POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS

Generally, it can be stated that there are certain prevalent population, labor force, income and educational trends in the South Delta District that have existed throughout the last 60 years and are still present in varying and/or worsening degrees today. In the past, the district’s economy was based almost solely on agriculture. With the advent of mechanized farming, the need for laborers who possessed very little education and few job skills diminished drastically. Laborers were forced to seek employment elsewhere, usually in the industrialized cities of the North. In 2022, just as in 2012 and 2017, the district can be described as a persistently distressed area experiencing a continuing decline in population due to out-migration and death; unemployment rates that are high; median family incomes that are extremely low; numbers of persons living below the poverty level are high and educational levels that are below standard.

The population of the district has declined by approximately 97,458 persons between 1960 and 2020. While all counties in the district have experienced significant population losses during the past several decades, Sharkey County has experienced the greatest loss in percentage of population. Sharkey County lost 64.61% of its population during the period 1960-2020, while Issaquena County followed closely with a population of loss of 62.58%. In terms of absolute numbers, Washington County lost the greatest amount of population during the same period amounting to over 33,000 persons.

Based on the 2016 U. S. Census American Community Survey Data, the District’s median age was 36 years while Mississippi’s was 36.7 and the United States’ 37.7. According to the 2020 U. S. Census American Community Survey, the District’s median age increased to 38.7 years while Mississippi’s increased to 37.7 and the United States to 38.2. The district’s median age in 1960 was 19.9 years indicating the district’s population is continuing to age. Of the district’s population in 2016, 35.8% were 0-24 years old while 13.4% were 65 years of age or older. This left 50.8% of the district’s population in the productive working age group of 25-64. As the overall population of the region has declined these numbers have shifted slightly. In 2020 34.26% of the population was in the age range of 0-24 and 15.86% were over the age of 65. This has left 49.88% of the population in the productive working age range.

The fact that there is no major shift in any one of these segments of the population gives the impression that outmigration/brain drain is still the major contributing factor to the overall population decline. There will be no drastic upward changes in population unless there are significant changes in economic conditions and the perception of these conditions.

Until opportunities and quality of place improve, the steady out-migration of population will continue. Therefore, efforts must be placed on retaining and attracting population to the area. The “brain drain” must be addressed. Arresting the “brain drain” and drawing younger, educated individuals either back to the area or to it for the first time always brings about the age old “chicken and egg” conundrum. Which comes first? Do you focus on recruiting industry with the idea that younger people will come to the jobs? Do you focus on attracting the younger people in the hopes that industries will choose to locate where the bright, young, well-educated work force is located? Unfortunately, people can’t live on good intentions and growing an area out of nothing. The industry side of this equation should come first but with an initial focus on industry that can utilize a somewhat transient work force until locals are trained and additional population is attracted to the area. The trend of out-migration, especially among the college aged/young adult groups, cannot continue. Everything else that leads to a turnaround in the fortunes and livability of the district depends on having a younger, educated and energetic population in the area.