Friday, April 4th, 2014

Census Bureau Releases Updated Population Estimates

Last week the Census Bureau released 2013 population estimates for counties and metro areas. There are three main takeaways I saw: 1) the increasing dominance of large metro areas 2) the continued move to the Sunbelt and 3) deceleration of the exurbanization rate.

For the dominance of large metros, Richard Florida wrote this up over at Atlantic Cities. Here’s his money chart:

Clearly not all large metros are booming. And there are definitely thriving smaller places as well. But in the current economy, there’s a minimum scale you need to really be a viable competitor. I put that at 1-1.5 million in regional population. If you’re smaller than that, as a general rule you need some unique competitive asset such as oil (Fargo), state capital (Des Moines), a major university (Lafayette, IN), or some such. These figures are just more evidence for why aligning state economic development strategies is the right move. Don’t fight the tape.

By the way, some commenters criticized Florida for not including larger size categories and not proving correlation between size and population growth. But I don’t see that as the argument. Rather, it’s about the minimum viable scale issue. There’s a threshold value you need to hit.

The continued regional population shift to the South, and to a somewhat lesser extent the West, was well-highlighted by Wendell Cox. This isn’t popular in urban circles, but just as with the above, we have to start with actual reality. There was some view that the Great Recession would pop a Sunbelt bubble, but it doesn’t seem to have happened. Even a place with no heritage as a business center like Phoenix is growing again.

On the exurban migration change, a lot of core metro counties did better than expected. For example, Hamilton County, Ohio (Cincinnati) is shown as physically adding more people than any other county in the metro area. This is a county that has lost about 120,000 people since it’s peak population. Urban Cincy has the complete roundup.

I generally say that we should operate off of gold standard data (the Census Bureau’s population estimates being one such source) without trying to attack it when it doesn’t say what we like. So I’m going to roll with the headline numbers on county populations for the time being. But I do want to point out that last decade the Census Bureau vastly over-estimated urban populations. (Did the Census miss people in some locations like New York? Undoubtedly. But it’s hard to argue that the Census couldn’t find 25% of the entire population of the city of Atlanta. Outside of a handful of locales like Queens, I think the idea of large scale miscounts is off base). This decade the Census, much like state DOTs and their highway forecasts, has continued to double down on a false trend line. That’s why I say they may be on track for another estimating fiasco.

I would certainly encourage localities to correlate these estimates with other important data sources, especially hard count data for building permits and school enrollment, plus abandoned housing estimates. Can you foot those numbers to other things that are going on in your city?

Here’s a rundown of the statistics. All of these are only looking at metro areas of more than one million people.

Top 10 regions for net domestic migration:


Rank Metro Area 2011 2012 2013 Total
1 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 39,208 55,466 32,641 127,315
2 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 22,547 38,789 55,620 116,956
3 Austin-Round Rock, TX 30,240 31,041 25,908 87,189
4 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 4,389 36,582 32,014 72,985
5 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 20,935 23,197 26,536 70,668
6 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 19,491 21,508 22,392 63,391
7 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 14,699 20,397 21,382 56,478
8 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 9,261 22,667 17,316 49,244
9 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 11,881 15,381 17,926 45,188
10 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 26,849 5,960 12,262 45,071

Top 10 Regions for Net International Migration:


Rank Metro Area 2011 2012 2013 Total
1 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 119,836 124,773 128,042 372,651
2 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 48,925 51,367 52,706 152,998
3 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 47,305 47,998 49,798 145,101
4 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 33,304 37,700 36,871 107,875
5 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 24,597 24,716 25,504 74,817
6 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 22,447 23,793 24,116 70,356
7 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 21,989 23,406 23,646 69,041
8 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA 22,073 22,903 23,534 68,510
9 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 19,033 18,869 19,501 57,403
10 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 16,348 17,376 17,520 51,244

Here is a list of all large metro areas, ranked by percentage population change since July 1, 2010. Total population change is also included:


Rank Metro Area 2010 2013 Total Change Pct Change
1 Austin-Round Rock, TX 1,727,784 1,883,051 155,267 8.99%
2 Raleigh, NC 1,137,351 1,214,516 77,165 6.78%
3 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 5,948,689 6,313,158 364,469 6.13%
4 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 2,139,372 2,267,846 128,474 6.01%
5 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 2,153,288 2,277,550 124,262 5.77%
6 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 2,553,829 2,697,476 143,647 5.62%
7 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 6,452,758 6,810,913 358,155 5.55%
8 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 5,664,789 5,949,859 285,070 5.03%
9 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 2,223,635 2,335,358 111,723 5.02%
10 Oklahoma City, OK 1,257,883 1,319,677 61,794 4.91%
11 Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN 1,675,945 1,757,912 81,967 4.89%
12 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 3,448,425 3,610,105 161,680 4.69%
13 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 4,208,770 4,398,762 189,992 4.51%
14 Salt Lake City, UT 1,091,452 1,140,483 49,031 4.49%
15 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 5,581,524 5,828,191 246,667 4.42%
16 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 1,842,076 1,919,641 77,565 4.21%
17 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 5,304,197 5,522,942 218,745 4.12%
18 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA 4,344,584 4,516,276 171,692 3.95%
19 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 1,953,106 2,027,868 74,762 3.83%
20 New Orleans-Metairie, LA 1,195,757 1,240,977 45,220 3.78%
21 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 2,232,177 2,314,554 82,377 3.69%
22 San Diego-Carlsbad, CA 3,104,182 3,211,252 107,070 3.45%
23 Jacksonville, FL 1,349,095 1,394,624 45,529 3.37%
24 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN 1,892,323 1,953,961 61,638 3.26%
25 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 4,244,089 4,380,878 136,789 3.22%
26 Columbus, OH 1,906,243 1,967,066 60,823 3.19%
27 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 3,355,167 3,459,146 103,979 3.10%
28 Richmond, VA 1,210,015 1,245,764 35,749 2.95%
29 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 2,788,961 2,870,569 81,608 2.93%
30 Sacramento–Roseville–Arden-Arcade, CA 2,154,417 2,215,770 61,353 2.85%
31 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 989,196 1,016,603 27,407 2.77%
32 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 4,564,054 4,684,299 120,245 2.63%
33 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 12,844,070 13,131,431 287,361 2.24%
34 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 2,715,312 2,770,738 55,426 2.04%
35 Kansas City, MO-KS 2,013,691 2,054,473 40,782 2.03%
36 Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 1,237,851 1,262,261 24,410 1.97%
37 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 19,596,183 19,949,502 353,319 1.80%
38 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 1,680,120 1,707,369 27,249 1.62%
39 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 1,326,595 1,341,746 15,151 1.14%
40 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,971,397 6,034,678 63,281 1.06%
41 Birmingham-Hoover, AL 1,129,096 1,140,300 11,204 0.99%
42 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 2,117,344 2,137,406 20,062 0.95%
43 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 1,556,549 1,569,659 13,110 0.84%
44 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 9,470,335 9,537,289 66,954 0.71%
45 St. Louis, MO-IL 2,789,893 2,801,056 11,163 0.40%
46 Rochester, NY 1,080,081 1,083,278 3,197 0.30%
47 Pittsburgh, PA 2,356,658 2,360,867 4,209 0.18%
48 Providence-Warwick, RI-MA 1,601,798 1,604,291 2,493 0.16%
49 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 1,214,014 1,215,211 1,197 0.10%
50 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI 4,291,400 4,294,983 3,583 0.08%
51 Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY 1,135,314 1,134,115 -1,199 -0.11%
52 Cleveland-Elyria, OH 2,075,690 2,064,725 -10,965 -0.53%

76 Comments
Topics: Demographic Analysis

76 Responses to “Census Bureau Releases Updated Population Estimates”

  1. Chris Barnett says:

    John, I think it depends on how one defines the “livable” piece and who is doing the defining. Some metros on the faster – growing half of the list seem to meet many folks’ needs in all three.

    I think a lot depends on what stage of life a city is in, as well as the demographic characteristics of the migrants. LA metro today is much different than when I lived there decades ago, and far less interesting to me.

  2. John Morris says:

    “John, I think it depends on how one defines the “livable” piece and who is doing the defining. Some metros on the faster – growing half of the list seem to meet many folks’ needs in all three.”

    No doubt, it depends somewhat on who is defining things but..

    Some types of growth have stood the test of time. Neighborhoods like, The Upper West Side, Riverside, Park Slope, Harlem, Woodside, Jackson Heights, Forest Hills, Kew Gardens were mostly built out pretty rapidly, but still sustain appeal.

    The full car, sprawl model seems to create disposable places with temporary viability.

  3. Derek Rutherford says:

    Matthew Hall: By “Critical Scale”, I think Aaron is trying to describe the minimal size for a metro area to have a combination of (1) a broad and deep enough labor pool to be support the needs of a large, expanding medium/high-skill business, and (2) have a set of cultural institutions and amenities that make the area attractive to those same high-skilled workers. It doesn’t necessarily mean faster growth than other areas (example: NYC clearly has critical scale, but its population has grown more slowly than the nation’s for nearly 100 years).

    Aaron’s conclusion is that that size is currently around 1-1.5m for the entire metro area. I suspect that areas with large and strong research universities can reach the “critical size” with fewer people.

    The result is that major corporate expansions take place almost exclusively in the ~50 metro areas that meet that criteria, which results in the population charts that Aaron showed.

    There are a few metro areas that are “on the bubble”, at risk of slipping below the threshold if they stagnate for any length of time. Grand Rapids, MI, is an example of such an area based on an earlier thread. Tulsa comes to mind as another.

  4. Matthew Hall says:

    Columbus is much larger than 1.5 million. That would put it well past a “critical stage”. I don’t see what is “critical” about Columbus at the moment. It’s in the game like other American medium-sized metros. I don’t think anything more ‘critical’ than ‘nearsourcing’ of medium-skill services from higher cost metros explains Columbus’ growth. It’s a cheap place to do moderately skillful work. That’s Columbus’ stock in trade. If they could get some corporate headquarters, major R&D facilities, or a bigger share of the resurgent manufacturing economy, Columbus might be able to be more than a cost-cutting location.

  5. John Morris says:

    “‘nearsourcing’ of medium-skill services from higher cost metros explains Columbus’ growth. It’s a cheap place to do moderately skillful work. That’s Columbus’ stock in trade.”

    I think that’s a pretty huge niche but I agree they need to step up.

    Columbus can’t better than NYC, but can be way better and cheaper than most of New Jersey, Long Island or a typical Chicago suburb.

    My guess is the real critical mass number is at least 2 million for a metro. Add up the Bay Area and you are near 8. Chicago is near 10. The combined Los Angeles CSA is over 18. Dallas, Houston & Atlanta are near 6. Boston is near 5 without Providence. NYC, is too big to count.

    Columbus is just entering this kind of ballpark.

  6. Matthew Hall says:

    It is a big niche, but not unlimited. Nor is it innovative, high-tech, or creative. It’s cheap. Are you suggesting that cities other than the Bay Area, Chicago, LA, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Boston don’t count somehow?

  7. John Morris says:

    Are you suggesting that cities other than the Bay Area, Chicago, LA, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Boston don’t count somehow? No, I didn’t feel like listing all the other larger metros.

    A very high number of the cities on this list are over 2 million. Austin- borders on another high growth region, San Antonio-New Braunfels and isn’t far from Houston.

    My advice would be to worry less about Columbus as a competitor for Cincy and think about how the wider region can build synergies. We talked about a real International airport, which would be a start.

  8. Chris Barnett says:

    John, re your list in #2: on the West Coast there are equivalent nice places (at equivalent high cost): Newport Beach, Palos Verdes, Bel Air, San Marino, Flintridge-La Canada, parts of Torrance and Redondo Beach. All these are automobile suburbs and they have held up quite nicely.

    Every city has favored quarters that last over time.

    I think you are discounting inexpensive metros. Yes, over the span of a couple generations, they may become less inexpensive because urban infrastructure and services do cost more in a car-oriented city.

    But today, midwestern metros not named Chicago have significant cost and water-availability advantages over the Southwest and West Coast, and significant electrical-infrastructure advantages over the mid-Atlantic and Northeast. (When is the last time you heard about major long-term blackouts and outages in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, or Michigan? We had a very hard winter here but no outages on the same scale as the East Coast cities.)


    Columbus and Indy seem to be growing apace. Just think how much harder Indy has to work without THE Big State University, and it outgrows Cincinnati (which has A Big State U).

    (Although with the significant graduate and professional schools of IU in Indy…business, law, dental, meds/nursing plus the academic hospital system, and public/environmental affairs…it is less obvious to me that TOSU gives Columbus that big an advantage.)

    Strangely, UC and NKU and all those corporate HQ don’t seem to be helping Cincinnati keep up with the other two nearby cities. Maybe having two world-class HQ (P&G and GE jet engines) might make the economic development team complacent; GE just announced that its newest jet engine plant for building its newest design will be built in Lafayette, IN…next door to Purdue and within poaching/commuting distance of Rolls-Royce in Indy. By all rights this should have been built much closer to Cincinnati; if they were going to pick an Indiana site, perhaps across I-74 from Honda in Greensburg to keep it within commuting distance of the home office. But the GE spokespeople, all the way up to CEO Immelt, just gushed about the GE-Purdue connection as well as GE’s new strategy of locating near major research universities.

    Maybe Indiana’s “strategy” (not totally serious…it’s an accident of history, though maybe a deliberate Hoosier attempt to keep Indy from becoming the unquestioned center of the State’s resources) of having its key programs divided among the three major state universities an hour out from Indy pays dividends in MSA and CSA growth.

  9. Chris Barnett says:

    Regarding the water advantages of the Midwest’s lower-cost cities, (or the relative disadvantages of some of the fast-growing southern and southwestern metros), see this article:

    http://www.groundwater.org/file_download/inline/93e2a71a-2abe-4001-9740-5647e0ff07d6

    Water shortages will stop southwestern metro growth a lot faster than any cultural opposition to sprawling metros.

  10. Matthew Hall says:

    John, I’m not worried about Columbus. I’m interested in what is really happening in American metros. I think that much of the discussion here obscures rather than reveals the larger picture. You don’t describe cities over 2 million, you describe cities over 5 million. What do they have to do with Cincinnati, Columbus, or Pittsburgh?

    Cincinnati IS keeping up with many other metros. It’s Gross Metro Product, average wages, and real estate and job markets are doing relatively well. The discussion here seems to have given some a different impression.

    GE located its new plant in rural Indiana because its cheaper than Cincinnati. Cincinnati is more expensive because people are willing to pay more for being here. That is a sign of economic, if not necessarily demographic, success. Everything is relative.

  11. John Morris says:

    @Chris Barnett

    “There are equivalent nice places (at equivalent high cost): Newport Beach, Palos Verdes, Bel Air.”

    Jackson Heights is harldly Bela Air.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Heights,_Queens

    I purposely, listed a lot of places that were not built for just the wealthy. The Upper West Side & Riverdale are a mix of middle class to wealthy. Park Slope was upper middle class; Woodside & Jackson Heights were middle to working class. Kew Gardens is middle to Upper Middle. Forest Hills is also a mix from high to low.

    The combined areas mentioned might house over 1 million people. Many of these places – have gentrified since.

    I could have listed a lot of other great places like Fort Greene, Cobble Hill, Bed Stuy, Astoria, Inwood or neighborhoods of the lost (Destroyed by Robert Moses) Grand Concourse.

    The bottom line is we just can’t seem to build “mass class” anymore.

  12. Chris Barnett says:

    Matthew, Lafayette is in a county of ~175,000 with a top-tier B1G university. Not “rural”.

    Dearborn, Franklin and Ohio counties in Indiana are rural. As it happens, those three counties are part of the Cincinnati metro (but they have a combined population density of 102 per square mile or more than six acres per person). If all GE wanted was a “low-cost rural” Indiana site they could have stayed in the Cincinnati metro within a few miles of I-275 or I-74.

    As GE phases out the older products made in Cincinnati in favor of the advanced product made in Lafayette, what will happen to Cincinnati GDP? Jet engines are high value-added products.

    So let’s talk about GDP. Indianapolis metro GDP is already higher than Cincinnati (and Cleveland and Columbus) on both absolute and per-capita basis. Indy ~59400 per capita, Milwaukee ~56500, Cleveland ~54000, Pittsburgh ~52300, Cbus ~51100, Cinti ~50600, STL ~48600, Detroit ~48500. Ahead of all in the mid-continent region are MSP ~63600 and Chicago ~61,400.

    The three big Ohio metros are all below median in the region.

  13. John Morris says:

    @Matthew Hall

    I will in Cincy this summer to see a music festival- would have done The Mid Point but I wasn’t free then.

    My general impression of Cincy is that it’s similar to Pittsburgh. A collection of interesting older towns, a challenging geography, some amazing housing stock & deluxe high end amenities A great place, but not well adopted to high growth (At least the way Americans do it today)

    Columbus & Indy are well suited to do “cheap”, manufacturing etc… The total relationship offers lots of synergies.
    Columbus is the open, welcoming, low cost Ying to Cincinnati, Cleveland & Pittsburgh’s Yang.

    You make a good point about Columbus not really being a research, engineering town in spite of OSU. Not really judging the city for what it is now as much as seeing a lot of potential.

  14. Matthew Hall says:

    Yes, John, most “high growth” metros in the U.S. are horrible places to actually live. I wouldn’t call Columbus “welcoming,” its just that no one particular identifies with it as a place so they don’t care about what happens there. If Columbus doesn’t work for them they’ll easily find somewhere else. There is a fine line between “open” and indiscriminate and disinterested. My experiences living in Columbus for four years were primarily the later two.

  15. George Mattei says:

    Matt:

    I think Aaron’s point was NOT that Columbus has some “critical mass” advantage over other similar metros, but that it has an advantage over any city that doesn’t meet the threshold. I don’t think there was any notion that it is conferred anything greater than any other city over the threshold.

    And…sigh…I’m not going to get pulled into another Columbus vs. Cinci debate, but I do feel compelled to correct one fallacy you consistently repeat. You site that Columbus needs more corporate HQs to be “more than a cost-cutting location”. I assume you are referring to large corporate HQs and the jobs and status they confer, such as Fortune 500 HQs. Actually the Columbus and Cinci metro areas are tied with 6 Fortune 500 HQs each. Cleveland/Akron lead the state. On that level, I thin you need to re-evaluate your assessment.

    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/states/OH.html

  16. George Mattei says:

    I was surprised to see Oklahoma City so high up the list. It’s not a place I assumed would be that far up. Maybe energy is driving that growth? Either that or a whole lot of people really love Kevin Durant.

  17. John Morris says:

    That’s my impression, which is why I compare Columbus to a New Jersey suburb.

    The jury is still out- Columbus has assets like an easy geography, great location and major university, one could build a great city around.

    I think where we disagree is that I think the US desperately needs affordable cities for the “masses”. Could we learn/ re-learn how to do that again?

  18. Matthew Hall says:

    Do people here realize that St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland would love to have Cincinnati’s demographics? EVERYTHING is relative. There are no absolutes. GE’s global aviation headquarters is in suburban Cincinnati. The manager of a GE jet engine plant in Brazil or China reports to the Cincinnati office, not GE headquarters in Connecticut. Where ARE the real centers of corporate wealth, where things are made or where they are designed, financed, and supply chains are created and managed?

  19. John Morris says:

    @George Mattei

    “I think Aaron’s point was NOT that Columbus has some “critical mass” advantage over other similar metros, but that it has an advantage over any city that doesn’t meet the threshold. I don’t think there was any notion that it is conferred anything greater than any other city over the threshold.”

    Don’t think Aaron mentioned Columbus in his comments, but that sums up my view. I was commenting on Columbus’s current size and nothing more. (IMHO, the MSA threshold is closer to 2 million, not 1)

    I also disagree with the view Aaron sometimes states that, proximity to other big cities is a disadvantage/ competitive challenge. (Poor Providence) For the most part, it’s a huge positive if the city takes advantage of it.

  20. Matthew Hall says:

    I am referring to fortune 500 headquarters and R&D. They are able to bring huge economic power to a city. P&G alone has the economic influence of all of Columbus’ Fortune 500 headquarters. Those and Cincinnati’s collection of small and medium manufacturing companies are the center of its economy.

  21. Dan Wolf says:

    Agree with John Morris on both points: 1) 2 million is probably critical mass in recent times and 2)Proximity to a larger metro potentially can be an advantage for growth; probably predicated on niche growth in the smaller metro. Some people may prefer a smaller metro to go home to and commute to the greater metro for career and culture.
    Also, I strongly believe that multi-metro greater regions will gain more competitiveness working together synergistically. Examples: Cincinnati and Dayton aerospace cluster and from the past Detroit and Cleveland/Akron automotive industry.
    I would like to see high speed rail connect the three Cs metros in Ohio. I believe that it would build a sense of cooperativeness across the multi-metro greater region. Since there are many cost inputs to any complex product; land, labor, (housing, cultural amenities if you consider quality of life factors for attracting managers etc.)it is possible to consider working in the outskirts of Columbus and high speed rail yourself home to Dayton or Cincy. Same with specialized engineering at one of the major universities. Schools have their specialties and high speed rail allows for commuting between the university, office/factory and home. Big picture cooperativeness is a sound approach for future competitiveness.

  22. Chris Barnett says:

    Dan Wolf: Wright-Pat AFB is 48 minutes drive from GE Aerospace, even less from the northern suburbs of Cincinnati. Dayton metro is growing at an even slower rate than Cincinnati (less than 0.5% estimated 2010-13, vs. Cinti’s 1%).

    I think Aaron’s notion about smaller cities next to bigger ones is generally correct. Dayton does not seem to benefit from being in Cincinnati’s orbit.

  23. Dan Wolf says:

    George; re fortune 500 HQs; in downtown Cincinnati there are 7. 3 more in the suburbs. adding GE jet engines brings the total to 11. Were did you only count 6? Anyway, I think John’s synergy approach is spot on and the future for specialization and competitiveness in the production arts. Production will support all the aspects of the consumption side of the economy of any metro. That is how the great legacy cities of the Midwest became centers of arts and education, and great neighborhoods. Gritty production facilities paid for the arts and beautiful buildings. America has been to consumption oriented for decades. We need great production centers to return to the Midwest. I guess we all agree.

  24. Dan Wolf says:

    That’s “where did you only count 6?”

  25. George Mattei says:

    Dan, just checked back. If you look, I posted a link to my source, CNN Money. Maybe the other ones you are looking at are regional HQs and not the global one?

  26. Nathanael says:

    Don’t cite Cox. Ever. He lies, and it’s not good to link to liars.

    Yes, the Sunbelt migrations seem to continue. We’ll see how long that lasts; they have some horrible economic disadvantages. This seems to largely be maquiladora migration — the jobs move to places where the corporate owners can abuse the workers, and the workers perforce follow. This isn’t sustainable forever.

The Urban State of Mind: Meditations on the City is the first Urbanophile e-book, featuring provocative essays on the key issues facing our cities, including innovation, talent attraction and brain drain, global soft power, sustainability, economic development, and localism. Included are 28 carefully curated essays out of nearly 1,200 posts in the first seven years of the Urbanophile, plus 9 original pieces. It's great for anyone who cares about our cities.

About the Urbanophile

about

Aaron M. Renn is an opinion-leading urban analyst, consultant, speaker, and writer on a mission to help America’s cities thrive and find sustainable success in the 21st century.

Full Bio

Contact

Please email before connecting with me on LinkedIn if we don't already know each other.

 

Copyright © 2006-2014 Urbanophile, LLC, All Rights Reserved - Click here for copyright information and disclosures