How reliable are metro population growth rankings? (Houston, Dallas: employment, vs.)

[madrone2k]

Various "reporters" like to grab the latest fragments of data from the government -- and elsewhere -- from which they can weave stories to satisfy their employers (and perhaps their egos). But ... sometimes one sees short-term data coming out at about the same time that seem to confound simple co-interpretation. Perhaps in hindsight, with observations over more time, things will become easier to interpret.

For example:

According to the Dallas Morning News (citing U.S. Census Bureau), in the one-year period starting in July 2011, "The (DFW) region added almost 132,000 people during that period, according to census estimates. The Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land metropolitan area was second, adding more than 125,000 people."

Yet, for the year starting October 2011, other data just released (e.g., at Dallas Area Employment) cites an increase in non-farm employment of 66,400 in DFW vs. 95,800 in Houston.

I'm not going to argue about the relative merits of these two cities. However, it's interesting to speculate on whether it is meaningful to compare these two bits of data (since they are from close, but non-identical 1-year time periods) and ponder what they imply. Does it reflect DFW having better PR? More farm employment (I doubt the difference is significant)? More people with relatively bigger families migrating there? More people looking for jobs there and not finding them?

One quick conclusion that I'd draw is that it's probably not worth getting too excited about headlines like these in local papers that mainly try to pander to local egos. The Houston paper writes articles to accentuate the positive about Houston, the papers in the rest of Texas accentuate the positive about Dallas. Nothing new there :-)

[HtownLove]

apart from the larger employment , you can look at larger GDP growth, and more housing units.

I just don't see Houston adding that more, jobs, that larger economy growth, more housing units and somehow add less people for two estimates straight.

The unemployment rate between the two are almost identical, so it can't be that DFW is adding 10,000 more people and creating 30,000 less jobs. Either their unemployment rate would be thrown off or the estimate is flawed.

Last decade they over estimated DFW by about 200K and underestimated Houston by over 100K. Thats a 300k difference or 30K a year. It looks like the estimate is oddly mirroring the job deficit.

More than Likely Houston gained about 135,000 and DFW gained about 112,000 last year. That would keep in line with the housing numbers too.

[Dopo]

I think is hilarious that the media talks about this as "We are doing great in Houston!!!"
I see it as the opposite, more people, more problems.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by Dopo

I think is hilarious that the media talks about this as "We are doing great in Houston!!!"
I see it as the opposite, more people, more problems.

The news didn't see it as great tonight.

They were talking about more congested roads and infrastructure not being able to keep up with the fast growing population