Yes Atlanta was way off, but for the few Atlanta's, there are many, many more areas that are more accurately estimated.

Yes, the younger metros are the hardest to get a handle on. For Ohio, that means Columbus' real population numbers overstated the actual census numbers more than those of other Ohio metros in 2010 and that is still likely true now. It's harder to keep track of people in a more transient metro. Some get counted twice as they move from job to job or into and out of the metro. Similarly, people who are self-employed, work for family businesses, are technically consultants or private contractors, students and recent graduates, and those who split their time between metros are often uncounted or counted more than once. This all affects the actual census' numbers much less the estimates of some metros more than others.When the w-4 non-farm wage and salary employment numbers come out in couple of weeks from the BLS this will show a more valid measure of jobs, if not overall population numbers.

I should have written "Columbus' estimated (not real)  population numbers overstated the actual census numbers more than those of other Ohio metros in 2010"

Straight line projections? So in other words we're using the past to predict the future. OK.

 

Got a better model?

 

http://xkcd.com/605/

Cleveland's & Youngstown's numbers are disappointing considering all the positive press about job growth in those two metros.

Yeah i don't understand it either. Fort Meyers seems to have had the worse economy in the USA and still grew by 10k+. Charlotte has had a bad economy as well and still grew 60k+. wtf!!! Las Vegas seems to have came to  a Halt though.

 

It seems to take a lot of media attention and time for people to wake up to certain messages about the health and economy of a particular city.  Just as it seems to work slow when things turn more positive in the old Rust Belt, it's just as slow getting the message out that former Sun Belt glory cities like Charlotte are now economic hellholes that can no longer rely on perpetual sprawl construction to prop up jobs.   

Crazy how Cbus MSA is creeping up on Ctown.

 

And also a dedicated source of employment in taxpayer funded state jobs.

 

Government, non-farm jobs by metro, February 2012:

 

Columbus: 153,500

Cleveland: 132,800

Cincinnati: 127,900

 

Government jobs as a % of total non-farm jobs:

 

Columbus: 16.8%

Cleveland: 13.6%

Cincinnati: 13.0%

 

You know, for all the talk some people do about Columbus and government jobs being such a huge advantage, they so often fail to see that the real difference is not all that great, especially considering we are talking about a state capital.  Cincinnati and Cleveland have well over 100K jobs in government as well. 

Yes, the younger metros are the hardest to get a handle on. For Ohio, that means Columbus' real population numbers overstated the actual census numbers more than those of other Ohio metros in 2010 and that is still likely true now. It's harder to keep track of people in a more transient metro. Some get counted twice as they move from job to job or into and out of the metro. Similarly, people who are self-employed, work for family businesses, are technically consultants or private contractors, students and recent graduates, and those who split their time between metros are often uncounted or counted more than once. This all affects the actual census' numbers much less the estimates of some metros more than others.When the w-4 non-farm wage and salary employment numbers come out in couple of weeks from the BLS this will show a more valid measure of jobs, if not overall population numbers.

 

The majority of metros came in under estimates, even those that had high growth.  For every Columbus, there were 20 that were way overestimated, so I'm not sure how you can say that a city like Columbus simply had a bunch of people counted multiple times.  That census data suggests that an overcount is FAR more likely than an undercount, so why wouldn't Columbus come in lower than expected like most other higher growth cities?   

20 to 25,000 MORE state jobs for a metro that is 20% SMALLER is very significant, especially considering they are by far the best paid public jobs in the state. 20,000 times $65,000 is a large boost to columbus' metro economy. Not to mention the power to concentrate state resources in columbus and thus support the power of the state level agencies they preside over in columbus. Its the same dynamic boosting d.c. to ever greater power and wealth.

Yes, the younger metros are the hardest to get a handle on. For Ohio, that means Columbus' real population numbers overstated the actual census numbers more than those of other Ohio metros in 2010 and that is still likely true now. It's harder to keep track of people in a more transient metro. Some get counted twice as they move from job to job or into and out of the metro. Similarly, people who are self-employed, work for family businesses, are technically consultants or private contractors, students and recent graduates, and those who split their time between metros are often uncounted or counted more than once. This all affects the actual census' numbers much less the estimates of some metros more than others.When the w-4 non-farm wage and salary employment numbers come out in couple of weeks from the BLS this will show a more valid measure of jobs, if not overall population numbers.

 

The majority of metros came in under estimates, even those that had high growth.  For every Columbus, there were 20 that were way overestimated, so I'm not sure how you can say that a city like Columbus simply had a bunch of people counted multiple times.  That census data suggests that an overcount is FAR more likely than an undercount, so why wouldn't Columbus come in lower than expected like most other higher growth cities? 

 

I just know that the gaps between the 2009 estimations and the actual numbers were greater for columbus than cincinnati. Why is an admittedly hard question to answer. Though I can't imagine how an actual census, not an estimate, overcounts people.

20 to 25,000 MORE state jobs for a metro that is 20% SMALLER is very significant, especially considering they are by far the best paid public jobs in the state. 20,000 times $65,000 is a large boost to columbus' metro economy. Not to mention the power to concentrate state resources in columbus and thus support the power of the state level agencies they preside over in columbus. Its the same dynamic boosting d.c. to ever greater power and wealth.

 

As a % total jobs, it's not that significantly different.  And again, you would expect that a capital city would have more government jobs, or at the very least, the largest city in a state would, like Chicago in Illinois or Detroit in Michigan.  I wonder if Lansing or Springfield gets all upset over this simple reality as much as Cleveland and Cincinnnati residents do.  In any case, government jobs in Columbus were down further than most other cities. 

I noticed that Franklin County was one of the top 50 counties in the nation for numerical growth.  It represented one of just 3 counties in the entire Midwest to show up on that list.

Hey ColDayMan, I also noticed that the headline says the numbers are from April 2010 to July 1, 2011.  I don't know about the rest of the cities, but if that's the case, the starting numbers for Columbus are wrong.  I know the metro number in April 2010 was 1,836,636, not over 1.84 million as it's listed.  It's 15-month growth, not just 12.  The actual metro growth for Columbus would be over 21,000.

"you would expect that a capital city would have more government jobs"

 

Yes, you would. That is the point. Capitals DO get more benefit from state govnerment than other metros on a per capita basis. To attempt to deny this point seems bizarre. 20-25,000 jobs in a 20% smaller metro IS large on a per capita basis.

 

 

Plus there's no breakdown in those numbers about the type of job.  How many are garbage men, bus drivers, pothole fillers, firemen, etc., compared to city, state, or federal desk jockeys?  How much is Cincinnati's number boosted by EPA employees?  Ohio State and University of Cincinnati faculty and staff also count.  So it'd be valuable to know the number of state employees in each city, but then you still have to separate out the grunts working for ODOT, the BMV, state troopers, the aforementioned state university faculty and staff, etc. 

How many work at te Federal Reserve? Do they count that as government? Cause technically it's not

Straight line projections? So in other words we're using the past to predict the future. OK.

 

Got a better model?

 

Yes, stop trying to predict the future. Because no matter what, you're going to be wrong. Instead, shape the future. We all do it anyway just by being alive and leaving our homes each day. Most are content at being cogs and gears for others who shape the future through their own force of will and ability.

Hey ColDayMan, I also noticed that the headline says the numbers are from April 2010 to July 1, 2011.  I don't know about the rest of the cities, but if that's the case, the starting numbers for Columbus are wrong.  I know the metro number in April 2010 was 1,836,636, not over 1.84 million as it's listed.  It's 15-month growth, not just 12.  The actual metro growth for Columbus would be over 21,000.

 

None of these numbers are "actual". They are all estimates. That is why the discussion here about the validity of such estimates has occured in the first place. These numbers should be taken with a very large grain of salt, if at all.

Once again, these numbers are more accurate for more metros than inaccurate.

 

As for why would Charlotte gain so many people when it was hit so hard - well this estimate is total net change - we don't see migration or natural change - Charlotte would gain in net population change on births alone without much migration I'm (obviously over time that would mean diminishing returns).

Once again, these numbers are more accurate for more metros than inaccurate.

 

I don't know what you mean by this  statement, but however accurate these estimates may ultimately prove to be, the degrees of accuracy will be different for different metros due to the differing internal demographics and economies of each. That is my main point.

"you would expect that a capital city would have more government jobs"

 

Yes, you would. That is the point. Capitals DO get more benefit from state govnerment than other metros on a per capita basis. To attempt to deny this point seems bizarre. 20-25,000 jobs in a 20% smaller metro IS large on a per capita basis.

 

More, yes, but not to the exceptional level that people keep suggesting.  The numbers just don't show that.  What they do show is that over 100K jobs in the other two metros are also government-backed.  All 3 are benefitting from government, but the % difference is small and certainly smaller than what has been claimed here.  The truth is that all 3-Cs would be in worse shape without them. 

Plus there's no breakdown in those numbers about the type of job.  How many are garbage men, bus drivers, pothole fillers, firemen, etc., compared to city, state, or federal desk jockeys?  How much is Cincinnati's number boosted by EPA employees?  Ohio State and University of Cincinnati faculty and staff also count.  So it'd be valuable to know the number of state employees in each city, but then you still have to separate out the grunts working for ODOT, the BMV, state troopers, the aforementioned state university faculty and staff, etc.

 

Agreed.  There is a big difference between your bus driver and your politician. 

Hey ColDayMan, I also noticed that the headline says the numbers are from April 2010 to July 1, 2011.  I don't know about the rest of the cities, but if that's the case, the starting numbers for Columbus are wrong.  I know the metro number in April 2010 was 1,836,636, not over 1.84 million as it's listed.  It's 15-month growth, not just 12.  The actual metro growth for Columbus would be over 21,000.

 

None of these numbers are "actual". They are all estimates. That is why the discussion here about the validity of such estimates has occured in the first place. These numbers should be taken with a very large grain of salt, if at all.

 

True, but my point is that, given the time frame used and using the estimated numbers, the numbers posted on the thread is not correct either, whether or not you think estimates have much value.

Plus there's no breakdown in those numbers about the type of job.  How many are garbage men, bus drivers, pothole fillers, firemen, etc., compared to city, state, or federal desk jockeys?  How much is Cincinnati's number boosted by EPA employees?  Ohio State and University of Cincinnati faculty and staff also count.  So it'd be valuable to know the number of state employees in each city, but then you still have to separate out the grunts working for ODOT, the BMV, state troopers, the aforementioned state university faculty and staff, etc.

 

Agreed.  There is a big difference between your bus driver and your politician. 

 

The difference isn't so much type of job, as level of government that is represented.  Cleveland has a large federal presence, Columbus has a large state presence (obviously).  Both have large percentages of local government employees as well.

Hey ColDayMan, I also noticed that the headline says the numbers are from April 2010 to July 1, 2011.  I don't know about the rest of the cities, but if that's the case, the starting numbers for Columbus are wrong.  I know the metro number in April 2010 was 1,836,636, not over 1.84 million as it's listed.  It's 15-month growth, not just 12.  The actual metro growth for Columbus would be over 21,000.

 

Hey, I just copied from the Excel sheet unusualfire posted.

The differences and inconsistencies in these estimates just underscore how suspect they are. Metro development interests are seeking to promote their metros and latching onto whatever they can to do so. Actual numbers based on w-4 filings and metropolitan dometic products are much harder to 'spin' and show how metros are really doing as regional economies, which is what really counts. Pittsburgh has been a classic example of this. It's actual economic measures and job numbers have contradicted the 'failed rust-belt town' narrative for  a while now, but that hasn't stopped competing metros from trying to sustain that narrative for all its worth.

I have always wondered why they never considered Cleveland and Akron/Canton to be one area.  Sometimes they add Akron into the mix, but never Canton.  With 2.8 million and add on another 400,000, you have well over 3 million people along that stretch of 77.  If you look at a map that maps out all the large CSA's in the county, Cleveland takes up a very small area.  Even if you added Cleveland/Akron/Canton, it is still much smaller and can fit into the Pittsburgh and St. Louis CSA's.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Combined_statistical_areas_of_the_United_States_and_Puerto_Rico.gif

I have always wondered why they never considered Cleveland and Akron/Canton to be one area.  Sometimes they add Akron into the mix, but never Canton.  With 2.8 million and add on another 400,000, you have well over 3 million people along that stretch of 77.  If you look at a map that maps out all the large CSA's in the county, Cleveland takes up a very small area.  Even if you added Cleveland/Akron/Canton, it is still much smaller and can fit into the Pittsburgh and St. Louis CSA's.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Combined_statistical_areas_of_the_United_States_and_Puerto_Rico.gif

 

Ooh, don't ever ask that on here.  Ever.  Seriously.  Look, it's not in my nature to be mysterious, but I can't talk about it, and I can't talk about why.

I think it would have to become a MSA of Akron first. It is the same media market though. There was a proposal last year of making it one urban area. But they did not follow through with it. My thinking is because Philly would have been absorbed into NYC. So to cause less drama they made it that  no urban area could merger with another unless it was losing urban status.

The other issue (and this will be true in SW Ohio when Cincinnati and Dayton get closer to combining) is how folks from the distant MSA's (Canton to Cleveland or Springfield to Cincinnati or even Covington) move across that area enough. The near parts are easy (Cleveland and Akron, Cincinnati and Dayton) but tying the extremities isn't always as logical.

The Dayton...er..Montgomery County...numbers were a big suprise to a lot of folks.  While it was assumed that the metro would be growing by some amount, it wasnt expected to see the core county grow. 

Less about the 2010 census, but I saw these city population estimates from Business Journals for April 1, 2012.  They are for 2 years.

 

4/1/2012 estimate and change since 2010

 

Columbus: 803,427 +16,394

Cleveland: 382,270 -14,545

Cincinnati: 290,270 -6,673

Toledo: 281,684 -5,524

Akron: 195,757 -3,353

Dayton: 137,052 -4,475

 

As much as I think estimates are iffy, these are probably going to be prove way worse than the actual census ones, and I don't think they're close to accurate, especially with the losses.  On the bright side, the rate of loss given is less than it was the previous decade.

Saw this link http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2012/0320_population_frey/0320_population_frey.pdf about how population changed during each part of the 2000s decade and the growth in city vs suburbs.

 

First, the rate of growth for each city by time frame. These show how things like the early and late decade recessions changed rates as well as the housing boom during the middle part of the decade. 

 

For Metro

Akron

2001-2004: +0.5%

2004-2007: +0.2%

2007-2010: -0.1%

 

Cincinnati

2001-2004: +1.5%

2004-2007: +2.0%

2007-2010: +1.5%

 

Cleveland

2001-2004: -0.9%

2004-2007: -1.5%

2007-2010: -0.8%

 

Columbus

2001-2004: +3.7%

2004-2007: +4.2%

2007-2010: +3.6%

 

Dayton

2001-2004: +0.2%

2004-2007: -0.5%

2007-2010: -0.4%

 

Toledo

2001-2004: 0.0%

2004-2007: -0.7%

2007-2010: -0.6%

 

Youngstown

2001-2004: -1.8%

2004-2007: -2.2%

2007-2010: -1.9%

 

What's most interesting to me is that the boom years accelerated previous trends for the most part.  With few exceptions, if the trend was down, it was worse during the boom, but if it was up, it was up even more. 

Estimates may be iffy, but municipal population is close to worthless in understanding metro economies. Municipalities are apples and oranges if anything ever was. They are utterly incomparable. Each is unique. That is why MSAs exist.

That is a greater rate of decline for Cincinnati than the census showed (11.5% vs. 10.4%). At that rate, in 2020 Cincinnati would be down under 264k. That's right around where Dayton peaked in the 50s.

 

It's hard to imagine that will happen, but I was also shocked to see the dip below 300k, so...time will tell.

That is a greater rate of decline for Cincinnati than the census showed (11.5% vs. 10.4%). At that rate, in 2020 Cincinnati would be down under 264k. That's right around where Dayton peaked in the 50s.

 

It's hard to imagine that will happen, but I was also shocked to see the dip below 300k, so...time will tell.

 

I was shocked to see Cincinnati and Akron decline, especially Cincy with us all being fooled it was "growing" again, ableit slowly.  Cleveland I could easily see going below the 300,000 mark, but I sure hope Cincinnati stabilizes soon. 

But there are studies that has it's population at about 365,000.

I think the boom provided folks with just enough impetus to strike out for riches (especially folks chasing the Vegas, Inland Empire, Arizona, Florida real estate boom).

The city of cincinnati is tiny within its MSA compared to any other city in Ohio or even in the larger midwest or upper south. Newport on the levee and the entire Kentucky waterfront, the Kentucky Convention Center and mainstrasse in covington, all of the rockwood shopping centers and even parts of Xavier university are not in the city of Cincinnati. This reminds us just what a small part of the cincinnati MSA, the municipality of cincinnati is. If the municipality of columbus lost population it would be a sign of economic collapse for the columbus metro, but for cincinnati it is a sign of a modest transfer of people around a complex stable metropolitan area.

I think the boom provided folks with just enough impetus to strike out for riches (especially folks chasing the Vegas, Inland Empire, Arizona, Florida real estate boom).

 

I've met or have continued to know at least 7 people who have come back to the cincinnati area from those places seeking to make a new start after losing what they had in the sunbelt.

But there are studies that has it's population at about 365,000.

 

Cleveland's or Cincinnati's?

 

Assuming the 2010 census is correct for Cincinnati, I think hovering around 300k for a bit is okay, but going below 290k is very bad. This is really just my opinion/intuition, but I think going past the point where people see the number and round to 300k makes the city seem totally small-potatoes to anyone looking into the stats, including businesses and residents considering relocation.

 

Hanging around 300k while building up the urban core is acceptable, though obviously not ideal. I think a lot of the exodus we have seen has been conservative refugees (west siders!) fleeing to the burbs who feel like the city is past the point of no return politically (i.e. the city is liberal and that's not changing), and I think they are right. The key, then, is attracting and retaining mobile progressives who can off-set the negative economic impact of people with money leaving and people needing social services staying. I think the city is doing a good job at creating the right kind of environment to attract progressives and urbanists, but it's still up in the air whether or not there are enough of them who consider living in flyover country to be an option.

 

The coasts seem to be doing a good job of becoming too expensive for anyone without a trust fund, and the south does not seem like a Mecca for contemporary progressives who are knowledgeable about urban issues (or their environmental impacts/implications). It seems reasonable to predict that older Midwestern cities are poised for a comeback. Frankly, we have a cool product just waiting to be discovered, and that product is getting better every day. That's true of all of Ohio's cities.

 

I can totally see a day where, instead of "discovering" neighborhoods in Brooklyn being the trendy and adventurous thing to do, finding a cool neighborhood in an old Midwestern city becomes popular. When the student loan bubble pops and would-be inheritance money funds an early retirement due to the recession, people just might be looking for a more affordable life in an authentic, historic urban environment. There's nowhere better than here.

But there are studies that has it's population at about 365,000.

 

Cleveland's or Cincinnati's?

 

Assuming the 2010 census is correct for Cincinnati, I think hovering around 300k for a bit is okay, but going below 290k is very bad. This is really just my opinion/intuition, but I think going past the point where people see the number and round to 300k makes the city seem totally small-potatoes to anyone looking into the stats, including businesses and residents considering relocation.

 

Hanging around 300k while building up the urban core is acceptable, though obviously not ideal. I think a lot of the exodus we have seen has been conservative refugees (west siders!) fleeing to the burbs who feel like the city is past the point of no return politically (i.e. the city is liberal and that's not changing), and I think they are right. The key, then, is attracting and retaining mobile progressives who can off-set the negative economic impact of people with money leaving and people needing social services staying. I think the city is doing a good job at creating the right kind of environment to attract progressives and urbanists, but it's still up in the air whether or not there are enough of them who consider living in flyover country to be an option.

 

The coasts seem to be doing a good job of becoming too expensive for anyone without a trust fund, and the south does not seem like a Mecca for contemporary progressives who are knowledgeable about urban issues (or their environmental impacts/implications). It seems reasonable to predict that older Midwestern cities are poised for a comeback. Frankly, we have a cool product just waiting to be discovered, and that product is getting better every day. That's true of all of Ohio's cities.

 

I can totally see a day where, instead of "discovering" neighborhoods in Brooklyn being the trendy and adventurous thing to do, finding a cool neighborhood in an old Midwestern city becomes popular. When the student loan bubble pops and would-be inheritance money funds an early retirement due to the recession, people just might be looking for a more affordable life in an authentic, historic urban environment. There's nowhere better than here.

 

Whether the municipality of Cincinnati had a net loss of 10,000 or not has little to do with the fortunes of the cincinnati metro that you write about here for reasons I describe above.

It matters, because municipalities are economic entities, and are somewhat self-contained as such. According to your logic, Detroit was doing a-okay up until about 2000.

 

I agree there is a huge difference between a city losing population with a stable or growing metro and a city losing population with a shrinking metro. However, it's silly to act like it doesn't matter that the city is losing population.

 

If Cincinnati and Hamilton County are losing population while the metro gains, it also means the metro is becoming more sprawly, and sprawl is economically unsustainable. If the footprint of the MSA is growing at a faster rate than the population, we have a problem. And Cincinnati definitely qualifies for that description.

 

If Cincinnati's tax base and per capita income is shrinking, we also have a problem. Regardless of a growing tax base or per capita income in the region.

The city of cincinnati is tiny within its MSA compared to any other city in Ohio or even in the larger midwest or upper south. Newport on the levee and the entire Kentucky waterfront, the Kentucky Convention Center and mainstrasse in covington, all of the rockwood shopping centers and even parts of Xavier university are not in the city of Cincinnati. This reminds us just what a small part of the cincinnati MSA, the municipality of cincinnati is. If the municipality of columbus lost population it would be a sign of economic collapse for the columbus metro, but for cincinnati it is a sign of a modest transfer of people around a complex stable metropolitan area.

 

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.

Obviously you'd like to see the city growing in population, but I don't think it's as devastating a thing as people make it out to be sometimes.  Chicago lost big in the last census, but analysis showed that downtown and the north side continued to add residents, and the city got wealthier on average too.  Much of the population loss there was from the poor migrating to the suburbs.  Maybe we are seeing some of the same in Cincy?

Obviously you'd like to see the city growing in population, but I don't think it's as devastating a thing as people make it out to be sometimes.  Chicago lost big in the last census, but analysis showed that downtown and the north side continued to add residents, and the city got wealthier on average too.  Much of the population loss there was from the poor migrating to the suburbs.  Maybe we are seeing some of the same in Cincy?

 

Yes, I love the people that make cities that lose people out to be some war zone.  No one is saying it is great, but it doesn't mean your city is in bad shape either. Cleveland is losing people faster than any other major city besides Detroit, but the city is healthier than ever, and Cleveland and Cincinnati are doing more than Columbus is, way more.  Downtown Cleveland and its surrounding neighborhoods are showing healthy population growth.  Still, Cincinnati should stabilize soon I hope, but Cleveland still has a long time of decline to go, unfortunately.

 

And for the record, if Cleveland could annex, I would love to see what its population numbers would be then.  I'm being serious.

Cleveland is stabilizing. The west side has always been fine...downtown, ohio city and tremont are growing around 70%...it's just the east side that's still losing population.  The issue with all the midwestern cities is the same...young professionals are moving in not families.  You see in the data that population is exploding in good neighborhoods but the household number and income are what are carrying that.

Obviously you'd like to see the city growing in population, but I don't think it's as devastating a thing as people make it out to be sometimes.  Chicago lost big in the last census, but analysis showed that downtown and the north side continued to add residents, and the city got wealthier on average too.  Much of the population loss there was from the poor migrating to the suburbs.  Maybe we are seeing some of the same in Cincy?

 

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. 

The city of cincinnati is tiny within its MSA compared to any other city in Ohio or even in the larger midwest or upper south. Newport on the levee and the entire Kentucky waterfront, the Kentucky Convention Center and mainstrasse in covington, all of the rockwood shopping centers and even parts of Xavier university are not in the city of Cincinnati. This reminds us just what a small part of the cincinnati MSA the municipality of cincinnati is. If the municipality of columbus lost population it would be a sign of economic collapse for the columbus metro, but for cincinnati it is a sign of a modest transfer of people around a complex stable metropolitan area.

 

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. This means that high wage and high productivity activities are becoming concentrated in the municipality of cincinnati. The growth in the number of jobs in the municipality of cincinnati supports this view. Higher productivity is caused by the concentration of more educated and economically productive workers in the same place. This is the same dynamic on a much smaller scale that has supported the growth of central chicago while the south and west sides of that city have declined leaving chicago with 200,000 fewer people over all since 2000. The boom in the loop and near northside and the decline of the south and west sides of chicago are part of the same dynamic and are equally "important" to chicago. In our increasingly unequal economy, one professional class worker in a research hospital, corporate headquarters or research facility, or the business services that provide for them has the income, tax potential, and purchasing power of two, three, or even four traditional middle class workers. It's a kind of creative destruction where old economic patterns are dismantled and reassembled into new ones. People and businesses are moving around to take advantage of these new patterns. If they can't they have to go where their less productive work can still be sustained in lower value locations either in the suburbs, in other metros, or leaves the country entirely.

 

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.

Population change isn't just about movement. All Ohio cities (Columbus only less so) are getting older, which means that you have more deaths and fewer new births. It would be interesting to track households rather than raw population, because that will give us a better sense of how 'full' a city is.