U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-29-2012, 08:40 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
7,512 posts, read 4,666,878 times
Reputation: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach View Post
I do see states like ND gaining population because of fracking. But in the last census, ND gained 0.5% population and the boom had been going on for 2 years. With all the depopulation of the plains, it will take a decade of growth just to fill the void when farmers left the Great Plains due to highly mechanized farms.

And all that fracking will be managed by companies in Houston...
ND's population grew 4.7% 2000-2010 (8x faster than 1990-2000), actually, and was at the highest level since 1930. From what I've read more recently, it has surpassed its all-time population level. I'd say that's a positive direction. Again, long term trends do not happen overnight, but there was a very clear reversal in a relatively short time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-29-2012, 09:12 PM
 
Location: South Central Nebraska
350 posts, read 329,578 times
Reputation: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
Yeah, keep telling yourself that 65K jobs in a few years doesn't matter. They won't be in Texas, sorry. And that doesn't say anything about how this large influx of jobs, with an already steadily improving economic picture, will change migration patterns.
Yeah cBach seems very arrogant and pro-Texas as if Texas is the be all end all. He does not seem to understand other areas of the South lumping in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina with Texas and Oklahoma the latter two which are in much better financial shape/doing better economically than the Southeast. Still they are not doing as well as their neighbors further to the north. The Southwest I don't think is doing very well economically at all. The Southeast has had a huge population influx but was hit very hard by the current recession (it grew too big too fast) and there are just plain and simple not enough jobs. Florida is a nightmare - it has almost 10% unemployment and other than low wage tourism there is few corporations, manufacturing plants, or any of the like. I would much rather live in my "rapidly depopulating" state with 4% unemployment and an abundance of job openings mostly tied to agriculture than live in a warm climate and a place that has a rapidly growing population and not enough jobs to keep pace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 10:27 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
3,577 posts, read 2,614,366 times
Reputation: 1641
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCentralNEGuy View Post
Yeah cBach seems very arrogant and pro-Texas as if Texas is the be all end all. He does not seem to understand other areas of the South lumping in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina with Texas and Oklahoma the latter two which are in much better financial shape/doing better economically than the Southeast. Still they are not doing as well as their neighbors further to the north. The Southwest I don't think is doing very well economically at all. The Southeast has had a huge population influx but was hit very hard by the current recession (it grew too big too fast) and there are just plain and simple not enough jobs. Florida is a nightmare - it has almost 10% unemployment and other than low wage tourism there is few corporations, manufacturing plants, or any of the like. I would much rather live in my "rapidly depopulating" state with 4% unemployment and an abundance of job openings mostly tied to agriculture than live in a warm climate and a place that has a rapidly growing population and not enough jobs to keep pace.
Ok, some articles to back up my claims:

"Job growth, sales tax collections – both from business and consumer purchases – as well as automobile sales, signal that the Texas economy has emerged from the recent recession.
Another indicator that the state’s economy has been comparatively healthy was the U.S. Census Bureau report that Texas added more people (421,000) than any other state from 2010 to 2011. Although Texas has only 8 percent of the nation’s population, the state added nearly 19 percent of the nation’s population growth for the year.
By December 2011, Texas employers replaced all 433,400 jobs shed during the recession as our economy rebounded more quickly than the U.S. as a whole, and continues to add jobs. Nationally, through January 2012 only 36 percent of recession-hit jobs have been recovered.
Texas and the nation returned to economic growth in 2010 and 2011. In 2011, Texas real gross domestic product grew by 2.4 percent, compared with 1.6 percent GDP growth for the nation."


source: Texas Ahead: Economic Outlook


Now about Austin, where I live:


Economist: Austin economy keeps outperforming nation's as a whole


"Against the worst national economy in more than 60 years, the Austin area stands out as the best market in the nation."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 10:55 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
3,577 posts, read 2,614,366 times
Reputation: 1641
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
ND's population grew 4.7% 2000-2010 (8x faster than 1990-2000), actually, and was at the highest level since 1930. From what I've read more recently, it has surpassed its all-time population level. I'd say that's a positive direction. Again, long term trends do not happen overnight, but there was a very clear reversal in a relatively short time.
Even at 4.7% it was still lower than the national average of 9.7%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 02:05 AM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
7,512 posts, read 4,666,878 times
Reputation: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach View Post
Even at 4.7% it was still lower than the national average of 9.7%.
Moving the goalposts, I see. First you said growth was only 0.5%, when it was 8x faster. Then you said the population had a long way to go to reach its previous peak, something it's already done. Now you're saying it's growing slower than the national average, something many states are seeing.

And again, the vast majority of Sun Belt growth came in the last decade or two, when things were very different, both for the Sun Belt and the North. Times are changing. You can continue to shake your head in denial and say that the Northern states aren't recovering and aren't growing and won't gain back population, but the fact is, future trends are definitely in their favor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 02:11 AM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
7,512 posts, read 4,666,878 times
Reputation: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach View Post
Ok, some articles to back up my claims:

"Job growth, sales tax collections – both from business and consumer purchases – as well as automobile sales, signal that the Texas economy has emerged from the recent recession.
Another indicator that the state’s economy has been comparatively healthy was the U.S. Census Bureau report that Texas added more people (421,000) than any other state from 2010 to 2011. Although Texas has only 8 percent of the nation’s population, the state added nearly 19 percent of the nation’s population growth for the year.
By December 2011, Texas employers replaced all 433,400 jobs shed during the recession as our economy rebounded more quickly than the U.S. as a whole, and continues to add jobs. Nationally, through January 2012 only 36 percent of recession-hit jobs have been recovered.
Texas and the nation returned to economic growth in 2010 and 2011. In 2011, Texas real gross domestic product grew by 2.4 percent, compared with 1.6 percent GDP growth for the nation."


source: Texas Ahead: Economic Outlook


Now about Austin, where I live:


Economist: Austin economy keeps outperforming nation's as a whole


"Against the worst national economy in more than 60 years, the Austin area stands out as the best market in the nation."
I'm pretty sure that everyone has said that Texas is in the best shape of all the Sun Belt states. This thread is about what happens next, in the future, and how things will change. Most of the Midwest/Great Lakes states recovered from the recession faster than the US average as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 05:54 AM
 
Location: South Central Nebraska
350 posts, read 329,578 times
Reputation: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach View Post
Ok, some articles to back up my claims:

"Job growth, sales tax collections – both from business and consumer purchases – as well as automobile sales, signal that the Texas economy has emerged from the recent recession.
Another indicator that the state’s economy has been comparatively healthy was the U.S. Census Bureau report that Texas added more people (421,000) than any other state from 2010 to 2011. Although Texas has only 8 percent of the nation’s population, the state added nearly 19 percent of the nation’s population growth for the year.
By December 2011, Texas employers replaced all 433,400 jobs shed during the recession as our economy rebounded more quickly than the U.S. as a whole, and continues to add jobs. Nationally, through January 2012 only 36 percent of recession-hit jobs have been recovered.
Texas and the nation returned to economic growth in 2010 and 2011. In 2011, Texas real gross domestic product grew by 2.4 percent, compared with 1.6 percent GDP growth for the nation."


source: Texas Ahead: Economic Outlook


Now about Austin, where I live:


Economist: Austin economy keeps outperforming nation's as a whole


"Against the worst national economy in more than 60 years, the Austin area stands out as the best market in the nation."
I'm not disputing that the Texas economy is doing better than the nation's as a whole. I am arguing that the Southeast is not which I know from having lived there. Also that quote about Austin seems to relate more to the housing market not the job market or general economy in Austin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
7,512 posts, read 4,666,878 times
Reputation: 2593
Regional and State Unemployment, 2011 Annual Average Summary

This update from the BLS is about 2011 annual average unemployment and changes from 2010. From the article:

The Midwest experienced the greatest decline (-1.1 percentage points),
followed by the West (-0.6 point) and the Northeast and South (-0.5 point each). The
West, at 10.4 percent, registered the only jobless rate significantly higher than
that of the U.S. in 2011. The Northeast and Midwest, at 8.2 and 8.4 percent,
respectively, both had rates significantly below the national figure.

Eight of the 9 geographic divisions reported statistically significant over-the-year
unemployment rate changes in 2011, all of which were decreases. The largest of these
occurred in the East North Central (-1.3 percentage points) and New England
(-0.8 point). For the fourth year in a row, the Pacific recorded the highest
unemployment rate, 11.0 percent in 2011. The next highest rates were in the East South
Central and South Atlantic, 9.4 and 9.3 percent, respectively. The rates of these
three divisions were significantly above the U.S. average. The West North Central
division again posted the lowest jobless rate, 6.6 percent. Three other
divisions--the Middle Atlantic, New England, and West South Central--also had rates
significantly below the national figure.

In 2011, 30 states posted statistically significant unemployment rate decreases, the
largest of which was in Michigan (-2.4 percentage points). Four additional states
experienced decreases greater than 1.0 percentage point: Ohio (-1.4 points), Utah
(-1.3 points), Oregon (-1.2 points), and Indiana (-1.1 points).

In terms of population to employment ration (civilian population 16 and older with a job): The
Midwest continued to report the highest ratio, 60.4 percent, while the South, at
57.5 percent, maintained the lowest. The South and West posted employment-population
ratios that were significantly lower than the national figure of 58.4 percent, while
the Midwest recorded a significantly higher ratio.

So it seems that, regionally, the Midwest has continued to be the clear winner in terms of economic recovery and has, overall, better employment rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 04:16 PM
 
Location: New York
209 posts, read 160,788 times
Reputation: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
Actually, the Rochester and Syracuse metros grew in population the last decade. So, that is a myth about some Great Lakes metros.

Interestingly, I've met people that have moved to the Syracuse area from NC, ND, CT, VA, PA and other states. We've also have gotten some immigrants/refugees from countries like Burma, Bhutan, Vietnam, Sudan, Haiti, Bosnia and India, among other countries, in recent years.

Obviously, in terms of the job market, it will depend on one's skills. So, industries like healthcare, higher education, insurance/risk management and even engineering are some that seem to be doing well here. Central New York Jobs
Central New York Jobs

Also, there have many projects that are going on in Downtown Syracuse and even many of the new housing units there are at 99% occupancy, with more to come. Downtown Syracuse
Downtown Syracuse

Here's a thread in the Syracuse forum that discusses many of the new projects going on there: Syracuse Construction Update

Also, the metro's unemployment rate is below the national average, as is the overall cost of living.

As for the Rochester area, I believe that they gained around 12,000 new jobs within the last year. They are also going through with new projects around the city and area.

Albany-Schenectady-Troy also gained people this past decade. Smaller metros in Upstate NY like Ithaca and Glens Falls also gained people, while the Binghamton area held steady.

Even metros that lost people, have had the losses slow down and some may have seen some gains in some areas. Cleveland and Buffalo both have some new projects going on as well. So, it isn't all doom and gloom up here.
So true about NY. The Upstate Renaissance is really gaining momentum. This region is poised to do some very big things in the new economy. Downstate is gaining even more momentum due to the ever expanding limits of nyc. Keep in mind as well, 9/11 impacted the state economy in a horrible way, which is something that no other state had to deal with (for the most part). and many of the jobs, economic output that were lost are only now begining to come back; but rest assured the rebound is happening. Basically, I think ny has more potential than any other state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 10:35 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
3,577 posts, read 2,614,366 times
Reputation: 1641
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
Moving the goalposts, I see. First you said growth was only 0.5%, when it was 8x faster. Then you said the population had a long way to go to reach its previous peak, something it's already done. Now you're saying it's growing slower than the national average, something many states are seeing.

And again, the vast majority of Sun Belt growth came in the last decade or two, when things were very different, both for the Sun Belt and the North. Times are changing. You can continue to shake your head in denial and say that the Northern states aren't recovering and aren't growing and won't gain back population, but the fact is, future trends are definitely in their favor.
My mistake about the 0.5%, I was looking at the 2000 census and not the 2010 census. The depopulation of the Plains is very real. Look at the graph in one of my previous posts. Most of North Dakota had negative growth, except the area around Williston where the fracking is occurring and around Fargo which is serving as the distribution center for the fracking. Some counties had -33% growth. There were previous booms in Williston, by the way. They were predicting a boom in Williston in 1950 and it never happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top