America's Fastest Shrinking Cities

The U.S. population rose by just 0.75% in 2014, roughly flat from previous years and the lowest growth rate in more than 70 years. Not only has the country become less attractive to immigrants than in previous years, with the population growing just over 0.3% last year as a result of migration, but the U.S. domestic birth rate has also dropped to a multi-decade low.

While population in most of the country’s metro areas has grown slowly in recent years, in a small number of metro areas the population shrank. From April 2010 to July 2014, the U.S. population rose by 3.1%, but in 10 metro areas the population shrank by as much as 2.1%. Based on recently released U.S. Census Bureau estimates, 24/7 Wall St. examined the cities with the fastest shrinking populations.

Click here to see the fastest shrinking cities in America

Click here to see the fastest growing cities in America

The fastest shrinking metro areas did not stand out as dramatically as the fastest growing areas. In 85 of the 381 U.S. metros, the population fell or remained flat last year. In 184 of the remaining areas, the population growth was less than 1%. In an interview, William Frey, senior fellow and demographer at the Brookings Institution, told 24/7 Wall St. these declines are attributable to a number of factors, including natural changes in population and shifting immigration trends.

While people need to leave a metropolitan area in order for its population to decline, Frey explained that these areas are shrinking primarily because they are failing to attract new migrants. Some area populations increased slightly from international immigration. However, all of the fastest-shrinking metro populations declined as a result of net migration. In half of the metro areas, the population declined by at least 5% due to domestic migration.

[protected-iframe width=”45%” height=”470″ class=”alignleft” id=”7678e2cf060df51bc0f6204cb7ff213d-5450697-55502028″ info=”//cdn2.lockerdome.com/_js/embed.js” style=”margin: 10px 0; max-width: 550px;”]

The availability of jobs is the most important factor in population change. While all but one fast growing metro area had an unemployment rate lower than the national rate of 5.6% in December, the opposite tended to be true in the fastest-shrinking metros. All but one area where data was available had an unemployment rate above the national rate of 7.4% in 2013. In several areas, however, the unemployment rate had improved to roughly in line or below the national rate as of December 2014.

These areas also tend to have older populations. According to Frey, this means two things. First, migrants tend to be younger in general, so these areas are not attractive to the Americans most likely to relocate. Secondly, the birth rate tends to be lower in places with older populations. The 2013 median age in all but one fast-shrinking metro area was higher than the nationwide median of 37.5 years.

In recent years, the disparity between growing and shrinking areas across the nation has actually been relatively modest. As Americans continue to recover from the recession they will increasingly have the means, and the opportunities available, to move. According to Frey, as migration picks back up again, the disparity between growing and shrinking U.S. regions may become even greater.

Based on recently released U.S. Census Bureau estimates, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed population changes in 381 metropolitan statistical areas from April 2010 through July 2014. We only considered metro areas with at least 100,000 people as of 2014. We also reviewed figures from the Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey. Data on incomes and price levels, as of 2013 and 2010, respectively, are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Unemployment rates for December 2014 and annual unemployment rates for 2010 and 2013 are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Metro area 2010 and 2013 GDP per capita figures are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and are in 2009 dollars.

These are America’s Fastest Shrinking Cities

10. Anniston-Oxford-Jacksonville, AL
> Population growth (2010-2014): -2.1%
> Total population: 116,736
> Per capita income: $30,136
> Unemployment rate: 8.1%

The Anniston-Oxford-Jacksonville metro area’s population shrank by 2.1%, or 2,670, from 2010 to 2014, the 10th largest percentage decrease compared to all large metro areas. While natural population growth was positive in most areas, it was negative in the Anniston area — that is, there were more deaths than births. In addition, more people migrated out of the area than into it from 2010 to 2014, with the population declining 2% due to migration. Weakening economic factors are partly behind the decline. While the area’s unemployment rate improved from 2010 to 2014, it was higher than the national rate in both years. Also, the Anniston metro area had a GDP per capita of $30,136 in 2013, far lower than the national figure of $52,093, and down more than 5% from 2010.

ALSO READ: The Largest Employer in Each State

9. East Stroudsburg, PA
> Population growth (2010-2014): -2.1%
> Total population: 167,148
> Per capita income: $30,123
> Unemployment rate: N/A

Like most shrinking metro areas, a small influx of international residents helped offset the population loss of 2.7% due to domestic migration from 2010 to 2014. Also, natural population growth was roughly flat over that period. All told, the East Stroudsburg area’s population declined by more than 3,528 persons. Like several other shrinking metro areas, East Stroudsburg residents are relatively poor. The metro’s GDP per capita of $30,123 in 2013 was among the lower figures nationwide, as well as down slightly from 2010. By contrast, the nation’s GDP per capita increased over that period.

8. Decatur, IL
> Population growth (2010-2014): -2.2%
> Total population: 109,278
> Per capita income: $50,431
> Unemployment rate: 11.8%

While the U.S. population grew from 2010 to 2014 by more than 10 million people, or over 3%, the Decatur metro area’s population fell by 2.2% over that period — the eighth largest population decline compared to all large U.S. metros. As in many areas with shrinking populations, Decatur’s 2013 unemployment rate of nearly 12% was considerably higher than the national rate of 7.4%. And while the unemployment rate improved from 2010 levels in most metro areas, Decatur’s unemployment rate went up slightly from 2010 to 2013. The manufacturing industry accounted for 20% of the metro’s GDP in 2013, one of the highest such contributions. The sector, however, is in a state of decay. For example, heavy equipment manufacturer Caterpillar, which has several plants in the region, has announced hundreds of layoffs over the last few years.

7. Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH
> Population growth (2010-2014): -2.4%
> Total population: 124,718
> Per capita income: $28,044
> Unemployment rate: N/A

With deaths occurring at a faster rate than across the nation, and with a birth rate of just 3.7% — lower than the national birth rate of 5.5% — the Weirton-Steubenville metro area’s population declined by nearly 2%. The population’s decrease due to natural factors was greater than the population’s decrease due to net migration, the only fast-shrinking metro area where this was the case. The area was also quite poor in 2013 with GDP per capita of $28,044, well below the national figure of $52,093. Although, the area’s economic output increased 3.6% from 2010 to last year, slightly faster than the national economic growth rate over that period.

6. Saginaw, MI
> Population growth (2010-2014): -2.4%
> Total population: 196,542
> Per capita income: $36,345
> Unemployment rate: 9.0%

Like several other shrinking metro areas, and especially Midwestern regions, the Saginaw area economy relies on manufacturing more than many others. In 2013, 16% of the metro’s GDP came from manufacturing, much higher than the 11% industry contribution nationwide. Similarly, 15.5% of Saginaw’s workforce was employed in manufacturing in 2013, higher than the 10.5% industry representation in the national workforce. The area has seen numerous business closures and layoffs, especially in the manufacturing sector. While this may explain part of the area’s exodus, there has been some resurgence in recent months. Solar panel manufacturer Suniva, for example, recently opened a plant in Saginaw, which should help bolster the local economy. Saginaw’s unemployment rate of 11.9% in 2013 and 9.0% in 2010 were both higher than the respective national figures. However, as of December 2014, the unemployment rate had fallen to 5.3%, lower than the December national unemployment rate.

ALSO READ: States Volunteering the Most (and Least)

5. Cumberland, MD-WV
> Population growth (2010-2014): -2.6%
> Total population: 101,225
> Per capita income: $26,736
> Unemployment rate: 7.5%

The Cumberland metro area economy improved hardly at all from 2010 to 2013. Except for the public administration sector, all of the area’s industry’s outputs declined or remained flat. The Cumberland area’s GDP per capita of $26,736 was also roughly unchanged from 2010 as well as considerably lower than the national GDP per capita of $52,093. The region lost 1% of its population due to natural growth factors, and nearly 1.6% due to net migration. As in most fast-shrinking metro areas, the median age of 42.1 years in Cumberland was higher than the national median of 37.5 years. As younger people — the most likely Americans to move — choose other locations to migrate, the median age will rise. Birth rates also tend to be lower in older populations.

4. Flint, MI
> Population growth (2010-2014): -2.8%
> Total population: 415,376
> Per capita income: $28,773
> Unemployment rate: 9.6%

About 415,400 people lived in the Flint metro area last year, one of the higher metro area populations reviewed and the highest on the list of shrinking cities. Flint also had among the largest nominal drops in population, declining by nearly 13,000 from 2010 to 2014, or 2.8%, the fourth largest percentage decline nationwide. As in many regions in the Midwest, particularly in Michigan, the manufacturing industry in Flint has been declining for decades. This may account for part of the population decline as area residents are more likely to pursue work elsewhere and the area is less attractive to newcomers. In 2010, nearly 14% of Flint’s workforce was unemployed. The rate fell to 9.6% in 2013, but was still considerably higher than the national rate that year. As of December of last year, the unemployment rate had fallen to 5.7%, only slightly higher than the national rate of 5.6%.

ALSO READ: Companies Profiting from War

3. Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ
> Population growth (2010-2014): -3.4%
> Total population: 129,473
> Per capita income: $30,242
> Unemployment rate: N/A

The Sierra Vista-Douglas metro area’s population grew 1.1% due to international immigration from 2010 to last year, one of the highest such growth rates. However, this was not enough to offset the domestic exodus over that period, with the population shrinking 5.5% due to domestic migration. The area’s natural growth was relatively strong compared to other shrinking metro areas. As in most areas with shrinking populations, a relatively weak economy was a major factor in the region’s population decline. The area’s GDP per capita of about $30,000 in 2013 was among the lower figures nationwide and was also down slightly from 2010. By contrast, GDP per capita in most areas, as well as across the nation, increased over that period.

2. Johnstown, PA
> Population growth (2010-2014): -4.0%
> Total population: 140,499
> Per capita income: $28,222
> Unemployment rate: 8.6%

The Johnston metro area’s population fell from 2010 to last year by nearly 6,000 persons, or 4.0%, a larger percentage decline than all but one large metro area. There were more deaths than births in the area, resulting in a roughly 1.3% drop in population due to natural factors over that period. Residents also moved out of the area faster than outsiders moved in, with the population declining an additional 2.6% from net migration. As in most areas with shrinking populations, the Johnstown area is not especially wealthy. The area’s GDP per capita was just $28,222 in 2013, one of the lowest metro level economic outputs and down slightly from 2010.

ALSO READ: The Most Iconic Job in Each State

1. Farmington, NM
> Population growth (2010-2014): -4.9%
> Total population: 126,503
> Per capita income: $44,368
> Unemployment rate: 6.7%

No metro area with at least 100,000 residents had a larger population decline from 2010 to last year than Farmington, New Mexico, where the population declined by nearly 5% over that period. The area’s birth rate from 2010 to last year was nearly double the death rate, with the population actually growing 3.0% due to natural factors. By contrast, the national population grew by just 2% as a result of natural factors. The relatively young median age of 34 among area residents partly explains the higher birth rate, as younger people are the most likely to have children — the Farmington metro was the only area where the median age did not exceed the national median of 37.5. Despite the area’s natural population growth, however, Americans were far more likely to leave than to move to the area from 2010 to last year. The population shrank by nearly 8% due to migration over that time, one of largest such negative growth rates nationwide.

Click here to see the fastest growing cities in America