Ohio and Midwest GDP 2007-2010 (Columbus, Cleveland: sales, 2015, apartment)

[jbcmh81]

I took a look at recently released metro GDP stats for the Midwest and thought I would share some of the information. I looked at all Midwestern metros that had at least a $10 billion GDP by 2010 and compared both dollar changes and percent changes since 2007. Here is what I came up with.

There were 37 metros in the Midwest that fit the $10 billion GDP requirement. Here are the top and bottom 15 for dollar change from 2007-2010. Amounts are in millions.

Top 15

1. Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN: $10,333
2. Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI: $10,012
3. Indianapolis, IN: $7,464
4. St Louis, MO: $5,608
5. Kansas City, MO-KS: $4,793
6. Columbus, OH: $4,268
7. Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY: $3,209
8. Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI-IL: $3,184
9. Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA: $2,831
10. Madison, WI: $2,680
11. Sioux Falls, SD: $2,119
12. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH: $2,014
13. Evansville, IN: $1,578
14. Fargo, ND: $1,391
15. Peoria, IL: $1,336

Bottom 15

23. Appleton, WI: $561
24. Kalamazoo-Portage, MI: $463
25. Akron, OH: $335
26. Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI: $283
27. Ann Arbor, MI: $233
28. Springfield, MO: $216
29. Rockford, IL: $185
30. Canton-Massilon, OH: $73
31. South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI: $47
32. Toledo, OH: -$12
33. Dayton, OH: -$151
34. Flint, MI: -$543
35. Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH: -$943
36. Wichita, KS: -$1,527
37: Detroit-Livonia-Warren, MI: -$6,910

And the top and bottom 15 by percentage change 2007-2010.

Top 15

1. Sioux Falls, SD: 15.01%
2. Fargo, ND: 14.40%
3. Evansville, IN: 9.99%
4. Cedar Rapids, IA: 9.61%
5. Madison, WI: 8.14%
6. Peoria, IL: 7.89%
7. Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL: 7.68%
8. Indianapolis, IN: 7.64%
9. Lincoln, NE: 7.32%
10. Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA: 6.33%
11. Green Bay, WI: 5.98%
12. Appleton, WI: 5.91%
13. Lansing-East Lansing, MI: 5.85%
14. Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI: 5.28%
15. Columbus, OH: 4.81%

Bottom 15

23. Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN: 1.98%
24. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH: 1.94%
25. Springfield, MO: 1.53%
26. Rockford, IL: 1.50%
27. Ann Arbor, MI: 1.27%
28. Akron, OH: 1.23%
29. Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI: 0.86%
30. Canton-Massilon, OH: 0.57%
31. South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI: 0.39%
32. Toledo, OH: -0.05%
33. Dayton, OH: -0.45%
34. Detroit-Livonia-Warren, MI: -3.38%
35. Flint, MI: -4.88%
36. Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH: -5.37%
37. Wichita, KS: -5.49%

And finally, here are the top 15 GDPs in the Midwest.

1. Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN: $532,331
2. Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI: $199,596
3. Detroit-Livonia-Warren, MI: $197,773
4. St Louis, MO: $129,734
5. Kansas City, MO-KS: $105,968
6. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH: $105,625
7. Indianapolis, IN: $105,163
8. Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY: $100,594
9. Columbus, OH: $93,393
10. Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI-IL: $84,574
11. Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA: $47,556
12. Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA: $39,465
13. Madison, WI: $35,615
14. Dayton, OH: $33,371
15. Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI: $33,361

Some interesting notes about the top 15 GDPs... There is a HUGE drop off from Chicago to Grand Rapids, there are 4 metros separated by less than $1 billion, and Indianapolis looks to overtake Cleveland and Kansas City by next year.

Now, let's say these percentage rates stayed the same for another 4 years. What would the rankings look like in 2015?

1. Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN: $542,871
2. Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI: $210,135
3. Detroit-Livonia-Warren, MI: $191,088
4. St Louis, MO: $135,598
5. Indianapolis, IN: $113,197
6. Kansas City, MO-KS: $110,991
7. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH: $107,664
8. Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY: $103,914
9. Columbus, OH: $97,885
10. Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI-IL: $87,881
11. Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA: $50,566
12. Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA: $40,416
13. Madison, WI: $38,514
14. Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI: $33,648
15. Dayton, OH: $33,221

[unusualfire]

And how does GDP help my pocket??

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by unusualfire

And how does GDP help my pocket??

It doesn't, specifically. It's more an indication of how a city is doing economically and its overall influence. However, I would think that a city improving its economic status would have more overall opportunities, so perhaps it could help your career choices down the line. And that would certainly help your pocket.

[unusualfire]

I never heard of any company moving to a metro because it has a higher GDP.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by unusualfire

I never heard of any company moving to a metro because it has a higher GDP.

That's not what I mean. A higher economic output either means that the existing companies are growing or that new companies are moving in and having an impact on the local economy. GDP is a result of a city's economic strength, not the other way around. But obviously a steady growth (or fast one) in GDP means that the economic conditions are favorable, which is a good thing for everyone.

[Matthew Hall]

Just as national gdp means much less in a globalizing economy; a made in USA label doesn't mean that the bulk of its value is added in the USA and 'american ' companies are no more american than chinese in terms of their finance and profits; metro gdp measures doesn't mean that wealth attributed to a place meaningfully benefits that place. Some metros lose much more of the wealth nominally attributed to people and businesses in their area to distant headquarters and investors than other metros. This has traditionally been a problem for poor neighborhoods when locals spent their money and paid their sales taxes in wealthier areas thus not benefiting their neighborhood. It is a growing problem for whole cities, regions and nations today. If someone spends their income on housing and shopping at local shops, his income benefits the local economy and gov't much more than if he spends it on travel, untaxed internet shopping, and only rents an apartment. These dynamics will only grow in the years ahead with the increasing importance business over the internet and 'wealth' becomes increasingly virtual and disconnected from any particular places. Where the decision makers are who ultimately control the wealth is what matter most in this globalized economy. That supports a metro development strategy of emphasizing locally owned businesses whether multinationals or corner specialty shops.

[Matthew Hall]

Here's the 2007 and 2010 "current dollar GDP by metropolitan area" in millions
News Release: GDP by Metropolitan Area, Advance 2010, and Revised 2007–2009

-------------2007-------2010
Cincinnati 97,385-----100,594
cleveland 103,611----105,625
columbus 89,067------93,353

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Matthew Hall

Here's the 2007 and 2010 "current dollar GDP by metropolitan area" in millions
News Release: GDP by Metropolitan Area, Advance 2010, and Revised 2007–2009

-------------2007-------2010
Cincinnati 97,385-----100,594
cleveland 103,611----105,625
columbus 89,067------93,353

I'm pretty sure I already provided this information... that was sorta the point of the thread.

[Matthew Hall]

Here's the 2007 and 2010 "current dollar GDP by metropolitan area" in millions
News Release: GDP by Metropolitan Area, Advance 2010, and Revised 2007–2009

-------------2007-------2010------%change GDP---% pop.change 2000 to 2010
Cincinnati 97,385-----100,594 -----3.2-------------------6
cleveland 103,611----105,625------2.0-----------------(-3.3)
columbus 89,067------93,353------4.6------------------13.8

This means that GDP decreased by 2.8% per capita in Cincinnati, it increased by 5.3% per capita in Cleveland and decreased by 9.2% per capita in Columbus. This makes sense of the income, housing, and job numbers we've seen. People are staying in Cincinnati despite only moderate growth in overall economy activity there, people are still leaving cleveland despite slight increases in overall economic activity there, while people are moving to Columbus despite increases in overall economic activity that are falling well behind overall population growth. It also explains the surprisingly stable housing market in cincinnati despite only modest population growth, surprisingly weak housing numbers in columbus despite strong population and job growth, and continued decline in almost all aspects of Cleveland's housing market without any clear source of demand for housing. That is, Cincinnati's housing market has changed little in the last few years because other economic measures in cincinnati have changed little too, columbus' housing numbers don't reflect much of the strong growth in population and jobs there because there is less economic activity per capita available to the growing number of people there. This could be due to more younger or less skilled workers as well as economic refugees from the declining areas to the north and east of columbus willing to take lower wage jobs instead of remaining in declining areas with worse prospects for employment.

[Matthew Hall]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I'm pretty sure I already provided this information... that was sorta the point of the thread.

You didn't provide the 2007 data and thus did not consider the changes in GDP.