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.
Government jobs aren't being created like they were. My company owns a ton of office real estate in DC, and when we talk about market conditions in our board meetings there are very strong concerns about DC in the coming few years.
Honestly, I think the places that are least reliant upon government jobs will be in the best position economically in the future, because they've already learned how to do without. It's one advantage that Pennsylvania developed after being ground zero for structural economic collapse in the 1980's: government jobs were slowly but steadily shed, and now the state ranks in the bottom 10 for government jobs as a percentage of all jobs. Ohio actually has more government jobs than Pennsylvania despite having ~1,300,000 fewer people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michigan83
Every major city in Michigan other than Detroit is now below the national average in unemployment. Ann Arbor is at 4.3%, Grand Rapids 5.4%, Lansing 5.6%, Kalamazoo 6%, even Flint is down to 7.8%. Detroit metro is the only one still hanging up there at 9.7%, but that is a big improvement over where it was. Things are looking up here for sure.
Not to rain on Michigan's parade, but unemployment rates can be misleading. The size of the labor force is a better economic indicator, because unemployment rates can be the result of either rapid job growth or rapid labor force decline. The unemployment rate in the Pittsburgh MSA decreased significantly between 1983 and 1988, but it wasn't because there was a cornucopia of job opportunities. It was because a lot of working-age people left. And while Michigan has shown decent job growth lately, it's all just getting back the jobs that were lost in the last few years, so my hunch is that unemployment rates across Michigan are dropping because the labor force has shrunk.
With that said, if I had one bit of advice for Michigan, it'd be not to get too hung up on population growth. Analyze economic growth instead. There's a difference. Population growth can certainly beget economic growth, and population decline can certainly impede it, but not all population growth (or decline) is created equal. California's "Inland Empire" has about twice as many people as the Pittsburgh MSA does, but its GDP is only slightly higher. Pittsburgh is more economically productive per capita than the Inland Empire is.
And while Pittsburgh's population has decreased, it's been addition by subtraction because the entire loss came from the under-18 and over-65 age cohorts, neither of which contribute much to an economy. The working-age population grew, even if only slightly. Furthermore, the over-65 cohort in Pittsburgh has relatively low educational attainment, whereas the 25-44 cohort has relatively high educational attainment. Altogether, this explains how Pittsburgh could shrink but become richer and more educated in the process.
That's a far cry from 2009 when Michigan was reverting roads to gravel due to lack of funds. Glad to see the mitten is making a come back.
Ah, yes, I remember when that was happening. At the time, I thought, "man... this is getting bad!"
But it also was pretty isolated in some very rural areas. Not quite as bad as it sounds. Some of those roads probably never should have been paved to begin with. They should probably keep doing that in some places, regardless of how we are doing economically.
Again, glad to see Philadelphia growing in another metric, albeit slow and steady. The years of decline are finally over!
Since when was the Philly CSA declining in jobs?
I mean, during recession years, yeah, like everyone else, but Philly's Metro has been growing (albeit very slowly) in terms of jobs and population for basically forever. If anything, these job numbers are kinda weak for Philly.
Now city proper is another issue in terms of long-term population and job trends. But the CSA has been growing basically forever.
Legitimately surprised to see Detroit up there. Ann Arbor has always been a good city for growth, but even Flint is showing modest numbers? Is this still Michigan?
I'm surprised that you're surprised.
You realize the auto industry dominates Metro Detroit, right? Auto sales have been booming.
Also I am little surprised there is not more growth for DC,
with Baltimore removed its at 66K - given the growth rate of the area that might suggest that there was slowing of the job adds in DC. Also Baltimore nearly matched DC with many fewer people. Just expected more in the relative sense from DC. Maybe the slow down of the govt expansion was the impact
Can't speak for the suburbs, but over half of D.C. propers growth has been new births. There is a baby boom going on right now. The growth rate everyone see's in D.C. proper is not really being fueled by people moving in from outside the region. It's the increase in babies by young couples that are now for the first time seeing living in D.C. proper and putting their kids in schools as an option. This was never an option when D.C. was the murder capital. Many new neighborhoods that have been almost completely gentrified like Capitol Hill for example have elementary school's that are some of the most highly sought after schools in the city comparable to upper NW. As the gentrification continues and demographic changes complete their sweep through the core of the city, the schools will become good by default. School issues is more an economic issue than anything else. When a neighborhood is all affluent, the schools are normally good.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 01-09-2013 at 09:11 AM..
Government jobs aren't being created like they were. My company owns a ton of office real estate in DC, and when we talk about market conditions in our board meetings there are very strong concerns about DC in the coming few years
Quote:
Of course there is... didn't we all see it coming?
A lot of people haven't and some people are still moving down there like it's 1995-2005 still. DC, NoVA, and MD are possibly in for a rude awakening in a couple years.
A lot of people haven't and some people are still moving down there like it's 1995-2005 still. DC, NoVA, and MD are possibly in for a rude awakening in a couple years.
All the job growth has been in area's outside government over the last year or so. Government jobs actually declined in D.C. by ten's of thousands. The thing many people don't realize is D.C. is growing from health care and tech jobs right now. Infact, whenever the government decline in jobs is over, D.C. will see an increase in jobs because they won't be losing jobs from any other major sectors like they are right now in government jobs. D.C. really added way more than 60,000 jobs but the region loss ten's of thousands of government jobs so the growth was adjusted for those loses. D.C. job growth will be slower in the coming years compared to the past which is good in my opinion because the bulk of people moving to D.C. will probably be young urban dwellers instead of families that prefer to live in the suburbs which is exactly what we do not need.
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.
