Jump to content

Top 100 US metros ranked by income growth (where do Ohio metros rank?)

Featured Replies

Posted

Biz Journals just did a study ranking the 100 largest metros in the US on income growth over the past 25 years.  Seven Ohio metros were included in the study. 

 

Here is where Ohio Metros rank:

 

53. Cincinnati

58. Columbus

72. Akron

89. Cleveland

92. Dayton

94. Toledo

95. Youngstown

 

LIST

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/pages/92.html

 

MAIN ARTICLE

http://www.bizjournals.com/edit_special/52.html?page=2

 

METHODOLOGY

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/pages/97.html

 

 

 

 

 

Metros with the slowest income growth

 

Two states dominate the bottom of the rankings. Five markets from California and three from Ohio are among the 10 with the worst records of income growth.

 

California's laggards -- Stockton, Bakersfield, Riverside-San Bernardino, Fresno and Modesto -- are all located in the state's interior, which has grown much more slowly than the metros along the Pacific coast.

 

Ohio is in the midst of a protracted slump triggered by the decline of its automaking and heavy-manufacturing sectors. Youngstown, Toledo and Dayton are all in the bottom 10.

 

...

 

Biz Journals featured the 10 worst performing metros

 

Youngstown

These are tough times in Ohio. Domestic automakers and other manufacturers are under siege, and all aspects of the state's economy have been suffering as a result. Youngstown's pain is reflected in its meager income-growth rate of 33 percent since 1995. Only New Orleans was slower.

 

Per capita income:

2005: $27,670

2000: $24,584

1990: $17,086

1980: $9,844

 

Income growth:

2000-2005: 12.6%

1990-2005: 61.9%

1980-2005: 181.1%

 

Growth score: -28.54 points

 

Other stats

Metro population (2006): 586,939

Annual rate of population growth (2000-2006): -0.4%

Metro employment (March 2007): 236,600

Employment growth (2006-2007): -1.9%

 

image_16.jpg

© urbanohio.com   :-D

 

Toledo

Toledo dropped below the national average for per capita income in 1995, and its subsequent efforts for a comeback have proved futile. It now sits more than $3,500 below the U.S. PCI of $34,471. Toledo ranks 97th out of 100 markets for income growth during the past decade.

 

Per capita income:

2005: $30,915

2000: $27,768

1990: $18,919

1980: $10,353

 

Income growth:

2000-2005: 11.3%

1990-2005: 63.4%

1980-2005: 198.6%

 

Growth score: -28.40 points

 

Other stats

Metro population (2006): 653,695

Annual rate of population growth (2000-2006): -0.1%

Metro employment (March 2007): 330,200

Employment growth (2006-2007): -0.2%

 

image_17.jpg

© iStockphoto.com

 

Dayton

Dayton joins two fellow Ohio metros -- Youngstown and Toledo -- in the bottom 10. All three areas are losing high-paying manufacturing jobs, which is depressing overall income levels. Dayton's PCI has grown just 36 percent in 10 years, compared to the U.S. average of 49 percent.

 

Per capita income:

2005: $31,792

2000: $28,548

1990: $19,106

1980: $10,338

 

Income growth:

2000-2005: 11.4%

1990-2005: 66.4%

1980-2005: 207.5%

 

Growth score: -23.36 points

 

Other stats

Metro population (2006): 838,940

Annual rate of population growth (2000-2006): -0.2%

Metro employment (March 2007): 405,900

Employment growth (2006-2007): -0.5%

 

image_19.jpg

© shutterstock.com

 

...

 

 

The 7 Ohio metros ranked by Per Capita Income 2005:

1. Cleveland $35,423

2. Cincinnati $34,961

3. Columbus $34,960

4. Akron $33,396

5. Dayton $31,792

6. Toledo $30,915

7. Youngstown $27,670

 

How do Ohio metros stack up against regional peers in income growth?

 

1. Birmingham

10. Madison

19. Pittsburgh

33. Minneapolis-St. Paul

41. Milwaukee

42. Louisville

43. Indianapolis

53. Cincinnati

58. Columbus

66. Kansas City

72. Akron

73. Buffalo

76. St. Louis

78. Chicago

79. Grand Rapids

80. Detroit

84. Syracuse

89. Cleveland

91. Rochester

92. Dayton

94. Toledo

95. Youngstown

100. New Orleans

^ You just posted this because Pitt is sitting at #19. ;)

 

(j/k)

Living in the city-state of Greater Cincinnatia, it is easy to forget how rough things are in most of the state, outside of the I-71 corridor between Cin and Cbus. Just more evidence that the Cincinnati area is doing alright.

Living in the city-state of Greater Cincinnatia

 

That is just pure awesomeness!

I don't find any of this information to be too shocking.  When you really know your city...you know where you stand more often than not.

I don't find any of this information to be too shocking.  When you really know your city...you know where you stand more often than not.

 

You might be interested to know that Atlanta ranks 90th in wage growth... despite its reputation for having the nation's most booming economy.  In fact, it's per capita income ranks below the 3 C's.  So they've been creating a lot of jobs down there... but the low-wage sprawl-servicing jobs have apparently vastly outweighed the high-wage jobs. 

^Not my city...and to be honest, not all that shocking.

Chicago is way down on the list, but Philly is up near the top. Cincy is just barely in positive territory, but then that is pretty much the history of the local economy since about 1870.

The 7 Ohio metros ranked by Per Capita Income 2005:

1. Cleveland $35,423

2. Cincinnati $34,961

3. Columbus $34,960

4. Akron $33,396

5. Dayton $31,792

6. Toledo $30,915

7. Youngstown $27,670

 

I bet everyone from Columbus is jealous of that extra dollar we have down here in cincinnati.  I am going to take the finest Zone 1 Bus ride and gloat.

(Richard, did we sell that photo to them?)

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Yes you did.  Very cheap though.  It was a project, I can't remember the ladys name.

Of course, to know the full story, it would be helpful to know cost of living in each city, and it's change over the corresponding period.  LA, for examply has a PCI only $1,000 greater than Cleveland's, but there the cost of living must be way higher.

"City-state of Greater Cincinnatia"      i am still LMAO on this!         

To hell with the rest of the country!!!!

That is great!

Is there any automotive-related industry in Cincy or Columbus?

Toyota North American HQ in northern KY and a plant in Georgetown, Ford has Sharonville and Batavia (for now!)    GM USED to make cars in Norwood eons ago.  I remember as a kid parking lots of Camaros near the lateral.  Alot of history in the Nati but not to many actual auto plants anymore.   Honda is coming to Greensburg IN which may or may not fall in our region. (IMO, alot of natians will be working there so I count it.)  Part of that "city-state of Cincinnatia" thing!       

What is this point of this thread? For Cincinnati people to pat themselves on the back for almost reaching Cleveland status? Great job, your per-capita income for you metro is almost as high as a metro who's center city has a poverty rate of 30% and has been tagged 'America's poorest city' for better or worse. Woo-hoo, what an achievement.

 

It's funny how people are caught up in the rankings...and don't look at the actual figures themselves.

What is this point of this thread? For Cincinnati people to pat themselves on the back for almost reaching Cleveland status? Great job, your per-capita income for you metro is almost as high as a metro who's center city has a poverty rate of 30% and has been tagged 'America's poorest city' for better or worse. Woo-hoo, what an achievement.

 

It's funny how people are caught up in the rankings...and don't look at the actual figures themselves.

 

A little touchy are we??  This thread wasn't even posted by a Cincinnatian.  It was simply posted to see where the major Ohio cities stand in this particular ranking.  If you don't want to believe it then fine, but in no way shape or form has this thread been presented in an ego-boosting manner for any city.

 

Not to mention...this is for income growth NOT per-capita income.  Cincy does not trail Cleveland in growth...whether it trails Cleveland in the other category is another discussion.  Just remember...it does not always have to be a Cleveland v. Cincy thing, this is for the entire state here.  Please don't forget about Toledo, Dayton, Akron, Ytown, and Cbus.

The 7 Ohio metros ranked by Per Capita Income 2005:

1. Cleveland $35,423

2. Cincinnati $34,961

3. Columbus $34,960

4. Akron $33,396

5. Dayton $31,792

6. Toledo $30,915

7. Youngstown $27,670

 

I bet everyone from Columbus is jealous of that extra dollar we have down here in cincinnati.  I am going to take the finest Zone 1 Bus ride and gloat.

 

Wow, Cleveland metro #1?? Nice.

What is this point of this thread? For Cincinnati people to pat themselves on the back for almost reaching Cleveland status? Great job, your per-capita income for you metro is almost as high as a metro who's center city has a poverty rate of 30% and has been tagged 'America's poorest city' for better or worse. Woo-hoo, what an achievement.

 

It's funny how people are caught up in the rankings...and don't look at the actual figures themselves.

 

Seeing how the thread was started from someone in Pittsburgh, I have no clue why your subtle insecurities are showing up in this thread as this isn't about "my city has ___" but is just a list.

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

What is this point of this thread? For Cincinnati people to pat themselves on the back for almost reaching Cleveland status? Great job, your per-capita income for you metro is almost as high as a metro who's center city has a poverty rate of 30% and has been tagged 'America's poorest city' for better or worse. Woo-hoo, what an achievement.

 

It's funny how people are caught up in the rankings...and don't look at the actual figures themselves.

 

A little touchy are we??  This thread wasn't even posted by a Cincinnatian.  It was simply posted to see where the major Ohio cities stand in this particular ranking.  If you don't want to believe it then fine, but in no way shape or form has this thread been presented in an ego-boosting manner for any city.

 

Not to mention...this is for income growth NOT per-capita income.  Cincy does not trail Cleveland in growth...whether it trails Cleveland in the other category is another discussion.  Just remember...it does not always have to be a Cleveland v. Cincy thing, this is for the entire state here.  Please don't forget about Toledo, Dayton, Akron, Ytown, and Cbus.

 

I only see Cincy people in here...along with a guy who started this thread from St. Mary's City, PA.

 

I'm not touchy. Read my thread again. I'm being honest.

 

If Cleveland's poverty numbers are as high as the census says, and these figures are true....a majority of people in the Cleveland metro that don't live in the city make a fair more amount of money than people that live in "greater Cincinnatia". It's hard for me to ignore this. It's why the rankings on this don't really show anything, if anything they show how far all Ohio cities have to grow just to reach the National Average somewhere in the low 40's.

 

I mean c'mon, Birmingham is #1, Chicago is #78...without looking at the figures who do you think has the higher per-capita even with growth?

 

Or to put it another way, Pittsburgh is #19 in growth, but without the looking at per-capita figures, I'll bet not only is Pittsburgh behind the 3 C's....it's behind Akron as well. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling I'm not. So who cares if you have income GROWTH...if you are still laging behing the national average. Which EVERY city in Ohio is.

 

But hey, have a party anyway, Cincy is #53. Sorry for being honest and wanting something better out of the state in general. Youngstown's $27,670 is utterly depressing.

 

 

 

 

 

What is this point of this thread? For Cincinnati people to pat themselves on the back for almost reaching Cleveland status? Great job, your per-capita income for you metro is almost as high as a metro who's center city has a poverty rate of 30% and has been tagged 'America's poorest city' for better or worse. Woo-hoo, what an achievement.

 

It's funny how people are caught up in the rankings...and don't look at the actual figures themselves.

 

Seeing how the thread was started from someone in Pittsburgh, I have no clue why your subtle insecurities are showing up in this thread as this isn't about "my city has ___" but is just a list.

 

When did a small town in north-central PA become Pittsburgh?

 

I'm done...you wanna turn me into the "versus" guy go ahead. I've said I'll I'm gonna say for now in my other post.

What is this point of this thread? For Cincinnati people to pat themselves on the back for almost reaching Cleveland status? Great job, your per-capita income for you metro is almost as high as a metro who's center city has a poverty rate of 30% and has been tagged 'America's poorest city' for better or worse. Woo-hoo, what an achievement.

 

It's funny how people are caught up in the rankings...and don't look at the actual figures themselves.

 

A little touchy are we??  This thread wasn't even posted by a Cincinnatian.  It was simply posted to see where the major Ohio cities stand in this particular ranking.  If you don't want to believe it then fine, but in no way shape or form has this thread been presented in an ego-boosting manner for any city.

 

Not to mention...this is for income growth NOT per-capita income.  Cincy does not trail Cleveland in growth...whether it trails Cleveland in the other category is another discussion.  Just remember...it does not always have to be a Cleveland v. Cincy thing, this is for the entire state here.  Please don't forget about Toledo, Dayton, Akron, Ytown, and Cbus.

 

I only see Cincy people in here...along with a guy who started this thread from St. Mary's City, PA.

 

I'm not touchy. Read my thread again. I'm being honest.

 

If Cleveland's poverty numbers are as high as the census says, and these figures are true....a majority of people in the Cleveland metro that don't live in the city make a fair more amount of money than people that live in "greater Cincinnatia". It's hard for me to ignore this. It's why the rankings on this don't really show anything, if anything they show how far all Ohio cities have to grow just to reach the National Average somewhere in the low 40's.

 

I mean c'mon, Birmingham is #1, Chicago is #78...without looking at the figures who do you think has the higher per-capita even with growth?

 

Or to put it another way, Pittsburgh is #19 in growth, but without the looking at per-capita figures, I'll bet not only is Pittsburgh behind the 3 C's....it's behind Akron as well. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling I'm not. So who cares if you have income GROWTH...if you are still laging behing the national average. Which EVERY city in Ohio is.

 

But hey, have a party anyway, Cincy is #53. Sorry for being honest and wanting something better out of the state in general. Youngstown's $27,670 is utterly depressing.

 

Uh...that was all over the place...

 

What is this point of this thread? For Cincinnati people to pat themselves on the back for almost reaching Cleveland status? Great job, your per-capita income for you metro is almost as high as a metro who's center city has a poverty rate of 30% and has been tagged 'America's poorest city' for better or worse. Woo-hoo, what an achievement.

 

It's funny how people are caught up in the rankings...and don't look at the actual figures themselves.

 

Seeing how the thread was started from someone in Pittsburgh, I have no clue why your subtle insecurities are showing up in this thread as this isn't about "my city has ___" but is just a list.

 

When did a small town in north-central PA become Pittsburgh?

 

I'm done...you wanna turn me into the "versus" guy go ahead. I've said I'll I'm gonna say for now in my other post.

 

He lives in Pittsburgh.  Thus, he's a Pittsburgh guy.  He may have been raised, lost his virginity, or whatever in St. Mary's, Pennsylvania but he lives in Pittsburgh and he represents Pittsburgh (hell, look at his avatar).  Thus, even IF he represented St. Mary's, it STILL doesn't show how on earth you are getting irked by Cincinnati forumers as this thread has nothing to do with Cin vs. Clev or whatever income/per capita/Disney dolls thread comes along.  And as for the last sentence, thank God.

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

[

I only see Cincy people in here...along with a guy who started this thread from St. Mary's City, PA.

Thats probably because people from Cincinnati post a LOT on this board. People from Cincinnnati on this board also tend to be nerds when it comes to lists/statistics. Stop catching feelings.

Or to put it another way, Pittsburgh is #19 in growth, but without the looking at per-capita figures, I'll bet not only is Pittsburgh behind the 3 C's....it's behind Akron as well. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling I'm not.

 

All you have to do is click on the first link I posted to find out if your gut instinct is true...

 

Pittsburgh $36,530

Cleveland $35,423

Cincinnati $34,961

Columbus $34,960

National $34,426

Akron $33,396

 

 

...

 

And the point you're trying to make by referencing Birmingham and Chicago is also false... just look at the Top 25 metros for income growth... and while there is an El Paso and a Charleston here and there... most of them are very large and/or very wealthy metros.  Chicago has a per capita personal income only about 110% of the national average.  Every metro within the BosWash corridor is significantly higher.  Chicago is really quite similar to the rest of the Midwest when it comes to wages... it's just larger.  Birmingham has a per capita personal income that is higher than every Ohio metro... but I guess it's hard to believe the largest city in Alabama could be that wealthy.  But just like your perceptions about Pittsburgh are off the mark... so they are with Birmingham... which is one of the nation's largest financial centers. 

 

But this thread has nothing to do with Pittsburgh (or Chicago or Birmingham) other than using it as a regional benchmark... just like Louisville or Detroit... but you have proved your obsessive insecurity and ignorance about my city once again with your incoherent rantings.  This thread is nothing more than Ohio-specific numbers pertaining to per capita personal income compiled by Biz Journals.  There is no editorializing on my behalf.  Why would someone from Pittsburgh... who lived in the north-central Pennsylvania hamlet of St. Marys seven years ago be interested in the economic performance of Ohio markets (I'm quite impressed with your detailed memory of the minutiae of my humble existence)?  Well... I did live there for a brief time recently... and I currently reside about 35 miles from Ohio... a couple hundred miles closer than you do... regional economic development is kinda one of the main realms of my education... and Western PA and much of Ohio are interconnected socially and economically, have similar histories and will most likely depend on each other a great deal as they forge ahead into the post-industrial world.  So please check your whiney delusional attitude at the door.  Nobody from Pittsburgh or Cincinnati or St. Marys, PA is out to hurt you and your precious city.  This thread is for the discussion of regional economic performance in Ohio... not your imaginary conflicts and cyber-donnybrooks.

"I could be wrong, but I have a feeling I'm not. "

 

You are, and about more than just Pittsburgh's PCI, which is $36,530 (higher than any in Ohio).

 

From the story:  "Birmingham's per capita income at the beginning of the 25-year period was $9,078, which was more than 10 percent below the U.S average for 1980. Its 2005 figure was $35,663 -- $1,200 above the national norm. "

 

That gives us a national PCI of $34,463.

 

The list of Ohio Cities' PCI again:

 

1. Cleveland $35,423

2. Cincinnati $34,961

3. Columbus $34,960

4. Akron $33,396

5. Dayton $31,792

6. Toledo $30,915

7. Youngstown $27,670

 

It would appear that all of the Three C's are above the national PCI.

 

What does this mean?  It means that if you take the total income of these metro areas and divide it by the total populations of the respective metros, these are the numbers you get.  It says nothing about distribution.  It says little about spending power.  Bill Gates and I have a PCI of over one billion dollars.  Wow I must be rich!  (I'm making up numbers, but you get the point).

 

And I am from Cleveland, and did post in this thread.

Is the income the median or the mean? for example adding yao ming to a sample for the median height would do nothing statiscially significant, but adding bill gates to the mean income would skew it greatly.  Same with warren buffet but less so.

It's per capita.

per capita is mean, correct?

Just more evidence that the Cincinnati area is doing alright.

 

...but Louisville and Indianapolis are doing better.

 

;-)

Per capita is essentially a mean, but it says a little more than that.  It lets you know that you are totalling all the personal income for a group of people (in this case, msa's) and then dividing it across their total population, which would be different than say, a mean of employed individuals' incomes, or a mean of household incomes.

Just more evidence that the Cincinnati area is doing alright.

 

...but Louisville and Indianapolis are doing better.

 

;-)

 

Jeff_in_Dayton? Is that you? ...

 

You could say ____ city is doing better than ____ city over and over and over in any and for every category available.

He's just trying to irk you.

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.