.0037) (0.0038) (0.0040) (0.0039)

Montana 47.07% 49.88% 48.08% 49.82% 52.57% 48.97% 48.09% 47.75% 49.27% 46.25%

(0.0538) (0.0346) (0.0345) (0.0348) (0.0344) (0.0109) (0.0097) (0.0096) (0.0108) (0.0093)

nebraska 45.15% 45.22% 45.85% 43.86% 43.42% 44.15% 45.16% 44.76% 43.63% 43.46%

(0.0373) (0.0236) (0.0236) (0.0238) (0.0238) (0.0071) (0.0071) (0.0064) (0.0077) (0.0074)

nevada 45.03% 43.36% 49.32% 49.02% 46.26% 51.89% 50.45% 50.26% 50.26% 49.28%

(0.0753) (0.0439) (0.0491) (0.0461) (0.0484) (0.0129) (0.0138) (0.0141) (0.0147) (0.0152)

new Hampshire 38.82% 39.85% 39.88% 41.68% 38.79% 39.53% 41.51% 41.08% 42.19% 43.47%

(0.0575) (0.0354) (0.0367) (0.0365) (0.0363) (0.0104) (0.0099) (0.0114) (0.0108) (0.0121)


Table A2: Interstate out-migration of less-skilled natives (continued)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

new Jersey 39.17% 37.26% 38.67% 37.16% 39.96% 39.78% 40.65% 40.83% 41.82% 41.34%

(0.0208) (0.0131) (0.0133) (0.0133) (0.0134) (0.0042) (0.0037) (0.0039) (0.0037) (0.0037)

new Mexico 50.76% 44.97% 46.12% 44.24% 45.92% 43.34% 44.67% 45.96% 43.77% 43.80%

(0.0404) (0.0263) (0.0264) (0.0271) (0.0257) (0.0092) (0.0071) (0.0080) (0.0065) (0.0067)

new york 39.79% 38.95% 40.24% 39.92% 40.33% 40.17% 40.64% 41.20% 40.91% 40.72%

(0.0123) (0.0077) (0.0078) (0.0078) (0.0078) (0.0024) (0.0024) (0.0022) (0.0023) (0.0024)

north Carolina 26.61% 25.72% 26.41% 26.29% 25.35% 25.94% 24.84% 25.09% 24.74% 25.13%

(0.0171) (0.0109) (0.0109) (0.0109) (0.0108) (0.0035) (0.0034) (0.0030) (0.0032) (0.0030)

north Dakota 56.30% 56.29% 52.97% 53.57% 51.63% 52.43% 53.25% 54.35% 53.82% 53.42%

(0.0518) (0.0327) (0.0347) (0.0347) (0.0349) (0.0093) (0.0114) (0.0091) (0.0118) (0.0094)

Ohio 30.72% 30.17% 30.08% 30.32% 30.51% 30.50% 30.12% 30.71% 30.29% 29.70%

(0.0136) (0.0086) (0.0086) (0.0087) (0.0086) (0.0023) (0.0023) (0.0023) (0.0025) (0.0023)

Oklahoma 42.85% 42.65% 42.34% 40.68% 40.98% 39.25% 37.84% 37.78% 36.67% 37.36%

(0.0288) (0.0179) (0.0179) (0.0180) (0.0181) (0.0058) (0.0055) (0.0058) (0.0050) (0.0051)

Oregon 38.88% 39.77% 39.17% 39.00% 41.10% 39.12% 39.30% 38.80% 38.25% 39.69%

(0.0343) (0.0223) (0.0221) (0.0217) (0.0218) (0.0065) (0.0065) (0.0064) (0.0067) (0.0065)

pennsylvania 30.22% 30.28% 29.80% 30.04% 30.11% 30.30% 30.27% 30.39% 29.83% 29.29%

(0.0128) (0.0082) (0.0082) (0.0082) (0.0083) (0.0027) (0.0020) (0.0023) (0.0025) (0.0018)

rhode island 39.59% 42.29% 40.67% 43.56% 43.27% 40.22% 41.74% 42.17% 43.82% 43.75%

(0.0519) (0.0329) (0.0322) (0.0327) (0.0328) (0.0109) (0.0095) (0.0091) (0.0084) (0.0096)

South Carolina 35.95% 32.77% 33.11% 32.54% 32.55% 30.69% 30.07% 30.40% 30.11% 29.77%

(0.0257) (0.0160) (0.0158) (0.0159) (0.0162) (0.0051) (0.0052) (0.0045) (0.0045) (0.0041)

South Dakota 55.06% 52.73% 54.63% 53.28% 52.45% 51.97% 52.23% 49.59% 48.18% 49.84%

(0.0520) (0.0329) (0.0324) (0.0330) (0.0328) (0.0096) (0.0092) (0.0101) (0.0088) (0.0093)

Tennessee 30.20% 29.68% 29.65% 29.22% 28.68% 30.20% 29.28% 28.92% 28.60% 28.69%

(0.0208) (0.0130) (0.0130) (0.0129) (0.0130) (0.0041) (0.0036) (0.0039) (0.0039) (0.0037)

Texas 22.53% 23.56% 23.15% 23.12% 23.26% 22.68% 22.29% 22.50% 22.29% 22.16%

(0.0115) (0.0075) (0.0073) (0.0073) (0.0073) (0.0020) (0.0023) (0.0020) (0.0021) (0.0020)

utah 34.10% 33.80% 34.15% 32.14% 33.73% 30.75% 33.05% 29.70% 31.82% 30.37%

(0.0405) (0.0245) (0.0244) (0.0239) (0.0238) (0.0080) (0.0068) (0.0071) (0.0060) (0.0070)

Vermont 43.31% 43.27% 41.48% 41.55% 42.11% 38.58% 41.71% 42.17% 40.47% 39.40%

(0.0663) (0.0413) (0.0425) (0.0424) (0.0424) (0.0127) (0.0125) (0.0132) (0.0120) (0.0112)

Virginia 36.17% 34.53% 35.31% 34.40% 35.40% 34.30% 34.41% 34.85% 34.22% 34.61%

(0.0218) (0.0138) (0.0138) (0.0138) (0.0139) (0.0038) (0.0038) (0.0040) (0.0040) (0.0036)

washington 30.93% 33.98% 34.02% 34.06% 35.39% 33.90% 33.60% 32.65% 33.69% 33.28%

(0.0257) (0.0170) (0.0167) (0.0165) (0.0169) (0.0057) (0.0051) (0.0051) (0.0050) (0.0050)

west Virginia 49.66% 52.89% 52.09% 51.37% 50.84% 47.86% 47.02% 47.28% 47.10% 46.39%

(0.0292) (0.0185) (0.0187) (0.0191) (0.0190) (0.0058) (0.0051) (0.0047) (0.0045) (0.0049)

wisconsin 25.09% 26.13% 25.70% 25.51% 24.42% 25.11% 25.60% 24.90% 24.89% 24.78%

(0.0198) (0.0126) (0.0126) (0.0126) (0.0125) (0.0036) (0.0038) (0.0039) (0.0034) (0.0033)

wyoming 64.32% 62.88% 61.72% 61.67% 61.22% 59.69% 60.17% 59.28% 60.44% 60.42%

(0.0752) (0.0472) (0.0471) (0.0471) (0.0472) (0.0136) (0.0122) (0.0133) (0.0115) (0.0120)


Table A3: Interstate skill outflows, all

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

u.S.A. 3.59% 3.42% 3.22% 3.17% 3.18% 3.28% 3.30% 3.10% 2.99% 2.82%

(0.0020) (0.0012) (0.0012) (0.0011) (0.0011) (0.0004) (0.0003) (0.0004) (0.0003) (0.0003)

Alabama 3.89% 3.98% 2.68% 2.84% 3.04% 3.44% 3.00% 2.93% 3.07% 3.08%

(0.0184) (0.0120) (0.0096) (0.0097) (0.0098) (0.0032) (0.0030) (0.0028) (0.0029) (0.0033)

Alaska 5.50% 5.10% 8.75% 10.13% 11.23% 7.11% 6.09% 10.97% 10.53% 7.37%

(0.0527) (0.0315) (0.0375) (0.0409) (0.0417) (0.0136) (0.0102) (0.0133) (0.0147) (0.0114)

Arizona 4.22% 4.35% 4.56% 4.50% 3.79% 3.61% 4.41% 4.26% 3.74% 4.13%

(0.0171) (0.0111) (0.0110) (0.0106) (0.0096) (0.0029) (0.0037) (0.0035) (0.0030) (0.0035)

Arkansas 4.43% 3.68% 3.08% 1.97% 3.34% 2.46% 3.14% 3.12% 4.09% 2.75%

(0.0286) (0.0156) (0.0135) (0.0112) (0.0146) (0.0035) (0.0033) (0.0050) (0.0059) (0.0036)

California 2.27% 2.44% 2.22% 2.02% 2.47% 2.61% 2.39% 2.20% 1.93% 1.81%

(0.0045) (0.0029) (0.0027) (0.0025) (0.0028) (0.0009) (0.0008) (0.0008) (0.0009) (0.0008)

Colorado 4.46% 3.68% 4.97% 4.54% 3.13% 3.82% 4.05% 3.90% 3.71% 3.09%

(0.0152) (0.0088) (0.0099) (0.0093) (0.0080) (0.0026) (0.0029) (0.0024) (0.0027) (0.0025)

Connecticut 3.58% 3.24% 2.92% 3.44% 3.49% 2.79% 3.72% 3.28% 2.95% 2.36%

(0.0154) (0.0093) (0.0088) (0.0093) (0.0092) (0.0027) (0.0027) (0.0028) (0.0027) (0.0019)

Delaware 8.17% 3.00% 4.13% 4.19% 4.04% 4.31% 4.14% 3.86% 4.91% 3.77%

(0.0540) (0.0220) (0.0248) (0.0241) (0.0230) (0.0083) (0.0073) (0.0078) (0.0090) (0.0070)


(0.0584) (0.0326) (0.0304) (0.0311) (0.0305) (0.0097) (0.0106) (0.0106) (0.0098) (0.0092)

Florida 4.34% 3.20% 2.69% 2.60% 2.80% 3.12% 3.36% 3.42% 3.17% 3.02%

(0.0096) (0.0052) (0.0047) (0.0045) (0.0046) (0.0020) (0.0017) (0.0018) (0.0014) (0.0013)

georgia 4.88% 3.75% 4.22% 3.61% 3.75% 3.98% 3.34% 3.27% 3.13% 3.14%

(0.0141) (0.0076) (0.0079) (0.0071) (0.0072) (0.0024) (0.0022) (0.0018) (0.0020) (0.0020)

Hawaii 7.80% 5.86% 7.13% 4.20% 6.10% 4.79% 5.84% 5.93% 6.30% 5.58%

(0.0395) (0.0234) (0.0247) (0.0192) (0.0220) (0.0064) (0.0070) (0.0081) (0.0072) (0.0066)

idaho 5.01% 4.50% 4.63% 3.52% 5.88% 4.00% 4.78% 4.06% 4.70% 5.61%

(0.0367) (0.0224) (0.0223) (0.0189) (0.0238) (0.0052) (0.0062) (0.0059) (0.0056) (0.0075)

illinois 2.85% 2.71% 2.92% 3.27% 2.56% 3.06% 2.89% 2.94% 3.04% 2.83%

(0.0081) (0.0049) (0.0050) (0.0053) (0.0046) (0.0016) (0.0014) (0.0018) (0.0019) (0.0017)

indiana 4.61% 4.43% 3.36% 3.32% 3.04% 3.85% 3.48% 3.27% 3.09% 3.01%

(0.0172) (0.0103) (0.0091) (0.0090) (0.0085) (0.0032) (0.0034) (0.0027) (0.0025) (0.0026)

iowa 3.05% 4.16% 4.48% 3.03% 4.30% 3.65% 2.86% 2.64% 3.01% 2.38%

(0.0191) (0.0140) (0.0144) (0.0119) (0.0135) (0.0040) (0.0030) (0.0036) (0.0036) (0.0036)

kansas 3.62% 5.30% 4.85% 5.60% 3.14% 4.49% 4.30% 3.45% 4.16% 4.13%

(0.0201) (0.0148) (0.0143) (0.0147) (0.0113) (0.0046) (0.0048) (0.0045) (0.0043) (0.0039)

kentucky 5.21% 3.82% 3.66% 3.56% 3.88% 3.89% 2.93% 3.17% 3.48% 3.29%

(0.0251) (0.0126) (0.0119) (0.0120) (0.0122) (0.0039) (0.0038) (0.0034) (0.0037) (0.0039)

louisiana 3.46% 3.96% 4.38% 2.33% 2.58% 4.29% 8.03% 3.79% 3.75% 2.63%

(0.0176) (0.0123) (0.0123) (0.0090) (0.0093) (0.0041) (0.0059) (0.0040) (0.0043) (0.0027)

Maine 4.08% 3.22% 3.58% 3.86% 1.78% 3.99% 2.69% 3.23% 2.82% 2.69%

(0.0324) (0.0181) (0.0186) (0.0186) (0.0128) (0.0066) (0.0044) (0.0053) (0.0052) (0.0044)

Maryland 4.89% 4.24% 3.26% 4.12% 3.43% 4.33% 3.94% 4.09% 3.77% 3.50%

(0.0146) (0.0085) (0.0074) (0.0081) (0.0074) (0.0030) (0.0024) (0.0028) (0.0026) (0.0021)


Table A3: Interstate skill outflows, all (continued)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Massachusetts 4.04% 3.87% 3.19% 4.20% 3.62% 3.48% 3.75% 3.48% 2.88% 2.60%

(0.0116) (0.0070) (0.0064) (0.0072) (0.0066) (0.0021) (0.0018) (0.0022) (0.0019) (0.0019)

Michigan 2.73% 2.44% 2.56% 2.27% 2.44% 2.64% 2.95% 3.04% 3.01% 2.74%

(0.0096) (0.0057) (0.0058) (0.0054) (0.0056) (0.0021) (0.0017) (0.0025) (0.0019) (0.0019)

Minnesota 3.23% 2.49% 2.42% 2.30% 2.25% 3.17% 2.53% 2.18% 2.48% 2.52%

(0.0134) (0.0073) (0.0071) (0.0067) (0.0067) (0.0032) (0.0023) (0.0020) (0.0026) (0.0019)

Mississippi 5.14% 2.39% 3.95% 3.98% 2.16% 4.31% 4.59% 4.43% 3.25% 3.70%

(0.0283) (0.0122) (0.0159) (0.0156) (0.0114) (0.0056) (0.0058) (0.0053) (0.0045) (0.0047)

Missouri 4.22% 3.83% 3.99% 3.36% 3.88% 3.50% 3.99% 3.57% 2.97% 2.60%

(0.0156) (0.0095) (0.0094) (0.0087) (0.0091) (0.0029) (0.0035) (0.0034) (0.0022) (0.0020)

Montana 1.82% 4.18% 4.45% 5.67% 4.48% 4.06% 2.94% 3.11% 3.99% 3.00%

(0.0248) (0.0239) (0.0248) (0.0270) (0.0233) (0.0087) (0.0049) (0.0055) (0.0064) (0.0067)

nebraska 5.73% 2.57% 2.38% 3.77% 4.33% 3.86% 4.16% 3.08% 2.83% 2.88%

(0.0316) (0.0137) (0.0133) (0.0164) (0.0167) (0.0051) (0.0071) (0.0044) (0.0038) (0.0043)

nevada 5.05% 5.00% 8.01% 3.84% 5.35% 5.75% 5.02% 5.34% 4.70% 5.21%

(0.0355) (0.0201) (0.0241) (0.0167) (0.0195) (0.0073) (0.0057) (0.0065) (0.0054) (0.0052)

new Hampshire 7.30% 3.74% 3.16% 5.16% 3.86% 4.25% 4.01% 3.75% 2.67% 4.10%

(0.0374) (0.0175) (0.0158) (0.0197) (0.0166) (0.0073) (0.0057) (0.0046) (0.0042) (0.0052)

new Jersey 3.77% 2.81% 2.58% 2.81% 3.13% 2.53% 2.99% 2.45% 2.49% 2.48%

(0.0102) (0.0055) (0.0054) (0.0055) (0.0057) (0.0017) (0.0018) (0.0015) (0.0018) (0.0018)

new Mexico 5.99% 6.21% 4.76% 5.57% 4.59% 4.78% 4.26% 4.72% 4.55% 4.16%

(0.0334) (0.0212) (0.0179) (0.0201) (0.0183) (0.0078) (0.0054) (0.0061) (0.0059) (0.0056)

new york 2.97% 3.20% 2.76% 2.98% 3.11% 3.02% 3.07% 2.91% 2.69% 2.48%

(0.0065) (0.0043) (0.0038) (0.0040) (0.0040) (0.0011) (0.0011) (0.0011) (0.0010) (0.0012)

north Carolina 4.02% 3.82% 3.73% 3.87% 4.03% 3.58% 3.49% 3.35% 3.33% 2.91%

(0.0128) (0.0080) (0.0077) (0.0076) (0.0076) (0.0022) (0.0022) (0.0022) (0.0025) (0.0020)

north Dakota 9.34% 3.31% 4.38% 4.06% 3.13% 5.10% 4.36% 4.10% 5.82% 3.87%

(0.0656) (0.0259) (0.0298) (0.0276) (0.0247) (0.0102) (0.0090) (0.0079) (0.0091) (0.0098)

Ohio 3.54% 3.23% 3.11% 2.50% 2.85% 2.94% 3.17% 2.60% 2.66% 2.88%

(0.0104) (0.0063) (0.0062) (0.0054) (0.0057) (0.0020) (0.0023) (0.0020) (0.0018) (0.0018)

Oklahoma 4.74% 3.34% 2.67% 3.19% 3.56% 3.57% 3.09% 3.05% 3.01% 2.74%

(0.0223) (0.0124) (0.0110) (0.0116) (0.0120) (0.0034) (0.0039) (0.0036) (0.0035) (0.0034)

Oregon 3.84% 3.88% 3.59% 3.71% 3.87% 3.92% 3.50% 3.05% 3.17% 2.73%

(0.0184) (0.0118) (0.0112) (0.0111) (0.0110) (0.0044) (0.0031) (0.0034) (0.0030) (0.0025)

pennsylvania 2.84% 3.45% 3.41% 3.07% 3.09% 3.02% 2.85% 2.75% 2.59% 2.27%

(0.0088) (0.0060) (0.0059) (0.0055) (0.0055) (0.0015) (0.0017) (0.0015) (0.0014) (0.0014)

rhode island 4.46% 2.79% 3.01% 4.52% 5.64% 4.64% 4.55% 3.13% 4.59% 4.86%

(0.0352) (0.0173) (0.0179) (0.0203) (0.0231) (0.0067) (0.0067) (0.0061) (0.0078) (0.0072)

South Carolina 4.01% 3.89% 3.14% 3.34% 2.95% 3.13% 3.22% 2.76% 2.99% 3.47%

(0.0185) (0.0116) (0.0104) (0.0106) (0.0097) (0.0029) (0.0030) (0.0030) (0.0032) (0.0037)

South Dakota 4.10% 6.20% 4.55% 4.79% 5.35% 5.17% 4.37% 2.97% 3.59% 3.56%

(0.0429) (0.0321) (0.0278) (0.0289) (0.0300) (0.0094) (0.0117) (0.0088) (0.0078) (0.0064)

Tennessee 4.36% 3.88% 4.17% 4.46% 3.32% 3.24% 3.36% 3.86% 3.02% 3.37%

(0.0162) (0.0100) (0.0101) (0.0103) (0.0087) (0.0030) (0.0027) (0.0025) (0.0028) (0.0028)


Table A3: Interstate skill outflows, all (continued)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Texas 2.61% 3.38% 2.53% 2.70% 2.53% 2.42% 2.59% 2.28% 2.21% 1.90%

(0.0066) (0.0046) (0.0040) (0.0040) (0.0038) (0.0012) (0.0012) (0.0010) (0.0011) (0.0010)

utah 4.11% 5.96% 6.31% 5.76% 4.86% 4.88% 3.92% 4.04% 3.80% 3.95%

(0.0241) (0.0194) (0.0185) (0.0180) (0.0160) (0.0054) (0.0041) (0.0034) (0.0045) (0.0042)

Vermont 0.23% 4.49% 4.68% 4.03% 5.04% 4.95% 5.56% 4.14% 4.18% 4.53%

(0.0107) (0.0267) (0.0268) (0.0247) (0.0271) (0.0089) (0.0091) (0.0078) (0.0085) (0.0088)

Virginia 3.87% 4.72% 3.93% 3.80% 4.30% 4.26% 4.23% 3.98% 4.22% 3.81%

(0.0116) (0.0080) (0.0072) (0.0070) (0.0073) (0.0021) (0.0023) (0.0020) (0.0019) (0.0020)

washington 3.27% 3.27% 3.27% 2.92% 3.41% 3.02% 2.66% 2.81% 3.19% 3.31%

(0.0120) (0.0076) (0.0076) (0.0070) (0.0074) (0.0026) (0.0025) (0.0023) (0.0023) (0.0023)

west Virginia 7.26% 3.29% 3.15% 2.88% 2.51% 4.06% 3.30% 3.25% 3.00% 3.84%

(0.0443) (0.0189) (0.0180) (0.0169) (0.0161) (0.0072) (0.0056) (0.0051) (0.0048) (0.0074)

wisconsin 2.17% 2.90% 2.88% 2.36% 2.59% 2.41% 2.68% 2.91% 2.88% 2.55%

(0.0115) (0.0085) (0.0084) (0.0076) (0.0077) (0.0026) (0.0025) (0.0025) (0.0027) (0.0026)

wyoming 5.19% 5.31% 5.03% 3.20% 5.25% 6.58% 6.17% 4.43% 4.49% 5.65%

(0.0570) (0.0379) (0.0362) (0.0300) (0.0357) (0.0135) (0.0143) (0.0082) (0.0117) (0.0110)

Table A4: Interstate skill outflow, born in-state

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

u.S.A. 1.72% 1.58% 1.49% 1.63% 1.59% 1.66% 1.71% 1.56% 1.47% 1.33%

(0.0021) (0.0013) (0.0012) (0.0013) (0.0012) (0.0004) (0.0004) (0.0004) (0.0004) (0.0003)

Alabama 0.88% 1.87% 0.54% 1.78% 1.22% 1.53% 1.00% 1.21% 0.84% 1.37%

(0.0117) (0.0110) (0.0058) (0.0101) (0.0083) (0.0034) (0.0020) (0.0024) (0.0019) (0.0027)

Alaska 12.98% 2.49% . 2.56% 7.64% 4.45% 4.07% 12.29% 4.73% 4.98%

(0.3452) (0.0659) . (0.0656) (0.0976) (0.0242) (0.0259) (0.0433) (0.0243) (0.0334)

Arizona 2.49% 1.91% 1.17% 1.92% 4.03% 1.26% 2.48% 2.54% 1.43% 2.13%

(0.0342) (0.0207) (0.0156) (0.0187) (0.0267) (0.0041) (0.0064) (0.0055) (0.0038) (0.0052)

Arkansas 0.55% 2.38% 1.46% 0.98% 1.55% 1.36% 1.58% 0.82% 1.64% 1.09%

(0.0144) (0.0176) (0.0130) (0.0107) (0.0141) (0.0047) (0.0034) (0.0029) (0.0043) (0.0031)

California 1.44% 1.31% 1.30% 1.19% 1.41% 1.65% 1.54% 1.34% 1.18% 1.10%

(0.0061) (0.0037) (0.0036) (0.0033) (0.0036) (0.0012) (0.0012) (0.0010) (0.0011) (0.0008)

Colorado 1.37% 0.82% 2.26% 1.28% 0.99% 1.53% 1.94% 1.98% 1.78% 1.80%

(0.0187) (0.0090) (0.0150) (0.0110) (0.0101) (0.0039) (0.0037) (0.0039) (0.0040) (0.0033)

Connecticut 0.52% 1.77% 1.47% 1.70% 1.63% 1.62% 1.70% 1.63% 1.40% 1.20%

(0.0093) (0.0113) (0.0101) (0.0107) (0.0103) (0.0028) (0.0034) (0.0027) (0.0027) (0.0022)

Delaware . 2.46% 1.07% 3.23% 1.49% 1.89% 2.25% 1.96% 4.16% 0.80%

. (0.0384) (0.0242) (0.0408) (0.0272) (0.0083) (0.0114) (0.0093) (0.0249) (0.0048)

District of Columbia . 4.50% 3.64% 0.93% 3.24% 12.19% 9.17% 5.71% 10.58% 6.28%

. (0.0604) (0.0581) (0.0288) (0.0492) (0.0258) (0.0323) (0.0181) (0.0273) (0.0174)


Table A4: Interstate skill outflow, born in-state (continued)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Florida 2.16% 2.05% 1.60% 1.28% 1.68% 2.04% 2.34% 2.25% 1.95% 1.73%

(0.0167) (0.0102) (0.0089) (0.0077) (0.0084) (0.0028) (0.0029) (0.0024) (0.0025) (0.0024)

georgia 1.91% 0.96% 1.17% 1.45% 0.99% 1.90% 1.16% 1.58% 1.47% 1.15%

(0.0152) (0.0068) (0.0075) (0.0080) (0.0067) (0.0027) (0.0021) (0.0026) (0.0021) (0.0018)

Hawaii 1.36% 0.19% 0.97% 0.05% 0.45% 1.47% 1.01% 1.18% 1.07% 2.48%

(0.0270) (0.0066) (0.0149) (0.0032) (0.0096) (0.0088) (0.0050) (0.0045) (0.0043) (0.0069)

idaho 2.66% 1.56% 2.18% 2.54% 1.05% 3.21% 3.49% 1.78% 2.03% 3.52%

(0.0476) (0.0231) (0.0273) (0.0292) (0.0186) (0.0077) (0.0103) (0.0060) (0.0070) (0.0106)

illinois 1.40% 1.30% 1.73% 1.68% 1.28% 1.57% 1.52% 1.58% 1.54% 1.53%

(0.0080) (0.0047) (0.0053) (0.0053) (0.0046) (0.0017) (0.0013) (0.0014) (0.0016) (0.0017)

indiana 3.32% 0.91% 1.74% 2.18% 1.70% 2.16% 2.06% 1.50% 1.75% 1.86%

(0.0202) (0.0064) (0.0089) (0.0098) (0.0085) (0.0028) (0.0037) (0.0020) (0.0024) (0.0029)

iowa 1.60% 1.70% 1.54% 1.26% 2.35% 2.11% 1.86% 1.61% 1.37% 0.64%

(0.0176) (0.0116) (0.0108) (0.0098) (0.0125) (0.0042) (0.0036) (0.0033) (0.0026) (0.0019)

kansas 1.43% 2.16% 2.48% 4.66% 1.51% 1.95% 1.72% 2.19% 2.39% 2.12%

(0.0194) (0.0145) (0.0155) (0.0199) (0.0119) (0.0045) (0.0037) (0.0056) (0.0045) (0.0044)

kentucky 1.29% 1.60% 1.47% 2.56% 1.47% 1.72% 1.03% 1.68% 1.31% 1.44%

(0.0175) (0.0112) (0.0102) (0.0134) (0.0101) (0.0031) (0.0023) (0.0030) (0.0028) (0.0033)

louisiana 0.95% 1.85% 1.53% 1.22% 1.43% 2.03% 4.89% 2.11% 2.04% 1.42%

(0.0123) (0.0106) (0.0093) (0.0080) (0.0087) (0.0030) (0.0057) (0.0036) (0.0038) (0.0029)

Maine 0.90% 1.69% 1.47% 1.03% 0.57% 2.49% 2.06% 1.79% 0.56% 1.97%

(0.0235) (0.0207) (0.0180) (0.0151) (0.0109) (0.0099) (0.0064) (0.0067) (0.0030) (0.0056)

Maryland 1.18% 1.64% 1.04% 2.26% 0.78% 1.81% 1.75% 2.08% 1.59% 1.86%

(0.0154) (0.0110) (0.0086) (0.0121) (0.0072) (0.0036) (0.0027) (0.0035) (0.0026) (0.0034)

Massachusetts 2.56% 1.58% 1.46% 1.77% 2.10% 1.70% 1.99% 1.76% 1.32% 1.11%

(0.0130) (0.0065) (0.0063) (0.0069) (0.0073) (0.0023) (0.0022) (0.0021) (0.0019) (0.0013)

Michigan 1.50% 1.33% 0.91% 0.89% 1.08% 1.54% 1.81% 1.94% 1.82% 1.46%

(0.0091) (0.0054) (0.0044) (0.0043) (0.0047) (0.0018) (0.0017) (0.0022) (0.0016) (0.0017)

Minnesota 1.18% 1.46% 1.13% 1.56% 1.65% 1.53% 1.52% 1.03% 1.36% 1.47%

(0.0111) (0.0078) (0.0066) (0.0078) (0.0078) (0.0023) (0.0021) (0.0021) (0.0027) (0.0021)

Mississippi 1.38% 1.55% 1.77% 0.69% 1.35% 1.54% 2.14% 2.81% 1.46% 0.92%

(0.0199) (0.0124) (0.0135) (0.0085) (0.0116) (0.0037) (0.0054) (0.0062) (0.0041) (0.0024)

Missouri 2.21% 1.94% 1.72% 1.65% 1.68% 1.70% 1.65% 1.41% 1.17% 0.98%

(0.0161) (0.0097) (0.0089) (0.0085) (0.0085) (0.0025) (0.0027) (0.0024) (0.0018) (0.0016)

Montana 1.22% 3.58% 0.85% 4.20% 0.84% 1.09% 1.71% 0.71% 2.10% 1.38%

(0.0318) (0.0349) (0.0169) (0.0347) (0.0161) (0.0052) (0.0066) (0.0044) (0.0078) (0.0068)

nebraska 2.44% 2.10% 1.64% 2.65% 2.19% 1.63% 2.25% 0.63% 1.58% 1.62%

(0.0273) (0.0166) (0.0151) (0.0182) (0.0159) (0.0037) (0.0061) (0.0026) (0.0040) (0.0041)

nevada . . 1.18% 1.75% 4.24% 3.95% 1.20% 1.49% 1.53% 0.14%

. . (0.0328) (0.0396) (0.0590) (0.0177) (0.0072) (0.0119) (0.0084) (0.0015)


Table A4: Interstate skill outflow, born in-state (continued)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

new Hampshire 4.01% 1.60% 1.68% 3.07% 1.57% 2.76% 4.04% 2.71% 1.10% 1.73%

(0.0583) (0.0248) (0.0264) (0.0329) (0.0246) (0.0087) (0.0129) (0.0104) (0.0064) (0.0069)

new Jersey 1.77% 1.88% 1.06% 1.33% 1.67% 1.27% 1.75% 1.74% 1.31% 1.29%

(0.0116) (0.0074) (0.0056) (0.0062) (0.0069) (0.0015) (0.0019) (0.0020) (0.0019) (0.0016)

new Mexico 5.06% 3.24% 1.71% 3.89% 2.88% 2.16% 2.04% 2.06% 2.10% 1.63%

(0.0591) (0.0291) (0.0214) (0.0311) (0.0276) (0.0055) (0.0065) (0.0069) (0.0060) (0.0077)

new york 1.67% 1.93% 1.60% 1.92% 1.98% 1.93% 1.87% 1.72% 1.44% 1.34%

(0.0064) (0.0044) (0.0040) (0.0043) (0.0043) (0.0013) (0.0013) (0.0010) (0.0012) (0.0012)

north Carolina 1.42% 1.43% 1.27% 1.61% 1.47% 1.31% 1.44% 1.19% 1.58% 0.76%

(0.0120) (0.0077) (0.0071) (0.0077) (0.0073) (0.0021) (0.0021) (0.0017) (0.0032) (0.0015)

north Dakota 3.39% 2.72% 2.28% 1.96% 1.17% 2.64% 3.92% 1.64% 3.24% 0.96%

(0.0520) (0.0297) (0.0287) (0.0253) (0.0196) (0.0088) (0.0111) (0.0064) (0.0091) (0.0034)

Ohio 2.30% 1.46% 2.18% 1.39% 1.71% 1.53% 1.81% 1.51% 1.77% 1.45%

(0.0110) (0.0055) (0.0066) (0.0052) (0.0056) (0.0014) (0.0021) (0.0017) (0.0016) (0.0015)

Oklahoma 5.44% 0.90% 1.13% 1.01% 1.45% 1.79% 1.50% 1.37% 0.95% 1.26%

(0.0333) (0.0093) (0.0104) (0.0093) (0.0114) (0.0035) (0.0037) (0.0031) (0.0023) (0.0033)

Oregon 3.11% 1.55% 2.02% 1.08% 4.25% 1.44% 1.65% 1.51% 1.92% 1.23%

(0.0287) (0.0137) (0.0159) (0.0115) (0.0206) (0.0044) (0.0033) (0.0038) (0.0038) (0.0028)

pennsylvania 1.57% 2.00% 2.01% 1.86% 1.79% 1.57% 1.37% 1.40% 1.33% 1.15%

(0.0082) (0.0058) (0.0057) (0.0055) (0.0053) (0.0015) (0.0012) (0.0013) (0.0011) (0.0013)

rhode island 3.66% 1.14% 0.97% 2.92% 2.64% 1.84% 1.46% 1.25% 1.54% 2.32%

(0.0483) (0.0158) (0.0147) (0.0241) (0.0242) (0.0059) (0.0050) (0.0047) (0.0045) (0.0061)

South Carolina . 0.94% 1.66% 1.27% 1.37% 1.57% 0.98% 1.06% 1.29% 1.60%

. (0.0091) (0.0118) (0.0104) (0.0108) (0.0030) (0.0022) (0.0034) (0.0033) (0.0036)

South Dakota 1.01% 2.18% 2.68% 2.91% 2.82% 2.79% 3.92% 0.66% 1.29% 1.69%

(0.0276) (0.0267) (0.0291) (0.0306) (0.0296) (0.0068) (0.0173) (0.0030) (0.0054) (0.0057)

Tennessee 2.52% 1.10% 1.05% 2.01% 0.70% 1.09% 1.48% 1.84% 1.33% 1.04%

(0.0183) (0.0082) (0.0078) (0.0105) (0.0061) (0.0021) (0.0023) (0.0034) (0.0024) (0.0019)

Texas 1.52% 1.35% 1.05% 1.43% 1.16% 1.12% 0.85% 1.04% 1.00% 0.85%

(0.0075) (0.0045) (0.0039) (0.0045) (0.0039) (0.0014) (0.0009) (0.0010) (0.0011) (0.0009)

utah 2.25% 2.93% 3.39% 4.98% 2.43% 2.67% 3.36% 2.78% 3.00% 1.91%

(0.0280) (0.0202) (0.0197) (0.0251) (0.0168) (0.0043) (0.0052) (0.0051) (0.0049) (0.0036)

Vermont . 2.82% 1.36% 1.64% 2.57% 5.66% 3.99% 2.22% 2.13% 1.76%

. (0.0442) (0.0297) (0.0312) (0.0401) (0.0212) (0.0177) (0.0107) (0.0091) (0.0068)

Virginia 0.99% 1.58% 1.23% 1.44% 2.20% 1.79% 1.81% 1.54% 1.43% 1.75%

(0.0123) (0.0094) (0.0082) (0.0087) (0.0107) (0.0030) (0.0028) (0.0027) (0.0025) (0.0033)

washington 1.67% 1.27% 1.51% 1.86% 1.87% 1.69% 1.14% 1.56% 1.78% 1.81%

(0.0151) (0.0086) (0.0097) (0.0102) (0.0100) (0.0027) (0.0020) (0.0029) (0.0038) (0.0026)

west Virginia 1.98% 1.66% 1.45% 1.88% 1.13% 2.24% 1.46% 1.45% 0.85% 1.90%

(0.0310) (0.0178) (0.0159) (0.0180) (0.0143) (0.0064) (0.0047) (0.0040) (0.0033) (0.0053)

wisconsin 0.97% 1.56% 1.52% 0.98% 1.23% 1.13% 1.48% 1.17% 1.33% 0.85%

(0.0098) (0.0080) (0.0080) (0.0063) (0.0068) (0.0022) (0.0023) (0.0021) (0.0020) (0.0016)

wyoming 1.82% 1.71% . 2.52% 1.32% 0.45% 4.99% 0.81% 3.02% 2.58%

(0.0667) (0.0456) . (0.0519) (0.0342) (0.0036) (0.0264) (0.0059) (0.0164) (0.0113)


Table A5: Interstate skill outflow, born in other states

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

u.S.A. 5.36% 5.04% 4.85% 4.67% 4.70% 4.84% 4.79% 4.60% 4.46% 4.26%

(0.0037) (0.0023) (0.0022) (0.0021) (0.0021) (0.0007) (0.0006) (0.0007) (0.0006) (0.0006)

Alabama 6.47% 6.46% 5.32% 4.73% 5.75% 5.62% 5.13% 5.21% 5.46% 4.87%

(0.0385) (0.0245) (0.0217) (0.0205) (0.0214) (0.0055) (0.0061) (0.0062) (0.0059) (0.0068)

Alaska 5.88% 5.28% 9.41% 11.34% 10.03% 7.39% 6.33% 10.69% 11.47% 6.80%

(0.0599) (0.0361) (0.0430) (0.0481) (0.0456) (0.0162) (0.0112) (0.0145) (0.0160) (0.0130)

Arizona 4.21% 4.35% 4.99% 5.21% 3.71% 3.85% 4.68% 4.63% 4.30% 4.64%

(0.0197) (0.0128) (0.0134) (0.0134) (0.0112) (0.0033) (0.0046) (0.0040) (0.0037) (0.0042)

Arkansas 7.58% 4.55% 4.98% 3.58% 5.09% 3.18% 5.19% 5.30% 5.76% 4.75%

(0.0537) (0.0256) (0.0259) (0.0239) (0.0272) (0.0052) (0.0064) (0.0098) (0.0110) (0.0069)

California 3.54% 4.04% 3.70% 2.91% 4.05% 4.41% 4.09% 3.72% 3.32% 3.23%

(0.0091) (0.0061) (0.0058) (0.0051) (0.0060) (0.0020) (0.0015) (0.0014) (0.0016) (0.0018)

Colorado 5.62% 4.29% 5.64% 5.20% 3.36% 4.43% 4.55% 4.33% 4.17% 3.21%

(0.0206) (0.0114) (0.0125) (0.0118) (0.0098) (0.0034) (0.0037) (0.0029) (0.0033) (0.0027)

Connecticut 5.38% 4.37% 3.98% 4.88% 4.50% 3.27% 4.65% 4.03% 3.71% 3.06%

(0.0266) (0.0156) (0.0149) (0.0159) (0.0152) (0.0039) (0.0034) (0.0046) (0.0039) (0.0031)

Delaware 9.39% 2.81% 5.35% 5.23% 4.54% 3.77% 3.34% 3.73% 5.18% 4.97%

(0.0726) (0.0272) (0.0359) (0.0347) (0.0316) (0.0079) (0.0071) (0.0087) (0.0093) (0.0102)


(0.0718) (0.0403) (0.0401) (0.0429) (0.0409) (0.0116) (0.0123) (0.0127) (0.0108) (0.0108)

Florida 5.30% 3.87% 3.02% 3.17% 3.35% 3.70% 3.98% 4.13% 4.05% 3.66%

(0.0135) (0.0074) (0.0065) (0.0066) (0.0066) (0.0023) (0.0021) (0.0028) (0.0022) (0.0019)

georgia 5.67% 5.22% 5.43% 4.86% 4.88% 4.91% 4.41% 3.85% 3.96% 3.92%

(0.0203) (0.0117) (0.0118) (0.0110) (0.0109) (0.0035) (0.0034) (0.0021) (0.0029) (0.0033)

Hawaii 17.46% 11.97% 12.06% 8.86% 11.04% 8.52% 10.49% 11.47% 12.58% 8.78%

(0.0883) (0.0528) (0.0518) (0.0450) (0.0469) (0.0113) (0.0119) (0.0174) (0.0153) (0.0140)

idaho 5.06% 4.74% 5.25% 3.77% 8.28% 4.01% 5.25% 4.45% 5.45% 6.36%

(0.0463) (0.0298) (0.0295) (0.0245) (0.0349) (0.0070) (0.0076) (0.0070) (0.0072) (0.0092)

illinois 5.82% 4.88% 4.78% 5.71% 4.27% 5.49% 5.28% 5.45% 5.59% 4.37%

(0.0198) (0.0117) (0.0115) (0.0124) (0.0107) (0.0040) (0.0033) (0.0046) (0.0045) (0.0034)

indiana 6.42% 8.14% 4.97% 5.05% 3.98% 6.36% 4.59% 5.25% 3.96% 4.23%

(0.0317) (0.0221) (0.0178) (0.0182) (0.0160) (0.0065) (0.0049) (0.0057) (0.0042) (0.0044)

iowa 4.66% 6.96% 9.83% 6.31% 6.16% 5.38% 4.18% 3.65% 6.13% 4.64%

(0.0408) (0.0304) (0.0362) (0.0293) (0.0285) (0.0080) (0.0067) (0.0070) (0.0091) (0.0074)

kansas 5.62% 7.56% 6.69% 6.08% 4.86% 6.15% 5.46% 4.43% 5.66% 5.76%

(0.0353) (0.0248) (0.0239) (0.0226) (0.0200) (0.0081) (0.0081) (0.0057) (0.0074) (0.0062)

kentucky 10.27% 6.37% 6.18% 4.81% 6.98% 6.57% 4.75% 4.08% 6.11% 4.85%

(0.0538) (0.0257) (0.0246) (0.0232) (0.0259) (0.0075) (0.0070) (0.0050) (0.0072) (0.0073)

louisiana 7.16% 8.07% 8.79% 4.62% 5.03% 8.04% 14.68% 7.03% 7.34% 5.22%

(0.0410) (0.0313) (0.0308) (0.0237) (0.0242) (0.0085) (0.0134) (0.0098) (0.0102) (0.0075)

Maine 6.97% 3.87% 5.81% 6.31% 2.63% 4.44% 2.67% 3.66% 3.27% 3.22%

(0.0574) (0.0268) (0.0332) (0.0319) (0.0221) (0.0085) (0.0063) (0.0071) (0.0072) (0.0060)

Maryland 6.53% 5.16% 4.54% 5.27% 4.57% 5.38% 4.60% 4.77% 4.67% 4.18%

(0.0220) (0.0122) (0.0114) (0.0120) (0.0112) (0.0045) (0.0032) (0.0037) (0.0037) (0.0032)


Table A5: Interstate skill outflow, born in other states (continued)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Massachusetts 5.77% 5.91% 4.78% 6.56% 5.41% 5.78% 6.00% 5.38% 4.25% 4.41%

(0.0232) (0.0143) (0.0129) (0.0150) (0.0135) (0.0052) (0.0040) (0.0046) (0.0035) (0.0037)

Michigan 5.32% 4.35% 5.29% 4.43% 5.34% 4.57% 5.12% 4.62% 5.33% 4.98%

(0.0242) (0.0147) (0.0162) (0.0145) (0.0161) (0.0053) (0.0044) (0.0049) (0.0045) (0.0046)

Minnesota 5.96% 3.74% 4.17% 3.50% 2.44% 4.59% 3.52% 3.28% 3.57% 3.37%

(0.0286) (0.0142) (0.0151) (0.0130) (0.0118) (0.0054) (0.0043) (0.0034) (0.0048) (0.0034)

Mississippi 10.33% 4.23% 7.23% 9.05% 3.45% 8.34% 8.38% 6.10% 6.06% 7.28%

(0.0617) (0.0278) (0.0363) (0.0383) (0.0237) (0.0130) (0.0119) (0.0091) (0.0084) (0.0105)

Missouri 6.05% 4.46% 6.06% 4.40% 6.54% 5.64% 6.20% 5.40% 4.86% 4.48%

(0.0282) (0.0155) (0.0174) (0.0155) (0.0182) (0.0062) (0.0063) (0.0058) (0.0043) (0.0039)

Montana 2.41% 4.11% 7.00% 7.29% 6.96% 6.70% 3.59% 4.16% 5.56% 4.09%

(0.0384) (0.0315) (0.0416) (0.0424) (0.0383) (0.0162) (0.0069) (0.0083) (0.0107) (0.0098)

nebraska 9.28% 3.59% 3.24% 5.32% 6.24% 6.94% 7.10% 5.39% 4.67% 4.38%

(0.0666) (0.0261) (0.0243) (0.0316) (0.0326) (0.0107) (0.0132) (0.0071) (0.0072) (0.0079)

nevada 6.50% 5.32% 7.46% 4.37% 5.31% 6.48% 5.55% 6.72% 5.58% 5.88%

(0.0453) (0.0238) (0.0272) (0.0207) (0.0229) (0.0084) (0.0063) (0.0083) (0.0070) (0.0065)

new Hampshire 7.53% 3.21% 3.59% 4.23% 4.17% 4.30% 3.52% 3.45% 2.67% 4.66%

(0.0452) (0.0193) (0.0198) (0.0216) (0.0202) (0.0079) (0.0053) (0.0050) (0.0045) (0.0062)

new Jersey 4.54% 3.53% 3.37% 3.55% 3.93% 3.42% 3.77% 3.16% 3.51% 3.15%

(0.0177) (0.0100) (0.0102) (0.0103) (0.0105) (0.0029) (0.0034) (0.0029) (0.0034) (0.0030)

new Mexico 5.24% 6.89% 4.36% 6.11% 5.59% 5.97% 4.73% 6.13% 5.98% 5.43%

(0.0385) (0.0276) (0.0215) (0.0269) (0.0255) (0.0103) (0.0066) (0.0088) (0.0084) (0.0080)

new york 5.80% 5.99% 6.03% 6.19% 6.22% 5.57% 5.68% 6.18% 5.44% 5.25%

(0.0202) (0.0130) (0.0127) (0.0130) (0.0125) (0.0032) (0.0032) (0.0035) (0.0032) (0.0036)

north Carolina 5.64% 5.72% 5.04% 5.67% 5.99% 5.24% 4.38% 4.46% 4.28% 4.20%

(0.0212) (0.0138) (0.0126) (0.0129) (0.0131) (0.0034) (0.0032) (0.0032) (0.0033) (0.0030)

north Dakota 20.07% 4.29% 8.16% 7.33% 6.75% 9.03% 5.01% 7.51% 9.00% 7.78%

(0.1502) (0.0514) (0.0648) (0.0606) (0.0594) (0.0223) (0.0133) (0.0155) (0.0192) (0.0254)

Ohio 5.54% 5.57% 5.15% 4.05% 4.97% 4.78% 4.83% 4.31% 3.86% 4.88%

(0.0227) (0.0144) (0.0143) (0.0123) (0.0136) (0.0042) (0.0045) (0.0046) (0.0034) (0.0039)

Oklahoma 1.85% 5.62% 4.31% 4.66% 5.28% 4.58% 4.09% 4.39% 4.46% 3.80%

(0.0221) (0.0238) (0.0204) (0.0210) (0.0213) (0.0053) (0.0050) (0.0067) (0.0058) (0.0058)

Oregon 4.58% 4.61% 4.02% 4.73% 3.75% 4.49% 4.42% 3.87% 3.61% 3.29%

(0.0268) (0.0163) (0.0153) (0.0157) (0.0143) (0.0050) (0.0047) (0.0042) (0.0038) (0.0034)

pennsylvania 4.74% 5.65% 5.84% 4.81% 5.09% 5.08% 5.35% 5.07% 3.98% 4.38%

(0.0213) (0.0143) (0.0148) (0.0131) (0.0133) (0.0037) (0.0042) (0.0037) (0.0029) (0.0032)

rhode island 4.86% 5.38% 5.28% 5.59% 6.97% 6.62% 6.76% 5.29% 6.10% 7.17%

(0.0537) (0.0376) (0.0367) (0.0349) (0.0390) (0.0110) (0.0118) (0.0130) (0.0125) (0.0143)

South Carolina 6.17% 4.85% 4.01% 4.73% 4.07% 4.18% 4.78% 3.88% 4.10% 4.91%

(0.0293) (0.0178) (0.0161) (0.0172) (0.0153) (0.0048) (0.0048) (0.0047) (0.0055) (0.0058)

South Dakota 9.59% 10.97% 5.76% 6.42% 7.27% 8.50% 3.68% 5.63% 5.95% 5.44%

(0.1058) (0.0626) (0.0482) (0.0511) (0.0543) (0.0185) (0.0125) (0.0163) (0.0141) (0.0119)

Tennessee 5.73% 5.79% 6.48% 6.25% 5.42% 5.06% 4.76% 5.45% 4.10% 4.91%

(0.0264) (0.0172) (0.0173) (0.0171) (0.0158) (0.0053) (0.0045) (0.0045) (0.0046) (0.0046)


Table A5: Interstate skill outflow, born in other states (continued)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Texas 3.97% 5.15% 3.94% 4.01% 3.82% 3.87% 4.15% 3.59% 3.53% 3.08%

(0.0124) (0.0088) (0.0077) (0.0077) (0.0072) (0.0023) (0.0021) (0.0022) (0.0020) (0.0019)

utah 4.86% 7.93% 8.43% 6.34% 7.51% 6.39% 4.45% 5.16% 4.38% 5.98%

(0.0372) (0.0338) (0.0321) (0.0281) (0.0294) (0.0111) (0.0054) (0.0062) (0.0070) (0.0068)

Vermont 0.34% 4.19% 5.10% 5.26% 5.81% 4.62% 5.30% 4.95% 5.06% 5.14%

(0.0159) (0.0310) (0.0337) (0.0339) (0.0348) (0.0096) (0.0090) (0.0099) (0.0115) (0.0111)

Virginia 5.13% 6.15% 4.86% 5.08% 5.32% 5.17% 5.38% 5.20% 5.43% 4.59%

(0.0168) (0.0116) (0.0102) (0.0104) (0.0105) (0.0026) (0.0030) (0.0029) (0.0030) (0.0026)

washington 4.65% 4.31% 3.82% 3.21% 4.28% 3.91% 3.66% 3.55% 4.03% 4.21%

(0.0195) (0.0119) (0.0108) (0.0100) (0.0113) (0.0043) (0.0037) (0.0035) (0.0030) (0.0036)

west Virginia 11.42% 4.71% 5.74% 4.86% 3.78% 7.14% 5.76% 5.43% 6.01% 6.43%

(0.0909) (0.0368) (0.0398) (0.0358) (0.0319) (0.0157) (0.0124) (0.0114) (0.0126) (0.0169)

wisconsin 3.57% 4.67% 5.08% 4.16% 4.43% 3.81% 4.15% 5.65% 5.05% 4.99%

(0.0260) (0.0184) (0.0189) (0.0171) (0.0173) (0.0048) (0.0053) (0.0064) (0.0055) (0.0063)

wyoming 6.61% 6.10% 7.05% 3.51% 6.89% 8.11% 5.87% 6.18% 5.22% 6.61%

(0.0758) (0.0470) (0.0501) (0.0373) (0.0492) (0.0179) (0.0141) (0.0119) (0.0150) (0.0148)

Table A6: Interstate skill outflow, foreign-born

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

u.S.A. 3.90% 4.06% 3.57% 3.37% 3.49% 3.54% 3.75% 3.33% 3.30% 3.16%

(0.0054) (0.0034) (0.0031) (0.0029) (0.0029) (0.0011) (0.0011) (0.0008) (0.0010) (0.0008)

Alabama 16.81% 8.30% 6.65% 1.63% 2.96% 5.75% 7.51% 4.17% 8.12% 7.19%

(0.1466) (0.0688) (0.0622) (0.0306) (0.0435) (0.0161) (0.0249) (0.0097) (0.0191) (0.0180)

Alaska . 6.72% 13.01% 8.47% 23.39% 7.79% 6.63% 11.54% 11.07% 15.33%

. (0.1149) (0.1535) (0.1213) (0.1664) (0.0329) (0.0322) (0.0538) (0.0504) (0.0485)

Arizona 6.74% 7.14% 5.50% 3.42% 3.95% 5.01% 5.31% 4.33% 3.74% 3.95%

(0.0661) (0.0418) (0.0319) (0.0255) (0.0260) (0.0085) (0.0090) (0.0098) (0.0076) (0.0073)

Arkansas 26.27% 12.59% 3.61% . 5.92% 6.27% 3.10% 6.09% 12.56% 0.49%

(0.4023) (0.1581) (0.0707) . (0.0783) (0.0210) (0.0139) (0.0233) (0.0343) (0.0047)

California 1.60% 1.75% 1.51% 1.91% 1.90% 1.71% 1.62% 1.60% 1.39% 1.24%

(0.0071) (0.0046) (0.0040) (0.0044) (0.0043) (0.0012) (0.0014) (0.0013) (0.0012) (0.0011)

Colorado 3.04% 5.91% 5.79% 6.87% 6.21% 5.05% 5.28% 5.28% 4.81% 5.16%

(0.0394) (0.0368) (0.0354) (0.0365) (0.0375) (0.0090) (0.0096) (0.0099) (0.0110) (0.0112)

Connecticut 7.26% 3.34% 3.43% 3.32% 5.01% 4.45% 6.10% 5.18% 4.67% 3.50%

(0.0680) (0.0246) (0.0262) (0.0238) (0.0286) (0.0094) (0.0102) (0.0106) (0.0104) (0.0074)

Delaware 18.93% 5.23% 5.18% 1.38% 6.80% 10.88% 10.37% 8.30% 5.27% 4.82%

(0.2234) (0.0842) (0.0837) (0.0392) (0.0785) (0.0329) (0.0269) (0.0307) (0.0214) (0.0169)


(0.1484) (0.0880) (0.0572) (0.0513) (0.0638) (0.0204) (0.0265) (0.0246) (0.0221) (0.0260)


Table A6: Interstate skill outflow, foreign-born (continued)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Florida 3.35% 2.32% 2.62% 2.20% 2.32% 2.51% 2.72% 2.70% 2.12% 2.61%

(0.0179) (0.0093) (0.0094) (0.0083) (0.0086) (0.0043) (0.0031) (0.0032) (0.0022) (0.0022)

georgia 10.93% 4.33% 6.61% 3.67% 5.62% 4.84% 4.09% 4.77% 3.56% 4.45%

(0.0657) (0.0252) (0.0286) (0.0197) (0.0245) (0.0083) (0.0070) (0.0061) (0.0052) (0.0069)

Hawaii 1.17% 6.58% 9.87% 4.64% 8.37% 4.98% 6.70% 4.91% 4.62% 4.94%

(0.0356) (0.0557) (0.0585) (0.0444) (0.0556) (0.0162) (0.0197) (0.0192) (0.0106) (0.0109)

idaho 22.67% 16.83% 15.45% 5.92% 4.94% 8.40% 6.44% 11.39% 10.86% 7.61%

(0.3467) (0.1542) (0.2020) (0.0993) (0.0956) (0.0342) (0.0284) (0.0371) (0.0360) (0.0326)

illinois 1.44% 3.15% 3.29% 3.66% 3.42% 3.53% 3.12% 2.92% 3.40% 4.21%

(0.0142) (0.0128) (0.0131) (0.0132) (0.0129) (0.0044) (0.0039) (0.0041) (0.0047) (0.0049)

indiana 4.00% 12.51% 7.57% 3.47% 8.47% 3.62% 8.30% 5.96% 8.84% 6.02%

(0.0604) (0.0651) (0.0511) (0.0332) (0.0499) (0.0101) (0.0172) (0.0131) (0.0159) (0.0113)

iowa 12.37% 15.29% 6.47% 3.10% 19.37% 10.41% 6.43% 6.57% 3.35% 8.59%

(0.1828) (0.1159) (0.0776) (0.0528) (0.1244) (0.0218) (0.0215) (0.0232) (0.0128) (0.0306)

kansas 3.04% 9.24% 7.32% 8.00% 1.54% 10.25% 12.04% 5.25% 5.61% 5.84%

(0.0695) (0.0741) (0.0663) (0.0582) (0.0294) (0.0256) (0.0278) (0.0165) (0.0121) (0.0167)

kentucky 5.39% 7.78% 7.74% 5.47% 6.59% 6.29% 8.46% 10.57% 6.75% 10.31%

(0.0991) (0.0760) (0.0691) (0.0555) (0.0647) (0.0228) (0.0218) (0.0280) (0.0180) (0.0220)

louisiana 5.33% 5.63% 11.50% 3.85% 3.26% 9.51% 8.53% 6.85% 7.63% 4.24%

(0.0961) (0.0552) (0.0773) (0.0454) (0.0380) (0.0225) (0.0171) (0.0157) (0.0205) (0.0119)

Maine . 8.98% . 0.68% 3.79% 11.67% 7.96% 10.61% 14.37% 3.21%

. (0.1362) . (0.0368) (0.0750) (0.0356) (0.0299) (0.0316) (0.0456) (0.0179)

Maryland 4.29% 4.77% 1.97% 2.99% 3.39% 4.44% 4.74% 4.65% 4.00% 3.64%

(0.0313) (0.0218) (0.0141) (0.0165) (0.0171) (0.0055) (0.0059) (0.0069) (0.0052) (0.0046)

Massachusetts 5.07% 6.41% 4.92% 5.98% 4.30% 3.70% 4.14% 4.47% 4.60% 3.29%

(0.0342) (0.0233) (0.0199) (0.0206) (0.0176) (0.0046) (0.0053) (0.0051) (0.0055) (0.0046)

Michigan 2.46% 3.98% 5.22% 4.75% 3.28% 4.36% 4.41% 5.64% 4.85% 5.18%

(0.0299) (0.0210) (0.0235) (0.0228) (0.0182) (0.0088) (0.0074) (0.0089) (0.0067) (0.0085)

Minnesota 4.01% 3.12% 3.16% 1.07% 4.89% 6.76% 4.46% 4.42% 4.46% 5.30%

(0.0587) (0.0283) (0.0276) (0.0160) (0.0316) (0.0169) (0.0101) (0.0098) (0.0110) (0.0124)

Mississippi 6.39% . 13.48% 9.12% 2.88% 13.11% 10.28% 15.12% 4.74% 16.02%

(0.1690) . (0.1663) (0.1194) (0.0800) (0.0437) (0.0418) (0.0385) (0.0243) (0.0451)

Missouri 7.61% 13.70% 7.52% 9.86% 4.37% 4.20% 8.49% 9.90% 6.23% 3.91%

(0.0791) (0.0663) (0.0496) (0.0532) (0.0362) (0.0113) (0.0186) (0.0203) (0.0143) (0.0094)

Montana . 14.37% 8.95% . 6.91% . 6.93% 20.15% 3.26% 5.15%

. (0.2504) (0.1889) . (0.1477) . (0.0343) (0.0754) (0.0316) (0.0276)

nebraska 17.98% 0.58% 3.23% 5.07% 13.39% 4.43% 3.09% 9.84% 2.54% 5.40%

(0.2183) (0.0263) (0.0630) (0.0855) (0.1176) (0.0176) (0.0188) (0.0399) (0.0119) (0.0199)

nevada . 5.67% 13.60% 2.65% 6.01% 3.64% 4.64% 2.46% 3.23% 4.93%

. (0.0513) (0.0725) (0.0330) (0.0477) (0.0119) (0.0141) (0.0079) (0.0084) (0.0114)

new Hampshire 17.44% 14.95% 2.80% 17.38% 6.46% 6.51% 7.15% 9.13% 5.95% 5.87%

(0.2230) (0.1195) (0.0519) (0.1125) (0.0740) (0.0251) (0.0200) (0.0272) (0.0225) (0.0284)


Table A6: Interstate skill outflow, foreign-born (continued)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

new Jersey 5.54% 3.11% 3.68% 3.87% 4.03% 3.05% 3.68% 2.50% 2.84% 3.28%

(0.0248) (0.0117) (0.0123) (0.0123) (0.0122) (0.0036) (0.0045) (0.0030) (0.0039) (0.0035)

new Mexico 17.81% 12.36% 14.88% 7.43% 3.17% 5.19% 7.61% 3.58% 3.90% 4.38%

(0.2136) (0.1126) (0.0928) (0.0746) (0.0488) (0.0369) (0.0223) (0.0126) (0.0148) (0.0174)

new york 3.90% 3.88% 2.78% 2.96% 3.10% 3.37% 3.63% 2.82% 3.22% 2.62%

(0.0157) (0.0094) (0.0076) (0.0078) (0.0079) (0.0026) (0.0028) (0.0025) (0.0023) (0.0021)

north Carolina 6.98% 4.56% 7.58% 4.20% 4.96% 4.06% 7.28% 5.97% 5.21% 3.83%

(0.0575) (0.0312) (0.0354) (0.0264) (0.0284) (0.0084) (0.0118) (0.0095) (0.0095) (0.0079)

north Dakota . 4.65% . 5.11% . 6.10% 5.45% 7.67% 21.94% 17.84%

. (0.1484) . (0.1398) . (0.0607) (0.0416) (0.0398) (0.0923) (0.0818)

Ohio 4.51% 7.21% 2.46% 4.84% 3.84% 6.73% 7.32% 4.91% 4.98% 6.74%

(0.0391) (0.0324) (0.0214) (0.0258) (0.0233) (0.0109) (0.0118) (0.0073) (0.0083) (0.0100)

Oklahoma 16.18% 6.37% 2.48% 10.70% 5.93% 11.95% 7.52% 7.05% 7.78% 6.63%

(0.1438) (0.0685) (0.0426) (0.0840) (0.0543) (0.0329) (0.0236) (0.0178) (0.0187) (0.0163)

Oregon 2.29% 7.20% 5.22% 4.79% 3.40% 7.08% 3.23% 2.74% 3.87% 3.71%

(0.0438) (0.0562) (0.0391) (0.0419) (0.0310) (0.0285) (0.0077) (0.0102) (0.0113) (0.0107)

pennsylvania 6.68% 6.87% 5.96% 6.02% 5.88% 6.71% 5.55% 5.10% 6.59% 3.32%

(0.0482) (0.0279) (0.0252) (0.0249) (0.0241) (0.0083) (0.0068) (0.0067) (0.0084) (0.0062)

rhode island 6.26% 0.84% 3.71% 7.17% 11.47% 7.40% 9.41% 2.95% 10.45% 6.40%

(0.1363) (0.0295) (0.0600) (0.0745) (0.0890) (0.0222) (0.0258) (0.0109) (0.0404) (0.0184)

South Carolina 5.46% 14.27% 5.97% 4.80% 2.70% 4.60% 4.69% 4.39% 4.89% 3.25%

(0.0882) (0.0815) (0.0605) (0.0498) (0.0359) (0.0112) (0.0160) (0.0146) (0.0111) (0.0096)

South Dakota . 6.97% 19.89% 18.32% 23.32% 5.53% 18.99% 12.04% 8.26% 9.53%

. (0.2069) (0.2886) (0.3246) (0.3021) (0.0539) (0.1144) (0.1135) (0.0527) (0.0708)

Tennessee 7.65% 8.34% 6.75% 7.80% 5.69% 3.53% 5.40% 4.52% 5.88% 6.92%

(0.0907) (0.0571) (0.0535) (0.0560) (0.0430) (0.0094) (0.0117) (0.0106) (0.0122) (0.0135)

Texas 2.04% 4.17% 3.00% 2.82% 2.92% 2.42% 3.52% 2.49% 2.37% 1.92%

(0.0155) (0.0130) (0.0107) (0.0101) (0.0101) (0.0024) (0.0037) (0.0025) (0.0021) (0.0021)

utah 8.30% 11.52% 13.07% 6.70% 4.23% 8.03% 4.34% 5.16% 5.03% 4.90%

(0.1076) (0.0813) (0.0929) (0.0620) (0.0494) (0.0260) (0.0147) (0.0151) (0.0126) (0.0157)

Vermont . 12.79% 12.66% . 5.93% 5.84% 15.72% 2.10% 2.23% 8.95%

. (0.1605) (0.1647) . (0.1114) (0.0264) (0.0582) (0.0155) (0.0152) (0.0498)

Virginia 3.06% 4.15% 4.64% 2.76% 3.73% 4.65% 3.81% 3.33% 4.04% 4.07%

(0.0277) (0.0193) (0.0208) (0.0154) (0.0170) (0.0072) (0.0047) (0.0036) (0.0057) (0.0048)

washington 1.72% 3.68% 4.56% 4.05% 3.40% 2.54% 2.42% 2.75% 3.13% 3.19%

(0.0236) (0.0215) (0.0231) (0.0216) (0.0191) (0.0048) (0.0054) (0.0056) (0.0053) (0.0046)

west Virginia 36.10% 12.22% 5.10% . 9.52% 2.14% 7.82% 10.33% 6.97% 5.50%

(0.3465) (0.1618) (0.1111) . (0.1433) (0.0107) (0.0336) (0.0434) (0.0271) (0.0237)

wisconsin 7.30% 6.28% 3.64% 6.10% 5.91% 6.13% 6.70% 4.24% 6.85% 6.29%

(0.0848) (0.0486) (0.0380) (0.0496) (0.0446) (0.0167) (0.0156) (0.0130) (0.0175) (0.0159)

wyoming . 13.18% . 2.05% 5.39% 19.11% 16.80% 1.97% 3.55% 9.70%

. (0.3242) . (0.1394) (0.1902) (0.0948) (0.1021) (0.0203) (0.0395) (0.0730)


Table A7: Interstate outflows of STEM degree holders, 2009

Total Born in-state Born in other states Foreign born

u.S.A. 3.52% 1.75% 4.47% 4.16%

(0.0008) (0.0009) (0.0013) (0.0017)

Alabama 2.76% 0.98% 3.29% 6.51%

(0.0063) (0.0043) (0.0086) (0.0297)

Alaska 7.41% 3.69% 4.68% 28.80%

(0.0255) (0.0431) (0.0192) (0.1171)

Arizona 5.21% 1.59% 5.34% 6.73%

(0.0078) (0.0097) (0.0086) (0.0168)

Arkansas 1.02% 1.47% 0.84% .

(0.0047) (0.0089) (0.0061) .

California 2.01% 1.46% 3.34% 1.53%

(0.0019) (0.0027) (0.0040) (0.0020)

Colorado 3.50% 1.81% 3.24% 6.48%

(0.0055) (0.0068) (0.0051) (0.0255)

Connecticut 2.99% 0.54% 2.85% 5.72%

(0.0055) (0.0031) (0.0067) (0.0163)

Delaware 4.62% . 3.93% 8.26%

(0.0130) . (0.0148) (0.0371)

District of Columbia 12.31% 10.87% 11.81% 14.31%

(0.0257) (0.0778) (0.0278) (0.0478)

Florida 3.73% 1.51% 4.30% 3.77%

(0.0035) (0.0057) (0.0054) (0.0051)

georgia 3.89% 1.58% 3.67% 6.49%

(0.0047) (0.0050) (0.0054) (0.0147)

Hawaii 8.18% 3.90% 8.07% 13.21%

(0.0164) (0.0275) (0.0281) (0.0414)

idaho 7.91% 11.25% 5.78% 15.24%

(0.0173) (0.0427) (0.0146) (0.0825)

illinois 3.60% 1.83% 3.85% 5.54%

(0.0037) (0.0034) (0.0057) (0.0092)

indiana 3.65% 2.07% 4.45% 6.19%

(0.0050) (0.0063) (0.0084) (0.0193)

iowa 5.22% 0.79% 6.70% 16.10%

(0.0156) (0.0035) (0.0233) (0.0735)

kansas 4.10% 2.87% 4.00% 6.85%

(0.0105) (0.0139) (0.0113) (0.0250)

kentucky 5.72% 3.02% 7.74% 9.24%

(0.0107) (0.0113) (0.0188) (0.0372)

louisiana 4.59% 2.53% 7.55% 5.76%

(0.0091) (0.0109) (0.0183) (0.0278)

Maine 5.12% 6.25% 5.51% .

(0.0176) (0.0360) (0.0236) .

Maryland 3.45% 2.46% 3.10% 4.65%

(0.0046) (0.0081) (0.0051) (0.0094)


Table A7: Interstate outflows of STEM degree holders, 2009 (continued)


Massachusetts 3.37% 1.60% 4.63% 3.76%

(0.0045) (0.0052) (0.0086) (0.0084)

Michigan 3.21% 1.43% 4.16% 6.15%

(0.0045) (0.0037) (0.0090) (0.0144)

Minnesota 3.56% 1.65% 4.06% 6.92%

(0.0060) (0.0063) (0.0078) (0.0224)

Mississippi 4.93% 1.04% 7.07% 17.03%

(0.0142) (0.0069) (0.0211) (0.0754)

Missouri 3.51% 1.17% 4.78% 5.88%

(0.0070) (0.0044) (0.0111) (0.0218)

Montana 4.35% 0.75% 6.94% 4.43%

(0.0186) (0.0080) (0.0295) (0.0497)

nebraska 4.78% 2.89% 7.33% 1.50%

(0.0150) (0.0171) (0.0203) (0.0187)

nevada 4.81% 0.91% 5.62% 4.04%

(0.0097) (0.0098) (0.0117) (0.0192)

new Hampshire 4.66% 2.29% 3.49% 12.14%

(0.0123) (0.0168) (0.0112) (0.0593)

new Jersey 3.69% 1.95% 3.87% 4.54%

(0.0044) (0.0049) (0.0075) (0.0067)

new Mexico 5.53% 0.68% 7.38% 5.13%

(0.0104) (0.0068) (0.0145) (0.0251)

new york 3.30% 1.92% 6.50% 3.37%

(0.0033) (0.0042) (0.0094) (0.0046)

north Carolina 3.61% 1.54% 4.09% 4.96%

(0.0047) (0.0070) (0.0067) (0.0125)

north Dakota 8.63% 1.14% 11.98% 36.30%

(0.0399) (0.0120) (0.0759) (0.2252)

Ohio 4.65% 1.38% 6.75% 9.81%

(0.0062) (0.0038) (0.0123) (0.0220)

Oklahoma 6.08% 3.57% 6.27% 11.36%

(0.0104) (0.0161) (0.0171) (0.0405)

Oregon 3.87% 2.53% 4.29% 4.08%

(0.0075) (0.0110) (0.0101) (0.0153)

pennsylvania 3.19% 1.54% 5.30% 4.31%

(0.0037) (0.0043) (0.0077) (0.0099)

rhode island 4.62% 5.36% 3.43% 5.98%

(0.0125) (0.0220) (0.0121) (0.0336)

South Carolina 2.89% 1.72% 3.52% 2.95%

(0.0061) (0.0103) (0.0081) (0.0135)

South Dakota 3.93% 3.68% 3.10% 16.03%

(0.0163) (0.0247) (0.0204) (0.1624)

Tennessee 4.64% 0.96% 5.99% 8.44%

(0.0077) (0.0046) (0.0121) (0.0271)


Table A7: Interstate outflows of STEM degree holders, 2009 (continued)


Texas 2.55% 1.24% 3.57% 2.54%

(0.0021) (0.0024) (0.0039) (0.0037)

utah 5.94% 3.51% 7.21% 9.81%

(0.0101) (0.0100) (0.0140) (0.0438)

Vermont 3.56% 2.77% 3.43% 5.95%

(0.0129) (0.0298) (0.0137) (0.0620)

Virginia 3.66% 1.36% 4.09% 4.18%

(0.0039) (0.0050) (0.0054) (0.0076)

washington 3.58% 2.49% 4.33% 3.09%

(0.0049) (0.0090) (0.0074) (0.0077)

west Virginia 5.97% 2.33% 9.28% 6.90%

(0.0192) (0.0145) (0.0389) (0.0442)

wisconsin 4.37% 1.08% 6.70% 10.43%

(0.0072) (0.0036) (0.0145) (0.0345)

wyoming 9.44% 6.56% 8.41% 33.65%

(0.0293) (0.0472) (0.0348) (0.2555)


ABOUT THE AUTHORSi-ling SHEn is a senior research analyst at the Milken Institute, where she co-authored the report “Addressing California’s Pension Shortfalls: The Role of Demographics in Designing Solutions.” She specializes in population economics, economic growth and inequality. Her research has been published in the Journal of Economic Inequality and in various working paper series at the Bank of Italy, the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), and the Institute for the Study of labor (IZA). Her work was cited in United Nations’ “Human Development Report 2009” and was widely covered by media in the U.S. and Europe. She is an IZA research affiliate and an extramural fellow with the Catholic University of louvain (UCl), and she was formerly a Marie Curie post-doctoral fellow at the University of Geneva. She received her Ph.D. and M.A. in economics from UCl, a Master of Public Policy from the University of California, los Angeles, and a bachelor’s in business administration from National Taiwan University.

pErry wOng is senior vice president and senior economist for economic strategy at City National Bank. Wong is the former director of the Regional Economics group at the Milken Institute, where he is now a senior fellow. Wong is an expert on regional economics, development and econometric forecasting. He designs, manages and performs research on labor and workforce issues, the relationship between technology and economic development, and trade and industry, with a focus on policy development and implementation in both leading and disadvan-taged regions. His work extends to the international arena, where he is involved in regional economic develop-ment in southern China, Taiwan and elsewhere in Asia. Previously Wong was a senior economist and director of regional forecasting at Global Insight Inc. He received a master’s degree in economics from Temple University.

rOSS C. DEVOl is chief research officer at the Milken Institute. He oversees research on international, national and comparative regional growth performance; technology and its impact on regional and national economies; access to capital and its role in economic growth and job creation; and health-related topics. He was the principal author of “An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease,” which brought to light the economic losses associated with preventable illnesses and estimated the avoidable costs if a serious effort were made to improve Americans’ health. He also authored “America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development and Risks for Metropolitan Areas” and created the “Best-Performing Cities Index,” an annual ranking of U.S. metropolitan areas that shows where jobs are being created. Other recent work involves the study of biotechnology and life-science clusters and their impact on regional economies. Devol was previously senior vice president of Global Insight Inc.

1250 Fourth StreetSanta Monica, CA 90401Phone: (310) 570-4600

E-mail: [email protected] • www.milkeninstitute.org

Washington office:1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 620Washington, DC 20005Phone: (202) 336-8930

Date post:	03-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	6 times
Download:	0 times

What Brain Drain? - Milken Institute · 4 WHAT BRAIN DRAIN? Anecdotal evidence of a brain drain...

Documents