One of the most interesting things about the sector-diversity stats to me was that Columbus was actually the lowest of the group (though by a likely-statistically insignificant amount in some cases) in the "health and education" category, despite the presence of OSU, Columbus State (which is very large in its own right), and many smaller colleges, as well as the OSU Medical Center and all the various other hospital systems in the city (OhioHealth, Mt. Carmel, etc.).

 

I also note that Columbus has the largest share of government employment of any of the group, but its lead isn't as large as I'd expected on that front, given its status as the state capital (and as a county seat and a city itself, of course).

 

Touché, the "Diversified Columbus economy" isn't as diversified as perceived. Very interesting.

 

Actually, I don't think that's what they show at all.  Given that government jobs have been the first ones slashed in the current economic situation (and for the past 5 years), if Columbus was truly dominated by those types of jobs, it should clearly be hurting worse than it is, yet the city, county and metro retain some of the lowest or lowest unemployment in the state.  Indeed, for Ohio's metros, Columbus has seen one of the largest government jobs losses since the recession began, yet it doesn't seem to be all that phased.  Other types of jobs have clearly stepped in to fill the loss.

^Bingo.

Maybe the dominance of government in columbus explains why columbus has lost the employment growth advantage it used to have over many other metros in the midwest and upper south.

Maybe the dominance of government in columbus explains why columbus has lost the employment growth advantage it used to have over many other metros in the midwest and upper south.

 

Maybe, but the the clear leader in the GMP growth category in the peer Midwestern cities listed above was Indianapolis, which is also a state capital (with a presumptively commensurately sizable public sector presence).  Also, what was Columbus' previous "lead," and how much of it has it lost?  I was under the impression that Columbus was comfortably above average but never actually at the head of the pack--and that that's basically where it is today as well.

 

 

Maybe the dominance of government in columbus explains why columbus has lost the employment growth advantage it used to have over many other metros in the midwest and upper south.

 

Maybe, but the the clear leader in the GMP growth category in the peer Midwestern cities listed above was Indianapolis, which is also a state capital (with a presumptively commensurately sizable public sector presence).  Also, what was Columbus' previous "lead," and how much of it has it lost?  I was under the impression that Columbus was comfortably above average but never actually at the head of the pack--and that that's basically where it is today as well.

 

No. In the 90s and again before the great collapse, Columbus used to do much better than cincinnati or pittsburgh and even somewhat better than Indy in adding jobs. In the last two years the gap has narrowed greatly. From 2003 to 2007 columbus added more than 34,000 jobs while Cincinnati added less than 22,000. In the last two years, Columbus added almost 30,000 net jobs while Cincinnati added a little more than 27,000. That means that columbus created almost 40% more jobs than cincinnati between 2003 and 2007 and a little more than 10% more jobs in the last two years. Columbus' rate of job growth has declined while Cincinnati's has increased. These are big changes. Maybe the 'Great Recession' should be called the 'Great Change'. Check it all out for yourself at,  http://www.bls.gov/eag/

Hmm.  Still not seeing it.

 

It's true that Columbus has not been creating as many government jobs: http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.oh_columbus_msa.htm

 

However, Cincinnati hasn't exactly been piling on the government jobs, either: http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.oh_cincinnati_msa.htm

 

Indianapolis hasn't exactly been piling them on, either: http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.oh_cincinnati_msa.htm

 

Granted, Columbus' government job growth was more negative than the others ... about -3% for Columbus vs. about 0% for Cincy and Indy.  Given the overall proportion of government jobs, though, I don't think that that number alone can explain very much of any loss in GMP growth.

What is the "it" you aren't seeing?

Maybe the dominance of government in columbus explains why columbus has lost the employment growth advantage it used to have over many other metros in the midwest and upper south.

 

I'm not sure I see where you're getting that Columbus has lost some big advantage on employment growth.  Further, I'm not sure what you mean by "employment growth" to start with.  If you're referring to the civilian labor force, Columbus has long been the clear winner in that regard.

 

With it comes to labor force, Columbus had the #1 growth of Ohio's large metros from 1985-1990, 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and in all years since.  In fact, in any combination of years since 1985 Columbus leads in the growth of it's labor force.  In the entire 1985-2012 period, its labor force grew by almost 128,000, while every other large Ohio metro had it shrink.

 

If you're instead referring to total non-farm jobs, it's a similar story.  The numbers only go back to 1990, but Columbus lead this catergory in 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and 2010-2012.  It also lead the entire 1990-2012 period.  The metro had these jobs grow in all but the 2005-2010 catergory, but had one of the lowest losses in the period.  The only time it didn't lead was in the last year, and only one metro (Cincinnati) was ahead by a few thousand.  This does not suggest a wholesale change unless it can be sustained. 

Maybe the dominance of government in columbus explains why columbus has lost the employment growth advantage it used to have over many other metros in the midwest and upper south.

 

I'm not sure I see where you're getting that Columbus has lost some big advantage on employment growth.  Further, I'm not sure what you mean by "employment growth" to start with.  If you're referring to the civilian labor force, Columbus has long been the clear winner in that regard.

 

With it comes to labor force, Columbus had the #1 growth of Ohio's large metros from 1985-1990, 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and in all years since.  In fact, in any combination of years since 1985 Columbus leads in the growth of it's labor force.  In the entire 1985-2012 period, its labor force grew by almost 128,000, while every other large Ohio metro had it shrink.

 

If you're instead referring to total non-farm jobs, it's a similar story.  The numbers only go back to 1990, but Columbus lead this catergory in 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and 2010-2012.  It also lead the entire 1990-2012 period.  The metro had these jobs grow in all but the 2005-2010 catergory, but had one of the lowest losses in the period.  The only time it didn't lead was in the last year, and only one metro (Cincinnati) was ahead by a few thousand.  This does not suggest a wholesale change unless it can be sustained. 

 

Thanks for helping to make my point. You can win a race by an inch or a mile. Both may get you the gold, but the former looks and feels very different than the latter. Similarly, you can win a race even if you slowed down toward the end while your competition sped up. That is what is happening in ohio metros; their relative performance in changing.

Except that this isn't a race.  There is no finish line.  There was no starting line.  And it's not completely a contest, either.  If Columbus could increase its growth rate by 2% at the "cost" of Cincinnati and Cleveland each increasing theirs by 3%, I think that's a "cost" that Columbus would gradually pay; that's inconsistent with the race metaphor.

 

I still don't know what your point is.  Is your point that Columbus has "won" the last few intervals, but may lose the next one because it shed too many government jobs?  Or that it may lose the next one simply because government is still the dominant sector there?

I'll just say that this ongoing pissing match between MH and JD is reqpresentative of one of Ohio's biggest problems.  Why the need to constantly prove that one city is better, bigger, stronger, healthier than the other?  You'll never convince each other.  MH will continue to cite statistics which favor Cincy and JD will continue to cite statistics which favor C-Bus.  Thank god we don't have a Cleveland representative in this never-ending debate you two have going.  That said.... rest assured that people here in Cleveland will continue to think of this city as the biggest, most important city in the state.  People in Columbus will think the same way about their city.  And people from Cincy will view the Queen City the same.  We don't have a Chicago, NYC, Atlanta, etc.  We are a state without an unequivocal epicentre.  Each of the 3C's has their own strengths and advantages which, in the end and overall, make them eerily on par with each other (something I have grown to accept by reading this forum and learning more about the other parts of the state which people up here are frankly rather ignorant of).

 

I wonder if Houston and Dallas have the same issues.  Probably..... but I don't it reaches the same level of genuine dislike.

I think that the race analogy is a good one for U.S. metros. Metro economies are very much in a competition with each other. Much as a runner's performance can be measured both against that of her many competitors and against her earlier performance and can be compared again and again in many races over many years, metros can be compared over months, years, and even decades on many different measures. Similar to cities, the performance of one runner is not necessarily dependant on that of other runners and can be influence by many factors. Just as diet, emotional state, weather conditions during the practices and race, and even physical appearance can help to explain a runner's performance, wages, climate, local politics and social relations, health measures, and physical appearance can help to explain a metro's performance. My point it that Columbus' 'race times' (metro job and GMP performance) have been getting worse than they used to be while cincinnati's have been getting better in the last few years and that this is a change from before the bottom of the great collapse in 2009. The relative performance and the direction of the changes of cincinnati and columbus have changed. I think that that is significant.

I'll just say that this ongoing pissing match between MH and JD is reqpresentative of one of Ohio's biggest problems.  Why the need to constantly prove that one city is better, bigger, stronger, healthier than the other?  You'll never convince each other.  MH will continue to cite statistics which favor Cincy and JD will continue to cite statistics which favor C-Bus.  Thank god we don't have a Cleveland representative in this never-ending debate you two have going.  That said.... rest assured that people here in Cleveland will continue to think of this city as the biggest, most important city in the state.  People in Columbus will think the same way about their city.  And people from Cincy will view the Queen City the same.  We don't have a Chicago, NYC, Atlanta, etc.  We are a state without an unequivocal epicentre.  Each of the 3C's has their own strengths and advantages which, in the end and overall, make them eerily on par with each other (something I have grown to accept by reading this forum and learning more about the other parts of the state which people up here are frankly rather ignorant of).

 

I wonder if Houston and Dallas have the same issues.  Probably..... but I don't it reaches the same level of genuine dislike.

 

Amen. Isn't it interesting that this weakness is also Ohio's biggest strength: it has 3 great cities, each with a legitimate claim at being the greatest, all for very different reasons.

And I'll just say this ongoing pissing match is growing tiresome as it begins spreading to other threads. For a long time, we didn't have this problem (at least it was under some control). Now its starting to get out of hand.

I argue that cincinnati has far more in common with and more to learn from Pittsburgh, Louisville, or even St Louis than anywhere else in Ohio. It is just an accident of history and geography that Cincinnati is in the same state as Columbus or Cleveland. Similarly, columbus has more to learn from Indy or maybe Kansas city than cincy or cleveland. Cleveland's parallels to buffalo, detroit, chicago, and milwaukee are even stronger. I've often wondered why local govn't does so much more in Ohio than the other states I've lived in and the state does so much less. It's because the different parts of Ohio have such different histories and regional cultures that they have agreed to let each other go their own way. If it ain't broke don't fix it, I say. Let each do their own thing.

 

Historians and anthropologists see regional patterns in politics and economics in the past and present that show how little states matter in important local economics and politics. Here is a recent popular book that takes such an approach to American cultural regions, http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0670022969.

^ Please explain what's starting to get so out of hand.  MH has routinely and systematically challenges statistics about Columbus that too often portray the city as Ohio's "3-C Wunderkind," when it really isn't.  In other words, he does his homework and comes back with succinct pictures of what's really going on.  Just look at it this way--we're getting a free education when someone like MH digs deeply and thoughtfully enough into statistics that could otherwise lead to a befuddled acceptance of what simply isn't true.  And while I won't deny that each of our "3-Cs" is a unique and good city, I think we're blind to act like like we're not all in competition.  Sure, it's a pissing contest, but it's not between MH and JB, but between Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus.

I do not care about this pissing match in particular but there have been several claims that make the overall agenda suspect.  I actually think Columbus is alright (and lived there for 5 or 6 years), but I am pretty sure Cincinnati has a larger labor force today than in 1985, for example.  This would make sense since there about 350k more people in the metro today.

 

 

Maybe the dominance of government in columbus explains why columbus has lost the employment growth advantage it used to have over many other metros in the midwest and upper south.

 

I'm not sure I see where you're getting that Columbus has lost some big advantage on employment growth.  Further, I'm not sure what you mean by "employment growth" to start with.  If you're referring to the civilian labor force, Columbus has long been the clear winner in that regard.

 

With it comes to labor force, Columbus had the #1 growth of Ohio's large metros from 1985-1990, 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and in all years since.  In fact, in any combination of years since 1985 Columbus leads in the growth of it's labor force.  In the entire 1985-2012 period, its labor force grew by almost 128,000, while every other large Ohio metro had it shrink.

 

If you're instead referring to total non-farm jobs, it's a similar story.  The numbers only go back to 1990, but Columbus lead this catergory in 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and 2010-2012.  It also lead the entire 1990-2012 period.  The metro had these jobs grow in all but the 2005-2010 catergory, but had one of the lowest losses in the period.  The only time it didn't lead was in the last year, and only one metro (Cincinnati) was ahead by a few thousand.  This does not suggest a wholesale change unless it can be sustained. 

JMO, but I kind of hate the phraseology "city X has a lot to learn from city Y."  Unless you're literally talking about specific government policies, it just strikes me as nonsensical given that urban economies are more like ecosystems than individual actors.  I certainly appreciate that Pittsburgh has evolved to a post-industrial economy with less pain than other cities, but it's not at all obvious this means it has things to "teach" other places.

Maybe the dominance of government in columbus explains why columbus has lost the employment growth advantage it used to have over many other metros in the midwest and upper south.

 

I'm not sure I see where you're getting that Columbus has lost some big advantage on employment growth.  Further, I'm not sure what you mean by "employment growth" to start with.  If you're referring to the civilian labor force, Columbus has long been the clear winner in that regard.

 

With it comes to labor force, Columbus had the #1 growth of Ohio's large metros from 1985-1990, 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and in all years since.  In fact, in any combination of years since 1985 Columbus leads in the growth of it's labor force.  In the entire 1985-2012 period, its labor force grew by almost 128,000, while every other large Ohio metro had it shrink.

 

If you're instead referring to total non-farm jobs, it's a similar story.  The numbers only go back to 1990, but Columbus lead this catergory in 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and 2010-2012.  It also lead the entire 1990-2012 period.  The metro had these jobs grow in all but the 2005-2010 catergory, but had one of the lowest losses in the period.  The only time it didn't lead was in the last year, and only one metro (Cincinnati) was ahead by a few thousand.  This does not suggest a wholesale change unless it can be sustained. 

 

Thanks for helping to make my point. You can win a race by an inch or a mile. Both may get you the gold, but the former looks and feels very different than the latter. Similarly, you can win a race even if you slowed down toward the end while your competition sped up. That is what is happening in ohio metros; their relative performance in changing.

 

I'm still not seeing that.  What I do see is that, given that Cincinnati has a larger metro and a larger amount of total jobs to begin with, the changes + or - tend to be larger year to year, but Columbus ends up ahead in the longer term.  Here's the progression since 1990 of non-farm job % growth.

 

Columbus had the lead 1990-1995, Cincinnati led 1995-1997, Columbus led 1997-2002, Cincinnati 2002-2004, Columbus 2004-2005, Cincinnati 2005-2006, Columbus 2006-2007, Cincinnati 2007-2008, Columbus 2008-2011, Cincinnati 2011-2012.  So Columbus led 15 out of the last 22 years. 

 

1990-1995 Average % Growth

Columbus: 2.0%

Cincinnati: 1.2%

Cleveland: 0.9%

 

1995-2000 Average % Growth

Columbus: 2.6%

Cincinnati: 2.2%

Cleveland: 1.6%

 

2000-2005 Average % Growth

Columbus: 0.2%

Cincinnati: 0.2%

Cleveland: -1.3%

 

2005-2010 Average % Growth

Columbus: -0.4%

Cincinnati: -0.9%

Cleveland: -1.5%

 

2010-2012 Average % Growth

Columbus: 1.5%

Cincinnati: 1.0%

Cleveland: 0.0%

 

 

This topic ran into a lot of contention last time, but hopefully it can be avoided now.  In any case, I recently saw preliminary numbers for 2011 GMP and wanted to share them here.

 

Preliminary GMP by Metro, highest to lowest, in billions.

 

1. Cleveland: $106.6

2. Cincinnati: $101.6

3. Columbus: $94.7

4. Dayton: $34.0

5. Akron: $27.8

6. Toledo: $27.0

7. Youngstown: $17.0

8. Canton: $13.1

 

Total Change 2010 to 2011, greatest to least, in billions.

 

1. Columbus: $1.4

2. Cincinnati: $1.0

3. Cleveland: $1.0

4. Dayton: $0.6

5. Toledo: $0.4

6. Youngstown: $0.4

7. Akron: $0.2

8. Canton: $0.2

 

% Change 2010 to 2011, greatest to least.

 

1. Youngstown: +2.4%

2. Dayton: +1.8%

3. Canton: +1.6%

4. Toledo: +1.5%

5. Columbus: +1.4%

6. Cincinnati: +1.0%

7. Cleveland: +1.0%

8. Akron: +0.7%

 

Total Change 2001-2011, greatest to least, in billions.

 

1. Cincinnati: +24.0

2. Columbus: +23.6

3. Cleveland: +21.3

4. Akron: +6.9

5. Dayton: +5.4

6. Toledo: +4.7

7. Youngstown: +2.3

8. Canton: +2.0

 

% Change 2001-2011, greatest to least.

 

Columbus: +33.2%

Akron: +33.0%

Cincinnati: +30.9%

Cleveland: +25.0%

Toledo: +21.1%

Dayton: +18.9%

Canton: +18.0%

Youngstown: +15.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GMP Trends Between the largest GMP in Ohio, Cleveland's, and the other 2-Cs.

 

Cleveland vs Cincinnati Difference in 2-year increments. Any + means Cleveland is ahead by that much in that year.

 

2001: +7.7

2003: +7.8

2005: +7.2

2007: +6.2

2009: +4.8

2011: +5.0

 

Cleveland vs Columbus, Difference in 2-year increments.

 

2001: +14.1

2003: +14.5

2005: +15.1

2007: +14.5

2009: +11.9

2011: +11.9

 

Cincinnati vs Columbus, Difference in 2-year increments.

 

2001: +6.5

2003: +6.7

2005: +7.9

2007: +8.3

2009: +7.1

2011: +6.9

 

Good to see there are a lot of pluses in percentage change and raw numbers across the state!

I always find it interesting that Cincinnati has ~5% lower GMP than Cleveland even though the population of Cincinnati's metro area has surpassed Cleveland's.  I wouldn't have expected Cleveland's GMP per capita to be that much higher than Cincinnati's.

^Orlando too. What big businesses is in Orlando????

^^ Yes, it is curious. Good for Cleveland!

I don't know if it is a good thing or a bad thing, Jam.  It could mean that the metro is, for lack of a better term, more productive per capita..... or it could mean that a bigger chunk of our GMP is created by people who work in our metro but reside elsewhere.... which would open another discussion about whether THAT is a good or bad thing.  But, in the end, just like the difference in population is negligible and probably damn close to a margin of error.... so is the comparative difference in GMP.  That said, it does speak well to the diversification of Cleveland MSA's economy given Cincy's rather wide lead in mega corps.

It shouldn't be a surprise that Cleveland outranks Cincinnati in gross metropolitan product.  GMP is about the market value of all goods and services produced within a metro, not headquarters' revenue.  Meaning, Cleveland cranks out the goods man! Cleveland certainly produces more products than Cincinnati within its metro. Cincinnati, relatively speaking, is not a big producer for a city its size aside from what, GE and P&G factories which smell like soap?

Coldayman. What does Orlando produce? Happy smiles? Really. The manufacturing base is larger than Orlando and Indy, but yet  both beat the Cincy metro in GDP.

It's market value of production, not how much production a city has.  Meaning whatever Indy or Orlando produces, it's worth more than what Cincinnati produces overall.

I don't know if it is a good thing or a bad thing, Jam.  It could mean that the metro is, for lack of a better term, more productive per capita..... or it could mean that a bigger chunk of our GMP is created by people who work in our metro but reside elsewhere.... which would open another discussion about whether THAT is a good or bad thing.  But, in the end, just like the difference in population is negligible and probably damn close to a margin of error.... so is the comparative difference in GMP.  That said, it does speak well to the diversification of Cleveland MSA's economy given Cincy's rather wide lead in mega corps.

 

That's a good point...it could partially be an effect of many of what we all know are Cleveland suburbs actually being located in the Akron MSA.

I always find it interesting that Cincinnati has ~5% lower GMP than Cleveland even though the population of Cincinnati's metro area has surpassed Cleveland's.  I wouldn't have expected Cleveland's GMP per capita to be that much higher than Cincinnati's.

 

But Cleveland's CSA is still larger. Does that play any effect on these numbers? And a large portion of Cincinnati's MSA is out of state.

I don't know if it is a good thing or a bad thing, Jam.  It could mean that the metro is, for lack of a better term, more productive per capita..... or it could mean that a bigger chunk of our GMP is created by people who work in our metro but reside elsewhere.... which would open another discussion about whether THAT is a good or bad thing.  But, in the end, just like the difference in population is negligible and probably damn close to a margin of error.... so is the comparative difference in GMP.  That said, it does speak well to the diversification of Cleveland MSA's economy given Cincy's rather wide lead in mega corps.

 

That's a good point...it could partially be an effect of many of what we all know are Cleveland suburbs actually being located in the Akron MSA.

 

I don't understand this.  If it is measuring MDP based on MSA, wouldn't those same suburbs count toward Akron's MDP?

^I think the hypothesis is that a significant number of people are commuting in from outside the MSA, so their production is counted towards Cleveland's GMP, but not its MSA population; as a result, an extra-igh CMP per capita compared to other Ohio MSAs.

What's all these terms? MDP? GMP=GDP? Purchasing power is another indicator.

What's all these terms? MDP? GMP=GDP? Purchasing power is another indicator.

 

The GMP I used was for "Gross Metropolitan Product".

I always find it interesting that Cincinnati has ~5% lower GMP than Cleveland even though the population of Cincinnati's metro area has surpassed Cleveland's.  I wouldn't have expected Cleveland's GMP per capita to be that much higher than Cincinnati's.

It really depends how you look at it. Both Cincinnati and Pittsburgh's metro areas are huge because they are the only city that everyone commutes in to. Cleveland and Akron are separate even though there is a major commuting pattern between the metro areas. If you lay Cincinnati's metro over Cleveland, Akron would definitely be included. To really compare, it would be necessary IMO to combine Cleveland and Akron then see how it pans out. Comparing metros is such a difficult thing with all of the different variables.

^Hmm lets see.

 

Cleveland/Akron 2010 urban area.

 

 

 

Cincinnati/Dayton 2010 urban area.

 

Exactly. Cleveland to Canton is the same distance as Cinci to Dayton. Plus Cinci stretches quite a few counties into Indiana and Kentucky which doesn't show on your map.

^ These two maps are very helpful in numerous ways, but neither represent the two city's MSA's (which, in Cincinnati's case, does not yet include the Dayton MSA).  Probably what has surprised me most of all is discovering that Indy outproduces all the 3-Cs (does it not?).  What a "wake up call" this was...not good at all! (at least if one is from Ohio)

^ These two maps are very helpful in numerous ways, but neither represent the two city's MSA's (which, in Cincinnati's case, does not yet include the Dayton MSA).  Probably what has surprised me most of all is discovering that Indy outproduces all the 3-Cs (does it not?).  What a "wake up call" this was...not good at all! (at least if one is from Ohio)

 

Indy was listed at $105.3 billion, below Cleveland. 

Right the maps show how close Cleveland and Akron and Cincinnati and Dayton are, but don't give a breakdown on the numbers we need to see. Maybe a better measure would be the Cleveland CSA vs the Cincinnati CSA. The fact that Cleveland can't include Summit county, a county on its border will always throw off numbers in lists like these. That's like Cincinnati not being able to include Butler County in any of its stats.

^Exactly...that's all I was saying.  I can say 1/4 of my office lives in Summit County. A good friend of mine commutes from Bratenahl to downtown Akron. 

If commuting patterns are being considered, Dayton has every right to be part of the Cincinnati CSA.  For decades people have lived on the outskirts of either city/metro and commuted to the other for employment.  It's part of the reason I-75 is such a disaster during rush hours.

 

ColDayMan touched on this yesterday.  GDP is the value of goods, etc. produced within a defined boundary.  It does not evaluate the overall value of corporations and firms within said boundary and certainly doesn't reflect regional strength of a white-collar community. 

 

Fictional example: If Phoenix has five enormous Fortune 500's, but the two largest plants in the region press cardboard and make soup, Phoenix's GDP may be lower than Denver's, which has three huge Fortune 500's, but the city cranks out textiles and pharmaceuticals.  GDP rankings typically fall closely in line with the size of the market within a specific boundary, but making beer that flies off shelves across the world has something to do with St. Louis being higher than all of the Ohio cities.  The amount of external investment a region experiences also has a significant impact on it's GDP.  Chicago's hub status inflates its GDP, and Minneapolis' growth has provoked corporations into investing there.  By definition, that makes Minneapolis more competitive than any of Ohio's metros, boosting that city's ranking.

^ These two maps are very helpful in numerous ways, but neither represent the two city's MSA's (which, in Cincinnati's case, does not yet include the Dayton MSA).  Probably what has surprised me most of all is discovering that Indy outproduces all the 3-Cs (does it not?).  What a "wake up call" this was...not good at all! (at least if one is from Ohio)

 

Indy was listed at $105.3 billion, below Cleveland. 

You're right--I trusted my memory when I should have referred back to the stats before posting. 

GDP rankings typically fall closely in line with the size of the market within a specific boundary, but making beer that flies off shelves across the world has something to do with St. Louis being higher than all of the Ohio cities.

 

Bingo.

I think we need a tie breaker as the streams of piss are about equal right now

The metro GDP numbers have been updated, not only for 2013, but for the past decade.  All of Ohio's metros jumped, some fairly significantly.  The gap between the 3-Cs shrank even more.

 

Updated Metro GDP 2001-2013 (Numbers in Millions)

Akron

2001: 21,646

2002: 22,742

2003: 23,744

2004: 25,217

2005: 26,649

2006: 27,418

2007: 28,177

2008: 28,663

2009: 27,761

2010: 28,616

2011: 29,425

2012: 31,012

2013: 31,485

 

Cincinnati

2001: 79,973

2002: 82,878

2003: 86,065

2004: 89,950

2005: 94,980

2006: 97,697

2007: 100,929

2008: 102,405

2009: 100,626

2010: 104,538

2011: 108,509

2012: 115,124

2013: 119,090

 

Cleveland

2001: 88,068

2002: 91,035

2003: 94,704

2004: 99,642

2005: 103,357

2006: 106,011

2007: 108,007

2008: 109,728

2009: 105,035

2010: 109,654

2011: 114,364

2012: 120,393

2013: 122,878

 

Columbus

2001: 74,452

2002: 78,138

2003: 80,686

2004: 84,380

2005: 88,405

2006: 91,303

2007: 93,748

2008: 94,163

2009: 92,924

2010: 96,855

2011: 101,196

2012: 108,757

2013: 114,253

 

Dayton

2001: 29,678

2002: 30,720

2003: 31,421

2004: 32,687

2005: 33,840

2006: 35,175

2007: 35,196

2008: 34,828

2009: 33,234

2010: 34,271

2011: 35,776

2012: 37,211

2013: 37,534

 

Toledo

2001: 22,220

2002: 22,984

2003: 23,721

2004: 24,594

2005: 25,471

2006: 26,303

2007: 26,472

2008: 25,833

2009: 25,821

2010: 26,912

2011: 29,295

2012: 30,942

2013: 31,168

 

Youngstown

2001: 15,241

2002: 15,837

2003: 16,152

2004: 17,045

2005: 17,833

2006: 18,459

2007: 18,441

2008: 17,807

2009: 16,158

2010: 17,148

2011: 18,806

2012: 19,230

2013: 18,885

 

Rankings

Total Change 2001-2013, in Millions

Columbus: +39,801

Cincinnati: +39,117

Cleveland: +34,810

Akron: +10,199

Toledo: +8,948

Dayton: +7,856

Youngstown: +3,644

 

Total % Change 2001-2013

Columbus: +53.46%

Cincinnati: +48.91%

Akron: +45.45%

Toledo: +40.27%

Cleveland: +39.53%

Dayton: +26.47%

Youngstown: +23.91%

 

Total Change 2012-2013, in Millions

Columbus: +5,496

Cincinnati: +3,966

Cleveland: +2,485

Akron: +473

Dayton: +323

Toledo: +226

Youngstown: -345

 

Total % Change 2012-2013

Columbus: +5.05%

Cincinnati: +3.44%

Cleveland: +2.06%

Akron: +1.53%

Dayton: +0.87%

Toledo: 0.73%

Youngstown: -1.79%

 

Gap between the 3-Cs

Cincinnati vs. Cleveland

2001: -8,095

2013: -3,788

 

Cincinnati vs. Columbus

2001: +5,521

2013: +4,837

 

Cleveland vs. Columbus

2001: +13,616

2013: +8,625

I wonder if any other state has such a small gap between their three largest metropolitan areas. North Carolina maybe?

I wonder if any other state has such a small gap between their three largest metropolitan areas. North Carolina maybe?

 

What three NC metros? Maybe two metros -- like Texas or California. But no one else.