The job growth is in Obetz, Groveport, West Jefferson and Grove City.

 

Warehouse Rules Everything Around Columbus (W.R.E.A.C)

 

And Pataskala, or Etna to be more specific. There are a ton of warehouse jobs there too with Amazon and various others.

 

Columbus isn't getting Clevelands hip young professionals.  Our blue collar workers are moving to fill your warehouse and factory jobs.  There's a lot of population and migration data out there that supports this.  I'll post as soon as I can find it. 

 

Hmmm, not sure about that first simply based on my personal experiences, but if you have data I would love to see it. OSU is full of Clevelanders, many of whom stay in Columbus after graduation. Logically speaking, I don't buy the idea that people who work in warehouses are moving from Cleveland to Columbus for a new warehouse job. It's hard enough to move 20 minutes to the suburb next door, let alone move two and a half hours down 71 for a new warehouse job.

 

Again, this is solely based on my experience and using logic, but if you can find that data I would love to see it. 

 

Your personal experience and use of "logic" couldn't possibly know or understand the intricacies of intra-county people/demographic migration.  Impossible. 

 

Relax there sport, I understand that. That is why I was asking for your data. It doesn't make sense to me for the reasons I laid out, and as a result I want to see the data. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm simply saying I want to see the data to prove you are right. Until then, all I have is my personal experience and my logic.

 

 

The irony of someone making an assertion without data and then calling you out for questioning it based on the fact that you didn't give any data. I, too, would like to see the data. Most of my college friends were from the Cleveland area and only one of them ended up back there. Multiple are in Columbus now. It's anecdotal, but until I see data otherwise it's all I got. This isn't a knock on Cleveland either. I love Cleveland and would love to see it retain more college grads and even attract people from around the country. I do think it suffers, though, in that it doesn't have a major state university. Lots of folks from all over Ohio go to OU and OSU and then end up in Columbus because of proximity and networking. Over half of UC grads stay in Cincy for the same reason. CSU just doesn't have the same pull across the state.

 

Exactly. I was very upfront with the fact that I didn't have data, only my personal experience and logic, but I would be interested to see the data that this person was speaking of. Also, I was not trying to take a shot at Cleveland. I love all three of the big cities in Ohio and I see no reason to bash any of them. I simply trying to have a conversation about population in Ohio since, ya know, this is the Ohio population trends thread.

Again, there is more to Columbus than the SN. I know a ton of people that spend every weekend in the SN and I know a ton of people that never go to the SN. There are also many more factors that effect population growth than simply the "hip vibe" of the city. Columbus is very easy to navigate around. Columbus is relatively cheap. Columbus is convenient for recent college grads of one of the largest universities in the country. Columbus is a very easy city to live in. All of these factor into population growth. If you are simply going to focus on how hip the city you are going to miss a lot of the reasons that are driving the growth.

 

Another way in which the State of Ohio has been favoring Columbus over the 2C's and Dayton:  By killing the 3C rail, it kindof forced people to move to Columbus if they found a job there and previously lived in Cleveland or Cincinnati.  I live in Cleveland and was once offered a job by a company in Columbus. As I certainly would not want to live in Columbus, the only way to do it would be to commute from CLE. The train would have made that possible. But driving 4 hrs each day makes it less practical. So for people who can't say 'no' to an offer, they are forced to move to Columbus instead of living in their preferred city.

 

 

 

So one way I can think of comparing is looking at the percentage of folks with a college degree or better in each of the 3C's and seeing how that has changed over time. What are the relative trends?

 

 

So for 2016 we have:

 

 

Cleveland 30.3%

Cincinnati 33.1%

Columbus 36%

 

 

From 2013:

 

 

Cleveland 29.8%

Cincinnati 31.2%

Columbus 33.7%

 

 

Change from 2013 to 2017:

 

 

Cleveland +0.5%

Cincinnati +1.9%

Columbus +2.3%

 

 

So this is limited data but it's pretty obvious that in the past few years Columbus is doing the best in growing it's college educated population, as a percentage of total metro population.

 

 

Another way to look at this is to single out just young folks. So just looking at the 25 to 34 year cohort:

 

 

2016:

 

 

Cleveland 35.7%

Cincinnati 39%

Columbus 40.6%

 

 

2013:

 

Cleveland 37.6%

Cincinnati 35.9%

Columbus 39.8%

 

 

Change from 2013 to 2017:

 

 

Cleveland -1.9%

Cincinnati +3.1%

Columbus +0.8%

 

 

This one is a big surprise to me. Cincinnati seems to have a clear edge among this cohort. But things look even worse for Cleveland.

 

 

Based on this data I'd say that Cleveland is definitely losing young college-educated folks, while Columbus and Cincinnati are gaining them. Among college graduates as a whole all of the 3C's are seeing an increase, but Cleveland is definitely lagging behind the other two.

 

 

EDIT: I should note that I chose 2016 and 2013 because that is what is available on the Census Bureau's American Fact Finder website. 2016 is the latest data and it only goes back to 2013. This is from the Census 1-Year Estimates program.

Again, there is more to Columbus than the SN. I know a ton of people that spend every weekend in the SN and I know a ton of people that never go to the SN. There are also many more factors that effect population growth than simply the "hip vibe" of the city. Columbus is very easy to navigate around. Columbus is relatively cheap. Columbus is convenient for recent college grads of one of the largest universities in the country. Columbus is a very easy city to live in. All of these factor into population growth. If you are simply going to focus on how hip the city you are going to miss a lot of the reasons that are driving the growth.

 

Another way in which the State of Ohio has been favoring Columbus over the 2C's and Dayton:  By killing the 3C rail, it kindof forced people to move to Columbus if they found a job there and previously lived in Cleveland or Cincinnati.  I live in Cleveland and was once offered a job by a company in Columbus. As I certainly would not want to live in Columbus, the only way to do it would be to commute from CLE. The train would have made that possible. But driving 4 hrs each day makes it less practical. So for people who can't say 'no' to an offer, they are forced to move to Columbus instead of living in their preferred city.

 

 

 

 

You are aware that the proposed train would not have transported you from Columbus to Cleveland any faster than hopping in your car and driving down 71, right? The train would have taken 6.5 hours to travel from Cincinnati to Cleveland averaging just 39 mph and topping out at 79 mph. But yea, this was all just a big conspiracy to make sure that Columbus gained population and Cleveland didn't.

You can sleep and get work done on a train. You can't do those things while driving a car.

So one way I can think of comparing is looking at the percentage of folks with a college degree or better in each of the 3C's and seeing how that has changed over time. What are the relative trends?

 

 

So for 2016 we have:

 

 

Cleveland 30.3%

Cincinnati 33.1%

Columbus 36%

 

 

From 2013:

 

 

Cleveland 29.8%

Cincinnati 31.2%

Columbus 33.7%

 

 

Change from 2013 to 2017:

 

 

Cleveland +0.5%

Cincinnati +1.9%

Columbus +2.3%

 

 

So this is limited data but it's pretty obvious that in the past few years Columbus is doing the best in growing it's college educated population, as a percentage of total metro population.

 

 

Another way to look at this is to single out just young folks. So just looking at the 25 to 34 year cohort:

 

 

2016:

 

 

Cleveland 35.7%

Cincinnati 39%

Columbus 40.6%

 

 

2013:

 

Cleveland 37.6%

Cincinnati 35.9%

Columbus 39.8%

 

 

Change from 2013 to 2017:

 

 

Cleveland -1.9%

Cincinnati +3.1%

Columbus +0.8%

 

 

This one is a big surprise to me. Cincinnati seems to have a clear edge among this cohort. But things look even worse for Cleveland.

 

 

Based on this data I'd say that Cleveland is definitely losing young college-educated folks, while Columbus and Cincinnati are gaining them. Among college graduates as a whole all of the 3C's are seeing an increase, but Cleveland is definitely lagging behind the other two.

 

 

EDIT: I should note that I chose 2016 and 2013 because that is what is available on the Census Bureau's American Fact Finder website. 2016 is the latest data and it only goes back to 2013. This is from the Census 1-Year Estimates program.

 

Are you looking at metro area numbers? If not, I think that would be a more appropriate method of comparing the cities.

Yep, those are metro area numbers. Sorry I didn't specify.

So one way I can think of comparing is looking at the percentage of folks with a college degree or better in each of the 3C's and seeing how that has changed over time. What are the relative trends?

 

 

So for 2016 we have:

 

 

Cleveland 30.3%

Cincinnati 33.1%

Columbus 36%

 

 

From 2013:

 

 

Cleveland 29.8%

Cincinnati 31.2%

Columbus 33.7%

 

 

Change from 2013 to 2017:

 

 

Cleveland +0.5%

Cincinnati +1.9%

Columbus +2.3%

 

 

So this is limited data but it's pretty obvious that in the past few years Columbus is doing the best in growing it's college educated population, as a percentage of total metro population.

 

 

Another way to look at this is to single out just young folks. So just looking at the 25 to 34 year cohort:

 

 

2016:

 

 

Cleveland 35.7%

Cincinnati 39%

Columbus 40.6%

 

 

2013:

 

Cleveland 37.6%

Cincinnati 35.9%

Columbus 39.8%

 

 

Change from 2013 to 2017:

 

 

Cleveland -1.9%

Cincinnati +3.1%

Columbus +0.8%

 

 

This one is a big surprise to me. Cincinnati seems to have a clear edge among this cohort. But things look even worse for Cleveland.

 

 

Based on this data I'd say that Cleveland is definitely losing young college-educated folks, while Columbus and Cincinnati are gaining them. Among college graduates as a whole all of the 3C's are seeing an increase, but Cleveland is definitely lagging behind the other two.

 

 

EDIT: I should note that I chose 2016 and 2013 because that is what is available on the Census Bureau's American Fact Finder website. 2016 is the latest data and it only goes back to 2013. This is from the Census 1-Year Estimates program.

 

Can you post a link to this data? Thanks!

 

You are aware that the proposed train would not have transported you from Columbus to Cleveland any faster than hopping in your car and driving down 71, right? The train would have taken 6.5 hours to travel from Cincinnati to Cleveland averaging just 39 mph and topping out at 79 mph. But yea, this was all just a big conspiracy to make sure that Columbus gained population and Cleveland didn't.

 

This was a false narrative pushed by those intent on killing it. I worked very closely on this project, and the 6.5 hour travel time was based on NO IMPROVEMENTS to the rail corridor. Many of my friends at the state level were very angry at Amtrak for publicly releasing this because they knew that the opponents of this project would use it as the final travel time. The actual travel time with $400 million worth of improvements was five hours, with 2 1/4 hours from downtown Cleveland to downtown Columbus, and 2 hours flat from the SW suburban Cleveland station to downtown Columbus, for an average speed in the low 60s mph.

 

Furthermore, this project was only the first step, with the trains designed to accommodate top speeds of 110-125 mph. The project would have including the engineering funding for the next step, to upgrade the 79 mph service to 110 mph. The funding for upgrades like this was available through a $35 billion federal low interest loan program with another $1.5 billion in grants available this year. So had the project been built and the planning undertaken for the next phase, the state would be making funding applications to reduce the Cleveland-Cincinnati travel time to 3.5 hours and the Cleveland-Columbus travel time to 1.5 hours.

 

Sorry but I had this correct this ongoing misunderstanding that should never have been misunderstood, if not for Ohio's toxic politics that have done nothing but shot itself in the economic foot. It's why the entire state is being held back from its potential, not just any one city.

You can sleep and get work done on a train. You can't do those things in a car.

 

So you think a significant number of people would spend 5.5 hours every day on the train plus the time it takes them to commute from their house to the train station?

You are aware that the proposed train would not have transported you from Columbus to Cleveland any faster than hopping in your car and driving down 71, right? The train would have taken 6.5 hours to travel from Cincinnati to Cleveland averaging just 39 mph and topping out at 79 mph. But yea, this was all just a big conspiracy to make sure that Columbus gained population and Cleveland didn't.

 

This is comical.  The mid-2000s Ohio Hub plan was not intended to nor would it have enabled cross-state commuting. 

 

But this did make me think about the early 1980s HSR proposal that was shot down by the electorate -- back then Columbus was a distant third behind Cleveland and Cincinnati.  If a similar plan were to reappear, it would be opposed on the grounds that Columbus was going to turn the other C's into suburbs. 

 

It's pretty obvious at this point that Columbus is poised to take over as the state's undisputed leading metro area by 2030.  Nobody in Cincinnati cares because Cincinnati does not identify with Ohio, Ohio State, or Kentucky.  Meanwhile the Cleveland crowd keeps trying to reframe the conversation to its advantage.   

 

 

You can sleep and get work done on a train. You can't do those things in a car.

 

So you think a significant number of people would spend 5.5 hours every day on the train plus the time it takes them to commute from their house to the train station?

 

I don't. But the next phase of improvements, bringing the CLE-COL travel time down to 1.5 hours (and less from a suburban station) would start to change the economic dynamic in Ohio.

 

You are aware that the proposed train would not have transported you from Columbus to Cleveland any faster than hopping in your car and driving down 71, right? The train would have taken 6.5 hours to travel from Cincinnati to Cleveland averaging just 39 mph and topping out at 79 mph. But yea, this was all just a big conspiracy to make sure that Columbus gained population and Cleveland didn't.

 

This was a false narrative pushed by those intent on killing it. I worked very closely on this project, and the 6.5 hour travel time was based on NO IMPROVEMENTS to the rail corridor. Many of my friends at the state level were very angry at Amtrak for publicly releasing this because they knew that the opponents of this project would use it as the final travel time. The actual travel time with $400 million worth of improvements was five hours, with 2 1/4 hours from downtown Cleveland to downtown Columbus, and 2 hours flat from the SW suburban Cleveland station to downtown Columbus, for an average speed in the low 60s mph.

 

Furthermore, this project was only the first step, with the trains designed to accommodate top speeds of 110-125 mph. The project would have including the engineering funding for the next step, to upgrade the 79 mph service to 110 mph. The funding for upgrades like this was available through a $35 billion federal low interest loan program with another $1.5 billion in grants available this year. So had the project been built and the planning undertaken for the next phase, the state would be making funding applications to reduce the Cleveland-Cincinnati travel time to 3.5 hours and the Cleveland-Columbus travel time to 1.5 hours.

 

Sorry but I had this correct this ongoing misunderstanding that should never have been misunderstood, if not for Ohio's toxic politics that have done nothing but shot itself in the economic foot. It's why the entire state is being held back from its potential, not just any one city.

 

I'm well aware of all of the future potential improvements. The fact was, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to implement a useless system was not feasible. I would love a legit high speed rail connecting the three Cs just as much as anyone else on this message board, but all politics aside it was a crappy plan.

 

With the $400 million in improvements to reduce the travel time to 2 1/4 hours, that means we would have just spent $400 million to implement a passenger rail that gets you from point A to point B in the exact same amount of time it would take you drive from point A to point B. It's just not feasible.

 

Now, I fully understand the argument that future improvements could have made the the speeds higher and the travel time shorter, but that was contingent on future funding, among many other things. That's a high risk endeavor. Come up with a plan to get a legit high speed rail right off the bat and I'm all for it, but this failed plan did not accomplish that. 

You can sleep and get work done on a train. You can't do those things in a car.

 

So you think a significant number of people would spend 5.5 hours every day on the train plus the time it takes them to commute from their house to the train station?

 

I don't. But the next phase of improvements, bringing the CLE-COL travel time down to 1.5 hours (and less from a suburban station) would start to change the economic dynamic in Ohio.

 

Key words: "Next phase"

 

That was the issue, not some conspiracy theory to enhance Columbus and kill of Cleveland, or evil republicans being mean. It was the fact that we were going to spend $400 million to implement a train that would get you from one city to another no quicker than driving, and then we would maybe make it better in the future if we could get everything figured out later on.

The economies are slightly different. Cleveland has always been a much larger financial center and also as pointed out earlier, eds and meds center than the other cities. Columbus and Cincy have caught up some in that area and we have seen that by more college professionals in those cities, but given its legacy, Cleveland is still a much larger finance, legal and medical market than the other C's.  The thing that seems to help fuel Columbus growth as well as Cincy to a more limited extent is the logistics and warehousing businesses. Given its location along 70 and near 75 and 77 it offers a great proximity to the major markets and great for logistics companies to warehouse goods.

Because everybody can drive or always wants to drive

 

 

With the $400 million in improvements to reduce the travel time to 2 1/4 hours, that means we would have just spent $400 million to implement a passenger rail that gets you from point A to point B in the exact same amount of time it would take you drive from point A to point B. It's just not feasible.

 

ODOT just blew $400 $600 million on the Portsmouth Bypass.  So combine the $400 million grant we got from Obama plus the Portsmouth Bypass money and we had $1 billion to buy new trains and upgrade track. 

 

The economies are slightly different. Cleveland has always been a much larger financial center and also as pointed out earlier, eds and meds center than the other cities. Columbus and Cincy have caught up some in that area and we have seen that by more college professionals in those cities, but given its legacy, Cleveland is still a much larger finance, legal and medical market than the other C's.  The thing that seems to help fuel Columbus growth as well as Cincy to a more limited extent is the logistics and warehousing businesses. Given its location along 70 and near 75 and 77 it offers a great proximity to the major markets and great for logistics companies to warehouse goods.

 

 

What is this assertion based on? On the financial side, Fifth Third is the largest bank in the midwest and one of the largest in the country. Cincy also has Cincinnati Financial, Western & Southern, and American Financial Group in the Fortune 500. On the eds side, UC and OSU are much larger, and always have been, than anything in Cleveland. I'd say Cleveland wins on the meds side of things with Cleveland Clinic, which is an absolute behemoth. But it should be noted that Cardinal Health is the largest company in Ohio by revenue.

So one way I can think of comparing is looking at the percentage of folks with a college degree or better in each of the 3C's and seeing how that has changed over time. What are the relative trends?

 

 

So for 2016 we have:

 

 

Cleveland 30.3%

Cincinnati 33.1%

Columbus 36%

 

 

From 2013:

 

 

Cleveland 29.8%

Cincinnati 31.2%

Columbus 33.7%

 

 

Change from 2013 to 2017:

 

 

Cleveland +0.5%

Cincinnati +1.9%

Columbus +2.3%

 

 

So this is limited data but it's pretty obvious that in the past few years Columbus is doing the best in growing it's college educated population, as a percentage of total metro population.

 

 

Another way to look at this is to single out just young folks. So just looking at the 25 to 34 year cohort:

 

 

2016:

 

 

Cleveland 35.7%

Cincinnati 39%

Columbus 40.6%

 

 

2013:

 

Cleveland 37.6%

Cincinnati 35.9%

Columbus 39.8%

 

 

Change from 2013 to 2017:

 

 

Cleveland -1.9%

Cincinnati +3.1%

Columbus +0.8%

 

 

This one is a big surprise to me. Cincinnati seems to have a clear edge among this cohort. But things look even worse for Cleveland.

 

 

Based on this data I'd say that Cleveland is definitely losing young college-educated folks, while Columbus and Cincinnati are gaining them. Among college graduates as a whole all of the 3C's are seeing an increase, but Cleveland is definitely lagging behind the other two.

 

 

EDIT: I should note that I chose 2016 and 2013 because that is what is available on the Census Bureau's American Fact Finder website. 2016 is the latest data and it only goes back to 2013. This is from the Census 1-Year Estimates program.

 

Can you post a link to this data? Thanks!

 

 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?fpt=table

 

This was a false narrative pushed by those intent on killing it. I worked very closely on this project, and the 6.5 hour travel time was based on NO IMPROVEMENTS to the rail corridor. Many of my friends at the state level were very angry at Amtrak for publicly releasing this because they knew that the opponents of this project would use it as the final travel time. The actual travel time with $400 million worth of improvements was five hours, with 2 1/4 hours from downtown Cleveland to downtown Columbus, and 2 hours flat from the SW suburban Cleveland station to downtown Columbus, for an average speed in the low 60s mph....

 

KJP--What states ended up getting the $400M that Kasich gave back, so they could build their rail networks?

So $400M to implement a passenger rail that would have been a worse travel option than driving would have been a good investment?

 

Key words: "Next phase"

 

That was the issue, not some conspiracy theory to enhance Columbus and kill of Cleveland, or evil republicans being mean. It was the fact that we were going to spend $400 million to implement a train that would get you from one city to another no quicker than driving, and then we would maybe make it better in the future if we could get everything figured out later on.

 

Forget that conspiracy theory. That's not my thing anyway. And no high-speed passenger rail project started without having a successful conventional-speed rail service as its precedent anywhere in the world. The 3C project would have been the fastest service started at the outset since 1980. Every high-speed service has gone through phases of enhancement to get where they are today, including the all-new high-speed lines around the world that were built where classic passenger rail services were accelerated to 100+ mph speeds but became overwhelmed with passenger traffic. The only thing left to do was to build new rail lines with true-high speed rail to relieve their congestion. And many of these lines are actually trunk lines coming outward 100 or 300 miles from a city center and then fanning outward on those upgraded classic lines, showing the benefit of the past investments while using steel-wheel technologies to achieve interoperability and maximum flexibility to provide greater system coverage and connectivity.

 

Michigan was one of the states that got Ohio's $400 million, where it is upgrading to 110 mph its conventional 79 mph route from Detroit to Chicago (which carries the equivalent of about a dozen 737s full of passengers per day -- the same number of people as the long-distance trains carry through Cleveland and Toledo).

 

Please continue this conversation in the 3C thread -- where this discussion has been had about 15 times already....

EDIT - here's a link:  https://www.urbanohio.com/forum/index.php/topic,18328.0.html

You can sleep and get work done on a train. You can't do those things in a car.

 

So you think a significant number of people would spend 5.5 hours every day on the train plus the time it takes them to commute from their house to the train station?

 

I don't. But the next phase of improvements, bringing the CLE-COL travel time down to 1.5 hours (and less from a suburban station) would start to change the economic dynamic in Ohio.

 

Agreed. I don't think people will commute CLE-CIN. But between Columbus and CLE/Cinci it is certainly feasible if the job was worth it, even if at the full 2 hrs--especially if you spend say 6-7 hours in the office and then work another 2 on the train. and then sleep, read, or work some more for the other 2 hrs---its not so crazy a concept. If you could be president of the Rock Hall or the Cle Clinic or of OSU or Nationwide Insurance or Kroger but your wife and kids are in the other city and you can't move everyone, you take the great job and commute.

So $400M to implement a passenger rail that would have been a worse travel option than driving would have been a good investment?

 

How is it worse?  4 hours of productive time (sleeping/working/even watching movies) vs. 0 hours of productivity/sleep because you're driving?

Again, there is more to Columbus than the SN. I know a ton of people that spend every weekend in the SN and I know a ton of people that never go to the SN. There are also many more factors that effect population growth than simply the "hip vibe" of the city. Columbus is very easy to navigate around. Columbus is relatively cheap. Columbus is convenient for recent college grads of one of the largest universities in the country. Columbus is a very easy city to live in. All of these factor into population growth. If you are simply going to focus on how hip the city you are going to miss a lot of the reasons that are driving the growth.

 

Another way in which the State of Ohio has been favoring Columbus over the 2C's and Dayton:  By killing the 3C rail, it kindof forced people to move to Columbus if they found a job there and previously lived in Cleveland or Cincinnati.  I live in Cleveland and was once offered a job by a company in Columbus. As I certainly would not want to live in Columbus, the only way to do it would be to commute from CLE. The train would have made that possible. But driving 4 hrs each day makes it less practical. So for people who can't say 'no' to an offer, they are forced to move to Columbus instead of living in their preferred city.

 

The 3C rail was killed by Kasich, not Columbus.  State government being in Columbus doesn't mean Columbus controls state government, which is made up of representatives across the state.  Furthermore, back in the 1980s, Kasich was instrumental in killing a Columbus citywide rail system proposal, so this is hardly new for him.  He just doesn't like public transit.  It has nothing to do with him favoring Columbus. 

 

Also, it sounds less like the 3C rail death prevented you from getting that job, but rather your own refusal to, god forbid, live in Columbus.

So $400M to implement a passenger rail that would have been a worse travel option than driving would have been a good investment?

 

Sometimes it's better to spend money on alternatives to something even if it's not immediately better for everyone.

The economies are slightly different. Cleveland has always been a much larger financial center and also as pointed out earlier, eds and meds center than the other cities. Columbus and Cincy have caught up some in that area and we have seen that by more college professionals in those cities, but given its legacy, Cleveland is still a much larger finance, legal and medical market than the other C's.  The thing that seems to help fuel Columbus growth as well as Cincy to a more limited extent is the logistics and warehousing businesses. Given its location along 70 and near 75 and 77 it offers a great proximity to the major markets and great for logistics companies to warehouse goods.

 

 

What is this assertion based on? On the financial side, Fifth Third is the largest bank in the midwest and one of the largest in the country. Cincy also has Cincinnati Financial, Western & Southern, and American Financial Group in the Fortune 500. On the eds side, UC and OSU are much larger, and always have been, than anything in Cleveland. I'd say Cleveland wins on the meds side of things with Cleveland Clinic, which is an absolute behemoth. But it should be noted that Cardinal Health is the largest company in Ohio by revenue.

 

traditionally, because of its history as a large port and manufacturing center there were a lot of financial service industries that began and developed there. Society Bank, Ameritrust, National City were all major players there for a long time. Ernst and Young got its start in Cleveland and has a huge presence there to this day. Cleveland is a very large law market with multiple top 20 international law firms based there, like Jones Day, Thompson Hine and, Squire.  Now the market today does not support this as much as it used to but for a long time, Cleveland punched above its weight class in these areas. I remember working for a large international insurance brokerage who had a large operation in Cleveland at the time. The fact is, Cleveland is still the financial services center in Ohio and I say that as someone who lives in Cincinnati and has seen how these businesses interrelate and play to each other.

 

 

 

traditionally, because of its history as a large port and manufacturing center there were a lot of financial service industries that began and developed there. Society Bank, Ameritrust, National City were all major players there for a long time. Ernst and Young got its start in Cleveland and has a huge presence there to this day. Cleveland is a very large law market with multiple top 20 international law firms based there, like Jones Day, Thompson Hine and, Squire.  Now the market today does not support this as much as it used to but for a long time, Cleveland punched above its weight class in these areas. I remember working for a large international insurance brokerage who had a large operation in Cleveland at the time. The fact is, Cleveland is still the financial services center in Ohio and I say that as someone who lives in Cincinnati and has seen how these businesses interrelate and play to each other.

 

 

My understanding was that major financial firms had, and continue to retain, a presence in Cleveland moreso because of it having a Federal Reserve Bank branch. Of course, it has a FRB branch because of its standing as a legacy industrial center and Great Lakes port.

We were one of the top 5 financial services centers in the US a few decades ago, if I remember right.  But Cleveland's financial services sector has been absolutely hammered by consolidations and the last couple recessions these last few decades.  Even more so than other cities.  Nat City was the largest bank in the country not to get the "too big to fail" designation- and was forced into a sale to PNC subsidized by federal funds.  We lost a number of smaller banks in that period.

^ that is another very important reason why Cleveland is such a financial center for the region. 5/3 and Huntington are nice banks and all but they have less influence than they would have if they were in a Fed city. Look at the major banks in the country and where are they based. Outside of Charlotte, all the big players (US Bank, Wells Fargo, SunTrust, Key, JP Morgan, Citi all are based in Fed Reserve cities. PNC is another outlier but again the economy of today is different to allow a PNC, 5/3 and BB&T type banks to compete. 50 years ago, you needed to be in a Fed Reserve city.

 

Law firms and accounting firms also like to cluster around these industries too.

 

 

Cincy was never a major financial center. It was a much more diversified economy back then and it did have its financial businesses and even its own stock exchange but its manufacturing economy and service economy relied on different industry clusters. Hence why it and Columbus were never major financial centers.

I love how you tell me to continue this conversation in another thread when a) I didn’t even bring it up, and b) you are the one that felt the need to “correct” my “false information” and turn it into a big debate. Sorry for having a differing opinion though. Please correct me next time my opinion differs from yours.

I love how you tell me to continue this conversation in another thread when a) I didn’t even bring it up, and b) you are the one that felt the need to “correct” my “false information” and turn it into a big debate. Sorry for having a differing opinion though. Please correct me next time my opinion differs from yours.

 

It's not an opinion. Your information about the project and how all rail services, once introduced in a basic form, evolve through phases is wrong. Whether the train would work for you or change Ohio is the opinion. And I wasn't redirecting you -- I was redirecting everyone.

DEPACincy[/member] it should also be noted the Cardinal Health is not quite a medical business or biotech business like Cleve Clinic or a biotech company. Cardinal is a distributor of medical supplies.

The facts I stated were not wrong just as the facts that you stated were not wrong. We just had a difference of opinion, something that this forum does not handle well.

Every area has a similar level of medical care for the population within driving distance, the only way an area has more "meds" jobs is if it has a lot of research and out-of-state/country patients, and then if it has pharmaceutical companies, medical device, etc.  I don't know that that the presence of big research employment and out-of-town/country patients at Cincinnati Children's and the Shriner's Hospital has had any effect on the drug/medical device companies in Cincinnati like Patheon, Ethicon, etc.  Hill-Rom is out there by its lonesome in Batesville, IN without any medical research nearby.  So I doubt that the Cleveland Clinic is attracting much spinoff activity to Cleveland. 

 

Also, a bunch of medical jobs are low-paying.  There are hundreds if not thousands of people working in the big hospital complexes making well under $50,000 per year. 

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Cincinnati-Children-s-Hospital-Research-Assistant-III-Salaries-E19251_D_KO31,53.htm

 

 

DEPACincy[/member]

The 1-year estimates are wildly inconsistent if you trend them from year to year for the past 6 or so years. The 5 year estimates show a steady rise in bachelor degrees in that age cohort for Cleveland. Not as large a number as Columbus likely, but growth no doubt.

So one way I can think of comparing is looking at the percentage of folks with a college degree or better in each of the 3C's and seeing how that has changed over time. What are the relative trends?

 

So for 2016 we have:

 

Cleveland 30.3%

Cincinnati 33.1%

Columbus 36%

 

 

From 2013:

 

 

Cleveland 29.8%

Cincinnati 31.2%

Columbus 33.7%

 

 

Change from 2013 to 2017:

 

 

Cleveland +0.5%

Cincinnati +1.9%

Columbus +2.3%

 

 

So this is limited data but it's pretty obvious that in the past few years Columbus is doing the best in growing it's college educated population, as a percentage of total metro population.

 

 

Another way to look at this is to single out just young folks. So just looking at the 25 to 34 year cohort:

 

 

2016:

 

 

Cleveland 35.7%

Cincinnati 39%

Columbus 40.6%

 

 

2013:

 

Cleveland 37.6%

Cincinnati 35.9%

Columbus 39.8%

 

 

Change from 2013 to 2017:

 

 

Cleveland -1.9%

Cincinnati +3.1%

Columbus +0.8%

 

 

This one is a big surprise to me. Cincinnati seems to have a clear edge among this cohort. But things look even worse for Cleveland.

 

 

Based on this data I'd say that Cleveland is definitely losing young college-educated folks, while Columbus and Cincinnati are gaining them. Among college graduates as a whole all of the 3C's are seeing an increase, but Cleveland is definitely lagging behind the other two.

 

 

EDIT: I should note that I chose 2016 and 2013 because that is what is available on the Census Bureau's American Fact Finder website. 2016 is the latest data and it only goes back to 2013. This is from the Census 1-Year Estimates program.

 

I used Educational Attainment 1-year for metros and got different numbers.

 

2013-2016

High School or Less

Cincinnati: -2.2%

Cleveland: -2.4%

Columbus: -0.6%

 

Some College/Associates Degree

Cincinnati: +2.1%

Cleveland: +2.7%

Columbus: +4.5%

 

Bachelors

Cincinnati: +8.2%

Cleveland: +0.4%

Columbus: +13.1%

 

Graduate/Professional Degree

Cincinnati: +10.2%

Columbus: +10.3%

Cleveland: +5.3%

 

All College Degrees

Cincinnati: +6.6%

Cleveland: +3.4%

Columbus: +12.4%

 

And just 25-34 Education Attainment in 2016, Bachelors or Higher

Total %

Cincinnati: 39.0%

Cleveland: 35.7%

Columbus: 40.6%

 

And change 2013-2016

Cincinnati: +12.7%

Cleveland: -2.7%

Columbus: +9.2%

 

Not sure why we have different numbers.

 

 

 

 

So $400M to implement a passenger rail that would have been a worse travel option than driving would have been a good investment?

 

Sometimes it's better to spend money on alternatives to something even if it's not immediately better for everyone.

 

That's basically the justification used for expanding highways- not just current use, but projected use.  Not to say that those projections are always accurate, because in many cases they far overestimate the future numbers as there is a lot of lobbying for these projects that too often override necessity or financial concerns.  The Portsmouth Bypass just being one glaring example. 

DEPACincy[/member]

The 1-year estimates are wildly inconsistent if you trend them from year to year for the past 6 or so years. The 5 year estimates show a steady rise in bachelor degrees in that age cohort for Cleveland. Not as large a number as Columbus likely, but growth no doubt.

 

Yeah, I was going to mention that the 1-year estimates are considered the least reliable of the 2. 

The facts I stated were not wrong just as the facts that you stated were not wrong. We just had a difference of opinion, something that this forum does not handle well.

 

You said it would be a 39 mph train. That is not correct. You said phasing suggests that following phases do not happen with passenger rail. That is not correct. And if you make erroneous assertions like these and present them as opinion, then I can certainly understand why you believe that this forum does not handle opinion well.

The facts I stated were not wrong just as the facts that you stated were not wrong. We just had a difference of opinion, something that this forum does not handle well.

 

You said it would be a 39 mph train. That is not correct. You said phasing suggests that following phases do not happen with passenger rail. That is not correct. And if you make erroneous assertions like these and present them as opinion, then I can certainly understand why you believe that this forum does not handle opinion well.

 

I said it would average 39mph, with a top speed of 79mph at its inception. That is a fact. Future phases were contingent on receiving future funding. That is a fact. Those are facts that apparently offend you.

The facts I stated were not wrong just as the facts that you stated were not wrong. We just had a difference of opinion, something that this forum does not handle well.

 

You said it would be a 39 mph train. That is not correct. You said phasing suggests that following phases do not happen with passenger rail. That is not correct. And if you make erroneous assertions like these and present them as opinion, then I can certainly understand why you believe that this forum does not handle opinion well.

 

I said it would average 39mph, with a top speed of 79mph at its inception. That is a fact. Future phases were contingent on receiving future funding. That is a fact. Those are facts that apparently offend you.

 

Would you like me to give you the names of people who work for Amtrak and the Ohio Rail Development Commission, one of whom now works for me, who can debunk the 39 mph lie? Yes future phases are contingent on planning funds, which were provided but also returned to the FRA, with construction funds now available. Yes, willful ignorance offends me.

^ that is another very important reason why Cleveland is such a financial center for the region. 5/3 and Huntington are nice banks and all but they have less influence than they would have if they were in a Fed city. Look at the major banks in the country and where are they based. Outside of Charlotte, all the big players (US Bank, Wells Fargo, SunTrust, Key, JP Morgan, Citi all are based in Fed Reserve cities. PNC is another outlier but again the economy of today is different to allow a PNC, 5/3 and BB&T type banks to compete. 50 years ago, you needed to be in a Fed Reserve city.

 

Law firms and accounting firms also like to cluster around these industries too.

 

 

Cincy was never a major financial center. It was a much more diversified economy back then and it did have its financial businesses and even its own stock exchange but its manufacturing economy and service economy relied on different industry clusters. Hence why it and Columbus were never major financial centers.

 

 

I appreciate the history you provided in your other post. One nitpicky thing I'd point out is that it's a little off to say 5/3 and Huntington are just "nice" banks but Key is a big player. 5/3 is the 24th largest bank in the US, Huntington is 35th. Key comes in right between them at 30th. In 2018, 5/3 is top dog in Ohio.

So one way I can think of comparing is looking at the percentage of folks with a college degree or better in each of the 3C's and seeing how that has changed over time. What are the relative trends?

 

So for 2016 we have:

 

Cleveland 30.3%

Cincinnati 33.1%

Columbus 36%

 

 

From 2013:

 

 

Cleveland 29.8%

Cincinnati 31.2%

Columbus 33.7%

 

 

Change from 2013 to 2017:

 

 

Cleveland +0.5%

Cincinnati +1.9%

Columbus +2.3%

 

 

So this is limited data but it's pretty obvious that in the past few years Columbus is doing the best in growing it's college educated population, as a percentage of total metro population.

 

 

Another way to look at this is to single out just young folks. So just looking at the 25 to 34 year cohort:

 

 

2016:

 

 

Cleveland 35.7%

Cincinnati 39%

Columbus 40.6%

 

 

2013:

 

Cleveland 37.6%

Cincinnati 35.9%

Columbus 39.8%

 

 

Change from 2013 to 2017:

 

 

Cleveland -1.9%

Cincinnati +3.1%

Columbus +0.8%

 

 

This one is a big surprise to me. Cincinnati seems to have a clear edge among this cohort. But things look even worse for Cleveland.

 

 

Based on this data I'd say that Cleveland is definitely losing young college-educated folks, while Columbus and Cincinnati are gaining them. Among college graduates as a whole all of the 3C's are seeing an increase, but Cleveland is definitely lagging behind the other two.

 

 

EDIT: I should note that I chose 2016 and 2013 because that is what is available on the Census Bureau's American Fact Finder website. 2016 is the latest data and it only goes back to 2013. This is from the Census 1-Year Estimates program.

 

I used Educational Attainment 1-year for metros and got different numbers.

 

2013-2016

High School or Less

Cincinnati: -2.2%

Cleveland: -2.4%

Columbus: -0.6%

 

Some College/Associates Degree

Cincinnati: +2.1%

Cleveland: +2.7%

Columbus: +4.5%

 

Bachelors

Cincinnati: +8.2%

Cleveland: +0.4%

Columbus: +13.1%

 

Graduate/Professional Degree

Cincinnati: +10.2%

Columbus: +10.3%

Cleveland: +5.3%

 

All College Degrees

Cincinnati: +6.6%

Cleveland: +3.4%

Columbus: +12.4%

 

And just 25-34 Education Attainment in 2016, Bachelors or Higher

Total %

Cincinnati: 39.0%

Cleveland: 35.7%

Columbus: 40.6%

 

And change 2013-2016

Cincinnati: +12.7%

Cleveland: -2.7%

Columbus: +9.2%

 

Not sure why we have different numbers.

 

 

We don't have different numbers.  You just calculated percentage change and I gave absolute change in percentages. It shows the same thing, just in a different way.

 

 

EDIT: See the bolded sections. They're both the same.

DEPACincy[/member]

The 1-year estimates are wildly inconsistent if you trend them from year to year for the past 6 or so years. The 5 year estimates show a steady rise in bachelor degrees in that age cohort for Cleveland. Not as large a number as Columbus likely, but growth no doubt.

 

Yeah, I was going to mention that the 1-year estimates are considered the least reliable of the 2.

 

 

This is a fair point. It does jump around a bit, and of course it has a higher MOE than the 5-Year Estimates. But I checked those and they show the same trend, just smoother. I went ahead and used the 1-Year because of the lag that is inherent in the 5-Year data.

DEPACincy[/member]

The 1-year estimates are wildly inconsistent if you trend them from year to year for the past 6 or so years. The 5 year estimates show a steady rise in bachelor degrees in that age cohort for Cleveland. Not as large a number as Columbus likely, but growth no doubt.

 

Yeah, I was going to mention that the 1-year estimates are considered the least reliable of the 2.

 

 

This is a fair point. It does jump around a bit, and of course it has a higher MOE than the 5-Year Estimates. But I checked those and they show the same trend, just smoother. I went ahead and used the 1-Year because of the lag that is inherent in the 5-Year data.

 

I also looked at the 1-year for city limits since you did metros.  Those go back to 2005, but I just went to 2010 with them.

 

2016 % of Total aged 25+

HS or Less

Cincinnati: 37.1%

Cleveland: 53.7%

Columbus: 37.5%

Some College/Associates Degree

Cincinnati: 26.0%

Cleveland: 30.0%

Columbus: 27.3%

Bachelors Degree

Cincinnati: 20.9%

Cleveland: 10.5%

Columbus: 23.4%

Graduate/Professional Degree

Cincinnati: 16.1%

Cleveland: 5.8%

Columbus: 11.9%

All College Degrees

Cincinnati: 43.3%

Cleveland: 22.7%

Columbus: 42.7%

 

What obviously stands out is how much less educated Cleveland is, particularly on higher degrees.

 

Here are the changes 2010-2016

HS or Less

Cincinnati: -9.8%

Cleveland: -5.4%

Columbus: +8.9%

Some College/Associates Degree

Cincinnati: -0.4%

Cleveland: -1.3%

Columbus: +8.5%

Bachelors Degree

Cincinnati: +16.1%

Cleveland: +25.6%

Columbus: +25.8%

Graduate/Professional Degree

Cincinnati: +27.2%

Cleveland: +15.9%

Columbus: +31.1%

Any Degree

Cincinnati: +17.5%

Cleveland: +16.0%

Columbus: +26.9%

 

Columbus does seem to be attracting lower education levels while the other 2 are losing them, so there may be some truth that Columbus is getting Cleveland/Cincinnati's low education population, but it's seeing growth at all education levels.  And the growth is 3x faster at the higher education levels.

 

DEPACincy[/member]

The 1-year estimates are wildly inconsistent if you trend them from year to year for the past 6 or so years. The 5 year estimates show a steady rise in bachelor degrees in that age cohort for Cleveland. Not as large a number as Columbus likely, but growth no doubt.

 

Yeah, I was going to mention that the 1-year estimates are considered the least reliable of the 2.

 

 

This is a fair point. It does jump around a bit, and of course it has a higher MOE than the 5-Year Estimates. But I checked those and they show the same trend, just smoother. I went ahead and used the 1-Year because of the lag that is inherent in the 5-Year data.

 

I also looked at the 1-year for city limits since you did metros.  Those go back to 2005, but I just went to 2010 with them.

 

2016 % of Total aged 25+

HS or Less

Cincinnati: 37.1%

Cleveland: 53.7%

Columbus: 37.5%

Some College/Associates Degree

Cincinnati: 26.0%

Cleveland: 30.0%

Columbus: 27.3%

Bachelors Degree

Cincinnati: 20.9%

Cleveland: 10.5%

Columbus: 23.4%

Graduate/Professional Degree

Cincinnati: 16.1%

Cleveland: 5.8%

Columbus: 11.9%

All College Degrees

Cincinnati: 43.3%

Cleveland: 22.7%

Columbus: 42.7%

 

What obviously stands out is how much less educated Cleveland is, particularly on higher degrees.

 

Here are the changes 2010-2016

HS or Less

Cincinnati: -9.8%

Cleveland: -5.4%

Columbus: +8.9%

Some College/Associates Degree

Cincinnati: -0.4%

Cleveland: -1.3%

Columbus: +8.5%

Bachelors Degree

Cincinnati: +16.1%

Cleveland: +25.6%

Columbus: +25.8%

Graduate/Professional Degree

Cincinnati: +27.2%

Cleveland: +15.9%

Columbus: +31.1%

Any Degree

Cincinnati: +17.5%

Cleveland: +16.0%

Columbus: +26.9%

 

Columbus does seem to be attracting lower education levels while the other 2 are losing them, so there may be some truth that Columbus is getting Cleveland/Cincinnati's low education population

 

This study backs up what I posted yesterday about Cleveland's manufacturing employment base shrinking/moving as we head towards a knowledge based economy. 

 

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2320&context=urban_facpub

The distinction between shrinking and moving is important.  Manufacturing is not shrinking everywhere-- some places are gaining it at our expense.  Aggressively so, from Appalachia to Asia.  The apparent wisdom of moving on from it has yet to reach them.  Or maybe they know something we don't.

I appreciate the history you provided in your other post. One nitpicky thing I'd point out is that it's a little off to say 5/3 and Huntington are just "nice" banks but Key is a big player. 5/3 is the 24th largest bank in the US, Huntington is 35th. Key comes in right between them at 30th. In 2018, 5/3 is top dog in Ohio.

 

The size of banks fluctuates wildly due to consolidation and everything else that goes on.  Also, a consumer bank like 5/3 should be compared with other consumer banks with a ton of branches.  So delete Goldman Sachs, Capital One, TD Ameritrade, Deutsche Bank, etc.  In that category 5/3 ranks much higher, around #10. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks_in_the_United_States

 

 

 

 

 

The distinction between shrinking and moving is important.  Manufacturing is not shrinking everywhere-- some places are gaining it at our expense.  Aggressively so, from Appalachia to Asia.  The apparent wisdom of moving on from it has yet to reach them.  Or maybe they know something we don't.

 

A lot of it simply comes down to luck, and most people aren't willing to accept that.  The biggest company in the United States is Wal-Mart and they stubbornly retain their HQ in Bentonville, AK.  Take a look at that place on google earth.  It's maybe the size of Canton and it's quite obvious that the presence of the biggest company of them all has spurred very little spinoff.