Surprising Cities with shrinking GDP (price, vs, airport)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
To expand a little on your analysis:
New Orleans 2.4%
Houston 6%
Tuscon 6.3%
Hartford 9.1%
Rochester 9.1%
Memphis 11.2%
Birmingham 12.1%
Virginia Beach 12.3%
Milwaukee 12.3%
St. Louis 13.4%
Buffalo 16.3%
Washington 16.6%
Providence 16.7%
Kansas City 17%
Chicago 17.6%
Baltimore 18.1%
Oklahoma City 18.2%
Portland 18.8%
New York 19.3%
Cincinnati 19.6%
Philadelphia 20.2%
Pittsburgh 20.4%
Detroit 20.9%
Cleveland 21.2%
Minneapolis 21.6%
Richmond 22.4%
San Diego 22.6%
Louisville 23.1%
Boston 23.4%
Indianapolis 23.8%
Phoenix 24.2%
Tampa 24.3%
Denver 24.7%
Columbus 24.7%
Salt Lake City 25.2%
Sacramento 26%
Los Angeles 27.1%
Orlando 27.9%
Dallas 28.4%
Las Vegas 28.9%
Grand Rapids 30.4%
Jacksonville 31%
Riverside 31.9%
Charlotte 31.9%
Atlanta 32.3%
Raleigh 33%
Seattle 33.3%
Miami 34.6%
San Francisco 36.7%
Nashville 38.4%
San Antonio 38.5%
Austin 43.7%
San Jose 51.2%
Surprises: Washington being so low on this list (lower than any East Coast city, even Providence?)
How is OKC doing so well while Houston and NOLA struggle?
TBH, this list matters more, the compound annual change in GDP per Capita form 2012-2017
Real Change
1. San Jose 6.4%
2. San Antonio 4%
3. San Francisco 3.5%
4. Austin 3.4%
5. Pittsburgh 2.7%
6. Nashville 2.6%
7. Grand Rapids 2.5%
8. Los Angeles 2.5%
9. Riverside 2.4%
10. Cleveland 2.2%
11. Atlanta 2.2%
12. Seattle 2.2%
13. Dallas 2.1%
14. Miami 1.8%
15. Detroit 1.8%
16. Philadelphia 1.7%
17. Jacksonville 1.6%
18. Raleigh 1.5%
19. Denver 1.5%
20. Louisville 1.5%
21. Sacramento 1.4%
22. Boston 1.4%
23. Oklahoma City 1.4%
24. Chicago 1.3%
25. Indianapolis 1.2%
26. Charlotte 1.2%
27. San Diego 1.2%
28. Minneapolis 1.2%
29. Cincinnati 1.2%
30. Salt Lake City 1.1%
31. Columbus 1.1%
32. Richmond 0.9%
33. Providence 0.9%
34. Las Vegas 0.9%
35. Baltimore 0.9%
36. Buffalo 0.8%
37. Tampa 0.8%
38. New York 0.7%
39. St. Louis 0.6%
40. Kansas City 0.6%
41. Portland 0.5%
42. Phoenix 0.5%
43. Orlando 0.5%
44. Milwaukee 0.3%
45. Birmingham 0.2%
46. Hartford 0.1%
47. Memphis 0%
48. Washington 0%
49. Virginia Beach -0.1%
50. Rochester -0.2%
51. New Orleans -0.4%
52. Houston -0.8%
53. Tuscon -1.3%
TBH, this list matters more, the compound annual change in GDP per Capita form 2012-2017
Real Change
1. San Jose 6.4%
2. San Antonio 4%
3. San Francisco 3.5%
4. Austin 3.4%
5. Pittsburgh 2.7%
6. Nashville 2.6%
7. Grand Rapids 2.5%
8. Los Angeles 2.5%
9. Riverside 2.4%
10. Cleveland 2.2%
11. Atlanta 2.2%
12. Seattle 2.2%
13. Dallas 2.1%
14. Miami 1.8%
15. Detroit 1.8%
16. Philadelphia 1.7%
17. Jacksonville 1.6%
18. Raleigh 1.5%
19. Denver 1.5%
20. Louisville 1.5%
21. Sacramento 1.4%
22. Boston 1.4%
23. Oklahoma City 1.4%
24. Chicago 1.3%
25. Indianapolis 1.2%
26. Charlotte 1.2%
27. San Diego 1.2%
28. Minneapolis 1.2%
29. Cincinnati 1.2%
30. Salt Lake City 1.1%
31. Columbus 1.1%
32. Richmond 0.9%
33. Providence 0.9%
34. Las Vegas 0.9%
35. Baltimore 0.9%
36. Buffalo 0.8%
37. Tampa 0.8%
38. New York 0.7%
39. St. Louis 0.6%
40. Kansas City 0.6%
41. Portland 0.5%
42. Phoenix 0.5%
43. Orlando 0.5%
44. Milwaukee 0.3%
45. Birmingham 0.2%
46. Hartford 0.1%
47. Memphis 0%
48. Washington 0%
49. Virginia Beach -0.1%
50. Rochester -0.2%
51. New Orleans -0.4%
52. Houston -0.8%
53. Tuscon -1.3%
Wow San Antonio, and Miami are doing much better than I thought.
To expand a little on your analysis:
New Orleans 2.4%
Houston 6%
Tuscon 6.3%
Hartford 9.1%
Rochester 9.1%
Memphis 11.2%
Birmingham 12.1%
Virginia Beach 12.3%
Milwaukee 12.3%
St. Louis 13.4%
Buffalo 16.3%
Washington 16.6%
Providence 16.7%
Kansas City 17%
Chicago 17.6%
Baltimore 18.1%
Oklahoma City 18.2%
Portland 18.8%
New York 19.3%
Cincinnati 19.6%
Philadelphia 20.2%
Pittsburgh 20.4%
Detroit 20.9%
Cleveland 21.2%
Minneapolis 21.6%
Richmond 22.4%
San Diego 22.6%
Louisville 23.1%
Boston 23.4%
Indianapolis 23.8%
Phoenix 24.2%
Tampa 24.3%
Denver 24.7%
Columbus 24.7%
Salt Lake City 25.2%
Sacramento 26%
Los Angeles 27.1%
Orlando 27.9%
Dallas 28.4%
Las Vegas 28.9%
Grand Rapids 30.4%
Jacksonville 31%
Riverside 31.9%
Charlotte 31.9%
Atlanta 32.3%
Raleigh 33%
Seattle 33.3%
Miami 34.6%
San Francisco 36.7%
Nashville 38.4%
San Antonio 38.5%
Austin 43.7%
San Jose 51.2%
Surprises: Washington being so low on this list (lower than any East Coast city, even Providence?)
How is OKC doing so well while Houston and NOLA struggle?
A lot of that has to do with how deep the recession was. Boston for example has 7% unemplyment in 2012, Detriot had 12% unemployment. Washington was even more recession proof so it’s post recession growth was less impressive.
Providence is in really bad shape it’s a city that got crushed my the recession (the only New England State that’s UE went above 10%) and didn’t really grow out of it.
Gas prices have been slipping again so it wouldn't surprise me if "some" of these cities are hit once more.
Indeed, in 2016 a recession hit the oil/gas and agriculture sectors -- hence the economies of Houston and Peoria stumbling. Less relevant to blame geography than economic mix. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...ntial-election
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,460,386 times
Reputation: 12187
Houston will always be vulnerable to oil prices. On a smaller level the move to online shopping is a boon to Louisville KY with it's massive UPS hub. There's warehouses being built everywhere.
I think it's important to recognize that Dallas by itself isn't carrying that weight over Houston. I'm in a rare minority reviewing it this way, though. Fort Worth metro division typically accounts for about 25% of metro DFW economic growth; Fort Worth by itself can hold it's own with many cities in its weight class. So the Dallas MD GDP for 2017 would be in the $400 billion range...
Granted, any way one looks at it, metro Dallas is economically outpacing Houston by a comfortable margin, so I'm on board with that. I prefer Dallas to Houston and I do not think it's out of the question that Dallas passes Houston in prominence in the next 10-12 years. Dallas MD (the true size of Dallas, to me) is ~28% smaller than Houston, but Dallas gdp is only ~18-19% behind Houston currently. Dallas is coming...
I break down the gdp outlook over a 5-year trend (2012-2017) like this:
Houston has only had 6.01% gdp growth in the last five years. Other notable cities with low growth rates economically:
Bridgeport (+8.64%)
Hartford (+9.09%)
New Orleans (+2.42%)
Tulsa (+0.48%)
Rochester (+9.09%)
Baton Rouge (+6.42%)
Tucson (+6.3%)
Little Rock (+9.8%)
Bakersfield (+1.23%)
El Paso (+9.65%)
Interesting analysis, particularly regarding the GDP of the Dallas division alone. I don't normally compare the entire Houston MSA with the Dallas MD alone because imo, major economic drivers like DFW Airport only exist because Ft. Worth exists. But it's clear the Dallas side of the DFW metro is the wealthier and faster growing side.
However, 2014 was an interesting year to start this analysis because IIRC, that was the year Houston had it's peak GDP after more than a decade of generally being the nation's fastest growing metro, and it was when the oil bust began as well. I think that year it had a higher GDP than DFW did in absolute terms, despite having 500k less people. The fact that the Dallas side of the metro is so productive relative to Houston MSA really shines a light on how much poorer (comparatively) the Ft. Worth side is.
Some would argue that as a metro, DFW is already the more prominent of the two and that's a reasonable argument to make imo. But as far as Dallas MD passing Houston, thats exactly what they said in the mid-80s when Dallas was booming and Houston was struggling through that particular oil bust. Then things changed and that never quite happened.
Its been a rough few years for Houston, but the city is humming along pretty well these days. Certainly not like 5 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 2018 GDP numbers are higher than a lot of folks expect, provided this oil price decline is more of a blip than a long term trend.
Honestly, long term, I don't expect much to change between these two from an MSA perspective. One is dependent on a strong national economy, the other is dependent on a strong energy market, and those two rise and fall somewhat independently of one another.
Houston's biggest worries are infrastructural and not fixing flooding and mobility issues will threaten the regions future much more than economic competition from Dallas.
Nice to see Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Cleveland all above 20% as well. Also San Antonio getting some overflow from Austin.
I'd say that DC's underperformance is a result of the gradual downsizing of the government, although with a partial victory by Amazon, there's still lots of room to fill those in as diversification/privatization will help to keep the market steady, and its improved crime rate remains in check for the most part.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
