As U.S. 'superstar' cities thrive, weaker ones get left behind

[maru2501]

at first I assumed this would be Richard Florida Man

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by The North One

Business News July 19, 2019 / 6:16 AM Howard Schneider 8 Min Read


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1UE13B



The article is long so I quoted what I thought was the biggest take away. There's some interesting stuff about Nashville and Houston so feel free to bring up what you think is important. Kinda surprised nobody else posted this here yet.

The chart does not seem right. It may be due to when they chose to compare employment. For example, I think Austin, Orlando, Grand Rapids, Denver and Seattle has had much stronger job growth than the 1-2 percent, from reading all of the business articles on corporate expansions and relocations.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by DCReid

The chart does not seem right. It may be due to when they chose to compare employment. For example, I think Austin, Orlando, Grand Rapids, Denver and Seattle has had much stronger job growth than the 1-2 percent, from reading all of the business articles on corporate expansions and relocations.

Its the share of all jobs nationally, not proportional job growth
.

Grand Rapids might have 10% relative job growth but that's a tiny fraction of the national share.

High population places have the advantage for obvious reasons but as you can see by NY and Chicago and other older rust belt/northeastern metros they arent gaining as big a slice of new jobs as sunbelt and western metros in general.

TBH its more a demonstration on migration patterns than anything,

[Sun Belt]

The only surprise on the map is Detroit, Michigan. Aside from that, everything seems about right -- Sun Belt cities along with Denver and Pacific NW cities.

This is what we continually see with the census each and every year. The South and The West are the winners in terms of population and job growth.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by DCReid

The chart does not seem right. It may be due to when they chose to compare employment. For example, I think Austin, Orlando, Grand Rapids, Denver and Seattle has had much stronger job growth than the 1-2 percent, from reading all of the business articles on corporate expansions and relocations.

Originally Posted by Obadno

Its the share of all jobs nationally, not proportional job growth
.

Grand Rapids might have 10% relative job growth but that's a tiny fraction of the national share.

High population places have the advantage for obvious reasons but as you can see by NY and Chicago and other older rust belt/northeastern metros they arent gaining as big a slice of new jobs as sunbelt and western metros in general.

TBH its more a demonstration on migration patterns than anything,

It's a bizarre way of measuring things... Share of national job gains? By that measure places with lots of new Amazon warehouses that employ 2500 people each and pay them $10/hr to sit in a 100 degree warehouse are going to look better than places where Google or Facebook added 1000 developer jobs.

It's very strange to measure things not based on percentage growth but to then list the numbers as a percentage of something. The way I'm understanding this is that it's not really a measure of economic or job growth as much as it is a measure of population growth. Places people are migrating to are going to have a higher number of "job gains" than slow growing massive metros. That's why Detroit shows up, because people are returning there rapidly so it looks good by this measure.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

It's very strange to measure things not based on percentage growth but to then list the numbers as a percentage of something. The way I'm understanding this is that it's not really a measure of economic or job growth as much as it is a measure of population growth. Places people are migrating to are going to have a higher number of "job gains" than slow growing massive metros. That's why Detroit shows up, because people are returning there rapidly so it looks good by this measure.

Exactly.

The only thing that the sunbelt is winning is people.

Quality over quantity. I will take the increasingly vibrant built environment of our big urban centers any day of the week over that stuff

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

The only surprise on the map is Detroit, Michigan.

It's hardly surprising. Look at the chart title.

They're looking at growth from 2010-2017. Metro Detroit has one of the least diversified economies in the U.S. and underwent the deepest recession (almost a depression) in 2008 and 2009.

It makes sense, that as the national economy recovered, and people started buying consumer goods again, that the nation's auto center would show higher-than-average job growth, which isn't indicative of a boom, but rather the reclaiming of some of the hundreds of thousands of previously lost jobs. The Big 3 and their suppliers generally had record earnings and sales during that time period, as households that had put off new car purchases reversed course, and as Chinese consumer demand boomed.

If your regional economy shrinks by 20%, and then grows by 5%, it isn't really faster growth than if your regional economy shrinks by 5% and then grows by 2%. The worse the economic hole, the better the recovery looks. And of course the inverse is true. When Silicon Valley crashed after the early 2000's dot-com bust, the jobs data for San Jose MSA were comically bad.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Its the share of all jobs nationally, not proportional job growth
.

Grand Rapids might have 10% relative job growth but that's a tiny fraction of the national share.

High population places have the advantage for obvious reasons but as you can see by NY and Chicago and other older rust belt/northeastern metros they arent gaining as big a slice of new jobs as sunbelt and western metros in general.

TBH its more a demonstration on migration patterns than anything,

I'd like to see current share of national jobs for top 25 metros. It's a lot harder for an established metro that already has like 10% share of jobs (think NY) to grow an additional 2%+ than it is for a place like Austin that is rapidly growing and expanding to make the same jump. If NY was growing at that rate it would be taking over the entire Atlantic seaboard in no time.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It makes sense, that as the national economy recovered, and people started buying consumer goods again, that the nation's auto center would show higher-than-average job growth, which isn't indicative of a boom, but rather the reclaiming of some of the hundreds of thousands of previously lost jobs. The Big 3 and their suppliers generally had record earnings and sales during that time period, as households that had put off new car purchases reversed course, and as Chinese consumer demand boomed.

If your regional economy shrinks by 20%, and then grows by 5%, it isn't really faster growth than if your regional economy shrinks by 5% and then grows by 2%. The worse the economic hole, the better the recovery looks. And of course the inverse is true. When Silicon Valley crashed after the early 2000's dot-com bust, the jobs data for San Jose MSA were comically bad.

lol here comes the broken record, you've been making this exact comment for literally years now, how many more years after this point? I should start bookmarking these pages.

While it's true that metro Detroit had a lot of catching up do the great recession is fully recovered and this time to growth is much more diversified and replaced with other types of jobs. Auto industry sales have plateaued now for many years and the growth is still coming (you've already been told this though obviously). Let's not act like most metros in the northeastern/midwest didn't have similar collapses yet I don't see them on here. Why isn't Chicago even in the top 40?

Also Grand Rapids weathered the recession well and they're still on here, Columbus is in the next 20 as well.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Exactly.

The only thing that the sunbelt is winning is people.

Quality over quantity. I will take the increasingly vibrant built environment of our big urban centers any day of the week over that stuff

population growth is cool and all.

but as a full-blown skyscraper nerd, skyline growth is even cooler!


MSA population growth 2000 - 2018:

dallas - 2,317,910‬ (44% increase)
chicago - 341,176 (4% increase)


# of 500' buildings built since 2000:

dallas - 2 (11% increase)
chicago - 51 (70% increase)



chicago ain't gaining many people these days, but holy crap does this town like to build towers, which is nice.......

[Handro]

Originally Posted by The North One

lol here comes the broken record, you've been making this exact comment for literally years now, how many more years after this point? I should start bookmarking these pages.

While it's true that metro Detroit had a lot of catching up do the great recession is fully recovered and this time to growth is much more diversified and replaced with other types of jobs. Auto industry sales have plateaued now for many years and the growth is still coming (you've already been told this though obviously). Let's not act like most metros in the northeastern/midwest didn't have similar collapses yet I don't see them on here. Why isn't Chicago even in the top 40?

Also Grand Rapids weathered the recession well and they're still on here, Columbus is in the next 20 as well.

Chicago's peak unemployment rate during the recession was about 13%, roughly the national average and similar to Grand Rapids, who in your words "weathered the recession well."

Detroit's unemployment rate was nearly 26%.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

Let's not act like most metros in the northeastern/midwest didn't have similar collapses yet I don't see them on here.

No U.S. metro area had remotely similar economic numbers as Detroit.

In 2008-2009, Detroit was basically in a depression, as the auto industry teetered on the brink of collapse. You might recall that GM & Ford almost failed. Michigan lost over 800,000 jobs, which is crazy.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

It's a bizarre way of measuring things... Share of national job gains? By that measure places with lots of new Amazon warehouses that employ 2500 people each and pay them $10/hr to sit in a 100 degree warehouse are going to look better than places where Google or Facebook added 1000 developer jobs.

It's very strange to measure things not based on percentage growth but to then list the numbers as a percentage of something. The way I'm understanding this is that it's not really a measure of economic or job growth as much as it is a measure of population growth. Places people are migrating to are going to have a higher number of "job gains" than slow growing massive metros. That's why Detroit shows up, because people are returning there rapidly so it looks good by this measure.

But the chart shows the exact opposite. It shows the biggest increases occurred in places with a large highly skilled workforce.

As for Detroit, it does have a large engineering talent pool, but until recently, that pool has been geared towards mechanical, logistical, supply chain, etc -- the less sexy engineering jobs. However, Silicon Valley's encroachment onto automotive turf has sparked an industry Cold War over the past 5 - 10 years. They are all fighting to become "mobility" companies, instead of companies that sell cars. The German automakers are deep into this as well. I don't know if that's the complete story behind Detroit's rebound, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a major factor.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No U.S. metro area had remotely similar economic numbers as Detroit.

In 2008-2009, Detroit was basically in a depression, as the auto industry teetered on the brink of collapse. You might recall that GM & Ford almost failed. Michigan lost over 800,000 jobs, which is crazy.

I don't think that 800K number is correct. That would be almost every manufacturing job in the state. The state's unemployment peaked at 14.5%, which is insanely high, but unemployment was insanely high everywhere.

NYC also lost a LOOOOT of jobs, and I don't think the financial sector has fully recovered to pre-recession. What helped NYC mask the financial sector losses was a major increase in tech sector activity this decade.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think that 800K number is correct. That would be almost every manufacturing job in the state. The state's unemployment peaked at 14.5%, which is insanely high, but unemployment was insanely high everywhere.

NYC also lost a LOOOOT of jobs, and I don't think the financial sector has fully recovered to pre-recession. What helped NYC mask the financial sector losses was a major increase in tech sector activity this decade.

Again, Michigan was in a one-state depression. The NYC financial industry never had remotely similar job cuts.

Michigan actually lost more jobs than the the U.S., as a whole, which is insane. Michigan lost 806,000 jobs, which was one out of every six jobs. The U.S. lost 786,000 jobs during the same time period. When nearly 20% of your jobs vanish, the recovery will look stronger than elsewhere, where 2% of jobs vanished.

https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/20582

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Again, Michigan was in a one-state depression. The NYC financial industry never had remotely similar job cuts.

Michigan actually lost more jobs than the the U.S., as a whole, which is insane. Michigan lost 806,000 jobs, which was one out of every six jobs. The U.S. lost 786,000 jobs during the same time period. When nearly 20% of your jobs vanish, the recovery will look stronger than elsewhere, where 2% of jobs vanished.

https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/20582

This is saying something different than what you were saying, but I understand your point better now... Actually, I lived it. The state's poor job market is one of the primary reasons I ended up in New York after college. Those losses were happening well before the financial collapse.

But Michigan's job losses that were directly attributed to the financial collapse were not out of line with the rest of the country. They just compounded an already bad economic climate. Also, the post-2010 recovery is not a rebound of those pre-recession losses. Those 2000-2007 jobs are gone forever.

[The North One]

Umm no, Ford was never close to failure, they never went bankrupt.

You're arguing a fallacy and spreading misleading points. The dramatic surge in jobs and diversification is not some unsurprising predictable thing for Michigan that was expected. Somehow I highly doubt you were running around in 2008 telling everybody how everything will rebound in the next 9 years. If you really believed this and collected property in metro Detroit during that time it would have been the best investment of your life, you'll probably never have an opportunity like that again.

The entire lost 00's decade has been recovered now and then some with better jobs, no other city in the northeast is seeing this sort of surged rebound. It's significant no matter how you slice it and shows no signs of stopping with flat auto sales.

[The North One]

Just to be clear, the US lost 8.8 million jobs during the great recession and it continued to 2010. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/04/art1full.pdf

Subtracting that 7.6 million 00's growth (going by the article) before it hit still leaves 1.2 million for total US loss. That 5 year article you dug from the grave is highly dubious.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Exactly.

The only thing that the sunbelt is winning is people.

Quality over quantity. I will take the increasingly vibrant built environment of our big urban centers any day of the week over that stuff

Bless your heart.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

It's a bizarre way of measuring things... Share of national job gains? By that measure places with lots of new Amazon warehouses that employ 2500 people each and pay them $10/hr to sit in a 100 degree warehouse are going to look better than places where Google or Facebook added 1000 developer jobs.

It's very strange to measure things not based on percentage growth but to then list the numbers as a percentage of something. The way I'm understanding this is that it's not really a measure of economic or job growth as much as it is a measure of population growth. Places people are migrating to are going to have a higher number of "job gains" than slow growing massive metros. That's why Detroit shows up, because people are returning there rapidly so it looks good by this measure.

I mean people who don't have degrees in computers and engineering need jobs too.