Migrants from the Bay Area and East Bay
Continue Working in the Same Region
Over time in the last 15 years, more and more San Joaquin County residents work outside of the county border (thereafter called out-commuters). In 1990, 16% of its working residents commuted to work outside of the county. In 2000, the share increased to 23%, and further increased to 27% in 2005. This does not mean, however, that the number of residents working within the county (thereafter called in-commuters) is declining. Instead, it means that the number of out-commuters adds up faster than in-commuters.
Data from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that working migrants who moved from outside San Joaquin County between 2004 and 2005 made up approximately 40% of all out-commuters. This was well above the 20% share of migrants among in-commuters. This brings up a question: what determines why some migrants choose to work within the county while others outside of the county? A further look at the data shows that migrants’ place of origin affects their commuting pattern, i.e. whether to commute outside or inside the county.
Figure 1 shows that approximately 13,500 working migrants moved to San Joaquin County between 2004 and 2005. The majority of the migrants came from the Bay Area & East Bay (34%), followed by migrants from the Central Valley (30%), Other States (18%), and Abroad (7%).
Figure 2 shows that migrants from the Bay Area and East Bay had a higher likelihood to commute outside of the county (59% commuting outside compared to 41% inside). More precisely, these migrants remained working in the Bay Area & East Bay. This suggests that the initial reason most people moved from the Bay Area and East Bay to the county was not job (it still was for some of them). Instead, the more likely reason was finding more affordable housing. On the other hand, migrants from the Central Valley (those from Upper Central Valley, Sacramento MSA, and other counties around San Joaquin County) were as likely to be an out-commuter as they were to be an in-commuter.
Figure 2 also shows that people coming from more distant places (such as from other states and abroad) were much more likely to work within the county. As many as 72% of the migrants from other states (such as Oregon, Washington, and Idaho) or 100% of the migrants from abroad (primarily Mexico and to some extent Canada) came to live and work within the county. In sum, the evidence agrees with the literature, which suggests that long distance moves tend to be job driven, while short distance moves to be housing choice driven.
What kind of jobs do these out-commuters have? Will, and when will, the out-commuters decide to stop commuting outside of the county and choose to work within the county instead? These are topics for another discussion.
