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.
5. The Sun Belt growth cities: Doing a little better than Texas, but lets face it, for the most part people are like herds of cattle and just follow the crowd thinking the grass is going to be greener.
I really hate it when people say this, and it usually seems to come from people in parts of the country that aren't growing as quickly as they were. Throughout the history of this nation, people have been "herds of cattle," following the crowd for greener pastures. That's how the Northeast was developed, that's how the Midwest was developed, and now it's the Sunbelt's turn to get in on the action. No need to be resentful; when the Midwest was teeming with tons of immigrants and domestic migrants from the Northeast and South, the Sunbelt was an undeveloped backwater. This country is big enough for the Sunbelt cities to develop and mature and eventually they will level off and possibly decline, and thus the cycle begins anew until the empire falls.
18Montclair, great work as always when you compile these figures. Like I did with GDP growth earlier this year, I'll add a layer to your work and weight job growth vs. Population growth, because job numbers in a vacuum don't really tell the whole story. What good is 100,000 jobs if 150,000 additional people move in? Vice versa, is Pittsburgh really that bad off with only 27,000 new jobs created when it's population is down 31,000 in that same time period? To me, it shows just the opposite.
Metro/population change/job change/difference
1. New York: -113,406/716,800/830,206
2. Los Angeles: 29,266/527,600/498,334
3. Chicago: -55,882/275,100/330,982
4. San Francisco: 135,424/331,400/195,976
5. Philadelphia: 45,202/193,800/148,598
6. Detroit: 29,831/133,500/103,669
7. San Jose: 46,235/145,100/98,865
8. St. Louis: -742/88,200/88,942
9. San Diego: 79,933/168,100/88,167
10. Baltimore: 16,915/83,200/66,285
* No Louisville since its numbers weren't posted. (It's population grew by 27,599 so if the job numbers are posted, I can slot it in).
This paints a little different picture for sure. Some thoughts:
1. NY/LA/SF: All are huge job creators but I think they are running into an issue of affordability. It's great at the top, but I'm guessing a glut of these excess jobs available are lower paying that nobody can take because it is below the standard of living.
2. The Rust Belt: People have been trying to kick dirt on the Rust Belt's grave for 50-plus years. It's the easy target. But the cities that saw huge declines in population/jobs are now starting to create new jobs at a faster rate than people moving in. Chicago/Philadelphia/Detroit/St. Louis/Pittsburgh/Baltimore/Cleveland/Cincinnati all look a lot better once you weigh in the population factor. All these cities have big city amenities and low cost of living.
3. California: A lot of people have predicted the state will fall off, but it's actually the opposite. The state continues to create jobs at a faster clip than the rest of the country and it's creating jobs at a faster rate, like the Rust Belt, than people moving in. Yes, LA and SF have affordability issues, but the state seems to being doing fine.
4. Texas: The state has been a darling because of its huge population growth in all its metros. But is the growth sustainable? From this, I don't see how it is. If these trends continue, the state will eventually see a huge strain on its social services when there are millions of people moving in who are unable to find a job (see the decline of the Rust Belt 50-60 years ago).
5. The Sun Belt growth cities: Doing a little better than Texas, but lets face it, for the most part people are like herds of cattle and just follow the crowd thinking the grass is going to be greener. Again, if these trends accelerate, there will be a tipping point eventually.
6. Columbus/Minneapolis: See the Sun Belt.
Totally neglects the fact Houston and Salt Lake have a very high Birth rate, while Pittsburgh is losing population from Birth/deaths for example
So Houston’s working age population is growing a lot slower than its overall population while Pittsburgh its likely the opposite.
Plus a lot of those cities were crushed by the recession so they came from 11-12% unemployment vs 7% unemployment so a greater portion of the population could get jobs before migrants weee needed to fill them.
I know these are all numbers but, not every person moving to "Atlanta" are old enough to be part of the workforce.
I do agree that the rust belt is looking pretty good when it comes down to cost of living to income ratios and job growth not exceeding population growth.
Totally neglects the fact Houston and Salt Lake have a very high Birth rate, while Pittsburgh is losing population from Birth/deaths for example
So Houston’s working age population is growing a lot slower than its overall population while Pittsburgh its likely the opposite.
Plus a lot of those cities were crushed by the recession so they came from 11-12% unemployment vs 7% unemployment so a greater portion of the population could get jobs before migrants weee needed to fill them.
That may be true for now and I realize that a lot of the population moving to those areas are not at the age to enter the workforce. But on the other hand, they eventually will get to that age and if the rate of jobs being created continues to lag behind the sheer number of people moving in (and the disparity grows even larger), it is going to create a crunch.
Plus, while Pittsburgh is older, the fact that it is creating jobs at twice the population means that it is less likely kids who grew up in metro Pittsburgh will have to leave to find a job, and it should continue to attract younger professionals/families. Retaining young people is how Pittsburgh can become younger in time.
And if say Houston continues to post negative numbers like this, kids in time will be forced to move away to find a job, thus, making Houston an older city in future generations. ... I mean isn't that exactly what happened to Pittsburgh starting in the 70s which led to it now being the oldest metro in the country? (Granted Pittsburgh also is the whitest major metro ... slow birth rates ... which also played a big factor).
BTW, Salt Lake City is in the positive. Actually, I think it and Cincinnati (and a couple other that have modest population growth and double the job growth) look the best to me. That's sustainable.
Last edited by ClevelandBrown; 10-25-2019 at 12:43 PM..
I really hate it when people say this, and it usually seems to come from people in parts of the country that aren't growing as quickly as they were. Throughout the history of this nation, people have been "herds of cattle," following the crowd for greener pastures. That's how the Northeast was developed, that's how the Midwest was developed, and now it's the Sunbelt's turn to get in on the action. No need to be resentful; when the Midwest was teeming with tons of immigrants and domestic migrants from the Northeast and South, the Sunbelt was an undeveloped backwater. This country is big enough for the Sunbelt cities to develop and mature and eventually they will level off and possibly decline, and thus the cycle begins anew until the empire falls.
No resent. That's just how it always has been so was calling it how it is. Though, we now do have more information at our disposal than ever, and I can see a shift in the coming generations where there isn't a flock to certain places and the boomtowns won't be as prevalent, nor will cities completely hollow out, especially since the ones that did (the Rust Belt) are showing signs of reinventing themselves and becoming attractive places to live again.
That may be true for now and I realize that a lot of the population moving to those areas are not at the age to enter the workforce. But on the other hand, they eventually will get to that age and if the rate of jobs being created continues to lag behind the sheer number of people moving in (and the disparity grows even larger), it is going to create a crunch.
Plus, while Pittsburgh is older, the fact that it is creating jobs at twice the population means that it is less likely kids who grew up in metro Pittsburgh will have to leave to find a job, and it should continue to attract younger professionals/families. Retaining young people is how Pittsburgh can become younger in time.
And if say Houston continues to post negative numbers like this, kids in time will be forced to move away to find a job, thus, making Houston an older city in future generations. ... I mean isn't that exactly what happened to Pittsburgh starting in the 70s which led to it now being the oldest metro in the country? (Granted Pittsburgh also is the whitest major metro ... slow birth rates ... which also played a big factor).
When a place like Houston has 3% unemployment the limiting factor of job growth is the workforce not the demand. If you have a soft job market that might be true.
18Montclair, great work as always when you compile these figures. Like I did with GDP growth earlier this year, I'll add a layer to your work and weight job growth vs. Population growth, because job numbers in a vacuum don't really tell the whole story. What good is 100,000 jobs if 150,000 additional people move in? Vice versa, is Pittsburgh really that bad off with only 27,000 new jobs created when it's population is down 31,000 in that same time period? To me, it shows just the opposite.
Metro/population change/job change/difference
1. New York: -113,406/716,800/830,206
2. Los Angeles: 29,266/527,600/498,334
3. Chicago: -55,882/275,100/330,982
4. San Francisco: 135,424/331,400/195,976
5. Philadelphia: 45,202/193,800/148,598
6. Detroit: 29,831/133,500/103,669
7. San Jose: 46,235/145,100/98,865
8. St. Louis: -742/88,200/88,942
9. San Diego: 79,933/168,100/88,167
10. Baltimore: 16,915/83,200/66,285
* No Louisville since its numbers weren't posted. (It's population grew by 27,599 so if the job numbers are posted, I can slot it in).
This paints a little different picture for sure. Some thoughts:
1. NY/LA/SF: All are huge job creators but I think they are running into an issue of affordability. It's great at the top, but I'm guessing a glut of these excess jobs available are lower paying that nobody can take because it is below the standard of living.
2. The Rust Belt: People have been trying to kick dirt on the Rust Belt's grave for 50-plus years. It's the easy target. But the cities that saw huge declines in population/jobs are now starting to create new jobs at a faster rate than people moving in. Chicago/Philadelphia/Detroit/St. Louis/Pittsburgh/Baltimore/Cleveland/Cincinnati all look a lot better once you weigh in the population factor. All these cities have big city amenities and low cost of living.
3. California: A lot of people have predicted the state will fall off, but it's actually the opposite. The state continues to create jobs at a faster clip than the rest of the country and it's creating jobs at a faster rate, like the Rust Belt, than people moving in. Yes, LA and SF have affordability issues, but the state seems to being doing fine.
4. Texas: The state has been a darling because of its huge population growth in all its metros. But is the growth sustainable? From this, I don't see how it is. If these trends continue, the state will eventually see a huge strain on its social services when there are millions of people moving in who are unable to find a job (see the decline of the Rust Belt 50-60 years ago).
5. The Sun Belt growth cities: Doing a little better than Texas, but lets face it, for the most part people are like herds of cattle and just follow the crowd thinking the grass is going to be greener. Again, if these trends accelerate, there will be a tipping point eventually.
No. I should have written Atlanta like areas with similar type growth.
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.
