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.
Plus I think the money was largely equally spread throughout the country, (perhaps FL, NV coming out ahead a bit, while places with high earners got a bit less) so I don’t think it will effect relative position much
I didn't take the comment to mean positions will be changing. It looks like all metros jumped up a bit and I agree with him m that all metros are artificially inflated.
That growth had artificial stimulus so its not sustainable.
There will be a point where the data will catch up to itself. It may not be a 5% decrease, or a decrease at all, but the record pace of growth wor be extrapolated like some are commenting (like the post about 5 mores of growth like this and Seattle will be higher than Boston)
Plus I think the money was largely equally spread throughout the country, (perhaps FL, NV coming out ahead a bit, while places with high earners got a bit less) so I don’t think it will effect relative position much
Yes, not really making any predictions about change in metro rankings, although I think it's reasonable to conclude that metros in more politically liberal states have benefitted from more copious public spending to keep the economy humming.
It goes deeper than outright stimulus, too. There's been a pause on billions of dollars in student loan payments, which also won't last forever. That's going to take away a good chunk of direct spending money for particularly younger working Americans whenever they do end up resuming.
Point is, combining the end of the flow of stimulus, the great tamp down in borrowing due to the rising interest rates, and other macroeconomic global forces that will slow the economy, anyone would be remiss to not acknowledge an inevitable slowdown.
The degree to which GDP contracts is certainly up for debate, but it's looking more than likely.
Yes, not really making any predictions about change in metro rankings, although I think it's reasonable to conclude that metros in more politically liberal states have benefitted from more copious public spending to keep the economy humming.
It goes deeper than outright stimulus, too. There's been a pause on billions of dollars in student loan payments, which also won't last forever. That's going to take away a good chunk of direct spending money for particularly younger working Americans whenever they do end up resuming.
Point is, combining the end of the flow of stimulus, the great tamp down in borrowing due to the rising interest rates, and other macroeconomic global forces that will slow the economy, anyone would be remiss to not acknowledge an inevitable slowdown.
The degree to which GDP contracts is certainly up for debate, but it's looking more than likely.
Politically liberal states are pretty much universally wealthier than conservative ones are thus almost always come out on the short end of the stick of government programs.
Politically liberal states are pretty much universally wealthier than conservative ones are thus almost always come out on the short end of the stick of government programs.
You're missing the point.
It has to do with state budgets and federal stimulus programs that arguably funneled funds to states and cities hit hardest by lockdowns. Those, without exception, were NOT "red" states.
The point re: student loan forbearance and inciting more direct spending also definitely benefits bluer states by virtue of where more college graduates are located.
It has to do with state budgets and federal stimulus programs that arguably funneled funds to states and cities hit hardest by lockdowns. Those, without exception, were NOT "red" states.
The point re: student loan forbearance and inciting more direct spending also definitely benefits bluer states by virtue of where more college graduates are located.
Broadly the CTC, UI enhancements and stimulus checks were progressive policies (Eg helped people with lower incomes more) so helped poorer states more than wealthier states (Eg Alabama over New Jersey)
Well the Covid programs were handled differently than other programs. Alabama for instance opted out of UI enhancements long before New Jersey did. But also in general, Covid stimulus went towards overall population so NJ got more in Covid relief than Alabama as well.
Anyhow, here is the previous 10-year period of growth:
The only change in the top 20 from 2011 to 2021 is Baltimore moving into the Top 20 and St Louis falling to 24th.
Metro Area------GDP-2001-GDP-2011-10-Year Growth
1 New York----------943----1,312--+39.1%
2 Los Angeles------518----742-----+43.2%
3 Chicago-----------401----542----+35.1%
4 Washington-------262----438----+67.1%
5 Houston-----------211----382---+81.0%
6 Dallas-------------227----359---+58.1%
7 Philadelphia------242----351---+45.0%
8 Boston------------234----341---+45.7%
9 San Francisco----240----329---+37.0%
10 Atlanta----------208----281---+35.0%
11 Miami-----------179----254---+41.8%
12 Seattle----------159----251---+57.8%
13 Minneapolis-----140----202---+44.2%
14 Detroit-----------183---202---+10.3%
15 Phoenix----------124---185---+49.1%
16 San Jose---------121---184---+52.0%
17 San Diego-------115---158---+37.3%
18 Denver-----------107---147---+37.3%
19 St Louis----------105---142---+35.2%
20 Riverside----------78----128---+64.1%
Houston and DC led growth in the top 20 by a large margin from 2001-2011.
Metro Area-----GDP 2011--GDP 2021-10 Year Growth
1 New York----------$1,312---$1,992---+51.8%
2 Los Angeles-------$742-----$1,124---+51.4%
3 Chicago -----------$542-----$764-----+40.9%
4 San Francisco-----$329----$668----+103.0%
5 Washington-------$438----$607------+38.5%
6 Dallas--------------$359----$598------+66.5%
7 Houston-----------$382-----$537-----+40.5%
8 Boston-------------$341----$531------+55.7%
9 Seattle-------------$251----$479------+90.8%
10 Philadelphia------$351----$477------+35.8%
11 Atlanta-----------$281----$473------+68.3%
12 Miami-------------$254----$417------+64.1%
13 San Jose---------$184----$410-----+122.8%
14 Phoenix-----------$185----$316------+70.8%
15 Minneapolis------$202----$296------+46.5%
16 Detroit------------$202----$283-----+40.0%
17 San Diego--------$173----$267-----+54.3%
18 Denver-----------$147----$253------+72.1%
19 Baltimore---------$158----$222-----+40.5%
20 Riverside---------$128----$213-----+66.4%
We see much more accelerated growth in the 2010s with MSAs in the Top 20 actually doubling their GDPs, and a third growing by 90%--and our 2 former growth leaders greatly diminshed due to changes in government spending in DCs case, and a huge collapse in the energy industry in Houston's case.
The spread of the tech industry is a huge contributor to growth in the 2010s, but a huge slowdown is already a foot and we already seeing a negative affect on average wages in the Bay Area, and that should translate to GDP data at some point-but really the Bay Area has always been the most volatile economy I can think of, with the most gains and biggest losses. We'll see how much the area loses this time around.
Thanks for the hard work. But something is wrong with Baltimore/San Diego’s numbers. Their 2011 numbers in the second chart don’t match the 2011 numbers in the first chart.
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.
