0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GDP is overrated. It has not increased my paycheck.
Your units have to be off. Ohio's per capita GDP 36,937 in thousands is $36,937,000 ... per person. That's insane wealth!
Ohio is #7 is GDP overall (all 50 States) isn't it? Correlates with the population.
Pittsburgh and Cleveland have rustbelt economies in common. Also the healthcare industry. Other than that, yeah, nothing. Pittsburgh has really capitalized on its universities, which Columbus and Cincinnati would have a much easier time replicating than Cleveland. And even still, Ohio simply doesn't have a Carnegie Mellon, and OSU and UC have a long way to go to reach the level of Pitt academically.I think perhaps Pittsburgh's best fortune has been to catch the eyes of the right people. Richard Florida has done a lot for the city just by beating the drum on its renaissance. He says it, people believe it, it becomes self-fulfilling.
Quote from: natininja on May 05, 2012, 06:25:31 PMPittsburgh and Cleveland have rustbelt economies in common. Also the healthcare industry. Other than that, yeah, nothing. Pittsburgh has really capitalized on its universities, which Columbus and Cincinnati would have a much easier time replicating than Cleveland. And even still, Ohio simply doesn't have a Carnegie Mellon, and OSU and UC have a long way to go to reach the level of Pitt academically.I think perhaps Pittsburgh's best fortune has been to catch the eyes of the right people. Richard Florida has done a lot for the city just by beating the drum on its renaissance. He says it, people believe it, it becomes self-fulfilling.Actually, the Cleveland and Cincinnati metros have pretty similar percentages of their overall jobs in manufacturing (something like 14%, I think,) and both are higher than in Pittsburgh (which is just under 10%.) Cleveland and Pittsburgh do have larger education and healthcare sectors (26 and 27% of total jobs) than Cincinnati (22%) though. Brookings has a lot of fascinating data available for perusal, although you might have to dig for the most recent numbers. At least for me, it really casts doubt on the conventional wisdom characterization of Cincinnati having a "diversified" economy, Cleveland and Pittsburgh having "rust belt" economies, and Columbus having an "education and government" economy. There are differences in how they're structured, of course, but they're often not as great as you might expect, and there seem to be a lot of nebulous factors in metro economic performance that aren't immediately explainable just by saying a particular city is manufacturing-heavy, or has a lot of financial-sector jobs.
^huh? Cleveland has Case Western, which is ranked #38 on US News and World Report's National University rankings (about 15 spots behind Carnegie Mellon). And tOSU is actually ranked ahead of Pitt by three spots in the same rankings. If you don't like those rankings, that's cool, but I can honestly say I've never heard anyone (and I know some real school snobs) talk about Pitt's academics favorably as compared to OSU. (Granted that's a very specific topic.)
The Ohio State University is superior to the University of Pittsburgh academically and on par with the University of Cincinnati. OSU is an excellent school and people know that around the world. The amount of significant research OSU does even exceeds Carnegie and Case. Cincinnati also has Miami University, an original Public Ivy with an amazing reputation on the East Coast, specifically.
Actually, the Cleveland and Cincinnati metros have pretty similar percentages of their overall jobs in manufacturing (something like 14%, I think,) and both are higher than in Pittsburgh (which is just under 10%.) Cleveland and Pittsburgh do have larger education and healthcare sectors (26 and 27% of total jobs) than Cincinnati (22%) though. Brookings has a lot of fascinating data available for perusal, although you might have to dig for the most recent numbers. At least for me, it really casts doubt on the conventional wisdom characterization of Cincinnati having a "diversified" economy, Cleveland and Pittsburgh having "rust belt" economies, and Columbus having an "education and government" economy. There are differences in how they're structured, of course, but they're often not as great as you might expect, and there seem to be a lot of nebulous factors in metro economic performance that aren't immediately explainable just by saying a particular city is manufacturing-heavy, or has a lot of financial-sector jobs.
Having a higher percentage of jobs in the health/education sectors may actually suggest a.) less jobs and/or b.) a less diversified economy.I've long felt the Ohio community didn't quite understand how much of a manufacturing town Cincinnati is and has been throughout its history. Sometimes people don't think it's manufacturing if it isn't a vehicle or metal alloy. Strangely enough, Ford makes transmissions in Cincinnati and Toyota has a large presence in northern Kentucky.
I'd be interested to see the historic manufacturing numbers for these cities, as well as current an historic breakdowns by type. Manufacturing soap, e.g., is not exactly as "rustbelt" as manufacturing steel. I think what I'm getting at is that there can also be diversification in manufacturing, which there might be evidence for in Cincinnati given the lack of a major union culture. A bunch of smaller companies and facilities, with different products for different industries, rather than behemoths that make a major city into a "company town", leaving it vulnerable. Currently, that obviously doesn't apply to any of these cities, but the momentum is still there to contend with -- in both tangible and intangible ways.Whatever case you might make that Cincinnati's economy is like Cleveland's or Pittsburgh's, you will have to explain why Cincinnati's MSA never stopped growing, while Pittsburgh's and Cleveland's have been shrinking since the 50s/60s.
It's funny I overlooked the med school since the one person I know IRL who went there got their MD. You guys are missing the broader point I was making, though, that Cleveland has little to learn from Pittsburgh in the way Pittsburgh has leveraged their universities to be a major player in their economic revitalization. Cleveland just doesn't have an equivalent of the University of Pittsburgh, which is a major omission when trying to use that strategy.I agree Pittsburgh is not nearly as far ahead of Cleveland as it is hyped to be. That's why I spoke in terms of perception. Still, there are some indicators that Pittsburgh is further along than Cleveland. I was making use of the idea that the common perceptions being so divergent (Pittsburgh has made a major turnaround and Cleveland is a little Detroit) cannot be 100% delusional. There are some significant differences. One being that Pittsburgh has actually posted positive numbers in MSA population change.Let me be clear: I do not buy that Cleveland is a little Detroit, and I do not buy that Pittsburgh is all roses.I feel like we've gotten bogged down by details, a couple of which I have admittedly botched, and started to miss the broader points which are sound.
Cleveland is in a freefall?
Job diversity by metro, based on % of jobs by industry to total number of non-farm jobs.Some differences that really stand out to me is that Columbus has, by far, the lowest % of manufacturing jobs and it, like Youngstown, have fewer industries that represent 10% or more of the availabe jobs (4 vs 5/6) than everywhere else.
Quote from: jbcmh81 on May 06, 2012, 05:59:46 AMJob diversity by metro, based on % of jobs by industry to total number of non-farm jobs.Some differences that really stand out to me is that Columbus has, by far, the lowest % of manufacturing jobs and it, like Youngstown, have fewer industries that represent 10% or more of the availabe jobs (4 vs 5/6) than everywhere else. All jobs are jobs. They all count. Two $50,000 per year jobs count equally in every way whether they are "manufacturing", "business services", or "information". If the market supports two jobs with equal pay, it values those jobs equally. Job categorization has little use for those outside career counseling and education planning. The market lets us know what has value. Just follow it.
One of the most interesting things about the sector-diversity stats to me was that Columbus was actually the lowest of the group (though by a likely-statistically insignificant amount in some cases) in the "health and education" category, despite the presence of OSU, Columbus State (which is very large in its own right), and many smaller colleges, as well as the OSU Medical Center and all the various other hospital systems in the city (OhioHealth, Mt. Carmel, etc.).I also note that Columbus has the largest share of government employment of any of the group, but its lead isn't as large as I'd expected on that front, given its status as the state capital (and as a county seat and a city itself, of course).
Quote from: Gramarye on May 07, 2012, 08:14:14 AMOne of the most interesting things about the sector-diversity stats to me was that Columbus was actually the lowest of the group (though by a likely-statistically insignificant amount in some cases) in the "health and education" category, despite the presence of OSU, Columbus State (which is very large in its own right), and many smaller colleges, as well as the OSU Medical Center and all the various other hospital systems in the city (OhioHealth, Mt. Carmel, etc.).I also note that Columbus has the largest share of government employment of any of the group, but its lead isn't as large as I'd expected on that front, given its status as the state capital (and as a county seat and a city itself, of course).Touché, the "Diversified Columbus economy" isn't as diversified as perceived. Very interesting.
Maybe the dominance of government in columbus explains why columbus has lost the employment growth advantage it used to have over many other metros in the midwest and upper south.
Quote from: Matthew Hall on May 07, 2012, 03:07:03 PMMaybe the dominance of government in columbus explains why columbus has lost the employment growth advantage it used to have over many other metros in the midwest and upper south.Maybe, but the the clear leader in the GMP growth category in the peer Midwestern cities listed above was Indianapolis, which is also a state capital (with a presumptively commensurately sizable public sector presence). Also, what was Columbus' previous "lead," and how much of it has it lost? I was under the impression that Columbus was comfortably above average but never actually at the head of the pack--and that that's basically where it is today as well.
Quote from: Matthew Hall on May 07, 2012, 03:07:03 PMMaybe the dominance of government in columbus explains why columbus has lost the employment growth advantage it used to have over many other metros in the midwest and upper south.I'm not sure I see where you're getting that Columbus has lost some big advantage on employment growth. Further, I'm not sure what you mean by "employment growth" to start with. If you're referring to the civilian labor force, Columbus has long been the clear winner in that regard.With it comes to labor force, Columbus had the #1 growth of Ohio's large metros from 1985-1990, 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and in all years since. In fact, in any combination of years since 1985 Columbus leads in the growth of it's labor force. In the entire 1985-2012 period, its labor force grew by almost 128,000, while every other large Ohio metro had it shrink.If you're instead referring to total non-farm jobs, it's a similar story. The numbers only go back to 1990, but Columbus lead this catergory in 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and 2010-2012. It also lead the entire 1990-2012 period. The metro had these jobs grow in all but the 2005-2010 catergory, but had one of the lowest losses in the period. The only time it didn't lead was in the last year, and only one metro (Cincinnati) was ahead by a few thousand. This does not suggest a wholesale change unless it can be sustained.
I'll just say that this ongoing pissing match between MH and JD is reqpresentative of one of Ohio's biggest problems. Why the need to constantly prove that one city is better, bigger, stronger, healthier than the other? You'll never convince each other. MH will continue to cite statistics which favor Cincy and JD will continue to cite statistics which favor C-Bus. Thank god we don't have a Cleveland representative in this never-ending debate you two have going. That said.... rest assured that people here in Cleveland will continue to think of this city as the biggest, most important city in the state. People in Columbus will think the same way about their city. And people from Cincy will view the Queen City the same. We don't have a Chicago, NYC, Atlanta, etc. We are a state without an unequivocal epicentre. Each of the 3C's has their own strengths and advantages which, in the end and overall, make them eerily on par with each other (something I have grown to accept by reading this forum and learning more about the other parts of the state which people up here are frankly rather ignorant of).I wonder if Houston and Dallas have the same issues. Probably..... but I don't it reaches the same level of genuine dislike.
Quote from: jbcmh81 on May 08, 2012, 03:08:11 AMQuote from: Matthew Hall on May 07, 2012, 03:07:03 PMMaybe the dominance of government in columbus explains why columbus has lost the employment growth advantage it used to have over many other metros in the midwest and upper south.I'm not sure I see where you're getting that Columbus has lost some big advantage on employment growth. Further, I'm not sure what you mean by "employment growth" to start with. If you're referring to the civilian labor force, Columbus has long been the clear winner in that regard.With it comes to labor force, Columbus had the #1 growth of Ohio's large metros from 1985-1990, 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and in all years since. In fact, in any combination of years since 1985 Columbus leads in the growth of it's labor force. In the entire 1985-2012 period, its labor force grew by almost 128,000, while every other large Ohio metro had it shrink.If you're instead referring to total non-farm jobs, it's a similar story. The numbers only go back to 1990, but Columbus lead this catergory in 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and 2010-2012. It also lead the entire 1990-2012 period. The metro had these jobs grow in all but the 2005-2010 catergory, but had one of the lowest losses in the period. The only time it didn't lead was in the last year, and only one metro (Cincinnati) was ahead by a few thousand. This does not suggest a wholesale change unless it can be sustained. Thanks for helping to make my point. You can win a race by an inch or a mile. Both may get you the gold, but the former looks and feels very different than the latter. Similarly, you can win a race even if you slowed down toward the end while your competition sped up. That is what is happening in ohio metros; their relative performance in changing.
I don't know if it is a good thing or a bad thing, Jam. It could mean that the metro is, for lack of a better term, more productive per capita..... or it could mean that a bigger chunk of our GMP is created by people who work in our metro but reside elsewhere.... which would open another discussion about whether THAT is a good or bad thing. But, in the end, just like the difference in population is negligible and probably damn close to a margin of error.... so is the comparative difference in GMP. That said, it does speak well to the diversification of Cleveland MSA's economy given Cincy's rather wide lead in mega corps.
I always find it interesting that Cincinnati has ~5% lower GMP than Cleveland even though the population of Cincinnati's metro area has surpassed Cleveland's. I wouldn't have expected Cleveland's GMP per capita to be that much higher than Cincinnati's.
Quote from: Hts121 on July 23, 2012, 02:22:50 AMI don't know if it is a good thing or a bad thing, Jam. It could mean that the metro is, for lack of a better term, more productive per capita..... or it could mean that a bigger chunk of our GMP is created by people who work in our metro but reside elsewhere.... which would open another discussion about whether THAT is a good or bad thing. But, in the end, just like the difference in population is negligible and probably damn close to a margin of error.... so is the comparative difference in GMP. That said, it does speak well to the diversification of Cleveland MSA's economy given Cincy's rather wide lead in mega corps.That's a good point...it could partially be an effect of many of what we all know are Cleveland suburbs actually being located in the Akron MSA.
What's all these terms? MDP? GMP=GDP? Purchasing power is another indicator.
^ These two maps are very helpful in numerous ways, but neither represent the two city's MSA's (which, in Cincinnati's case, does not yet include the Dayton MSA). Probably what has surprised me most of all is discovering that Indy outproduces all the 3-Cs (does it not?). What a "wake up call" this was...not good at all! (at least if one is from Ohio)
Quote from: subocincy on July 23, 2012, 12:56:21 PM^ These two maps are very helpful in numerous ways, but neither represent the two city's MSA's (which, in Cincinnati's case, does not yet include the Dayton MSA). Probably what has surprised me most of all is discovering that Indy outproduces all the 3-Cs (does it not?). What a "wake up call" this was...not good at all! (at least if one is from Ohio)Indy was listed at $105.3 billion, below Cleveland.
GDP rankings typically fall closely in line with the size of the market within a specific boundary, but making beer that flies off shelves across the world has something to do with St. Louis being higher than all of the Ohio cities.
Author
Topic: Ohio vs Midwest-GDP (Read 4465 times)
