What Brain Drain

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

I-Ling Shen and Perry Wong with Ross C. DeVol
o c to b e r 2 0 1 1
What Brain Drain?
What Brain Drain?

California Among the Best in U.S.
at Retaining Skilled Workers
I-Ling Shen and Perry Wong with Ross C. DeVol
october 2011
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; and
social 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 capitalwe hope to contribute to prosperity and freedom in all corners of the globe.
We are nonprofit, nonpartisan, and publicly supported.
2011 Milken Institute
Table of Contents
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
Executive Summary
They 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 states brain drain is sure to sink its position
as a national leader in technology.
The problem is its not trueat least not yet. Its a fact that Californias 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 Bureaus 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 percentage point less than the national rate.
The Golden State has been particularly adept at retaining skilled foreign-born residents. Californias 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 California residents. The Lone Star State drew 16 percent of out-migrants with STEM degrees. Overall, however, 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 states 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 bachelors 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.
Born in other states Foreign-born Born in-state
5
4
W hat B rain D rain ?
3
2
1
0
2000 aggregate
2001 2002 2003
2005 2006
Figure ES: Annual skill outflow rate by birthplace, national
vs.2004
California
Percent
7
6
National aggregate
Percent
7
6
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2007 2008 2009
California
--- Born in other states (excl. returned to home states)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Note: Cross signs (x) denote estimates of skill outflow rates. Each trend line is approximated by a sixth order polynomial. The standard error of
Percent
each estimate can be foundCalifornia
in the appendixes.
Sources:
Integrated Public Use Microdata Series USA (IPUMS-USA), Milken Institute.
7
Born in other states (excl. returned to home states)
6
---
The
major disadvantage of out-migration for any state is the loss of skilled young workers. Not only does a state
4
lose
what it has invested in them through public education and different funding programs, but a states tax base
3
also
erodes when it loses individuals with higher earning and consumption power. Most important in Californias
2
case,
the concentration of young innovators with advanced skills has been key to the success of Silicon Valley
1
and
other innovation clusters. These clusters collectively act as an economic engine that breeds other industries
0
2000
2001
2002 2003 2004
2005 and
2006personal
2007 2008
2009
providing
professional,
financial,
services.
Although California has managed to keep skilled individuals within its borders, it cant rest on its laurels. Other
states have developed their own tech industries, so skilled job seekers have considerably more options. And
Californias 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 states
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.
I ntroduction
The abundance and concentration of high-skilled human capital is an integral part of Californias success in
developing high-tech clusters. However, concerns about deterioration in Californias 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 Californias 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. Californias unemployment rate is the second highest in the nation, and the hightech 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 percentor 1.3 million
jobsof the states employment and more than
16 percent of the states wages.7 Californias
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.
Figure 1: Californias share of

national high-tech employment
Percent
20
19
18
17
16
15
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
04
06
08
Sources: Moodys Analytics, Milken Institute.
4. According to the Milken Institutes latest State Technology and Science Index, the employment growth of Californias 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-braindrain/; 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.
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 Californias 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 bachelors 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 statesa possibility that increases after people reach adulthood.11
The second migration patternthe annual outflow of state residentstends to fluctuate with economic cycles,
and it generally reflects a states 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 bachelors 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 Californias
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: Californias 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.
INTRODUCTION
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 states tax base
also erodes when it loses individuals with higher earning and consumption power. Most important in Californias
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).
Profi l es o f out - migrants f rom C alif ornia

In this section, we compare the age and educational profiles of Californias 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 characteristicfor instance, agewithin each group and compared the distribution of movers to that of stayers. (In other words, we looked at the probability mass distribution 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, lets turn to the educational profile. Figure 3 shows the mover group on average was more educatedor
skilled, by our definitionthan 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 Californias 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 Bureaus 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.
P ro f i l es o f out - migrants f rom C a l i f ornia
Figure 2: Average age distribution

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

by birthplace, 2000-2009
All
7%
Stayer
Mover
6%
5%
3%
20%
2%
10%
1%
0%
0%
35
40
45
50
55
60
65+
Born in California
7%
5%
3%
20%
2%
10%
1%
0%
0%
35
40
45
50
55
60
Stayer
65+
Stayer
Mover
5%
High school
or less
20%
2%
10%
1%
0%
45
50
55
60
65+
Foreign-born
7%
5%
30%
20%
2%
10%
1%
0%
0%
40
45
50
Sources: IPUMS-USA, Milken Institute.
55
60
Mover
Bachelor's
Graduate
Foreign-born
Stayer
Mover
40%
3%
35
Associate's
or some
college
50%
4%
30
High school
or less
60%
Stayer
Mover
6%
25
Graduate
40%
3%
40
Bachelor's
Stayer
50%
30%
35
Associate's
or some
college
60%
4%
30
Mover
Born in other states
6%
25
Graduate
Born in California

7%
0%
Bachelor's
40%
30%
30
Associate's
or some
college
50%
4%
25
High school
or less
60%
Stayer
Mover
6%
Mover
40%
30%
30
Stayer
50%
4%
25
All
60%
65+
High school
or less
Associate's
or some
college
Bachelor's
Graduate
tayer
MS
Figure 4: Distribution of degree field

by birthplace, 2009
MS
MS
20%
MS
Stayer
Mover
MS
CIS
15%
10%
5%
0%
Mover
CIS
Mover
Mover
CIS
CIS
es
tayer
All
25%
es
tayer
tayer
Mover
25%
25%
25%
20%
20%
20%
15%
15%
15%
10%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
0%
0%
0%
25%
25%
25%
20%
20%
20%
15%
15%
15%
10%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
0%
0%
0%
PS
BLS
Born
in other states
Born in California
All
Stayer
Stayer
Stayer
E
E
E
PS
PS
PS
BLS
BLS
BLS
MS
MS
MS
Foreign-born
Born
in other states
Born in California
Stayer
Stayer
Stayer
Mover
Mover
Mover
CIS
CIS
CIS
Mover
Mover
Mover
E
E
PS
PS
BLS
BLS
MS
MS
CIS
CIS
Foreign-born
25%
20%
Stayer
Mover
MS
CIS
10%
5%
E
E
E
PS
PS
PS
BLS
BLS
BLS
MS
MS
MS
CIS
CIS
CIS
Foreign-born
25%
20%
Stayer
Mover
MS
CIS
10%
5%
0%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
15%
15%
CIS
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
Born in California
25%STEM degrees, compared to 15.3 percent among the skilled
Stayer Mover
20%stayers. The corresponding figures for foreign-born individuals were 41.2 percent versus 33.4 percent. In contrast,
15%
the differential was minuscule for those born in other
10%
states. One explanation is that, having migrated from other
5%
states to California, they were a more homogeneous group
0%
in terms
of thePSindividual
determinants
of interstate migraE
BLS
MS
CIS
tion decisions. If the personal characteristics that drove
their decisions to
move also largely drove their choice
Foreign-born
25%
of majoring inBorn
STEM
fields,
indegree
California
Stayerholding
MoverSTEM degrees
25%
20%
Stayer
Mover
may not have a high correlation
with subsequent
interstate
20%
15%movements because these personal characteristics are
15%
10%already controlled for within this self-selected group.
PS
BLS
E: engineering; PS: physical sciences;

BLS: biology and life sciences;
MS: mathematics and statistics;
CIS: computer and information sciences.
0%
PS
BLS
Out-migration of high-skilled California natives

The out-migration rate of high-skilled California natives has been quite stable over the past decade at around
Percent
High-skilled
35 percent (see figure 5). In contrast, nearly half the high-skilled
population nationally
livednative
outside their native
55
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 for50benchmarking against Californias trend.
45
We also found that the high-skilled native out-migration rate was always higher than the less-skilled out-migration
40
rate in every state and in every year from 2000 to 2009. Still, California stood out as having the least skill bias
35
among all the states in the out-migration of natives. As shown
in figure 5, out-migration of high-skilled and
17
30
less-skilled workers only differed by around 2 percent. This implies that the reasons Californians left the state
were likely to be similar regardless of skill level.
25
Figure 5: Native out-migration rate by skill level

Percent
High-skilled native
20
Percent
55
55
50
50
45
45
40
40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
20
Less-skilled native
National aggregate
California
Texas
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Note 1: Cross signs (x) denote estimates of native out-migration rates, whose 95 percent confidence intervals are marked by upper and lower
Percent
bars
(-). Each trend line is Less-skilled
approximatednative
by a sixth order polynomial.
Note
55 2: Texas has the lowest out-migration rates for both high-skilled and less-skilled natives.
National aggregate
California
45
aTexas
Overall, California appeared to have
good record of retaining talented natives based on the out-migration rate
50
40
itself and the skill-bias measure. Accordingly, one can hardly argue that California is threatened by the brain drain
35 skilled natives.
of
30
25
20
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
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.
10
A nnua l out f lows o f ski l l ed residents

Experts 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 California residents was similar to the national average.18 It is further proof that skilled workers are not fleeing California.
Figure 6: Skill outflow rate

Percent
5
4
National aggregate
California
Texas
3
2
1
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
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 20032005 and dropped only when the economy
was well into an expansionary mode. This
likely reflects the fact that Californias middecade recovery, at least in some high-tech
industries, was not as strong as that of
competing states.20
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.
18. According to the U.S. Census Bureaus 2005-2009 ACS five-year estimates, 29.7 percent of Californias population 25 and older held a bachelors 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 opportunities, 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.
A nnua l out f l ows o f ski l l ed residents
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 states 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.
Percent
National aggregate
Home-state attachment is also evidenced by the fact that more than a quarter of high-skilled out-migrants who
7
were born in other states returned to their birth states in the period
studied.
when we
subtracted
in otherInterestingly,
states Foreign-born
Born in-state
Born
6
this subgroup of returnees, we found that the skill outflow rates of out-of-staters who left for locations other
5
than their birth states appeared almost identical to the foreign-born
skill outflow rate at the national level.
4
However, this is not the case in California.
3
In the Golden State, the average annual outflow rate of foreign-born skilled workers was similar to that of skilled
2
natives at 1.62 percent and 1.35 percent, respectively. In fact, Californias outflow rate of foreign-born skilled
1
workers was the lowest in the nation, which suggests California has done particularly well at retaining this group.
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 7: Skill outflow rate by birthplace, national aggregate vs. California

Percent
7
6
National aggregate
Percent
7
6
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
California
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Note: Cross signs (x) denote estimates of skill outflow rates. Each trend line is approximated by a sixth order polynomial.
ThePercent
standard error of each estimate
can be found in the appendixes.
California
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
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.
11
12
C. Outflows of STEM degree holders
Figure 8: Outflow rate of STEM degree

holders by birthplace, 2009
All
7%
National aggregate
6%
California
Texas
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
PS
BLS
MS
CIS
Born in-state
7%
National aggregate
6%
California
Texas
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
PS
BLS
MS
CIS
7%
National aggregate
6%
California
Texas
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 particularly 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.
Californias 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 Californias
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.
Figure 9: STEM degree holders by birthplace,

California, 2009
Thousands
5%
700
4%
600
3%
500
2%
400
1%
300
0%
PS
BLS
MS
CIS
Foreign-born
7%
National aggregate
6%
California
Texas
4%
3%
2%
1%
PS
BLS
55.9%
200
34.1%
100
39.0%
43.1%
E
PS
BLS
Foreign-born
54.9%
5%
0%
Born in California
MS
CIS
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.
MS
CIS
A nnua l out f l ows o f ski l l ed residents
D. Destination of Californias 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 highskilled workers, even though Californias 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 peoples relocation decisions. California neighbors Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon all made the list of
top 10 destinations. In addition, industrial structureand therefore employment opportunitiesappeared to
be crucial. For example, despite being a distant state, Massachusetts was one of the main destinations for Californias skilled out-migrants. Thanks to its high-tech and life sciences clusters, Massachusetts attracted disproportionately 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 Dreaminof Jobs in Texas, Wall Street Journal, April 22, 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704570
704576275051374356340.html (accessed August 5, 2011).
13
14
ANother side of THE story: Annual skill inflows

Clearly, 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 Californias skill inflow rate was around just 2 percent.23 Due to increased skill
outflow during 20042007, 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.
Figure 10: Skill inflow vs. skill outflow, California

Percent
Skill outflow
Skill inflow
Skill inflow incl. immigrants
3
2
1
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
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.
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 Californias 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 Californias 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 Institutes 2004 State Technology and Science Index.
15
Conclusion and Implications

While California has performed relatively well in retaining its highly skilled workers, this shouldnt give the state
license to sit back and relax, especially when competition for talent is increasingly fierce. As figure 1 shows, Californias share of high-tech employment has been declining for two decades. At the same time, the national technology 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 Californias technology base and
produced the states 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 growingor at least a stablebase, attracting and retaining
these individuals cannot be achieved.
Given this context, California should pay particular attention to the following areas:
Competition: Californias 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 Californias recovery, at least in the high-tech sector, has not been as strong
as in competing states. Californias 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: Californias 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 Californias
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, Californias 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 cant find enough skilled workers and college
graduates. However, Salzman and Lowell (2008) cautioned: History suggests that policies designed to stockpile scientists and engineers are counterproductive because unsound policies may turn excess demand into excess supply.
16
References
Autor, 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, Frderic 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. Americas 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. Americas Biotech and Life Science
Clusters: San Diegos Position and Economic Contributions. Milken Institute Research Report.
Santa Monica: Milken Institute, 2004.
Edin, Per-Anders, Peter Fredriksson, and Olof slund. 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.Nature453 (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: Californias Fiscal Outlook. Sacramento: California Legislative Analysts Office, 2010.
Wadhwa, Vivek. A Reverse Brain Drain. Issues in Science and Technology, Spring (2009).
17
AppendiXes
Appendix A: High-tech employment by industry, California, 2009
Employment
(in thousands)
Location quotient26
(relative to U.S.)
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
5.66
2.33
114.88
1.73
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
195.44
1.28
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
1304.63
1.54
Industry
26
Motion Picture & Video Industries
Audio & Video Equipment Manufacturing

Scientific R&D Services
Manufacturing & Reproducing Magnetic & Optical Media
Computer Systems Design & Related Services

Medical & Diagnostic Laboratories
All high-tech industries

Sources: Moodys Analytics, Milken Institute.
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 Californias high-tech employment was more than 50 percent more concentrated
than that of the U.S.
18
Appendix B: OuTflow from Californias 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 individuals 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 Californias high-tech workers, with the left panel documenting the movement of all high-tech workers and the right panel of high-tech workers holding a bachelors 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.
Figure A1: High-tech outflow rate, California

A. All high-tech workers
Percent
5.0
Skill outflow
High-tech skill outflow
B. High-tech workers with bachelors or higher

Percent
5.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
Skill outflow
High-tech skill outflow
1.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
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.
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.
A ppendiXes
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:
1 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 bachelors degree and above. Otherwise, we might overstate the skill bias of outmigration by listing as less-skilled workers the future college graduates who are not yet in the labor force.
2 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 longer directly relevant to the economy.
For ease of notation, we implicitly exclude these two sub-groups when referring to a certain population. For example, when we refer to the number of skilled residents in California, we only subscribe to the number of California residents holding a bachelors 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
19
20
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 20002004
than for years 20052009. 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 permanent 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.
A ppendiXes
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.
21
22
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
U.S.A.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A ppendiXes
23
Table A1: Interstate out-migration of skilled natives (continued)

Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
24
Table A1: Interstate out-migration of skilled natives (continued)

South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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

U.S.A.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A ppendiXes
25
Table A2: Interstate out-migration of less-skilled natives (continued)

Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
81.51%
82.80%
82.91%
84.10%
84.58%
84.43%
82.91%
83.94%
83.12%
82.85%
(0.0360)
(0.0222)
(0.0217)
(0.0214)
(0.0214)
(0.0055)
(0.0054)
(0.0052)
(0.0059)
(0.0048)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
26
Table A2: Interstate out-migration of less-skilled natives (continued)

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A ppendiXes
27
Table A3: Interstate skill outflows, all

U.S.A.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
11.01%
9.10%
7.77%
8.53%
8.76%
10.48%
11.92%
11.12%
10.08%
10.58%
(0.0584)
(0.0326)
(0.0304)
(0.0311)
(0.0305)
(0.0097)
(0.0106)
(0.0106)
(0.0098)
(0.0092)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
28
Table A3: Interstate skill outflows, all (continued)

Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A ppendiXes
29
Table A3: Interstate skill outflows, all (continued)

Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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

U.S.A.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
30
Table A4: Interstate skill outflow, born in-state (continued)

2000
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A ppendiXes
31
Table A4: Interstate skill outflow, born in-state (continued)

New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
32
Table A5: Interstate skill outflow, born in other states

U.S.A.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
10.59%
9.40%
9.34%
11.28%
10.36%
10.06%
12.32%
12.22%
10.30%
10.80%
(0.0718)
(0.0403)
(0.0401)
(0.0429)
(0.0409)
(0.0116)
(0.0123)
(0.0127)
(0.0108)
(0.0108)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A ppendiXes
33
Table A5: Interstate skill outflow, born in other states (continued)

Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
34
Table A5: Interstate skill outflow, born in other states (continued)

Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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

U.S.A.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
18.06%
11.94%
5.02%
4.11%
7.74%
10.93%
12.59%
11.63%
9.00%
13.12%
(0.1484)
(0.0880)
(0.0572)
(0.0513)
(0.0638)
(0.0204)
(0.0265)
(0.0246)
(0.0221)
(0.0260)
A ppendiXes
35
Table A6: Interstate skill outflow, foreign-born (continued)

Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
New Hampshire
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)
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)
36
Table A6: Interstate skill outflow, foreign-born (continued)

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A ppendiXes
37
Table A7: Interstate outflows of STEM degree holders, 2009

U.S.A.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Total
Born in-state
Foreign born
3.52%
1.75%
4.47%
4.16%
(0.0008)
(0.0009)
(0.0013)
(0.0017)
2.76%
0.98%
3.29%
6.51%
(0.0063)
(0.0043)
(0.0086)
(0.0297)
7.41%
3.69%
4.68%
28.80%
(0.0255)
(0.0431)
(0.0192)
(0.1171)
5.21%
1.59%
5.34%
6.73%
(0.0078)
(0.0097)
(0.0086)
(0.0168)
1.02%
1.47%
0.84%
(0.0047)
(0.0089)
(0.0061)
2.01%
1.46%
3.34%
1.53%
(0.0019)
(0.0027)
(0.0040)
(0.0020)
3.50%
1.81%
3.24%
6.48%
(0.0055)
(0.0068)
(0.0051)
(0.0255)
2.99%
0.54%
2.85%
5.72%
(0.0055)
(0.0031)
(0.0067)
(0.0163)
4.62%
3.93%
8.26%
(0.0130)
(0.0148)
(0.0371)
12.31%
10.87%
11.81%
14.31%
(0.0257)
(0.0778)
(0.0278)
(0.0478)
3.73%
1.51%
4.30%
3.77%
(0.0035)
(0.0057)
(0.0054)
(0.0051)
3.89%
1.58%
3.67%
6.49%
(0.0047)
(0.0050)
(0.0054)
(0.0147)
8.18%
3.90%
8.07%
13.21%
(0.0164)
(0.0275)
(0.0281)
(0.0414)
7.91%
11.25%
5.78%
15.24%
(0.0173)
(0.0427)
(0.0146)
(0.0825)
3.60%
1.83%
3.85%
5.54%
(0.0037)
(0.0034)
(0.0057)
(0.0092)
3.65%
2.07%
4.45%
6.19%
(0.0050)
(0.0063)
(0.0084)
(0.0193)
5.22%
0.79%
6.70%
16.10%
(0.0156)
(0.0035)
(0.0233)
(0.0735)
4.10%
2.87%
4.00%
6.85%
(0.0105)
(0.0139)
(0.0113)
(0.0250)
5.72%
3.02%
7.74%
9.24%
(0.0107)
(0.0113)
(0.0188)
(0.0372)
4.59%
2.53%
7.55%
5.76%
(0.0091)
(0.0109)
(0.0183)
(0.0278)
5.12%
6.25%
5.51%
(0.0176)
(0.0360)
(0.0236)
3.45%
2.46%
3.10%
4.65%
(0.0046)
(0.0081)
(0.0051)
(0.0094)
38
Table A7: Interstate outflows of STEM degree holders, 2009 (continued)

Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Total
Born in-state
Foreign born
3.37%
1.60%
4.63%
3.76%
(0.0045)
(0.0052)
(0.0086)
(0.0084)
3.21%
1.43%
4.16%
6.15%
(0.0045)
(0.0037)
(0.0090)
(0.0144)
3.56%
1.65%
4.06%
6.92%
(0.0060)
(0.0063)
(0.0078)
(0.0224)
4.93%
1.04%
7.07%
17.03%
(0.0142)
(0.0069)
(0.0211)
(0.0754)
3.51%
1.17%
4.78%
5.88%
(0.0070)
(0.0044)
(0.0111)
(0.0218)
4.35%
0.75%
6.94%
4.43%
(0.0186)
(0.0080)
(0.0295)
(0.0497)
4.78%
2.89%
7.33%
1.50%
(0.0150)
(0.0171)
(0.0203)
(0.0187)
4.81%
0.91%
5.62%
4.04%
(0.0097)
(0.0098)
(0.0117)
(0.0192)
4.66%
2.29%
3.49%
12.14%
(0.0123)
(0.0168)
(0.0112)
(0.0593)
3.69%
1.95%
3.87%
4.54%
(0.0044)
(0.0049)
(0.0075)
(0.0067)
5.53%
0.68%
7.38%
5.13%
(0.0104)
(0.0068)
(0.0145)
(0.0251)
3.30%
1.92%
6.50%
3.37%
(0.0033)
(0.0042)
(0.0094)
(0.0046)
3.61%
1.54%
4.09%
4.96%
(0.0047)
(0.0070)
(0.0067)
(0.0125)
8.63%
1.14%
11.98%
36.30%
(0.0399)
(0.0120)
(0.0759)
(0.2252)
4.65%
1.38%
6.75%
9.81%
(0.0062)
(0.0038)
(0.0123)
(0.0220)
6.08%
3.57%
6.27%
11.36%
(0.0104)
(0.0161)
(0.0171)
(0.0405)
3.87%
2.53%
4.29%
4.08%
(0.0075)
(0.0110)
(0.0101)
(0.0153)
3.19%
1.54%
5.30%
4.31%
(0.0037)
(0.0043)
(0.0077)
(0.0099)
4.62%
5.36%
3.43%
5.98%
(0.0125)
(0.0220)
(0.0121)
(0.0336)
2.89%
1.72%
3.52%
2.95%
(0.0061)
(0.0103)
(0.0081)
(0.0135)
3.93%
3.68%
3.10%
16.03%
(0.0163)
(0.0247)
(0.0204)
(0.1624)
4.64%
0.96%
5.99%
8.44%
(0.0077)
(0.0046)
(0.0121)
(0.0271)
A ppendiXes
39
Table A7: Interstate outflows of STEM degree holders, 2009 (continued)

Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Born in-state
Foreign born
2.55%
1.24%
3.57%
2.54%
(0.0021)
(0.0024)
(0.0039)
(0.0037)
5.94%
3.51%
7.21%
9.81%
(0.0101)
(0.0100)
(0.0140)
(0.0438)
3.56%
2.77%
3.43%
5.95%
(0.0129)
(0.0298)
(0.0137)
(0.0620)
3.66%
1.36%
4.09%
4.18%
(0.0039)
(0.0050)
(0.0054)
(0.0076)
3.58%
2.49%
4.33%
3.09%
(0.0049)
(0.0090)
(0.0074)
(0.0077)
5.97%
2.33%
9.28%
6.90%
(0.0192)
(0.0145)
(0.0389)
(0.0442)
4.37%
1.08%
6.70%
10.43%
(0.0072)
(0.0036)
(0.0145)
(0.0345)
9.44%
6.56%
8.41%
33.65%
(0.0293)
(0.0472)
(0.0348)
(0.2555)
40
About the Authors

I-Ling Shen is a senior research analyst at the Milken Institute, where she co-authored the report Addressing
Californias 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 bachelors 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 disadvantaged regions. His work extends to the international arena, where he is involved in regional economic development 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 masters 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 Americas 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 Street

Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 570-4600
Washington office:
1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 620
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 336-8930
E-mail: info@milkeninstitute.org www.milkeninstitute.org

What Brain Drain

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Brain Drain

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

California Among the Best in U.S.

at Retaining Skilled Workers

What Brain Drain?

What Brain Drain?

About the Milken Institute

2011 Milken Institute

1. See Figure 1 in the full report.

Born in other states Foreign-born Born in-state

W hat B rain D rain ?

Born in other states Foreign-born Born in-state

2007 2008 2009

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

Figure 1: Californias share of

Sources: Moodys Analytics, Milken Institute.

W hat B rain D rain ?

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

W hat B rain D rain ?

Profi l es o f out - migrants f rom C alif ornia

P ro f i l es o f out - migrants f rom C a l i f ornia

Figure 2: Average age distribution

Figure 3: Average educational attainment

Sources: IPUMS-USA, Milken Institute.

Born in other states

Born in other states

Sources: IPUMS-USA, Milken Institute.

Figure 4: Distribution of degree field

W hat B rain D rain ?

The overall mobility differential between STEM degree

E: engineering; PS: physical sciences;

Out-migration of high-skilled California natives

Figure 5: Native out-migration rate by skill level

W hat B rain D rain ?

A nnua l out f lows o f ski l l ed residents

A. Total skill outflows

Figure 6: Skill outflow rate

The economy appeared to play a cyclical

A nnua l out f l ows o f ski l l ed residents

B. Skill outflows by birthplace

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

Born in other states Foreign-born Born in-state

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

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

W hat B rain D rain ?

C. Outflows of STEM degree holders

Figure 8: Outflow rate of STEM degree

Born in other states

From 2008 to 2009, 2 percent of those with STEM degrees

Figure 9: STEM degree holders by birthplace,

Born in other states

Sources: IPUMS-USA, Milken Institute.

E: engineering; PS: physical sciences;

A nnua l out f l ows o f ski l l ed residents

D. Destination of Californias skilled out-migrants

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

STEM degree holders

Sources: IPUMS-USA, Milken Institute.

W hat B rain D rain ?

ANother side of THE story: Annual skill inflows

Figure 10: Skill inflow vs. skill outflow, California

Conclusion and Implications

W hat B rain D rain ?

Computer & Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing

Other Information Services

Semiconductor & Other Electronic Component Manufacturing