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.
Im sorry but the numbers dont lie. I do stand by my original statement. Of all the Rust Belt cities, only Chicago has more than the national average in concentration of Hispanics. Where as about 2/3 of the major metro areas in the Sunbelt are over the national average. In perspective, if Charlotte was in the Rust Belt, it would have the 2nd largest Hispanic population. That says a lot.
Understood, however there are outliers in that sunbelt list as well. Tucson at 36.8% Hispanic, has both slower population growth, and economic growth than a few of those cities on the Rustbelt list. But in general yes, as Hispanics have been the largest growing segment of the population for decades, the places they are most inclined to flock to will naturally represent higher growth rates.
Should be remembered that the article is talking in about GDP per capita, not GDP. I do not believe that there should be a correlation between population growth and GDP per capita growth. After all, there are a lot of factors and, contrary to popular belief, GDP per capita could simply be rising because people, and disproportionately people not working like students, retirees, and minors, are moving away or GDP per capita could simply be decreasing because similar groups, such as large families with a lot of children are moving in.
Most of the major Sunbelt economies are doing quite well. Dallas and Austin are going gangbusters. Nashville, Charlotte, Atlanta, Raleigh, and San Antonio are doing quite well too. Houston had a rough couple of years but now the economy here is doing quite well too. The only cities in the Sunbelt that dont have wonderful economies are Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Orlando.
Phoenix ranked No. 9 for technology employment growth with a growth rate of 33.5 percent from 2011 to 2016. The city’s tech employment growth beat out markets like Seattle, New York, Austin and Los Angeles in the same time period.
Phoenix has the 13th largest tech talent pool with 83,140 people in tech jobs, and these workers earned an average wage of $86,231 last year, according to the report.
I did not delve deep into the article, but I see the premise is based on per-capita GDP growth vs population growth. Naturally if you have high population growth it takes a far larger increase in GDP to equate to per-capita growth than it does if your population is stagnant or shrinking. Not that there isn't value in analyzing such numbers, but just reminding that this would be the expectation by default.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo-Aggie
either side."[/i]
Places like Jacksonville and Las Vegas are growing based largely on their desirable weather, and disproportionately attracting older people who need services, but don't contribute to the economy in the same manner someone in their 30s or 40s would.
I don't think this is an accurate characterization of Jacksonville's growth. Jax's proportion of tourists and retirees is far lower than the rest of the state. Forbes also has Jax at #8 for fastest job growth. https://www.forbes.com/pictures/5989.../#17daadee7a28
Understood, however there are outliers in that sunbelt list as well. Tucson at 36.8% Hispanic, has both slower population growth, and economic growth than a few of those cities on the Rustbelt list. But in general yes, as Hispanics have been the largest growing segment of the population for decades, the places they are most inclined to flock to will naturally represent higher growth rates.
I'm glad you brought that up. It would be interesting to o a comparison on the outliers/exceptions within the rustbelt and sunbelt to see similarities or differences.
I did not delve deep into the article, but I see the premise is based on per-capita GDP growth vs population growth. Naturally if you have high population growth it takes a far larger increase in GDP to equate to per-capita growth than it does if your population is stagnant or shrinking. Not that there isn't value in analyzing such numbers, but just reminding that this would be the expectation by default.
I don't think this is an accurate characterization of Jacksonville's growth. Jax's proportion of tourists and retirees is far lower than the rest of the state. Forbes also has Jax at #8 for fastest job growth. https://www.forbes.com/pictures/5989.../#17daadee7a28
Yes I've been following cities in Florida for awhile and see the growth in jobs in places like Jax and Orlando as well as Tampa. Population growth is an important factor and does help the local economy so I don't why article is saying that is only reason these particular cities are growing. Orlando is in the process of diversifying its economy as we speak because tourism has always been a major part of COUNTY economy since all the parks are not even located near the actual city.
Phoenix ranked No. 9 for technology employment growth with a growth rate of 33.5 percent from 2011 to 2016. The city’s tech employment growth beat out markets like Seattle, New York, Austin and Los Angeles in the same time period.
Phoenix has the 13th largest tech talent pool with 83,140 people in tech jobs, and these workers earned an average wage of $86,231 last year, according to the report.
I went by the link posted in the OP. You got in issue, take it up with them.
Very interesting data. I've thought about this over the years, and have seen some of this in action myself. This is merely anecdotal, but it's been my experience.
I graduated college in 2010 in northeast TN. We're usually a year or two behind national economic trends, so I graduated into what was basically rock bottom here. Despite having an in-field internship and work experience during college, I never got into my field, and was stuck in IT call center work, making $15-$16/hr in southwest VA for two years, and that was the highest paying work I could get. I was driving a hundred miles a day roundtrip to get that.
I got tired of it. I was an economics and finance guy in college, and started doing a calculation for higher wages, lower unemployment, and a reasonable cost of living. I zeroed in on the upper Midwest. I landed in Iowa in 2012. Keep in mind that the economy was not yet fully recovered then.
My pay went from $15-$16 to $22-$23 for exactly the same role. Low end jobs of all kinds, from food service to retail to low end business like call centers, all paid probably 25%-50% more than they did in my part of Tennessee and Virginia. Back home, it was almost impossible to find any job at all. In Iowa, jobs would advertise on the radio with an "apply today, start tomorrow" mentality. These weren't necessarily low paying jobs. Windmill factories couldn't find enough trainees at $20/hr. I dated a girl who worked at a regional department store similar to Macy's and moved into the windmill business, and now is a trainer at that company. She makes around $25/hr. Keep in mind she has no degree and just isn't that bright.
I moved back to Tennessee the last few weeks of December in 2012. Instead of $15-$16/hr, I accepted a $12/hr temp job with the hope of getting to Raleigh, Charlotte, etc., within six months. I was never able to get on in a "Sun Belt" city. What actually happened in 2013 was that I had three temp jobs that year, each paying less than the last. I was down to $11.68/hr for 36 hours a week before leaving. That's like $10.50 on a 40 hour equivalency. It was truly awful.
Being desperate, I applied to anything and everything. I ended up getting some offers in Nashville, but they were still in the $30k-$35k range. That just wasn't enough to warrant moving there. I ended up going to Indianapolis for $50,000. There's no way I could have gotten in the Sun Belt at the time. We had people jumping from job to job there because the market was so hot and there weren't enough quality staff. I changed jobs up there once more, got a raise and title bump, then moved back to Tennessee, keeping my IN salary.
Maybe you all can help with this. It is said that net 1000 ppl/week are moving to Austin. It is said that net 100 ppl/day are moving to Nashville, or 700/wk. These two state capitals are very frequently considered peer cities, probably more so than any other pair of cities in the country. I will add that I have lived in Nashville 3 times and Austin 2 times and moved to Austin from Nashville in the '70's; no longer live in either metro. There are many superficial similarities between the two to draw the attention, however in many ways the two metros are drastically different, and I have written much about this on C-D.
Stats seem to indicate Austin growing a bit faster than Nashville and maybe 5% to 10% larger metro population. So why would it be that of the ten fastest growing large metro economies, Nashville's is several places ahead of Austin's? The two metros have almost identical office square footage with a possible slight edge to Austin, hard to nail this one down exactly. Here are the statistics on economic activity from the bureau of labor statistics from where I compare the two metros:
So are all the stats we get from the government on these and related measurements somewhat shaky? How can a metro growing (arguably) 30% slower and (arguably) 10% smaller population generate economic growth 10% higher than the other? One possibility is old money in Nashville is more extensive than in Austin, also maybe people with significantly large assets moving to the Nashville ecosystem from the midwest and buying large estates whereas youngerish people from the west coast moving to downtown Austin and living in high rises; and if you've seen the Austin downtown residential portfolio you know it is mind boggling for a city of its size.
Last edited by groovamos; 09-10-2018 at 11:49 PM..
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.
