Sociation Today

Introduction

In the past two decades, micropolitan areas have become key destinations for Latino immigrants, who have increasingly settled in small towns across the Southeast and Midwest in particular (Wahl, Breckenridge, and Gunkel 2007; Kandel and Cromartie 2004; Kandel and Parrado 2005). This trend has been widely recognized as a historic demographic shift (Kochhar, Suro, and Tafoya 2005; Lichter 2012). For most of the 20th century, Latino immigrants settled in traditional gateway cities like Chicago, Los Angeles and New York. While major metropolitan areas such as these remain home to most Hispanics, the highest growth rates for this population occurred in micropolitan areas in new settlement states like North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia where few Latinos lived two decades ago. In many of these places, this population increased nearly tenfold. Some cite the lower cost of living, lower crime rates and "quieter" life as the key factors pulling newcomers to these towns (Jordan 2012). Others emphasize the economic opportunities created by meatpacking, pork processing and food processing industries that, among others, have deliberately recruited Latino immigrants (Kandel and Cromartie 2004). So significant is geographic dispersion of Hispanics to micropolitan areas that scholars increasingly use the phrase "Latino diaspora" to capture this shift from city to country (Jordan 2012).

Micropolitan areas in North Carolina are among those that registered the highest rates of Latino population growth in the last decades of the 20th century (Wahl 2007; Wahl, Breckenridge, and Gunkel 2007; Rendall, Brownell, and Kups 2011). On average, the Hispanic population grew by more than five times the national rate. Lumberton, which witnessed one of the largest increases, is typical in many ways of these localities. In 1990, the census reported a total population of 766 Hispanics. By 2000, the Latino population numbered 5994. Fueled by this growth in small towns, North Carolina became that state which reported the largest increase in the Latino population during this period. In part, the employment of Latinos in food processing and other low wage jobs accounted for these record rates of economic growth. Latino newcomers to the Lumberton area, for example, were deliberately recruited by Smithfield Packing to work in its pork processing plant, opened in 1992 (LeDuff 2001). In other micropolitan areas, Tyson Foods, among other chicken processing companies, have turned to Latino workers to fill positions (Stull, Broadway, and Griffith 1995). In still other micropolitan areas, Latino workers were recruited to meet the demand for labor in construction, tourism and agriculture (Kochhar, Suro, and Tafoya 2005).

In this paper, we examine the impact of the Great Recession on Latino population trends in micropolitan areas. North Carolina was among those states that were hardest hit by the most recent recession (Gitterman, Coclanis, and Quinterno 2012; Freyer 2012). Across the state, thousands of men and women lost their jobs with the collapse of the housing market and, in turn, the financial sector and manufacturing. At the national level, Latinos were, according to many experts, top casualties of this crisis given their concentration in construction and manufacturing (Tavernise 2011; Hugo Lopez and Velasco 2011). Job losses in these sectors and the ripple effects have been cited as a key factor in the dramatic decline of the Latino growth rate this past decade – and the reversal seen in some cities (Lee and Trounson 2012; Parrado 2012; Singer and Wilson 2010). In addition, rising unemployment among Latinos contributed to rising poverty rates. The impact of this recession in micropolitan areas remains unclear. Have Latinos in these towns that once offered them important economic opportunities weathered the storm unleashed by the most recent recession? Have growth rates flattened out with rising unemployment? Have poverty rates increased to hit the American economy. This analysis tracks these consequences of the Great Recession for the economy and, in turn, Latino population trends across micropolitan areas in North Carolina.

The Great Recession and the Toll on
Latinos: An Overview

By all accounts, the downturn that hit the American economy in late 2007 ushered in the worst recession of the post-war era (Grusky, Western, and Wimer 2011). Scholars typically trace this recession to the collapse of a housing bubble financed with subprime mortgages that had provided a precarious foundation for a housing market boom that peaked in 2006 (Grusky, Western, and Wimer 2011). As the bubble burst, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and several other leading financial institutions declared bankruptcy and the financial sector was thrown into chaos. This, in turn, triggered enormous job losses across all key sectors. Unemployment rose from 5% on the eve of the recession to 10.4% at its peak in 2010. In 2008 and 2009, 8.4 million jobs, or 6.1% of all payroll employment, disappeared in the United States. Job losses on this scale had not been seen since the Great Depression. Manufacturing and construction were particularly hard hit (Hout, Levanon, and Cumberworth 2011).

Across the nation, Americans suffered multiple hardships as a consequence of this economic crisis. Most immediately, the rising number of foreclosures left millions without secure housing. Median household income adjusted for inflation fell to $49,445 in 2010, a decline of 7% from a peak of $53,252 in 1999 (Tavernise 2011). By 2010, poverty rates had hit 15.1%, a high not seen in nearly two decades. Among children, the rate rose to 21.5%. For many, these hardships threatened to persist longer than in previous recessions as unemployment became more entrenched. By 2010, over 40% of the unemployed had been searching for work for more than six months (Grusky, Western, and Wimer 2011).

Most studies that examine the impact of this recession on Latinos offer national level generalizations or focus on metropolitan areas. At the national level, news accounts along with more systematic scholarly studies report that the Hispanic population has been among the hardest hit by the recession (U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee 2010). Unemployment rates among Hispanics have long been higher than the overall unemployment rate. On the eve of the recession, this disparity had fallen to a historic low, as unemployment rates dropped to 4.9% among Latinos while standing at 4.6% overall in May 2006 (U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee 2010). The gains made by Latino workers were decimated with the Great Recession. Unemployment levels among Hispanics reached double digits, climbing to 13.1% by October 2009. Among Hispanic men, the rate rose even higher to 13.8%. More than 2.9 million Hispanics - or 12.6% - remained involuntarily unemployed in March 2010, though the recession had officially ended (Grusky, Western, and Wimer 2011).

In large part, the disparate impact of the recession on Latinos reflects their concentration in those industries that suffered the greatest job losses – as well as the geographic concentration of this population (U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee 2010). First and foremost, the collapse of the housing market and, in turn, the construction industry dealt Latinos, in particular, a devastating blow. The housing boom leading up to the recession largely accounted for the economic gains made by Latino workers to that point. By 2007, nearly 15 % of all Hispanic workers were employed in construction compared to 8.1% of all workers (U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee 2010). When the housing bubble burst, this sector contracted by 19.8%, shedding 1.5 million jobs and displacing thousands of Latino workers (Hadi 2011). Hispanic workers were also overrepresented in two other sectors hard hit by the recession: leisure and hospitality and manufacturing. In 2007, 11.6% of Hispanic workers were employed in manufacturing while 11.8% were employed in the leisure and hospitality sector. The geographic concentration of Latinos further exacerbated the negative impact of the recession. Four states in which Latinos are most overrepresented – Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and California – were among the hardest hit by the collapse of the housing market, suffering record drops in housing prices, rising foreclosure rates as well as unemployment rates (Grusky, Western, and Wimer 2011).

The recession's toll on Latinos is perhaps most clearly captured in rising poverty rates. Among Latino children, in particular, poverty became more pervasive (Hugo Lopez and Velasco 2011). In 2007, 28.6% of all Latino children were living in poverty. By 2010, this figure had increased to 35%. Children of Latino immigrants faced even more dire circumstances, as the poverty rate reached 40.2% for this group. More telling, Latinos for the first time accounted for a higher share of poor children than any other racial and ethnic group. The 6.1 million Latino children living in poverty constituted 37.3% of all poor children (Hugo Lopez and Velasco 2011).

     The impact of the recession on Latino population trends has been more difficult to dissect. Scholars have reported mixed findings regarding the consequences for Latino immigration and, in turn, population growth (Parrado 2012; Camarota and Jensenius 2009; Passel and Cohn 2009; Rendall, Brownell, and Kups 2011). Most studies, focusing on immigration from Mexico, agree that the number of foreign born Latinos arriving into the United States fell significantly with the recession (Camarota and Jensenius 2009; Passel and Cohn 2009). Some also claim that the recession triggered a dramatic increase in return migration (Camarota and Jensenius 2009).   In contrast, other scholars contend that return migration to Mexico, in particular, declined significantly with the recession (Rendall, Brownell, and Kups 2011). Overall, the impact on Latino population growth reflected a clear departure from the rapid growth registered during the last decade of the 20th century. Between 1990 and 2000, the Latino population grew nationally by 57.9%, increasing from 22.4 million to 35.3 million (Guzman 2011). The foreign born Latino population grew even more dramatically, more than doubling from 7.84 million to just over 16 million. From 2000 to 2007, the Latino population continued to grow, though less dramatically, increasing by 10.2 million - or 29% (Fry 2008). With the recession, significant declines among some Latino populations were widely heralded as a historic reversal. This included the decline in the number of unauthorized immigrants, most from Latin America, from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007 to 11.3 million in 2009 (Pew Research Center 2013). Similarly, the decline of the Mexican-foreign born population by 200,000 was widely regarded as significant (Parrado 2012; Passel and Cohn 2009).   Despite these declines, the Latino population grew to 50.5 million by 2010, a 43% increase since 2000 (Ennis, Rios-Vargas, and Albert 2011). Importantly, however, this growth was fueled by native born Latinos more so than Hispanic immigrants as it had been in previous decades (Krogstad and Hugo Lopez 2014).

     Studies that examine more carefully the impact of the recession on Latinos across metropolitan areas find significant variation (Parrado 2012). Between 2000 and 2010, the Latino population grew considerably in many cities, as both the foreign born and native born weathered job losses and other hardships tied to the recession.   However, growth rates were slowed considerably by rising unemployment, "flattening out" in some cities and plummeting in others (Lee and Trounson 2012). In a study of 161 metropolitan areas, Parrado (2012) focuses more squarely on the links between economic conditions and Hispanic immigrant population trends during the recession years. More specifically, he finds that the foreign born Mexican male population of prime working age declined in most of these metros from 2007 to 2009. These declines were most dramatic in Los Angeles, but also occurred in urban centers like Dallas, Phoenix, Chicago, and Denver where the Latino population has long settled. In large part, these population trends were tied to variation in the local economies and the incorporation of the Hispanic population into these economies. Not surprisingly, the loss of jobs in construction – that industry hardest hit by the recession – emerges as a key predictor of declines in the Mexican immigrant male population, given the concentration of Latinos in this sector.

     At the national level, the impact of this recession on Latinos in some ways reveals the long standing vulnerability of this population to the ups and downs of the economy.   According to some scholars (Suro and Lowell 2002), Latinos were among the top victims of the recession that unfolded in 2001, finding themselves in "the wrong place at the wrong time" just as they have in this most recent recession. Together, three industries accounted for 50% of all Hispanic unemployment: manufacturing, construction and retail trades. Despite these job losses, the Latino population continued to grow significantly.   Rather than return home, most studies find that most migrants have remained in the United States during previous recessions (Portes 1985; Massey, Durand, and Malone 2002; Riosmena 2004). In part, this reflects the fact that the costs of returning home are typically prohibitive. As importantly, Latino migrants who live in communities where their families and other Latinos have become established are reluctant to relocate and lose these ties.

     The impact of the recession on Latinos in micropolitan areas remains unclear.   Are Latino population trends in these areas more "recession proof" than in metropolitan areas and across the nation, more generally? North Carolina provides an important terrain for tracking the impact of the recession on the Latino population in these localities, given both the scale of job losses across the state and its significance as a new Latino destination. North Carolina ranks among those states hardest hit by the Great Recession. On the eve of this economic crisis, the state's unemployment rate was 5%, matching the national unemployment rate (Gitterman, Coclanis, and Quinterno 2012). As the recession battered the labor market, unemployment soared to 11.4% by 2010, even as economists and political leaders claimed the downturn had ended at the national level.    North Carolina's average annual unemployment rate ranked among the top ten highest in 2009 and 2010 (U.S. Department of Labor 2015). Job losses occurred on a scale seen in few other states, despite the fact that economists had predicted these would not be as devastating since the housing market had not been as volatile as in California, Nevada and Florida. However, the economic toll in North Carolina proved extraordinary largely given the repercussions for manufacturing, on which the state depended heavily. In 2007, manufacturing accounted for nearly 22% of the state's economy, compared to 13% at the national level (Gitterman, Coclanis, and Quinterno 2012); it accounted for 12% of employment. This sector, which was decimated across the nation, accounted for the greatest share of job losses in North Carolina (Freyer 2012). Along with manufacturing, the construction industry, that sector hit hardest by the recession, suffered the greatest contraction. Job losses, however, we far reaching, affecting all sectors and demographic groups. Despite the pervasiveness of its effects, the toll for Hispanic workers was particularly steep. As at the national level, rising poverty rates highlighted the most serious economic hardships facing individuals and families as a result of large scale unemployment. Poverty rates increased from 13.9% to 17.5% across North Carolina from 2006 to 2010. Child poverty rates reached 25% by 2010 (Gitterman, Coclanis, and Quinterno 2012). For Hispanics, the toll of the recession was even greater. At its peak, the unemployment rate among Latinos in the state reached 13.6%, rising from 5.7% in 2007. Based on the American Community Survey returns from 2007 through 2011, the U.S. Census reported that the poverty rate for Hispanics stood at 31.5% in North Carolina; in only 7 other states did this rate cross the 30% mark during this period (Macartney, Bishaw, and Fontenot 2013).

This paper examines the fate of Latinos in the 23 micropolitan areas scattered across North Carolina. We distinguish two broad categories within this interesting mix of localities. On the one hand, we identify 17 micropolitan areas which depended heavily on manufacturing until recently. We define these as localities in which manufacturing accounted for 20% or more of all payroll jobs in 2000. This heavy dependence on manufacturing reflects the centrality of rural industrialization to the economic history of North Carolina, in general, and most micropolitan areas, more specifically. On the other hand, the six remaining micropolitan areas depend on a mix of tourism as well as other service based industries. We examine the impact of the recession across these two sets of localities guided by two key questions. First, which set of micropolitan areas was most negatively impacted by the recession? Were those micropolitan areas least dependent on manufacturing spared the heavy toll that the recession imposed on the nation, given the losses in this sector? Second, did the Latino population in these areas "weather the storm" and continue to grow in number, despite the recession? Or have those micropolitan areas hardest hit by the recession witnessed a flattening out or significant declines in the Latino population as was reported at the national level as well as in most metropolitan areas?

Data and Methods

Our analysis depends on U.S. Census data for twenty three localities in North Carolina that have been defined as micropolitan areas as of February, 2013. A micropolitan area, as delineated by the Office of Management and Budget, contains an urban core with a population of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000. Each micropolitan area includes the county in which the urban core is located as well as any adjacent county with a "high degree of social and economic integration". In North Carolina, three micropolitan areas include more than one county. These are: Roanoke Rapids, Elizabeth City and Kill Devil Hills. All others include only one county.

We use three sources of data to track the most recent recession and population trends in these areas. First, we use data provided by the decennial censuses of 2000 and 2010 to track Latino population trends. The decennial census provides the most accurate count of the Latino population during this decade. (1) Second, we use two data sources to construct economic profiles of these micropolitan areas and track employment trends. The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides data on unemployment rates by county and state. Second, the Census Bureau County Business Patterns program provides the data needed to track job losses and gains by county and industry sector. We track these trends from 2007 to 2010, in particular. At the national level, the recession was officially defined as beginning in December 2007 and ending in June 2009 (National Bureau of Economic Research 2015). However, the recession persisted through 2010 in North Carolina. We focus on four sectors during this period: manufacturing, construction, accommodation and food services, and retail trade. Tracking employment in these sectors provides a useful overview of the impact of the recession on the economies of micropolitan areas given that together these sectors account for a significant share of jobs in these localities. Further, we expect that the Latino population will be particularly vulnerable to losses sustained in at least three of these sectors - manufacturing, construction, and accommodation and food services – given its concentration in these industries.

Results

Recession and Unemployment in North Carolina's Micropolitan Areas

North Carolina's micropolitan areas were hard hit by the Great Recession. Click here to see Table 1, a .pdf file. In fact, the average annual unemployment rate across these localities stood at 12.0% in 2010, higher than the 9.6% rate reported nationally. The mean unemployment rate for micropolitan areas also exceeded slightly the rate registered in metropolitan counties (11.0%) across North Carolina, as well as the statewide jobless rate (10.9%). In two micropolitan areas, Laurinburg and Forest City, the unemployment rates reached record highs for the state, standing at 17% and 16.6% respectively. Fully 8 (40.0%) of the 20 counties reporting the highest unemployment rates across the state were micropolitan counties.

In part, the pervasiveness of unemployment across many micropolitan areas in the midst of the recession reflected the persistence of economic problems that had unfolded in the preceding decade. On the eve of this most recent recession, the average unemployment rate in micropolitan counties stood at 5.4%, exceeding the rates reported for metropolitan areas (4.8%), the state (4.7%) and the nation (5.0%). In general, unemployment rates were highest in those micropolitan areas that had depended most heavily on manufacturing, given the consequences of deindustrialization. In particular, the textile, furniture and tobacco industries, long a mainstay of manufacturing in these localities, suffered a wave of plant closings that displaced thousands of workers in places like Lumberton, Sanford, and Mount Airy (Hossfeld and Legerton 2004; Wahl 2007). In these manufacturing dependent micropolitan areas, this sector had accounted for more than 20% of all employment in 2000. In several of these localities, the share of jobs accounted for by manufacturing reached more than 40%. By 2007, manufacturing accounted for only 23.3%, on average, of all jobs in these places. Unemployment, in turn, stood at 5.9%. In other micropolitan areas, unemployment rates were significantly lower, reaching only 4.5% in 2007. In general, these localities largely depended on tourism, including places like Boone, Pinehurst and Kill Devil Hills.

The recession dealt substantial job losses to all these micropolitan areas but the dynamics of this downturn differed in significant ways. Click here to see Table 2, a pdf file Overall, the downturn was similarly serious in scale across both manufacturing and non-manufacturing based localities. On average, manufacturing dependent micropolitan areas lost 2068 jobs from 2007 to 2010. This represented a mean decline in employment of 10.6%. In other micropolitan areas, employment declined by 10.9%, or 1813 jobs, on average. Job losses by sector, however, differed significantly across these two sets of localities. In those that depended most heavily on manufacturing, this sector lost 951 jobs on average, exacerbating the displacement that earlier waves of plant closings had caused. More telling perhaps, these losses accounted for 46.6% of all jobs lost in these areas. In most (9 of 17) of these areas, manufacturing accounted for more than half of all job losses. In contrast, the decline in manufacturing jobs across the state and nation, though significant, accounted for a smaller share of jobs lost. Across North Carolina, 33.8% of all jobs lost were manufacturing jobs. Across the nation, this figure stood at 28.5%. In manufacturing dependent micropolitan areas, the losses sustained in this sector, as evident across the state and nation, were coupled with employment declines in other sectors, including construction and accommodations and food services. Interestingly, the retail trade sector generated jobs in all but two of these localities.

In other micropolitan areas, a different pattern emerges. Manufacturing registers losses which are not insignificant but other sectors account for a larger share of the decline in employment. Construction, in particular, was hit hard in these localities, losing 570 jobs, on average, and accounting for fully 31% of all job losses. This figure was significantly higher than that reported at the state and national levels, where the loss of construction jobs accounted for 20.7% and 21.8% of all jobs lost, respectively. At the same time, modest growth occurred in the accommodations and food services as well as the retail trade sector.

Latino Population Growth despite Job Losses

Given the job losses registered in micropolitan areas, the growth of the Latino population, not surprisingly, slowed in these localities as it did across the nation. More specifically, the Latino growth rate in most micropolitan areas (17 of 23) dropped considerably during the first decade of the 21st century. Click here to see Table 3, a pdf file. Without exception, however, the Latino population increased substantially in every one of these areas, despite the economic crisis. On average, this population increased by 123%. In the majority of these localities, the population more than doubled. In contrast, the Latino population in metropolitan areas across North Carolina registered a less dramatic increase of 106%, on average. Further, the increase in micropolitan areas was nearly three times the increase of 43% reported across the nation as well as higher than the 111% growth rate for the state.

More telling perhaps are the figures that compare the growth of the Latino population to trends in the non-Hispanic population. We can distinguish four typologies that emerge in this comparison. First, we find that in 10 micropolitan areas both the non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black population grew alongside the Latino population. Importantly, this population wide growth is evident in all but one of the non-manufacturing based micropolitan areas (i.e. Morehead City). However, the rate of growth was significantly lower for these two groups in every one of these localities. To further clarify, we report a ratio that summarizes the extent to which Latino population growth outstrips the growth of the non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black populations. On average, the Latino population grew at a rate that was 15 times the rate of growth registered for non-Hispanic whites and 27 times the rate of growth reported for non-Hispanic blacks.

The significance of Latino population growth is perhaps most clear in those micropolitan areas where non-Hispanic whites and/or non-Hispanic blacks declined in number. More than half of these localities reported declines of this sort. In four micropolitan areas, both the non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black population declined while the Latino population grew. This includes Roanoke Rapids, Kinston, Rockingham and Mount Airy. The exodus of both whites and blacks resulted in a decline in the total population in Kinston and Roanoke Rapids.

In another four areas, the non-Hispanic white population declined but the non-Hispanic black population grew slightly. More specifically, the Latino population grew, on average, at a rate 31 times the growth rate for African Americans. Finally, Latino population growth occurred in the context of black population declines but non-Hispanic white growth in another five areas. In these localities, the Hispanic rate of growth was, on average, 21 times the rate of growth evident among non-Hispanic whites.

Given these trends, the racial/ethnic landscape of these micropolitan areas has been further transformed in ways not fully anticipated a decade ago. Most importantly, the Latino share of the total population continued to increase despite the recession. In 2000, Hispanics accounted for only 3.2% of the total population in these localities after a decade during which they became newly defined Latino destinations. By 2010, that figure had doubled, rising to 6.1%, on average. In one case, the increase in the Latino population though slight, when coupled with an increase in the African American population, has made this a majority-minority locality (i.e. Laurinburg). Taken together, these results suggest that Latino population trends were more recession proof than either the non-Hispanic white or non-Hispanic black population.

Conclusion

In the 1990s, the dramatic growth of the Latino population in the smaller towns of North Carolina and other new settlement states was widely heralded as a historic shift from city to country for the foreign born, in particular. The expansion of industries that actively recruited Latinos to provide low wage labor, in large part, fueled these record high rates of growth. In addition, the lower cost of living, lower crime rates, and other advantages that presumbably defined small town life further pulled new immigrants to these localities.

With the most recent recession, Latino population growth slowed considerably at the national level as well as in most metropolitan areas. Scholars, focusing on large urban areas, have largely failed to examine the consequences of this recession for micropolitan areas. This analysis reveals that the trajectory of Latino population trends in micropolitan areas differs in significant ways, notwithstanding some important similarities. First, the Latino population did increase at slower rates in these localities as they did in metropolitan areas and nationally; however, the growth rate in the former was nearly three times higher than the growth rate reported for the nation. Further, the Latino population growth rate exceeded the growth rate for the non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white population by a far greater margin. These population trends have further established Latinos as a key group in the racial/ethnic landscape of these localities where only two decades ago few Hispanics resided. The implications of this growth are perhaps most significant in the four localities where both the non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black population have declined.

Latino population growth in these micropolitan areas is particularly exceptional given several factors that could have pushed many to leave these localities. First, the scale of job losses in micropolitan areas exceeded the scale of job losses reported across the state and the nation. Importantly, the decline in employment in most micropolitan areas was substantial in the years leading up to this most recent recession. Most of these localities were heavily dependent on manufacturing, testament to the centrality of rural industrialization in North Carolina. The wave of plant closings in textiles, furniture and other manufacturing industries left many of these places with unemployment rates that were higher than those reported for the state and the nation on the eve of the recession. The more recent economic downturn further stripped these localities of employment in these as well as other sectors. Perhaps most telling, micropolitan areas accounted for nearly half (8) of the 20 counties with the highest unemployment rates in the state.

Second, the sectors hit hardest by the recession were those in which Latinos have been most concentrated across the nation. In previous research, scholars have connected this concentration to the heavier toll facing Latinos in earlier recessions. Specifically, manufacturing and construction, the sectors hit hardest by the recession in micropolitan areas, are the two key sectors in which Latinos have been typically overrepresented. The loss of construction jobs may have imposed a particularly heavy toll on Latinos in those micropolitan areas which have become highly dependent on tourism. On the eve of the recession, the lower unemployment rates in these localities reflected the economic boom that the expansion of tourism and, in turn, construction brought these resort towns. As this boom, however, turned to bust, the recession revealed the harsh reality that none of the micropolitan areas which had become new Latino destinations provided secure employment opportunities for this population.

Given these job losses, why did Latinos remain in North Carolina's micropolitan areas? Previous research suggests a number of factors that may have encouraged newcomers to these localities to wait out the most recent economic crisis. First, Latinos have likely become established in multiple ways. Many had children who were enrolled in schools and recognized that uprooting families is a costly endeavor. In addition, Latinos in these communities have established social networks with co-ethnics who can provide several forms of support that allow them to negotiate the hardships that the recession imposed. Further, the network of services for Latinos – and the foreign-born population – has likely grown as churches, other non-profits and government agencies respond to the needs of this population. The advantages of "small town life" likely also were weighed alongside these factors. In general, immigrants faced with recessions in the past have often remained where they are based on a careful calculus that weighs the costs and benefits of relocating. In short, moving incurs costs that are outweighed by the perceived benefits of remaining in anticipation of an economic recovery. Future research will need to further unpack the puzzle that Latino population growth despite the recession represents.