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 disagree with this assessment. If you look at the most common industries among Philadelphia residents below for 2008 (broken down by male and female), you'll see just how diversified the the economy is not just in the suburbs but the city itself. The largest sector cohort of employment is healthcare among females (21%), which really is not dramatically high. Note how manufacturing doesn't make either list, too:
I disagree with your assessment of the numbers. Philadelphia has benefitted from a booming meds and eds. the only other growing industry is tourism. it is less diversified, than, say boston or ny.
[quote]Education and healthcare — Philadelphia’s largest
sector — actually added jobs, growing by 1.5% in
2009, continuing a long-term trend. At 37% of total
private-sector employment, this sector is more than
double the national share of educational and health
service employment and is significantly larger than
Boston at 28% and New York, at 15%. But this good
news is the mirror image of an underlying weakness:
Philadelphia’s office sector — finance, insurance,
real estate, professional and business services, prime
drivers of the knowledge economy — accounts for only
22% of the city’s total private sector employment,
while in Boston andWashington D.C., it comprises
33% of city jobs and in New York City it is 45%. [/quote][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]http://centercityphila.org/docs/SOCC2010FULL.pdf (broken link)[/SIZE]
p. 41
I disagree with your assessment of the numbers. Philadelphia has benefitted from a booming meds and eds. the only other growing industry is tourism. it is less diversified, than, say boston or ny.
Still, New York and Boston have a high concentration of employment in finance and bio/life sciences, respectively. Just becasue you have a niche in a certain industry, that doesn't mean your economy is not diversified -- and a niche industry is actually a good thing. That's exactly what Philadelphia has with higher ed., medicine and increasingly pharmaceuticals.
Only when your economy is dominated by one sector (something like 50% or more of occupations) is when you can say an area's economy is not very diversified, and that's exactly what happened to Detroit with the automotive industry. Philadelphia is nowhere near that level with any sector.
First, it's a regional economy. 200,000 suburbanites work in the city and just as much city-folk work in the suburbs.
Second, metro Detroit is losing population. That's never been the case for the Philadelphia metro. As with just about every other metro area in the country between 1950 and 2000, people left the central city and resettled in the nearby suburbs. In this area we reshuffled the deck but we've also added over 1 million people since 1950.
People in Detroit starting moving to the suburbs in the 50's but then the next generation began to leave the region entirely.
Manufacturing has nothing to do with population growth. (that said, people tend to forget big employers around here like Lockheed, L3 and Boeing). New York City has added almost 1 million people since 1990 and there's been no manufacturing boom there. People move to where the jobs are, there's really not much more to it than that.
Still, New York and Boston have a high concentration of employment in finance and bio/life sciences, respectively. Just becasue you have a niche in a certain industry, that doesn't mean your economy is not diversified -- and a niche industry is actually a good thing. That's exactly what Philadelphia has with higher ed., medicine and increasingly pharmaceuticals.
Only when your economy is dominated by one sector (something like 50% or more of occupations) is when you can say an area's economy is not very diversified, and that's exactly what happened to Detroit with the automotive industry. Philadelphia is nowhere near that level with any sector.
most pharmaceuticals are outside the city. they've been here for a long time, if anything, they've already peaked and haev entered a period of slow growth/stagnation (of course their pain has been biotech's gain). I never said the area's economy isn't diversified, just the city's, and every year it becomes less diversified. the city used to be extremely diverisified but it's long term private sector decline continues. meds and eds are great, but it doesn't add up to diversified job growth. I bet if you take out comcast, the picture is substantially worse.
solibs-I'm not making the detroit comparison but the city isn't terribly diversified. Detroit needs to find a way to become more like pittsburgh...which itself was slow to respond to changes but has done so mroe effectively than most. anyway, you are correct, it IS a regional economy o Philadelphia needs to address infrastructure shortcomings to live off economic growth in the suburbs.
Philadelphia as a region has always been growing and may grow even faster in the future.
Philadelphia City, however, is not going to really ever experience gangbusters growth until the very serious QOL concerns are addressed. The schools and tax rates are unacceptable and the crime issue, while improving, is still not where it should be.
The schools and tax rates are unacceptable and the crime issue, while improving, is still not where it should be.
Those are all really the same issue.
Poor people use a lot of services and don't contribute much to the tax rolls.
As long as one county is the regional dumping ground for the poor and there is no regional revenue sharing to address the problem the city will have to keep taxes high. As this dynamic changes (indeed it is) the city will be able to lower rates, attract more middle-class people and their businesses and then be able to lower rates further.
In case you haven't seen what's been happening in NY, Boston, Baltimore, DC, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia over the last 15 years - the demographics are changing. More quickly in some cities but happening nonetheless.
Places like Chester, Norristown and much of eastern DelCo (and now creeping into lower Bucks) are becoming the new repositories for the poor. The reshuffling of the regions poor began before the last census. So much so that for the first time ever a majority of the regions poor now live in the suburban counties.
Just think about the ratio of people posting here talking about moving to the city and consider their ages. Middle-aged people living in suburban subdivisions built in the 50's, 60's and 70's are in for a rude awakening if they think there is a future there. Find me two young home buyers who are interested in living there and i'll show you 5 who are repulsed by the idea and another 3 who are only considering it as a sort of last resort.
With things like this happening now - Passyunk Square Civic Association » Education by the time the current crop of 20-somethings have kids old enough to be starting school the way will have been well paved for them.
There's a demographic time bomb ticking away in this country and so much has been written about it over the last 15 years that, IMHO, anyone who doesn't take notice and educate themselves is playing with their future.
Those are all really the same issue.
Poor people use a lot of services and don't contribute much to the tax rolls. As long as one county is the regional dumping ground for the poor and there is no regional revenue sharing to address the problem the city will have to keep taxes high. As this dynamic changes (indeed it is) the city will be able to lower rates, attract more middle-class people and their businesses and then be able to lower rates further.
there's more to it than that, Philly creates poor people. the city schools are bad only, in part, because of the people who go there. For decades the district was run by incompetents who pilfered the budget. A lot of people are poor because they were poorly educated. Crime is out of hand, in part, because the judicial system is a joke with violent criminals beating the rap dozens of times beforing finally serving time. These issues need to be fixed. simply planning on shoving the poor out isn't really a solution. people don't move to chester county because they are poor, they move there because they want a better life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solibs
In case you haven't seen what's been happening in NY, Boston, Baltimore, DC, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia over the last 15 years - the demographics are changing. More quickly in some cities but happening nonetheless.
yes, though baltimore is still plenty poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solibs
Just think about the ratio of people posting here talking about moving to the city and consider their ages. Middle-aged people living in suburban subdivisions built in the 50's, 60's and 70's are in for a rude awakening if they think there is a future there. Find me two young home buyers who are interested in living there and i'll show you 5 who are repulsed by the idea and another 3 who are only considering it as a sort of last resort.
a lot of these places are fine, actually, and still hold the good jobs. a lot of it is overblown from those in certain circles. that said, Philadelphia need only become more like the other counties and it will experience a large boom. it needs to stop being the hole in the doughnut. it certainly has improved, even politically, but there's a way to go. for a lot of people, the much lower crime, better schools are worth the 25 minute train ride. places like passyunk sq have done a decent job of providing relatively safe neighborhoods and people have settled down there but it would be a mistake to assume this is a zero sum game, the metro is growing, it's just that philly is now part of that growth rather than an offset.
there's more to it than that, Philly creates poor people. the city schools are bad only, in part, because of the people who go there. For decades the district was run by incompetents who pilfered the budget. A lot of people are poor because they were poorly educated. Crime is out of hand, in part, because the judicial system is a joke with violent criminals beating the rap dozens of times beforing finally serving time.
Wealthy Philadelphians began leaving the city in large numbers 120 years ago. The upper middle-class began following them about 90 years ago and the middle-class began leaving 60 years ago.
So not only has the pool of talent from which we select our elected officials been shrinking for 120+ years but the percentage of the electorate that is poorly educated has been increasing. In short, they've been voting for people who are just like them.
But the city doesn't create poor people. Poor people, when left to their own devices, create the next generation of poor people. That's why it behooves everyone in the region to take more interest in what happens to children born into poverty . . . the days when suburbanites are able to say "oh, that's the city's problem" are over. Even from a purely selfish perspective it makes no economic sense to have several hundred thousand people living in your midst that are below the poverty line.
Quote:
These issues need to be fixed. simply planning on shoving the poor out isn't really a solution. people don't move to chester county because they are poor, they move there because they want a better life.
Just to be clear, i'm not making a value judgement - just an observation. Moving the poor around isn't how I would do things but that's how it always happens and that's what is happening now. It's certainly not a solution
From the lowest estimate of the city's population over the last decade of 1,447,395 to the new census estimate of 1,540,351 (I've also seen 1,562,461   means the city increased population 2% since the last census and 6.4% from its lowest point.
What does the city-data forum community think of this? Sustainable? Unsustainable? Will the city see this trend continue or is this just a brief aberration. Is everyone going to suddenly leave in the next twenty years making Philadelphia the next Detroit?
How come the number of empty homes went up?
What makes anyone thing the census numbers are accurate?
In the past Philly's solution to negative crime stats, education stats or any negative stats has been to change the numbers.
Philly claims crime is down in the schools. Is it? When Timoney was police chief he publicly said the crime stats were not acccurate. There have also been several stories about education results are not accurate.
Philly wants a higher population so they will get more money from the government. There is an incentive to doctor the numbers.
Manufacturing has nothing to do with population growth. (that said, people tend to forget big employers around here like Lockheed, L3 and Boeing). New York City has added almost 1 million people since 1990 and there's been no manufacturing boom there. People move to where the jobs are, there's really not much more to it than that.
Huh? Are you aware that manufacturing jobs are jobs?
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.
means the city increased population 2% since the last census and 6.4% from its lowest point. 
