jbcmh81

Yeah, can we just get a moderator to delete this thread?

Yeah, because it's very hard to read and understand an easily stated catergory and time frame with % and total jobs for the period, pretty much the exact same thing that Matt gave, but his weren't even with final numbers. Should I expect a new stalker?

March is preliminary, that's why I didn't bother. I had a spreadsheet with February's preliminary numbers and when the official ones came out today, there were changes in just about every single catergory, some significant. I would expect that total amount to change once the official March numbers come out, probably by +/- thousands.

Okay, new jobs numbers are out for February. This time around, I'm going to list best to worst by % and have the actual number as well, instead of separating it all out into different posts. I'm also only going to do the change for the past year and past month. I'm only going to do the 5-year every few months because it gets too be too much. I still have all the data, though, so if anyone wants it, just ask. Non-Farm Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Toledo: +2.1% +6,300 2. Cincinnati: +1.8% +17,000 3. Columbus: +1.6% +15,900 4. Youngstown: +1.0% +2,100 5. Dayton: +0.9% +3,500 6. Akron: +0.1% +400 7. Cleveland: 0.0% +100 Non-Farm Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Toledo: +1.2% +3,600 2. Akron: +0.9% +2,800 3. Cleveland: +0.8% +8,000 4. Columbus: +0.6% +5,800 5. Cincinnati: +0.4% +4,400 6. Dayton: +0.1% +300 7. Youngstown: -0.3% -700 Mining/Logging/Construction Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Toledo: +10.8% +1,000 2. Columbus: +7.2% +1,800 3. Akron: +5.4% +500 4. Cincinnati: +0.9% +300 5. Cleveland: +0.4% +100 6. Youngstown: -1.4% -100 7. Dayton: -4.1% -400 Mining/Logging/Construction Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Cleveland: +0.4% +100 2. Akron: 0.0% 0 3. Cincinnati: -0.3% -100 4. Columbus: -0.4% -100 5. Toledo: -1.9% -200 6. Dayton: -2.1% -200 7. Youngstown: -4.1% -300 Manufacturing Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Cincinnati: +5.9% +6,100 2. Akron: +5.0% +1,900 3. Cleveland: +3.6% +4,200 4. Toledo: +3.1% +1,200 5. Youngstown: +1.7% +500 6. Dayton: -1.0% -400 7. Columbus: -1.9% -1,200 Manufacturing Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Cleveland: +1.5% +1,800 2. Akron: +1.1% +400 3. Toledo: +0.3% +100 4. Cincinnati: -0.1% -100 5. Dayton: -0.5% -200 6. Youngstown: -1.0% -300 7. Columbus: -1.3% -800 Trade/Transportation/Utilities Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Toledo: +2.5% +1,400 2. Columbus: +1.3% +2,200 3. Cleveland: +1.2% +2,000 4. Dayton: +1.1% +700 5. Youngstown: +0.9% +400 6. Cincinnati: +0.8% +1,600 7. Akron: +0.2% +100 Trade/Transportation/Utilities Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Cincinnati: -0.2% -300 2. Toledo: -0.7% -400 3. Columbus: -0.9% -1,600 4. Cleveland: -1.0% -1,800 5. Dayton: -1.1% -700 6. Youngstown: -1.3% -600 7. Akron: -1.8% -1,100 Information Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Youngstown: +4.5% +100 2. Columbus: +0.6% +100 3. Akron: 0.0% 0 4. Toledo: 0.0% 0 5. Cincinnati: -0.7% -100 6. Dayton: -2.0% -100 7. Cleveland: -2.6% -400 Information Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 All cities changed 0.0% Financial Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Columbus: +2.7% +1,900 2. Cleveland: +1.2% +800 3. Akron: 0.0% 0 4. Dayton: 0.0% 0 5. Youngstown: 0.0% 0 6. Toledo: -1.8% -200 7. Cincinnati: -6.0% -3,800 Financial Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Youngstown: +1.1% +100 2. Columbus: +0.4% +300 3. Akron: 0.0% 0 4. Dayton: 0.0% 0 5. Toledo: 0.0% 0 6. Cleveland: -0.2% -100 7. Cincinnati: -0.3% -200 Professional and Business Services Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Dayton: +6.9% +3,200 2. Toledo: +5.8% +1,900 3. Youngstown: +3.3% +700 4. Columbus: +2.2% +3,200 5. Cincinnati: +1.7% +2,500 6. Cleveland: +1.1% +1,500 7. Akron: +0.2% +100 Professional and Business Services Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Toledo: +3.9% +1,300 2. Columbus: +1.4% +2,100 3. Akron: +1.3% +600 4. Cleveland: +1.3% +1,700 5. Younstown: +0.9% +200 6. Cincinnati: +0.7% +1,000 7. Dayton: -1.4% -700 Education and Health Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Columbus: +7.9% +10,100 2. Cincinnati: +2.3% +3,400 3. Toledo: +1.0% +500 4. Akron: +0.4% +200 5. Cleveland: +0.2% +400 6. Youngstown: 0.0% 0 7. Dayton: -0.3% -200 Education and Health Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Dayton: +2.2% +1,500 2. Cleveland: +2.1% +3,900 3. Columbus: +2.0% +2,700 4. Toledo: +1.2% +600 5. Akron: +0.6% +300 6. Cincinnati: +0.6% +900 7. Youngstown: -0.2% -100 Leisure and Hospitality Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Cincinnati: +7.8% +7,400 2. Toledo: +6.5% +1,900 3. Dayton: +4.4% +1,500 4. Youngstown: +4.0% +800 5. Columbus: +2.4% +2,000 6. Cleveland: -5.0% -4,000 7. Akron: -6.5% -1,800 Leisure and Hospitality Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Akron: +1.6% +400 2. Toledo: +1.6% +500 3. Columbus: +1.5% +1,300 4. Cincinnati: +0.5% +500 5. Youngstown: +0.5% +100 6. Dayton: -1.6% -600 7. Cleveland: -2.3% -1,800 Other Services Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Columbus: +1.7% +600 2. Toledo: +0.9% +100 3. Cleveland: +0.7% +300 4. Dayton: +0.7% +100 5. Cincinnati: -0.5% -200 6. Youngstown: -1.0% -100 7. Akron: -1.5% -200 Other Services Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Toledo: +1.6% +200 2. Cleveland: +1.2% +500 3. Columbus: +0.9% +300 4. Akron: +0.8% +100 5. Dayton: +0.7% +100 6. Youngstown: 0.0% 0 7. Cincinnati: -1.0% -400 Government Jobs Change February 2011-February 2012 1. Cincinnati: -0.2% -200 2. Youngstown: -0.6% -200 3. Akron: -0.8% -400 4. Dayton: -1.2% -800 5. Columbus: -3.0% -4,800 6. Toledo: -3.1% -1,500 7. Cleveland: -3.5% -5,300 Government Jobs Change January 2012-February 2012 1. Akron: +4.5% +2,100 2. Toledo: +3.3% +1,500 3. Cleveland: +2.9% +3,700 4. Cincinnati: +2.5% +3,100 5. Dayton: +1.7% +1,100 6. Columbus: +1.1% +1,600 7. Youngstown: +0.7% +200

It helps to have 6 of the top 20 largest Midwest economies.

Yeah, obviously it means $36,937.00.

Probably the only things that would are: job longevity, experience, education, performance or health of the company. Otherwise, most things about states or metro areas have nothing to do with individual paychecks. That hardly makes them overrated. They all play an important part in the economic health of a region. I plan to add more catergories to this thread, to show where Ohio ranks in the Midwest.

State GDP, 2010, best to worst, in billions. 1. Illinois: 651,518 2. Ohio: 477,699 3. Michigan: 384,171 4. Indiana: 275,676 5. Minnesota: 270,039 6. Wisconsin: 248,265 7. Missouri: 244,016 8. Iowa: 142,698 9. Kansas: 127,170 10. Nebraska: 89,786 11. South Dakota: 39,893 12. North Dakota: 34,685 Per-capita GDP by State, 2010, in thousands. 1. North Dakota: 46,336 2. Minnesota: 45,834 3. Illinois: 45,258 4. South Dakota: 44,425 5. Nebraska: 43,528 6. Iowa: 41,859 7. Kansas: 39,879 8. Wisconsin: 38,884 9. indiana: 37,815 10. Ohio: 36,937 11. Missouri: 36,243 12. Michigan: 34,915 Metropolitan GDP, 2010, in billions. 1. Chicago: 532,331 2. Minneapolis: 199,596 3. Detroit: 197,773 4. St. Louis: 129,734 5. Kansas City: 105,968 6. Cleveland: 105,625 7. Indianapolis: 105,163 8. Cincinnati: 100,594 9. Columbus: 93,353 10. Milwaukee: 84,574 11. Omaha: 47,556 12. Des Moines: 39,465 13. Madison, WI: 35,615 14. Dayton: 33,371 15. Grand Rapids, MI: 33,361 16. Akron: 27,586 17. Toledo: 26,605 18. Wichita: 26,299 19. Lansing, MI: 19,612 20. Ann Arbor, MI: 18,566 Per-capita metropolitan GDP, 2010, in thousands. 1. Des Moines: 62,863 2. Madison: 56,392 3. Minneapolis: 54,974 4. Indianapolis: 52,704 5. Chicago: 50,288 6. Milwaukee: 48,974 7. Omaha: 48,797 8. Ann Arbor, MI: 48,217 9. Kansas City: 47,072 10. Columbus: 45,598 11. Cleveland: 45,418 12. Cincinnati: 42,149 13. Detroit: 41,691 14. St Louis: 41,080 15. Grand Rapids, MI: 38,670 16. Lansing, MI: 37,726 17. Wichita: 37,576 18. Toledo: 36,435 19. Dayton: 35,669 20. Akron: 34,938

Even he can't save this thread from insanity.

While it may seem that Matt often stands alone, actually he may not. An untold number of U/O members may be equally concerned about the reams of stats that routinely accompany the Columbus-boosterism that materializes here, but not many of us possess the patience, the expertise, or the time to challenge this insidious deluge of statistics. Numerous times Matt has demonstrated that he possesses the chops to do just this. Needless to say, it's usually a challenge few other members wish to tackle, so their "silence" doesn't necessarily mean agreement with numbers that too often don't mean anything. For what it's worth, at this time I stand with Matthew Hall. So posting information freely provided by all kinds of data organizations in the US on an urban forum that regularly deals with related information in multiple ways, is now the work of an "insidious" person (myself) who wastes hours of time compiling them just to make specific cities look worse vs Columbus. And not only that, but the vast majority of people don't like me or my posts because of it, but only a few brave souls like yourself can stand up to the evil monster that I am. All this because of numbers that you claim "don't mean anything". Is that really the argument you're making?

I am willing to find stats or information on just about any topic related to a metro that someone deems interesting. If you truly believe that I'm not offering up the "whole truth", then please, by all means, if you want to see something specific, all you need to do is ask. So far, I don't believe I've found any set of data on any topic that you don't have a problem with, so at this point I really have no idea what you're after. And I realize that specific stats don't tell an entire metro story, but then again, I'm not trying to tell an entire story. I'm trying to tell the story about *those* individual stats and nothing more. You can criticize me for posting it, I guess, but I'm not sure why. I don't do the studies or count the numbers, I'm just reporting it because I find them interesting and think others will too. If you don't like the numbers and disagree with them, that's perfectly fine, but if you think they're wrong then offer up some evidence why, don't just say they're wrong and claim I have a Columbus bias. The 2nd paragaph is just hyperbole and it's silly. I like Columbus, not denying that by any means, and will debate in that regard. But like it or not, I can't convince the BLS or Brookings or the US Census to artificially make Columbus better. The numbers are what they are.

Thanks! Again, if anyone thinks that the data I present is incorrect or outdated, let me know. Also, if there's any specific topic someone wants to see data on, I'll try to find it. I'm a huge nerd when it comes to this stuff.

I'm really not going to do this whole game with you again. I just hope you don't think I actually believe any of the crap you just stated, because we both know that you're just as biased as any other person here and it's not just about learning and understanding the ways of the metro. Your agenda is as clear as you seem to believe mine is. And for the record, if I wanted to declare myself gd CEO of the Columbus PR Group, you really have no particularly reason to have a problem with that. Not one reason to have that bother you as much as it clearly does. I like Columbus, I will continue to use information to argue that it is a good place in the same way that I argue this point about Ohio overall. I'm well within my rights to express my opinion in that way or in any way I want, provided that I don't break board rules. Please, for the love of christ, let it go. And I'm well within my rights to respond to you remarks. I am uninterested in whether places are good or bad. I don't even know what that would mean. I"m interested in comparing metros. No man and no metro is an island. The only real measure of any person, place, or thing is other people, places, or things. The "problem" isn't shilling for columbus, it's pretending that you're not. By the way, I don't know what "it" is or what my agenda is? Could you tell us? Matt, even if you think all I ever do is "shill for Columbus", I'm still not sure how that explains the near constant and not-as-subtle-as-you-think insults, both towards me and the city. I really don't care how you feel about me or the city, but I do care about how it gets dragged into every thread we're both involved in. You have tried to do the same thing in my Jobs thread, and whether or not *that* is your agenda, it definitely seems like that's where it always goes. I wouldn't care if you spent every single day posting data that showed Cincinnati in a positive way, because I know you live there and like it. The main thing I've always had a problem with is criticism just to crititize, especially if those criticisms were based on stereotypes or innacurate information. I have tried to "stick to the facts" as much as possible in recent months, and for the most part I think that's worked out well. Whether or not you believe it, most of the time, when I go looking at and collecting data, I have no idea how it's going to make Columbus look, and with stats, they are easily verified by others to make sure that I have presented them accurately and not with a specific Columbus bias. If you can find any data that I intentionally lied about or tried to mislead about it and you can prove that, I will not post here again. Otherwise, for the sake of the intellectual conversation that you state you want and appreciate, stop with these games or whatever it is you're trying to do in regards to me.

There's also this old adage that states that respect is something that must be earned--if such is true of men, couldn't it also be true of cities? :| I think there are things that all of ohio cities have done at some point to either gain or lose respect.I will say that I feel that the infighting amongst ohio's cities holds the state back and creates a culture of negativity which permeates outside of the state and can be seen in some of the negative articles and perceptions of ohio's cities that have been seen over the years. To be fair, I think Ohio's cities have more to worry about regarding the perception of them outside of the state than what someone from another Ohio city thinks. Most of the perception of Ohio seems to be dated back to the 1960s and 1970s. The state still has significant problems, but nothing like in the past. The issue now is to get the kind of dynamic leadership that can bring cities back, something I don't think most Ohio cities have right now.

I think something the Census showed is that a lot of the poor areas in many cities continue to empty out... but that they are moving to the suburbs, while the central cores are gaining people again. 100 years ago, the urban core was where the money was and the suburbs were the poor areas. I wonder if we are gradually seeing a return to this setup. Demographics tell a big part of the story on Columbus' East Side.

You'd be correct. The 1950 core census tracts have lost about 100K over the decades. Declines were most severe between 1960 and 1980, with a gradually falling rate of loss since then. The rate from 1960-1970 was -16.1%, and -5.6% 2000-2010. Since about the 1990s, a few tracts in the very center of the urban core stopped losing people, increased by 2000 and by 2010 there were 15-20 that were growing. Almost all of the losses were towards the eastern part of the urban center, in the areas along Parsons, East Main and Broad north through Linden. Downtown, along with German Village, the Short North up through the University District, parts of Franklinton and Grandview Heights all gained in population. From the demographics of the core tracts that lost population, most of them, especially the closer you get to Downtown, saw increases in the white population for the first time in decades. This is usually the first sign of gentrification, so I imagine losses in those areas will slow if not reverse in the coming years as well. Outside of these urban core tracts, if you take all the tracts that are just inside I-270, which doesn't include any far suburbs, the overall population bottomed out around 2000 and has been growing since.

I'm really not going to do this whole game with you again. I just hope you don't think I actually believe any of the crap you just stated, because we both know that you're just as biased as any other person here and it's not just about learning and understanding the ways of the metro. Your agenda is as clear as you seem to believe mine is. And for the record, if I wanted to declare myself gd CEO of the Columbus PR Group, you really have no particularly reason to have a problem with that. Not one reason to have that bother you as much as it clearly does. I like Columbus, I will continue to use information to argue that it is a good place in the same way that I argue this point about Ohio overall. I'm well within my rights to express my opinion in that way or in any way I want, provided that I don't break board rules. Please, for the love of christ, let it go.

That's all well and good, but if the numbers are close to accurate at all, or at least have the general direction right. there is simply no way to spin population loss as a good thing. Unless the goal is to have a desolate urban core, then no. In metros that have smaller city propers, this seems to be even more important, but it's really important for every city. There most certainly is a way to "spin" municipal population loss as a good thing and show that it isn't "really" important on its own for any given metro. While the number of legal residents of the municipality of cincinnati may or may not have declined in the last decade, the amount of investment and average wages have risen substantially in the municipality of Cincinnati, along with some other metros, while they have declined in almost every other area of the cincinnati MSA and in much of the U.S. generally in that same time. From 2000-2010, almost every metro and city in the nation (or at least the 100 largest) had their average household income decline. That includes all Ohio cities as well. All of them. I think this has more to do with the economy of the last decade than population changes, though, because it affected both growing and shrinking cities alike, even the boom metros of the Sun Belt. All of which is separate from the fact that some key dense urban areas of the cincinnati metro are not in the city of cincinnati while Columbus includes what must be the only incorporated cornfields in any metro over 1 million in the U.S. Yes, you most certainly can look beyond superficial statistical calculations to find more complex dynamics at work within metro economies. Of course you'd only do this if you were interested in understanding these areas. If you weren't you'd be satisfied with easy conventional wisdom. Actually, aside from some of the largest urban metros of the nation, particularly those along the Northeast coast, I can think of dozens of metros with incorporated fields and empty agricultural land. This would include all 3-Cs. Unfortunately, your zeal to find flaws with Columbus in every situation, in every post and on countless other boards seems to so often cloud your judgement. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. :roll: The claim made no sense and it's not even accurate, as has been pointed out several times. Your dislike of Columbus is well noted all over the internet, but of all the real things Columbus can be criticized about (lack of extensive mass transit options for example), this is what you come up with... too many cornfields in Columbus.

Cities are the entire catalyst for a metro even existing, and in the vast majority of cases (I really can't think of any situation where this isn't the case), certainly are the economic engines of a region. Core cities don't have to provide every last dollar of the GDP to have that be true. The overall metro, of course, contributes, but the city is and always will be the heart of a metro economy, if only because it's the city, and not the suburbs, that attract business to the region in the first place. To keep suggesting that cities just don't matter is nuts.

Columbus is not near as healthy as everyone makes it out to be. That's why I make mention, if Cleveland could annex, its population numbers would speak of a "healthier" city to most, or at least look that way. Cleveland is a different city today than it was even in the early 2000s, but Cleveland is still suffering more than most Midwest cities. I don't understand how places like Milwaukee can take advantage of so much, while Cleveland sits on its hands and waits to see what will happen. Columbus suffered in the recession like everywhere else, but it performed as well as or better than the majority of the 100 largest metros based on all the evidence I've seen. It has some issues, but it's easily the healthiest metro in the state and one of the best in the Midwest. Maybe that's not saying much, but it's not untrue. Annexation would not solve the problem. It would only give the illusion of growth but people would still be leaving the overall area even as Cleveland annexed population. Columbus annexed about 7 square miles in the last decade, which is FAR slower than it was when the city first began that aggressive policy. Columbus annexed that amount in a day at times during the peak years, but it's been awhile since that's been going on. Almost all of the new construction permits have been for infill the last few years. Regardless, recent census data does not show growth by annexation, but just traditional population growth for the most part, which is something Cleveland, at this time anyway, cannot show even if it had the same policy.

That's all well and good, but if the numbers are close to accurate at all, or at least have the general direction right. there is simply no way to spin population loss as a good thing. Unless the goal is to have a desolate urban core, then no. In metros that have smaller city propers, this seems to be even more important, but it's really important for every city. There most certainly is a way to "spin" municipal population loss as a good thing and show that it isn't "really" important on its own for any given metro. While the number of legal residents of the municipality of cincinnati may or may not have declined in the last decade, the amount of investment and average wages have risen substantially in the municipality of Cincinnati, along with some other metros, while they have declined in almost every other area of the cincinnati MSA and in much of the U.S. generally in that same time. From 2000-2010, almost every metro and city in the nation (or at least the 100 largest) had their average household income decline. That includes all Ohio cities as well. All of them. I think this has more to do with the economy of the last decade than population changes, though, because it affected both growing and shrinking cities alike, even the boom metros of the Sun Belt. All of which is separate from the fact that some key dense urban areas of the cincinnati metro are not in the city of cincinnati while Columbus includes what must be the only incorporated cornfields in any metro over 1 million in the U.S. Yes, you most certainly can look beyond superficial statistical calculations to find more complex dynamics at work within metro economies. Of course you'd only do this if you were interested in understanding these areas. If you weren't you'd be satisfied with easy conventional wisdom. Actually, aside from some of the largest urban metros of the nation, particularly those along the Northeast coast, I can think of dozens of metros with incorporated fields and empty agricultural land. This would include all 3-Cs. Unfortunately, your zeal to find flaws with Columbus in every situation, in every post and on countless other boards seems to so often cloud your judgement.

I don't think the poor have been migrating to the suburbs for 60 years. And the Chicago example is very apples and oranges. Even with that loss, there's still millions of people living in the city. NYC once was losing hundreds of thousands too. The loss is much more significant in the long run for cities that only have a few hundred thousand people to begin with because it has a severe impact on tax revenues, schools, etc.

In terms of %, the preliminary numbers are actually the opposite of what you stated, except for the last month. I'm not going to do all the numbers because it's all unofficial and will likely change, but here's for the 3-Cs and Indy, anyway. February 2007-February 2012 % Change for Non-Farm Jobs Columbus: -0.7% Indianapolis: -1.7% Cincinnati: -4.0% Cleveland: -7.0% February 2011-February 2012 % Change for Non-Farm Jobs Cincinnati: +1.7% Columbus: +1.6% Indianapolis: +1.6% Cleveland: +0.2% January 2012-February 2012 % Change for Non-Farm Jobs Cleveland: +1.0% Indianapolis: +0.7% Columbus: +0.5% Cincinnati: +0.4% In the long-term, both Columbus and Cincinnati are performing better, and both cities lost fewer non-farm jobs the last 5 years. Cleveland had a decent month, though.

Just reminding you that the new job numbers for MSAa are out. They're still preliminary, though, so revisions are likely. I want to wait until they are official before posting February's, something I should've done previously.

I hope you're wrong about that. But I fear you might be right. A Casto spokesperson, when contacted by Columbus Business First, seemed to agree with your assessment. From the Business First blog post - "Casto begins work on Secur-It building downtown, but plans still forming": It was more optimistically noted in that same article that Casto partner Don Casto suggested redevelopment of this building would advance this year at a Business First Commercial Developers Power Breakfast in February. However, it was also noted that Casto informally proposed a 70 loft apartment renovation of the building in 2002, when the city first began promoting residential development in downtown RiverSouth District. But whatever Casto is doing to the building, they're certainly doing it fast. Below is a photo from the Business First article linked above of the Front Street side and north side of the warehouse building at Front & Main. Quite a bit of progress in two days! Rest assured that developers don't start doing this kind of work for no reason. If it was all just proposals on paper, this wouldn't be happening. Casto has serious plans already laid out, even if they have yet to formally announce them.