Categories
Data Releases

Raleigh economy continues hot streak

For the second month in a row Raleigh, NC, is the fastest growing job market among large metropolitan areas, according to new data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Year-over-year job growth in Raleigh was 3.7% in December, ranking first among metropolitan areas with employment of 500,000 or more. Raleigh finished the year with a net gain of about 23,000 jobs, pending a revision to the estimates expected next month by BLS. Rounding out the top five large metros were: Austin (3.5%), Dallas (3.4%), Orlando (3.3%), and San Antonio (3.2%). Nashville was at 1.7%, up by about 18,000 jobs on the year, pending the revision.

There were three large metros posting declines in December: Grand Rapids, Hartford, and Memphis.

At the state level Utah led the way in December at 3.3%, followed by Arizona (2.9%), Idaho (2.9%), Texas (2.7%), and Washington (2.5%). Wyoming, West Virginia, Vermont, and Oklahoma were in negative territory in December for the second month in a row.

Categories
Politics

MLS: Austin 2 Nashville 0

For anybody who has ever complained about how difficult it is to build things in Austin or argued about how much easier it would be to “get big things done” if the city had a strong-mayor form of government, check the headlines this week about MLS:

Quite the contrast in two cities that are frequently compared to each another. Compare the two deals and I think most people would agree that Austin came out ahead there, too.

So, make that Austin 2, Nashville 0 in this first leg. Although, I’d give Nashville the edge on their kit. I still can’t get past the logo and color scheme reminding me of cedar season.

Categories
Politics

Postmortem on Nashville’s failed transit referendum

There is a new report out this week from TransitCenter on Nashville’s failed transit referendum in 2018. Steve Cavendish at the Nashville Scene previewed some of the same themes in a story he wrote soon after the vote, but this new report goes into much more detail.

It’s a solid case study and holds important lessons for Austin and other cities. I started working for Mayor Barry in January 2017 so obviously I can’t claim to be completely objective about the report’s observations and conclusions. Nor, as a regular user of public transportation, can I be completely dispassionate about the outcome of the vote here, or what I hope transit proponents and local officials in other cities will learn from it. It’s been more than six months since I left the mayor’s office and I’m still not sure how to talk about my experience there without running into the risk of it coming across as sour grapes when it comes to things we didn’t accomplish.

But given the probability of Austin voting on something similar in the not-too-distant future I feel compelled to weigh in on a few things.

As a case study, the report stops short of what you would expect from a more academic treatment in a few key areas–I would have enjoyed a more thorough discussion of how a November vote with higher turnout could have affected the outcome or what the author gleaned from exit polls (assuming access was granted)–but those are very minor quibbles and don’t detract from its value as a case study.

To be clear, while I was a senior staff member, I was not on the core planning team for transit, as it’s referred to in the report. So, what I’ve taken away from the experience reflects only the views of somebody not “in the room” for much of the decision-making process.

That said, Austin, here’s my advice as you look ahead to your next election:

Think carefully about how you apply lessons learned from earlier votes. Your postmortem of a past result or campaign might have been right on target–at the time. If you can’t set aside your biases, or, worse, refuse to recognize the fact that you could have any–and we are all guilty of it–then make sure you have people in the room who have different biases.

Welcome users of the current transit system into the decision-making circle but don’t assume that all users will be supporters. If there’s one place in the report that starts to veer into a blind spot this is it in my opinion. Get on the bus and ask a few people if they’d rather be in a car driving alone to work, even if it meant sitting in soul-crushing traffic.

Get kids involved–and not just as campaign props. Empower them to help make decisions. Yes, many will be too young to vote, but that trope is less relevant in today’s media landscape, where teenagers can command the attention of world leaders. Transit may not be as jarring as gun violence in schools; however, it is about safety. It may not lead to the cover of Time, but it is about climate change.

I’m not sure how you get there but I think it’s pretty clear by now what happens when people hear the word tax and feel that they are being asked for $5 billion or more when nothing vital is at stake.

At least not for them.

Categories
Migration

IRS: Davidson County among national leaders in attracting residents from out of state

Davidson County was among the leaders nationally in attracting residents from out of state in 2017-2018, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Nearly 17,000 households representing an estimated 25,000 people (see methodology below) moved to Davidson County from other states in 2017-2018, accounting for the majority of all US-based moves to the county (61%). Davidson County’s net gain, or inflow-outflow, of an estimated 3,358 households from out of state ranked 16th among the 100 largest counties in the country. Maricopa County, AZ (Phoenix) had the largest net gain in households at 21,267, followed by Clark County, NV (Las Vegas) at 15,628, and King County, WA (Seattle) at 10,718. Denver and Wake County (Raleigh) rounded out the top five.

Since nominal change tends to favor large counties—i.e. more people, more moves—it can be helpful to normalize the data to account for differences in total population. Looking at net migration of households from out of state relative to total population, Davidson County jumps up to #7 (Denver is first). In other words, people moving to Davidson County from out of state are having a more significant impact on the size of the overall population here compared to the impact of out-of-state migration in most other large, growing counties.

Where are people coming from?

In terms of migration the top “donor” states to Davidson County ranked by inflow of households (with a minimum of 500) in 2017-2018 were:

  1. Florida 1,206
  2. California 1,152
  3. Texas 847
  4. Illinois 761
  5. Georgia 611
  6. New York 598
  7. Alabama 547
  8. Kentucky 508

In net terms (inflow-outflow) Davidson County gained the most households from Illinois (446), California (367), and Florida (337).

The top ten donor counties to Davidson County were:

  1. Rutherford County 2,183
  2. Williamson County 2,045
  3. Sumner County 1,239
  4. Wilson County 1,022
  5. Shelby County 606
  6. Montgomery County 481
  7. Cook County (IL) 465
  8. Los Angeles County (CA) 437
  9. Robertson County 364
  10. Cheatham County 344

The top ten donor counties from out of state were:

  1. Cook County (IL) 465
  2. Los Angeles County (CA) 437
  3. Fulton County (GA) 239
  4. Harris County (TX) 201
  5. Dallas County (TX) 197
  6. Jefferson County (AL) 181
  7. New York County (NY) 166
  8. San Diego County (CA) 160
  9. Maricopa County (AZ) 158
  10. Kings County (NY) 158

Nearly one out of every five households moving to Tennessee from other states went to Davidson County, followed by Shelby County (13%) and Montgomery County (8%).

Methodology

The IRS publishes annual data showing the number of tax returns, exemptions, and total adjusted gross income reported in each state and county and then matches addresses in consecutive years of filings to identify migrants. Analysts use these returns to estimate households and exemptions to estimate people, but they are not matched 1:1.

For example, multiple returns can be filed from the same address, and not all exemptions are people. Generally, returns are a more accurate proxy for households than exemptions are for people, which is why most analysts focus on returns when reporting the data. Time periods are expressed in hyphenated years (e.g., 2017-2018) due to tax filing deadlines. The 2017-2018 data set includes reported income earned in Tax Year 2017 only but could reflect a move in 2018 during the filing period for most returns, January-April 15, 2018. Since a move could occur at any time between when the Tax Year 2016 return was filed and when the Tax Year 2017 return was filed it must be expressed as two hyphenated calendar years.

Finally, not everybody is required to file a tax return, meaning the IRS data does not reflect the total population. Please see the user guide posted on the IRS website for a more detailed explanation of data limitations and appropriate interpretation.

Categories
Data Releases

Health care added nearly $11 billion to Nashville economy in 2018

The health care industry added nearly $11 billion to Nashville’s economy in 2018, according to newly available county-level statistics from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

Nashville’s health care industry accounted for $10.996 billion in value-added to Davidson County’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2018, according to my analysis of BEA’s data, or about $1.50 out of every $10 in total economic value. Health care is 15.3% of total GDP in Davidson County, which ranks first among the largest 100 county economies in the U.S., followed by Bronx (15.1%), Nassau (14.8%), and Kings (13.0%) in New York.

Health care’s inflation-adjusted growth rate of 2.8% in 2018 trailed the Nashville economy overall (4.6%), but the industry’s real value has more than doubled since 2001. Of counties with a health care industry valued at $10 billion or more, only Maricopa, AZ (Phoenix), and Santa Clara, CA, surpassed Davidson’s real growth rate (105%) during 2001-2018.

County-level GDP data is an important milestone for federal statistics programs, especially for counties, like Davidson, belonging to very large metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), where parsing county-level trends is difficult. Jobs data has been available at the county level for a long time but provides only one indicator of local economic activity. Analysts have been lobbying for publicly available, county-level GDP data for quite some time.

So, on behalf of local analysts and economic developers everywhere, thanks to BEA for this important contribution to our understanding of local economies.