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.
I wouldn't be surprised if much of Baltimore's growth came from the DC area residents itself because Baltimore area is much cheaper to live in compared to DC. Many people that work in DC live in Baltimore metro.
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.
Detroit's labor force has actually been flat since about late-2010 -2011. Prior to that it had been on a slow decline from 2.3 million in 2000 to about 2.1 million in 2008. It bottomed out at 1.9 million in 2012 and now is back at 2 million flat.
The actual number of those employed has been flat at 1.7 million since 2007 down from 2.2 million in 2000.
The population has also been flat at 4.2 million from a drop of 4.4 million in 2000.
So it seems like overall, Detroit is just in a flat period; neither growing nor shrinking (metro-wise at least). Either out-migration is equal to in-migration or something. Or maybe the exodus of the inner-city has supported the outward spread of the metro while effectively keeping the economy the same?
Oh wait nevermind, you pretty much said it.
Last edited by animatedmartian; 01-09-2013 at 11:17 AM..
I wouldn't be surprised if much of Baltimore's growth came from the DC area residents itself because Baltimore area is much cheaper to live in compared to DC. Many people that work in DC live in Baltimore metro.
Not as many as people from DC like to think. If that was the case, then where do all the DC people work?
Not as many as people from DC like to think. If that was the case, then where do all the DC people work?
Well technically, the D.C. MSA is the only major MSA in the nation that has a little less than 2/3 the jobs as the population. All other metro areas have about 1/2 the jobs of the total population. DC see's higher commuter rates in the region than any other area to fill those jobs.
I wouldn't be surprised if much of Baltimore's growth came from the DC area residents itself because Baltimore area is much cheaper to live in compared to DC. Many people that work in DC live in Baltimore metro.
If I lived that metro area, I would definitely live in Baltimore before DC.
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.