U.S. Metro Economies 2012 Employment Forecast and the Impact of Exports Including Household Median Income January 2012 The United States Conference of Mayors Prepared for: The United States Conference of Mayors and The Council for the New American City Prepared by:
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
U.S. Metro Economies2012 Employment Forecast and the Impact of Exports
Including Household Median IncomeJanuary 2012
The United States Conference of Mayors
Prepared for:
The United States Conference of Mayors and The Council for the New American City
Prepared by:
January 2012
No one has been hit harder by the Great Recession than the 8.8 million Americans who have lost their jobs during the most significant economic downturn in generations.
Our nation’s mayors are focused on doing everything we can to help the jobless, the underemployed, and those worried about losing their jobs.
This report, prepared by IHS Global Insight as part of the US Conference of Mayors’ U.S. Metro Economy series, highlights where we are and the challenges that lie ahead.
At the close of 2011, 125 cities and their metro areas had not seen any net job growth. By the end of last year, the economy as a whole had regained only 30 percent of jobs lost from the Great Recession.
The outlook for 2012 is better. By the end of this year, the report forecasts that almost every one of our 363 metro economies will see job gains and the nation will have gained back 48 percent of its lost jobs. But de-spite this progress, one thing remains clear: the recovery is slow and it’s uneven. For almost 80 of our metro areas, it will take more than five years to get back to pre-recession levels of employment.
The report notes that consumer confidence is an important part of our recovery. When Congress fails to reach necessary agreements on long-term debt reduction, short-term tax cuts and infrastructure spending, the public grows cynical and disillusioned. This is not good for our economy, our cities, or our local busi-nesses. Obstruction might be good short-term politics, but it’s bad long-term economics.
Next year cities and their metro areas will generate 90.4 percent of our Gross Domestic Product and 85.6 percent of the nation’s jobs. We are the engines of the U.S. economy, and investment in our future is an investment in the future prosperity of our country.
If Congress will give us the tools, we will put them to use. We will get our constituents back to work and get America’s economy humming again.
As mayors, we call on Congress to work with the President to advance initiatives that speed our nation’s recovery and new jobs that come with it. The time for stopgaps and last minute extensions is over. It is time for leadership.
Sincerely,
Antonio R. Villaraigosa Mayor of Los Angeles President The United States Conference of Mayors
1
INTRODUCTION – NATIONAL ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
The recovery from the Great Recession continued in 2011, though its pace almost stalled in the summer months, as uncertainty reigned and confidence plummeted due to sovereign debt crises in the US and Europe. Nevertheless, the US economic outlook has improved, with real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) expected to increase by 3.4% in the fourth quarter and 1.8% for the year once final figures are tallied. This growth is a result of improvements in business confidence, consumer spending, and housing starts.
However, contractionary domestic fiscal policy, slower global growth, and the Eurozone financial crisis will still mean at least some tightening of credit conditions in the United States. The housing sector, whose health is key to a robust recovery, remains sluggish. Demand among young adults for new housing is tied to their employment prospects; mortgage credit remains tight, though it has loosened a bit in 2011; and home prices continue to fall under the pressure of foreclosures and excess supply. Appendix Tables 8 and 9 detail the decline in home prices experienced by most metro areas in 2011. For the US, house prices are estimated to have fallen by 4% over the course of the year. This decline in home values further reduced household wealth by over $500 billion, adding to pressures on consumer spending. It also further stresses the property tax base of local governments going forward.
Even with a stronger domestic performance, the recession risk for the U.S. thus remains uncomfortably high, at 30%. IHS Global Insight predicts a mild recession in the Eurozone in 2011 - 2012. However, the Eurozone recession is not expected to be severe enough to tip the United States into recession. It will primarily impact export demand and corporate earnings of US firms.
While employment growth over the last few months of the year was not as weak as first feared, it was still sluggish, at just 137,000 jobs per month on average in the last quarter. The unemployment rate has finally started to edge down, to 8.5% in December 2011. While encouraging, we should note that some of the reduction came from a decline in the labor force in November and December. Consumer spending, meanwhile, has been doing far better than sentiment readings would suggest. IHS Global Insight expects consumer spending growth of 2.2% for 2011. Suppressed demand, as consumers have recently delayed replacement purchases, is now helping spending to improve in areas such as vehicles, while holiday sales should also increase substantially (up around 5% year on year in nominal dollars, very similar to 2010). However, consumers face too many headwinds to allow a robust spending recovery after the holiday season. A weak labor market, high debt burdens, housing prices that have not yet hit bottom, price increases that have outpaced wage growth, and a lack of confidence in the government’s effectiveness and accountability will keep spending growth moderate in the coming year. Inflation concerns, though, are easing. A combination of higher gasoline prices and food prices has raised CPI
2
inflation to 3.1% this year. In addition, in the face of weak demand growth and some pullback in commodity prices, core inflation is beginning to slow.
Real GDP is predicted to increase a soft 2.0% in 2012. As a result, IHS Global Insight expects job growth to stay weak and the unemployment rate to remain above 8% over the course of the year. IHS expects a modest improvement in housing starts during 2012 (730,000 units, compared with 610,000 in 2011), concentrated in the multifamily segment, since pent-up demand is already helping the rental market. With less upward pressure from oil and food, we expect CPI inflation to fall back to 1.5% in 2012.
LONGER TERM RISKS
Over the longer term, IHS Global Insight expects the recovery to pick up steam, but there are serious risks on the horizon. One concern is government budget policy. The congressional super committee tasked with cutting $1.2 trillion off the budget deficit over the next 10 years has failed, making budget sequester possible. Budget sequester would mean that in 2013, mandatory and automatic spending cuts of $1.2 trillion would begin to take effect. This would come in the form of $110 billion of budget authority per year. In the first year, $55 billion in spending cuts would be eliminated from discretionary defense spending. Government spending has already been declining recently, and IHS expects this to continue through 2016 at the federal, state, and local levels. Such spending reductions put a drag on GDP; in 2012 federal, state, and local spending will decline by 2.5%, which will decrease GDP growth by 0.5 percentage points. IHS expects the cuts to include wages and salaries, which will in turn dampen job growth and spending.
In addition, the current sequester debate highlights how far apart Democrats and Republicans are in their vision for government, and how drastic current levels of gridlock remain in the U.S. federal government. Gridlock prevents government action to adapt to the current economic situation. It has also resulted in a crisis of confidence by the American people in their leadership. Negative perceptions of Congress dampen consumer confidence and sentiments, which have already been declining in recent years. IHS expects that decline to continue in the near term. The result will be less spending and longer delays in purchasing, putting more drag on economic growth and contributing to the sluggishness of the recovery.
Further stressing local communities in this environment is the threat to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which provides federal funding for housing, economic development, neighborhood revitalization, and other community development activities. In a 2011 report, IHS Global Insight "demonstrated the unique economic contributions of the CDBG grant program in communities across the US. Our results suggest that in the last year the $3.95 billion in grant funds generated 137,000 jobs and contributed $12.1 billion in Gross Domestic Product, following up on the economic successes of the last decade, as well as providing numerous valuable social benefits." Over the past two fiscal years, CDBG funding has been reduced by $1 billion, suggesting the potential loss of 35,000 new jobs.
3
The median real income for US households in 2010 was $49,455. This is 7.1% lower than median real household income in 1999, which was $53,252 (in 2010 dollars). This decline has been even steeper for those in lower income groups, leading to increased income inequality and deteriorating financial stability for many Americans. From 1999 to 2010, income values for the bottom 10% of American earners declined by 12.1%.
Figure 1 demonstrates the sharp deterioration in median income in the past decade. At the same time the share of income earned by the top 20% of households continued to increase. Since 1970 the share of the top quintile has increased from 43.3% to over half, 50.2% in 2010.
Figure 1: Median Income Through the Years
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
40%
43%
46%
49%
52%
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Median real incomeShare of income in highest quintile
The trend of the past decade of declining median income and increasing income inequality has continued during the recovery from the Great Recession. Median income declined 2.3% from 2009 to 2010. Those in the bottom two-fifths of the income distribution also had a smaller share of aggregate income in 2010 than 2009. In 2010, the bottom 20% of households received 3.3% of the income, down from 3.4% in 2009, 3.6% in 2000, and 4.1% in 1970. These income trends are worrisome for the health and growth of the economy. As lower-income households spend a greater portion of their incomes as consumption, the constraint in their spending power retards consumer demand, adding to the sluggish performance of the national economy.
Income decline and increasing inequality is an important issue for metro areas, as the trend in median income decline has not been experienced evenly. From 2009 to 2010, metro area households experienced a 2.2% decline in median household income while households in rural areas did not experience a statistically significant decline. Those living in cities saw a 3.4% decline in income while those outside cities saw income decline by 2.4%. Appendix table 1 details metro median incomes from 2007 to 2010. In 2010 median household income ranged from $31,700 in Brownsville, TX, to $84,500 in Washington, DC. In that year median income declined in 216 metros.
4
An additional stress on household finances going forward is the rapid accumulation of student loan indebtedness. With persistently high unemployment and diminished job and career prospects for recent college graduates, these loan balances further erode welfare and spending. The Federal Reserve estimates that student loan balances in the second quarter of 2011 amounted to $845 billion.
METRO EMPLOYMENT IN 2012
In 2011, the US added more than 1.6 million jobs to its payrolls, growing 1.3% over 2010. This is a welcome turnaround, as the United States previously suffered three consecutive years of net job losses as a result of the Great Recession of 2007-2009. Throughout that period, total nonfarm payrolls contracted by 6.2% and shed over 8.6 million jobs. The detrimental and costly effects of the Great Recession have been felt in all 363 metropolitan statistical areas that we measure. Consider Los Angeles, which saw over 500,000 jobs disappear in just three years. A brighter day is dawning in the US, however - by the end of 2012, US total nonfarm payrolls will have grown by another 1.3%, and the nation will have regained 48% of the jobs lost in the recession, putting itself on solid footing to maintain strong positive growth in 2013 and beyond. Figure 2 illustrates the year in which each metro will regain the jobs lost since its pre-recessionary peak employment. At this time only 26 metro areas have completely recovered jobs lost in the recession. By the end of 2012, another 26 will have, and an additional 99 will have recouped over one-half of their losses. But for almost 80 metros, full recovery is over five years away. The recovery is very uneven across US regions, with the southeastern and southwestern metros, who were most affected by the housing bubble, looking ahead to years of recovery.
Figure 2: Return to Peak Employment for Metro Areas
PEAK2010 to 20112012 to 20132014 to 20152016 to 2017Past 2017
5
This is the most protracted period of underemployment in US economic history since the Great Depression and World War II. All subsequent recessions in the 20th century saw payroll jobs quickly regain previous peak levels with a strong first year of economic recovery. In 2001, however, a shallow recession was followed by a 'jobless' recovery. Job losses did continue after the economy began to grow, but all losses were recouped within two years of employment growth, four years after the downturn began. The recovery from the most recent recession is now passing both of those benchmarks, with two years of job gains, and four years since the start of the downturn, yet less than 30% of lost jobs have been recovered by the end of 2011.
In 2011, US metros saw a wide range of employment growth. For example Victoria, TX and Hot Springs, AZ expanded by greater than 6.0%, while Missoula, MT and Dalton, GA both contracted by more than 4.5%. Thirty-five metros registered job growth higher than 3.0%, and 122 (33%) metros posted growth above the national average of 1.3% in 2011. Meanwhile, 241 (67%) US metros fell below the 1.3% growth mark, including 125 metros that did not see positive gains at all.
Figure 3: Employment Growth Across Metro Areas, End of 2012
In contrast to the 125 metro areas that shrunk in 2011, all but three of the nation’s metros will experience positive employment growth during 2012 (see appendix table 2). Led by Myrtle Beach, SC with a 3.0% payroll expansion, 181 (50%) of the metro areas will at least match average of 1.3% growth in 2012. The remaining 179 metros will all show positive growth between 0.1% and 1.3% (see figure 3).
6
Job growth in 2012 will come predominantly through several important sectors: education and health services, trade, transportation, and utilities, and professional and business services (see figure 4). The trade, transportation, and utilities sector contracted during the recession, but will maintain the positive growth of 2011 and post 563,000 new jobs, growing a respectable 2.3% over the next year. Education and health services, which was relatively unaffected by the mass layoffs seen in other industries during the recession, will grow at a rate of 2.4% over 2012 and add 478,000 jobs. Another important sector, which will make up for much of the losses seen in sectors such as government and construction, is the high-paying professional and business services sector. This sector will add almost 400,000 jobs and grow at a rate of 2.3% over the year. Metro areas that have a high concentration in these industries will benefit the most from this employment growth. While these sectors will show the most significant growth, virtually all areas are projected to add jobs in 2012. In fact, the government sector, due to practical fiscal belt-tightening, and construction, natural resources, and mining, due to a continued housing slump, will be the only industries to shrink.
Figure 4: US Employment By Sector (Thous.), End of 2012 2011Q4 2012Q4 Diff Total Nonfarm 131,553 133,315 1,762 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 24,990 25,553 563 Educational and Health Services 20,166 20,644 478 Professional and Business Services 17,304 17,708 404 Leisure and Hospitality 13,379 13,678 300 Manufacturing 11,723 11,911 187 Financial Activities 7,557 7,644 87 Construction, Natural Resources, Mining 6,259 6,123 -135 Government 22,146 21,950 -196
Of the nation’s 363 metro areas, 11 of the top 50 largest are located within the South Atlantic Region. Many of these metros, especially in Florida and South Carolina, will see a boost in their services industries in 2012, particularly the tourism-related segments. The upswing in tourism, along with the amelioration of major losses in the local housing market, will help give the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metro’s professonal and business services sector, for example, 3.2% job growth and 13,800 new jobs in 2012.
Another boost for South Atlantic metros will come from the Columbia and Panama free-trade pacts recently signed, which will spur growth in South Florida with increased levels of trade from Latin America. Indeed, both the Miami and Tampa-St. Petersburg areas of Florida will both expand payrolls by 1.7% (see Appendix Table 2), thanks in large part to the trade and transportation sector picking up steam in 2012 (2.9% and 2,5%, respectively). Nearby Atlanta, Georgia will also benefit; it has among the highest concentrations of workers in wholesale trade and transportation services in the country. That sector will grow 2.8% in Atlanta over the next year, and will produce nearly half of all the jobs in what is the seventh largest metro in the US. An efficient and well-designed transportation infrastructure has also created a
7
growing and stable trade sector in the Charlotte and other North and South Carolina metros.
Sharp contractions in government payrolls, however, will have both direct and indirect negative impacts in Maryland, Virginia, and DC--areas that during the Great Recession benefited by an expansion of federal jobs. Despite these losses, Baltimore and the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria metros will experience overall positive employment growth in 2012 of 1.1% each due to major additions to the education, health, professional and business services sectors.
In the Middle Atlantic and New England regions, education and health services and professional business services will be the main drivers in employment growth for New York, Philadelphia, and Boston as they grow total employment by 1.7%, 1.5%, and 1.1% respectively. The healthcare sector continues to be a bright spot in the region; New York and Pennsylvania have the third and fourth highest concentrations of healthcare jobs, respectively, in the nation. Equally important to New England is the educational services sector, as the greater Boston metro is home to several prominent universities that act as major employers for the area. Not only do these universities provide jobs, they also create a highly educated workforce to meet the demand for rapidly expanding professional and business services in New England.
In the Pittsburgh metro and surrounding area, the natural resources and mining sector grew 5.8% in 2011 as a result of Marcellus Shale prospects. Drilling and extraction from this shale has the potential to bring significant new and sustainable growth in natural resource and mining employment for not only Pittsburgh, but smaller regional metros such as Youngstown, Ohio; Binghamton, New York; and Wheeling, West Virginia.
From the automotive assembly lines in Michigan, to metal mining and fabrication in Ohio, manufacturing is the dominant industry in the East North Central region. Although this sector has been on the decline for over a decade in the nation’s Rust Belt, durable manufacturing employment payrolls grew 4.1% in 2011 and will expand by another 3.2% in 2012. The momentum provided by this uptick in manufacturing has spread to other sectors. For example, often overlooked in the Detroit-Warren-Livonia metro are its large services sectors. Following 2011’s addition of almost 7,000 net new jobs and 2.2% growth in professional and business services, the overall services sectors, including education, health, and hospitality will add 8,000 jobs in 2012. Education and health services will play a major role in sustaining employment growth in the Minneapolis-St. Paul and Cleveland metros. In 2011, this sector experienced growth of 1.7% in Cleveland, and in 2012 the sector will see more robust growth of 2.4%, which will translate into over 4,000 jobs. Minneapolis-St. Paul will build on 2.7% growth in 2011, expanding healthcare services payrolls by 2.8% in 2012 and adding 7,500 jobs.
Other East North Central states, such as Illinois and Wisconsin, are more economically diverse. The Chicago-Naperville-Joliet metro will add the most jobs (58,500) of any metro in the region. Not only does Chicago have a large and diverse
8
financial sector, where over 30 Fortune 500 companies are headquartered, but it also continues to be home to a main transportation hub and a strong services industry. It is this diversity that has insulated the area from the economic woes of a traditionally manufacturing dependent region.
From the Marcellus Shale in the Northeast to the Barnett Shale in northern Texas, natural resources and mining is projected to grow strongly. But energy-rich states such as Texas and Oklahoma in the West South Central region will also expand in other areas. For example the Dallas-Fort Worth metro has become the Southwest’s largest wholesale trade center, and one of the region’s major retail hubs. The trade and transportation sectors will contribute over 17,000 new jobs in 2012, helping total payrolls rise at a rate of 1.9%. In Houston, trade and transportation will grow 2.9% and add 15,000 jobs as the Port of Houston gains a larger share of trade from fast-growing emerging markets--a benefit in part from the expansion of the Panama Canal.
The West South Central region will also see robust growth in the services industries. In 2012, professional business services will add 12,800 jobs in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro growing at 2.8%, 10,500 jobs in the Houston metro growing 2.8%, and 1,900 jobs in Oklahoma City metro at 2.4% growth. These three metro economies will also be augmented by 23,400 new education and health services workers.
Throughout the Mountain and West North Central regions, prosperity due to the recent boom in on-shore oil and gas production will have both positive direct and indirect effects for the regions and the metros contained within. The Denver metro, for instance, is slated to post 1.6% total employment growth in 2012. Thanks to its central location, Denver is a major transportation and distribution hub, and the metro’s improved economic growth is a result of its largest sector: trade, transportation, and utilities. This sector will add 6,300 jobs and grow at a rate of 2.7%. The Phoenix metro, supported by a growing retiree population and a subdued local housing market will also expand the trade and transportation sector by 13,600 jobs, growing 3.8% in 2012.
The Pacific region continues to be an attractive hot spot for skilled labor such as scientists, engineers, and software programmers, which drives employment growth in the professional and business services sector that supports them. In 2012, Los Angeles will see growth in most of its major employment sectors adding 57,500 jobs and growing 1.1%. Leading the way will be services: education health, professional and business and leisure and hospitality – all of which will post payroll increases of over 13,000 new jobs on the year. Similarly in the Seattle metro, the professional and business services will round out 2011 by adding 16,000 on the year–an impressive 7.2% rate of growth from the third largest sector in the area. This expansion will continue in 2012 with 7,000 new jobs and 3.0% growth. Seattle will also boast significant growth from transportation and trade in which 7,400 new jobs in 2012 (2.4%) will be added on top of the 5,800 in 2011 (1.9%).
9
On the heels of 1.3% growth and 1.6 million new jobs added to US payrolls in 2011, the US is poised to make significant strides in 2012, beginning the climb out of the hole dug during the Great Recession. Although important sectors such as manufacturing may never return to previous levels of employment, and construction and government continue to be weak, other sectors will pick up the slack. From New York to Los Angeles, the 1.3% growth and 1.7 million additional jobs forecast for 2012 will largely come in the resilient education and health services sector, and the trade, transportation, and burgeoning professional and business sectors.
METROPOLITAN AREA EXPORTS
Over the past two decades, the merchandise value of manufactured exports in the US has tripled, reaching $1.28 trillion in 2010, or 8.8% of GDP — up from 6.9% in 1990. International trade is a key economic support for metropolitan areas, and has been one of the few fiscal bright spots as the nation slowly emerges from the recession. International trade connects metros with fast-growing and developing countries and adds diversity from purely domestic demand. It supports local manufacturers and creates jobs in the warehousing, logistics, and transportation industries. Foreign trade increases competition, requiring firms to be more efficient and innovative. It also encourages specialization and economies of scale, improving quality and prices of goods sold. Overall, trade helps markets allocate resources in the most efficient way. It is no surprise then that metro economies, already centers for innovation and efficiency, dominate the US export industry and stand to gain the most from global trade.
Figure 5: Nation's Largest Metros are the Top Exporters 2010 Level Rank GMP Exports New York-Nrthrn New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 1 1 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 2 3 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 3 7 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 4 22 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 5 2 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 6 10 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 7 9 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 8 13 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 9 11 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 10 17 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 11 5 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 12 6 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 13 12 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 14 4 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 15 28 Source: Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis
Note: export values through the first half of 2010
10
Metro areas are the US export leaders. Similar to their share of employment and output, they account for 88% of the nation's exports. The largest metros are also our top exporters (see figure 5), with the 20 biggest metro economies comprising 50% of the total US share. Comprehensive historical export data for metros is limited, but just over the last few years foreign trade has grown tremendously in metros. From 2005-2008, export merchandise value increased in 300 metros, expanded by over 50% in 168 metros, and doubled in 70.
Outside of the size of the export market, the relationship of export merchandise value to gross metro product (GMP) provides further perspective on the relative importance of international trade (appendix table 6)1. For many small metros, the impact on their local economy is enormous. Out of the top 15 metro export/GMP ratios, only three are among the 100 largest metro areas (see figure 6). International trade encourages specialization and economies of scale, which is more pronounced in smaller metros, which tend to focus on one or two types of export products. For example, Peoria, Illinois and Davenport, Iowa, the headquarters of Caterpillar and John Deere, respectively, rely on machinery for the bulk of their exports. A number of other metros specialize in the shipment of a single type of export product, including Detroit and Kokomo, Indiana, both in transportation equipment; Victoria, Texas and Kingsport, Tennessee, in chemicals; Burlington, Vermont in computers/electronics; Sioux City, Iowa in food; and Racine, Wisconsin in machinery.
While much has been made about the jobs lost from overseas competition, strong foreign markets also serve as a key consumer of US-made goods. It is true that many of the low-skill labor-intensive manufacturing jobs have been offshored, but there are many metros that produce capital-intensive durable goods for largely foreign markets. In the 15 metros in figure 6, there are 12 where the concentration of manufacturing jobs tops 10%, and 8 have manufacturing employment concentrations ranking in the top 100. These manufacturing sectors would suffer if their export markets were not as large.
Canada, Mexico, and China are the largest US export destinations and contribute 19.5%, 12.8%, and 7.2% of total merchandise value, respectively. Clearly, location matters — the two US border countries account for a third of our total exports. The size of the market is also important, which is why China overtook Japan in 2007 to become the third largest export destination. 1 It is important to put the export data in context with GMP, which is a value-added figure and estimated with more precision than export merchandise value. The export data series excludes service exports and is collected through origin-of-movement, zip code-based data. The origin-of-movement calculation is not a perfect representation of the local benefits created by trade activity because only final sales value is counted (omitting intermediate goods that could come outside the export area), and in cases where goods are consolidated, the merchandise value is assigned to the location of the consolidation point. This means that export values in metro areas that serve as primary warehousing points can be overstated, which is apparent in a few metros that specialize in warehousing/distribution. While this series is thus prone to some statistical noise, it offers a glimpse into the importance of international trade (see appendix table 6).
11
Figure 6: Top Export-to-GMP Ratios 2010Q2, %
Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA 59.9 Peoria, IL 51.6 Longview, WA 35.5 El Paso, TX 35.0 Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC 33.5 Kokomo, IN 33.5 Burlington-South Burlington, VT 31.1 Victoria, TX 30.5 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL 29.0 Sioux City, IA-NE-SD 27.9 Janesville, WI 27.4 Savannah, GA 26.9 Racine, WI 26.2 Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI 25.7 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 22.2
With the exception of Seattle, all of the top exporters located in the northern portion of the US send the largest share of their goods to Canada (see figure 7). The top exporters in the south are not as homogenized. Mexico is the leading destination for Houston and Los Angeles, but Canada is Dallas' top destination, while Miami ships most of its exports to Latin America. About half of these top exporters have a diverse set of trade destinations, such as Miami, Boston, and New York, while others like Detroit rely on their top few trading partners for most of their exports.
Figure 7: Top Metropolitan Exporter Destinations, % Top Share of
Country Total Top 3 New York-Northern NJ-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Canada 12.3 25.3 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Mexico 13.4 29.2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Mexico 21.8 45.3 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Canada 37.0 76.7 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Venezuela 9.8 22.9 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA China 13.8 32.3 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Canada 32.7 50.8 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA South Korea 12.3 30.2 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Canada 25.4 50.2 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Canada 15.4 35.6 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Canada 11.0 28.7 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Canada 22.1 44.8
12
Metropolitan Ports: Exports and Imports
It is important to take a broad view of foreign trade by also looking at imports. The US runs a trade deficit, meaning that the value of goods entering the country exceeds the value of those leaving. In an increasingly globalized economy, American consumers rely on more and more imported goods each year. In 2010, the dollar value of imports totaled $1.91 trillion, or about 13.1% of US GDP. Meanwhile, American companies exported $1.28 trillion, or about 8.8% of GDP. To handle the total $3.19 trillion of shipments entering and leaving the country, massive infrastructure is required to ensure that goods move quickly and efficiently. US ports are at the center of these operations, and the largest ports reside in the nation's key metro areas.
To focus on port activity we looked at the US customs districts, which are clusters of air, vessel, and freight facilities that work as foreign trade zones and ports of entry. In terms of the merchandise value of imports and exports, New York City leads the nation, just ahead of Los Angeles. The Houston custom district is the leader in the south and third largest in the nation, while Detroit ranks fourth. The top 15 customs districts handle 75% of the total merchandise value entering and leaving the nation.
Figure 8: Top US Custom Districts Merchandise Value, Mil $, YTD 2011Q3
Export Value Import Value Total Value
New York City, NY 121,460 169,067 290,526
Los Angeles, CA 90,533 196,557 287,090
Houston‐Galveston, TX 87,136 111,235 198,371
Detroit, MI 92,329 89,448 181,778
New Orleans, LA 60,997 113,326 174,323
Laredo, TX 70,650 89,791 160,441
Chicago, IL 27,123 102,692 129,814
Savannah, GA 36,739 56,996 93,735
Seattle, WA 50,271 42,943 93,214
San Francisco, CA 37,074 52,226 89,300
Miami, FL 50,822 31,931 82,753
Cleveland, OH 21,946 58,087 80,033
Buffalo, NY 35,180 31,475 66,655
Philadelphia, PA 12,871 51,120 63,991
El Paso, TX 25,837 35,054 60,891
Most customs districts import more than they export. Out of the 15 biggest, only 4 are net exporters. Even in custom districts primarily involved in importing, however, jobs are created. The movement of goods into the country requires labor involved in logistics, transportation, and warehousing. Businesses also cluster near ports,
13
offering them convenient access to shipping routes. Many of the nation's largest cities sprung up around ports, and they will continue to be vital economic drivers in the nation's metropolitan areas.
Looking ahead, export growth will continue to dominate import growth, supported by robust emerging economies and a competitive dollar. Export values will increase 13.5% in 2011 while imports grow by 12.9%, this on the heels of double-digit growth last year. Indeed, in the two years following the 2009 collapse, foreign trade has grown vigorously. IHS Global Insight expects trade to soften in 2012, with export values increasing only 4.2% while import values rise 3.2% as softening growth abroad, including the economic turbulence in the Eurozone, curb trade activity. Over the longer-term, export growth will be strong, averaging 7.9% annually over the next five years, outpacing imports, which will advance by 5.2%. This will chip away at the US trade deficit and open up more opportunities for local firms to sell goods globally.
CONCLUSION
The US economy is recovering slowly, but surely, from the Great Recession. This growth is being led by metro areas, once again the engines of US economic growth. In 2011, metros led US growth, gaining 2.2% to boost national growth to 1.8%. Metros now contribute 90.4% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product. Metros now account for 85.6% of jobs in the nation.
This report has documented the crucial role metro areas play in enabling the nation reap the benefits of international trade. Demand for US exports will be a vital driver of economic growth in the coming decades. Exports will be more important than ever in this decade of retrenching consumers and governments, both burdened by massive debt. Policy makers need to be aware that the maintenance and development of metro economies' continued ability to generate the economic activity derived from exports is essential for the nation to prosper.
IHS Global Insight
Appendix Tables
IHS Global Insight
Table of Contents Table 1: Annual Median Household Income by Metropolitan Area, Thousand $ 1 Table 2: Total Nonfarm Employment Across US Metro Areas 10 Table 3: Metro Employment as a Share of State Employment in 2012 19 Table 4: Metro Area Jobs Regained Since the Great Recession, End of 2012 31 Table 5: Export Merchandise Value by Metropolitan Area, Million $ 40 Table 6: Merchandise Exports as a Percentage of Gross Metropolitan Product 48 Table 7: Largest Ports by US Customs District 56 Table 8: Median Existing Home Prices by Metro Area (Dollars $) 57 Table 9: Median Existing Home Prices by Metro Area (Ranked by Population, Dollars, $) 66
Table 2: Total Nonfarm Employment Across US Metro Areas
(Thousands)
336 Pascagoula, MS 57.5 57.7 0.4 0.2
337 Pittsfield, MA 64.9 65.1 0.4 0.2
338 Goldsboro, NC 41.8 42.0 0.6 0.2
339 Brunswick, GA 40.2 40.4 0.6 0.2
340 Alexandria, LA 65.0 65.2 0.4 0.2
341 Decatur, IL 52.8 53.0 0.4 0.2
342 Ames, IA 46.5 46.7 0.5 0.2
343 El Centro, CA 44.7 44.9 0.5 0.2
344 Yuba City, CA 37.2 37.4 0.5 0.2
345 Danville, VA 39.8 40.0 0.5 0.2
346 Abilene, TX 61.8 61.9 0.3 0.2
347 Jacksonville, NC 47.2 47.4 0.4 0.2
348 Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA 68.8 68.9 0.2 0.2
349 Danville, IL 28.6 28.7 0.6 0.2
350 Albany, GA 61.4 61.6 0.3 0.2
351 Victoria, TX 51.5 51.6 0.3 0.1
352 Madera, CA 31.9 32.0 0.4 0.1
353 San Angelo, TX 45.5 45.6 0.3 0.1
354 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA 160.4 160.5 0.1 0.1
355 Champaign-Urbana, IL 105.3 105.4 0.1 0.1
356 Lawton, OK 43.1 43.2 0.3 0.1
357 Hanford-Corcoran, CA 36.5 36.6 0.3 0.1
358 Wichita Falls, TX 57.4 57.5 0.1 0.1
359 Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA 19.3 19.4 0.4 0.1
360 Pine Bluff, AR 36.4 36.4 0.1 0.0
361 Odessa, TX 63.8 63.7 -0.1 0.0
362 Midland, TX 71.0 70.8 -0.2 -0.1
363 Carson City, NV 28.5 28.2 -1.1 -0.3
IHS Global Insight 18
Employment % of State
AlaskaAnchorage, AK 174.2 52.2Fairbanks, AK 39.8 11.9 Sum of Metro Areas 214.0 64.1
AlabamaAnniston-Oxford, AL 48.6 2.6Auburn-Opelika, AL 54.7 2.9Birmingham-Hoover, AL 491.2 25.9Columbus, GA-AL 13.0 0.7Decatur, AL 54.0 2.8Dothan, AL 56.7 3.0Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL 56.2 3.0Gadsden, AL 35.2 1.9Huntsville, AL 209.5 11.1Mobile, AL 176.7 9.3Montgomery, AL 166.0 8.8Tuscaloosa, AL 93.5 4.9 Sum of Metro Areas 1,455.3 76.8
ArkansasFayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR 199.0 16.8Fort Smith, AR-OK 94.8 8.0Hot Springs, AR 40.1 3.4Jonesboro, AR 48.7 4.1Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR 340.0 28.7Memphis, TN-MS-AR 16.4 1.4Pine Bluff, AR 36.4 3.1Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR 13.7 1.2 Sum of Metro Areas 789.1 66.7
ArizonaFlagstaff, AZ 62.7 2.6Lake Havasu, AZ 46.2 1.9Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 1,734.7 71.2Prescott, AZ 53.0 2.2Tucson, AZ 357.6 14.7Yuma, AZ 48.7 2.0 Sum of Metro Areas 2,302.8 94.5
CaliforniaBakersfield, CA 229.6 1.6Chico, CA 70.7 0.5El Centro, CA 44.7 0.3Fresno, CA 280.5 2.0Hanford-Corcoran, CA 36.5 0.3Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 5,194.9 36.6Madera, CA 32.0 0.2Merced, CA 57.1 0.4Modesto, CA 148.0 1.0
Table 3: Metro Employment as a Share of State Employment in 2012(Number of Jobs, Thousands)
IHS Global Insight 19
Employment % of State
Table 3: Metro Employment as a Share of State Employment in 2012(Number of Jobs, Thousands)
Napa, CA 60.1 0.4Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 277.8 2.0Redding, CA 60.1 0.4Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 1,133.3 8.0Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA 160.4 1.1Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA 809.6 5.7Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 90.1 0.6San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 1,252.6 8.8San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 888.1 6.2Salinas, CA 121.8 0.9San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA 97.1 0.7Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA 170.1 1.2San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 1,911.5 13.5Stockton, CA 190.5 1.3Vallejo-Fairfield, CA 118.0 0.8Visalia-Porterville, CA 107.7 0.8Yuba City, CA 37.3 0.3 Sum of Metro Areas 13,580.0 95.6
ColoradoBoulder, CO 163.7 7.2Colorado Springs, CO 248.1 10.9Denver-Aurora, CO 1,213.6 53.3Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 137.3 6.0Greeley, CO 79.0 3.5Grand Junction, CO 59.0 2.6Pueblo, CO 59.6 2.6 Sum of Metro Areas 1,960.2 86.0
ConnecticutBridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 419.2 25.7Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 618.5 37.9New Haven-Milford, CT 363.8 22.3Norwich-New London, CT 127.4 7.8 Sum of Metro Areas 1,528.9 93.7
District of ColumbiaWashington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (MSA) 715.9 100.0 Sum of Metro Areas
DelawareDover, DE 63.7 15.3Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD (MSA) 275.3 66.1 Sum of Metro Areas 339.0 81.4
Table 3: Metro Employment as a Share of State Employment in 2012(Number of Jobs, Thousands)
Lakeland, FL 193.8 2.6Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL 2,235.5 30.4Naples-Marco Island, FL 110.6 1.5Ocala, FL 91.8 1.2Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 1,028.8 14.0Palm Coast, FL 18.5 0.3Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 190.0 2.6Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL 72.5 1.0Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL 158.4 2.2Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL 120.9 1.6Punta Gorda, FL 41.5 0.6Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL 242.8 3.3Tallahassee, FL 168.4 2.3Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 1,153.8 15.7Vero Beach, FL 43.6 0.6 Sum of Metro Areas 7,031.0 95.6
GeorgiaAlbany, GA 61.4 1.6Athens-Clarke County, GA 80.9 2.1Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 2,267.0 59.1Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 144.8 3.8Brunswick, GA 40.3 1.1Chattanooga, TN-GA 30.7 0.8Columbus, GA-AL 106.0 2.8Dalton, GA 64.3 1.7Gainesville, GA 72.0 1.9Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA 19.3 0.5Macon, GA 96.4 2.5Rome, GA 37.8 1.0Savannah, GA 149.2 3.9Valdosta, GA 51.4 1.3Warner Robins, GA 59.5 1.5 Sum of Metro Areas 3,280.9 85.5
HawaiiHonolulu, HI 445.5 74.5 Sum of Metro Areas
IowaAmes, IA 46.6 3.1Cedar Rapids, IA 139.2 9.3Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL 89.9 6.0Des Moines, IA 322.5 21.5Dubuque, IA 57.2 3.8Iowa City, IA 89.1 5.9Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 49.2 3.3Sioux City, IA-NE-SD 51.9 3.5Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA 90.6 6.0
IHS Global Insight 21
Employment % of State
Table 3: Metro Employment as a Share of State Employment in 2012(Number of Jobs, Thousands)
Sum of Metro Areas 936.1 62.4Idaho
Boise City-Nampa, ID 258.9 42.1Coeur d'Alene, ID 53.1 8.6Idaho Falls, ID 48.9 8.0Lewiston, ID-WA 19.8 3.2Logan, UT-ID 3.3 0.5Pocatello, ID 36.0 5.9 Sum of Metro Areas 420.0 68.3
IllinoisBloomington-Normal, IL 90.7 1.6Champaign-Urbana, IL 105.2 1.8Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (MSA) 4,044.0 70.9Danville, IL 28.6 0.5Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL 93.5 1.6Decatur, IL 52.9 0.9Kankakee-Bradley, IL 45.4 0.8Peoria, IL 186.7 3.3Rockford, IL 145.7 2.6Springfield, IL 112.0 2.0St. Louis, MO-IL 241.9 4.2 Sum of Metro Areas 5,146.7 90.2
IndianaAnderson, IN 39.3 1.4Bloomington, IN 81.0 2.9Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (MSA) 262.7 9.3Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 21.0 0.7Columbus, IN 44.0 1.6Elkhart-Goshen, IN 104.7 3.7Evansville, IN-KY 153.8 5.5Fort Wayne, IN 211.2 7.5Indianapolis, IN 877.1 31.1Kokomo, IN 41.3 1.5Lafayette, IN 94.7 3.4Louisville, KY-IN 96.9 3.4Michigan City-La Porte, IN 42.0 1.5Muncie, IN 48.8 1.7South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI 125.7 4.5Terre Haute, IN 70.5 2.5 Sum of Metro Areas 2,314.5 82.1
Table 3: Metro Employment as a Share of State Employment in 2012(Number of Jobs, Thousands)
Sum of Metro Areas 884.8 66.0Kentucky
Bowling Green, KY 59.5 3.3Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 184.3 10.2Clarksville, TN-KY 35.4 2.0Elizabethtown, KY 46.8 2.6Evansville, IN-KY 23.2 1.3Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 37.3 2.1Lexington-Fayette, KY 252.2 13.9Louisville, KY-IN 515.3 28.4Owensboro, KY 50.8 2.8 Sum of Metro Areas 1,204.8 66.5
LouisianaAlexandria, LA 65.0 3.4Baton Rouge, LA 361.8 18.8Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA 96.6 5.0Lake Charles, LA 91.7 4.8Lafayette, LA 153.3 8.0Monroe, LA 76.2 4.0New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 533.6 27.7Shreveport-Bossier City, LA 181.3 9.4 Sum of Metro Areas 1,559.5 80.9
MassachusettsBarnstable Town, MA 89.4 2.7Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH (MSA) 2,263.6 69.5Pittsfield, MA 65.0 2.0Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 211.7 6.5Springfield, MA 287.8 8.8Worcester, MA 325.6 10.0 Sum of Metro Areas 3,243.1 99.6
MarylandBaltimore-Towson, MD 1,287.4 50.6Cumberland, MD-WV 32.6 1.3Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV 64.3 2.5Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD (MSA) 28.9 1.1Salisbury, MD 52.5 2.1Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (MSA) 941.7 37.1 Sum of Metro Areas 2,407.5 94.7
MaineBangor, ME 72.8 12.1Lewiston-Auburn, ME 50.6 8.4Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME 261.1 43.5 Sum of Metro Areas 384.5 64.1
MichiganAnn Arbor, MI 198.7 5.0Battle Creek, MI 55.6 1.4
IHS Global Insight 23
Employment % of State
Table 3: Metro Employment as a Share of State Employment in 2012(Number of Jobs, Thousands)
Bay City, MI 37.9 1.0Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 1,765.4 44.5Flint, MI 131.3 3.3Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 375.3 9.5Holland-Grand Haven, MI 108.9 2.7Jackson, MI 54.3 1.4Kalamazoo-Portage, MI 139.5 3.5Lansing-East Lansing, MI 221.0 5.6Monroe, MI 37.7 1.0Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI 58.9 1.5Niles-Benton Harbor, MI 61.1 1.5Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI 86.2 2.2South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI 8.9 0.2 Sum of Metro Areas 3,340.8 84.3
MinnesotaDuluth, MN-WI 112.6 4.1Fargo, ND-MN 18.7 0.7Grand Forks, ND-MN 13.0 0.5La Crosse, WI-MN 5.3 0.2Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 1,696.4 62.5Rochester, MN 105.2 3.9St. Cloud, MN 98.8 3.6 Sum of Metro Areas 2,050.0 75.6
MissouriColumbia, MO 93.8 3.5Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO 7.0 0.3Jefferson City, MO 78.2 2.9Joplin, MO 79.6 3.0Kansas City, MO-KS 540.9 20.2Springfield, MO 195.6 7.3St. Joseph, MO-KS 53.2 2.0St. Louis, MO-IL 1,066.2 39.9 Sum of Metro Areas 2,114.5 79.1
MississippiGulfport-Biloxi, MS 107.9 9.8Hattiesburg, MS 59.9 5.4Jackson, MS 253.3 22.9Memphis, TN-MS-AR 71.4 6.5Pascagoula, MS 57.7 5.2 Sum of Metro Areas 550.0 49.8
MontanaBillings, MT 80.3 18.3Great Falls, MT 35.7 8.1Missoula, MT 52.0 11.8 Sum of Metro Areas 167.9 38.3
North Carolina
IHS Global Insight 24
Employment % of State
Table 3: Metro Employment as a Share of State Employment in 2012(Number of Jobs, Thousands)
North DakotaBismarck, ND 64.9 16.1Fargo, ND-MN 106.8 26.6Grand Forks, ND-MN 42.8 10.6 Sum of Metro Areas 214.4 53.3
NebraskaLincoln, NE 177.0 18.3Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 417.5 43.2Sioux City, IA-NE-SD 14.0 1.5Sum of Metro Areas 608.6 62.9
New HampshireBoston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH (MSA) 193.9 30.5Manchester-Nashua, NH 198.5 31.2 Sum of Metro Areas 392.3 61.8
New JerseyAllentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 35.8 0.9Atlantic City, NJ 134.8 3.4New York-Nrthrn NewJersey-Lng Islnd, NY-NJ-PA (MSA) 2,815.1 72.0Ocean City, NJ 41.5 1.1Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD (MSA) 535.0 13.7Trenton-Ewing, NJ 236.4 6.0Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ 58.0 1.5 Sum of Metro Areas 3,856.6 98.7
New MexicoAlbuquerque, NM 372.3 45.9Farmington, NM 49.4 6.1Las Cruces, NM 69.4 8.6Santa Fe, NM 61.4 7.6Sum of Metro Areas 552.5 68.1
Nevada
IHS Global Insight 25
Employment % of State
Table 3: Metro Employment as a Share of State Employment in 2012(Number of Jobs, Thousands)
Carson City, NV 28.3 2.5Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 815.3 72.2Reno-Sparks, NV 187.3 16.6 Sum of Metro Areas 1,030.8 91.3
New YorkAlbany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 438.2 5.0Binghamton, NY 109.9 1.3Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 547.1 6.3Elmira, NY 40.0 0.5Glens Falls, NY 54.6 0.6Ithaca, NY 64.9 0.7Kingston, NY 60.5 0.7New York-Nrthrn New Jersey-Lng Islnd, NY-NJ-PA (MSA) 5,584.7 63.9Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY 250.5 2.9Rochester, NY 519.9 5.9Syracuse, NY 318.9 3.6Utica-Rome, NY 132.0 1.5 Sum of Metro Areas 8,121.2 92.9
OklahomaFort Smith, AR-OK 22.3 1.4Lawton, OK 43.1 2.7Oklahoma City, OK 576.9 36.5Tulsa, OK 420.9 26.6 Sum of Metro Areas 1,063.3 67.3
OregonBend, OR 61.5 3.7Corvallis, OR 38.4 2.3Eugene-Springfield, OR 140.8 8.6
IHS Global Insight 26
Employment % of State
Table 3: Metro Employment as a Share of State Employment in 2012(Number of Jobs, Thousands)
Medford, OR 76.9 4.7Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 859.1 52.3Salem, OR 141.3 8.6 Sum of Metro Areas 1,317.9 80.3
PennsylvaniaAllentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 300.8 5.2Altoona, PA 60.8 1.1Erie, PA 129.6 2.3Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 321.2 5.6Johnstown, PA 61.5 1.1Lancaster, PA 228.8 4.0Lebanon, PA 51.3 0.9NewYork-Nrthrn New Jersey-Lng Islnd, NY-NJ-PA (MSA) 11.0 0.2Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD (MSA) 1,886.1 32.8Pittsburgh, PA 1,156.4 20.1Reading, PA 171.4 3.0Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA 255.0 4.4State College, PA 75.2 1.3Williamsport, PA 52.5 0.9York-Hanover, PA 179.3 3.1Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 50.5 0.9 Sum of Metro Areas 4,991.2 86.9
Rhode IslandProvidence-New Bedford-FallRiver, RI-MA 463.7 100.0 Sum of Metro Areas
South CarolinaAnderson, SC 61.1 3.3Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 64.9 3.5Charleston-North Charleston, SC 291.0 15.8Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 75.4 4.1Columbia, SC 350.7 19.0Florence, SC 83.1 4.5Greenville, SC 301.8 16.4Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC 121.1 6.6Spartanburg, SC 119.6 6.5Sumter, SC 37.0 2.0 Sum of Metro Areas 1,505.6 81.6
South DakotaRapid City, SD 61.4 14.9Sioux City, IA-NE-SD 8.6 2.1Sioux Falls, SD 135.4 33.0 Sum of Metro Areas 205.4 50.0
UtahLogan, UT-ID 52.6 4.3Ogden-Clearfield, UT 202.3 16.3Provo-Orem, UT 186.6 15.1Salt Lake City, UT 629.0 50.8St. George, UT 47.2 3.8 Sum of Metro Areas 1,117.8 90.3
VirginiaBlacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA 68.8 1.9Charlottesville, VA 101.8 2.8Danville, VA 39.9 1.1
IHS Global Insight 28
Employment % of State
Table 3: Metro Employment as a Share of State Employment in 2012(Number of Jobs, Thousands)
Harrisonburg, VA 63.0 1.7Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA 38.0 1.0Lynchburg, VA 106.4 2.9Richmond, VA 598.0 16.3Roanoke, VA 156.2 4.3Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 723.2 19.7Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (MSA) 1,330.2 36.2Winchester, VA-WV 52.8 1.4 Sum of Metro Areas 3,278.1 89.3
VermontBurlington-South Burlington, VT 120.1 39.4 Sum of Metro Areas
WashingtonBellingham, WA 78.5 2.8Bremerton-Silverdale, WA 80.9 2.8Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA 97.9 3.4Lewiston, ID-WA 5.5 0.2Longview, WA 35.1 1.2Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA 44.9 1.6Olympia, WA 98.4 3.5Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 130.4 4.6Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 1,687.7 59.3Spokane, WA 204.9 7.2Wenatchee, WA 39.8 1.4Yakima, WA 74.5 2.6 Sum of Metro Areas 2,578.4 90.6
WisconsinAppleton, WI 116.6 4.2Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (MSA) 56.8 2.0Duluth, MN-WI 112.6 4.1Eau Claire, WI 81.7 2.9Fond du Lac, WI 45.6 1.6Green Bay, WI 166.2 6.0Janesville, WI 61.3 2.2La Crosse, WI-MN 69.8 2.5Madison, WI 352.0 12.6Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 832.8 29.8Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 40.3 1.4Oshkosh-Neenah, WI 94.8 3.4Racine, WI 74.5 2.7Sheboygan, WI 59.4 2.1Wausau, WI 67.6 2.4 Sum of Metro Areas 2,232.0 80.0
West VirginiaCharleston, WV 151.9 20.0Cumberland, MD-WV 8.6 1.1
IHS Global Insight 29
Employment % of State
Table 3: Metro Employment as a Share of State Employment in 2012(Number of Jobs, Thousands)
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV 31.5 4.1Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 64.3 8.5Morgantown, WV 66.2 8.7Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH 44.8 5.9Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (MSA) 14.8 2.0Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH 20.9 2.7Wheeling, WV-OH 43.9 5.8Winchester, VA-WV 4.1 0.5 Sum of Metro Areas 451.1 59.5
WyomingCasper, WY 40.5 13.8Cheyenne, WY 44.4 15.2 Sum of Metro Areas 85.0 29.0
IHS Global Insight 30
Pre-Recession Recession Employment Share of JobsPeak Trough 2012Q4 Recovered