Chicago Economic & Finance News

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Well said. This thread has had enough reactionary histrionics over a "dying" Chicago.

^ Yeah, thank God people like yourself are around to give us a balanced perspective, not spending page after page lecturing us all ad nauseum about your opinions on gentrification...

[the urban politician]

Volkswagen subsidiary to add 150 Illinois jobs

^ These are service-oriented jobs, not industrial



IT startups snagged the most venture-capital in first quarter

By Lynne Marek April 20, 2012

(Crain's) — Chicago startup companies raised more money during the first quarter compared with last year, but fewer shared in the largesse, according to Dow Jones VentureSource.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Yeah, thank God people like yourself are around to give us a balanced perspective, not spending page after page lecturing us all ad nauseum about your opinions on gentrification...

I see your penchant for extreme exaggeration is not limited to a delusional sense that Chicago is dying. A single post, even a couple of posts hardly is equivalent to

Originally Posted by the urban politician

"spending page after page lecturing us all ad nauseum about your opinions on gentrification"

Nowhereman and I had an argument. I advocated my side. It amounted to a few posts on each side. Probably fewer posts in total than you have spent educating us on the demise of Chicago. But I am flattered you recall it with such clarity.


The population loss Chicago seems to have experienced over the 2000's was different in character than that seen in the 1955-1990 period. In that 35 year period massive amount of wealth were fleeing the city.....in the form of middle / upper class individuals and in closed industry and corporations. This is not what happened or has been happening subsequent to that time frame. There is instead capital / wealth flowing into the city.

As to the per capita gdp numbers, Chicago proper is severely handicapped by having a massive amount of extremely poor blacks. Off the top of my head I think the per capita household income for blacks in the city is barely over 30K per year. When blacks make up 1/3 of the city that takes a heavy hit on those per capita numbers; esp given that over 30% of those said black households are under the poverty rate.

The city of Chicago poverty rate among white household is about 8 and change% this not much higher than the 7% and change in SanFrancisco.

I am not engaging in Panglossian boosterism of Chicago; measured analysis Chicago's challenges such as seen in Ordo's post are more productive and more accurate than ranting of an off the rails delusional Cassandra

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by lawfin

As to the per capita gdp numbers, Chicago proper is severely handicapped by having a massive amount of extremely poor blacks. Off the top of my head I think the per capita household income for blacks in the city is barely over 30K per year. When blacks make up 1/3 of the city that takes a heavy hit on those per capita numbers; esp given that over 30% of those said black households are under the poverty rate.

^ Exactly. Just like I have been saying for 2 pages.

Next time just read. It's easier than having to dig up phrases like "penchant for extreme exaggeration".

We probably agree on 95%, I just disagree on the other 5%. I think the deterioration of the "poor side" of Chicago is a bigger problem for the city than you do. That's the difference in our opinions in a nutshell. A agree that "Chicago is dying" was a bit much.

Anyhow, I'd rather move on from this debate. We've all made our opinions and frustrations known.

[Mr Roboto]

Not sure where to post this, but I figured it applies in this general Chicago economics thread.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...commuters-live

Where Chicago's super-commuters live


The number of Chicago-area workers who live further than 90 miles outside Cook County grew by more than 40 percent during the last decade, in line with a trend among the 10-largest U.S. metropolitan areas.


There were 99,000 "super-commuters" to Chicago in 2009, up from about 70,000 in 2002, according to the New York University Wagner School of Public Service.


A survey by the school's Rudin Center for Transportation showed that those making long treks to the Windy City for work comprised 4.4 percent of the local workforce.


That total is below the 7.5 percent average among metro areas surveyed.


Chicago saw one of the largest increases in commuters from other major non-local regions -- namely, Detroit (up 131 percent), St. Louis (up 95 percent) and Indianapolis (up 86 percent).


"Chicago is a center for long-distance commuters because of its great air, highway and rail access," said Mitchell Moss, director of the Center for Transportation and co-author of the report.

......................


I was truly surprised at how freaking low the commuter numbers are for Milwaukee-Chicago. But I suppose until they get rid of that ass-hole Walker, and build a high(er)-speed rail line or at minimum extend the Metra service from Kenosha to Milwaukee, the numbers will remain relatively low. But # commuters from St Louis- Chicago> Milwaukee-Chicago? Doesnt make any sense.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Mr Roboto

......................


I was truly surprised at how freaking low the commuter numbers are for Milwaukee-Chicago. But I suppose until they get rid of that ass-hole Walker, and build a high(er)-speed rail line or at minimum extend the Metra service from Kenosha to Milwaukee, the numbers will remain relatively low. But # commuters from St Louis- Chicago> Milwaukee-Chicago? Doesnt make any sense.

Actually I think it makes quite a bit of sense. St. Louis and Detroit are significantly more integrated and important to the national economy and Detroit esp is much more important to the int'l economy than Milw is. Chicago is increasingly the global conduit of much of the center of the country. This will accelerate as the skill set and agglomeration effeciencies increasingly settle in Chicago. Milw simply doesn't have the national or intl pull or push that st. louis or Detroit have it really is a bit of a backwater vis-a-vis st. louis and esp Detroit.

[Mr Roboto]

^OK, that may be more or less true that St Louis and Detroit are a little more important than Milwaukee in the global economy, but the fact remains that it is a mere 90 miles away while Detriot and St Louis are 200-300 miles away. Proximity is a huge factor in commuting numbers, even for super-commuters to an extent. So Milwaukee a city of 600K only having 3K or 0.5% of their population working in Cook county seems tiny esp since its so close.

[the urban politician]

^ Actually, there may be another, simpler explanation for this.

If I lived in Detroit and wanted to stay in Detroit, but had a great job in Chicago, I would super-commute, if I'm agreeable to doing that.

If I lived in Milwaukee and had a great job in Chicago, but still wanted to be near relatives in Milwaukee, it really wouldn't be a big deal for me to move closer to Chicago. These cities are so close together that one can still move to the north suburbs of Chicago and be close to family and friends in Milwaukee. In the situation for Detroit and St Louis, that isn't really the case. You either live in Detroit or in Chicago, there is no "in between".

That may explain why there aren't that many staunch Milwaukee super-commuters. Why not just move 30 miles closer to your job and have the best of both worlds?

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Actually I think it makes quite a bit of sense. St. Louis and Detroit are significantly more integrated and important to the national economy and Detroit esp is much more important to the int'l economy than Milw is. Chicago is increasingly the global conduit of much of the center of the country. This will accelerate as the skill set and agglomeration effeciencies increasingly settle in Chicago. Milw simply doesn't have the national or intl pull or push that st. louis or Detroit have it really is a bit of a backwater vis-a-vis st. louis and esp Detroit.

Im not sure i follow, but i dont think Milwaukee is any less globally important or integrated than Detroit or STL. I mean Milwaukees manufacturing base is probably in better shape than Detroits or STLs and can hardly be considered globally disconnectes when companies like Rockwell, Manpower, Bucyrus ( now cat), NWML, et al have massive global reach and importance.

[LtBk]

It seems you guys are more optimistic about Chicago's future than those in SSC from an outside's perspective.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Im not sure i follow, but i dont think Milwaukee is any less globally important or integrated than Detroit or STL. I mean Milwaukees manufacturing base is probably in better shape than Detroits or STLs and can hardly be considered globally disconnectes when companies like Rockwell, Manpower, Bucyrus ( now cat), NWML, et al have massive global reach and importance.

^ You can't really think that. I know you're from Wisconsin and all, and nobody is putting down Milwaukee, but are you telling me that Milwaukee and Detroit are equal in their "global integration?" Detroit is a behemoth in global exporting, perhaps even larger than Chicago, just by virtue of being the center of the auto industry. Nothing in Milwaukee can even come near to comparing.

[the urban politician]

International Paper signs big Aurora industrial lease
By: Todd J. Behme April 24, 2012

(Crain's) — International Paper Co. leased about 316,000 square feet in an Aurora warehouse for a subsidiary, filling up a half-empty building developed seven years ago by Liberty Property Trust.

Meanwhile, current tenant Rockpoint Logistics expanded by about 72,000 square feet, increasing its space in the building to 291,552 square feet, according to Malvern, Pa.-based Liberty. The deals make the 607,752-square-foot building fully leased.

As the economy improves, bigger spaces in the industrial market “have been absorbed very quickly over the past six to nine months,” according to Mr. Schoenheider.

Chicago’s Direct Office Vacancy Drops Almost 1%

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You can't really think that. I know you're from Wisconsin and all, and nobody is putting down Milwaukee, but are you telling me that Milwaukee and Detroit are equal in their "global integration?" Detroit is a behemoth in global exporting, perhaps even larger than Chicago, just by virtue of being the center of the auto industry. Nothing in Milwaukee can even come near to comparing.

i have to agree with you. i think putting milwaukee on the same level as detroit in terms of international trade is more than a little silly.

milwaukee is a wonderful city that is , on many levels, healthier than detroit, but let's be honest here, it's not as important on the global stage. and i don't think it hurts milwaukee's feelings to admit as much.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You can't really think that. I know you're from Wisconsin and all, and nobody is putting down Milwaukee, but are you telling me that Milwaukee and Detroit are equal in their "global integration?" Detroit is a behemoth in global exporting, perhaps even larger than Chicago, just by virtue of being the center of the auto industry. Nothing in Milwaukee can even come near to comparing.

That's what I figured people were talking about, but I guess I didn't realize that all big three vehicles are manufactured in Detroit and then exported elsewhere...

Just having corporate headquarters (in one industry none-the-less) doesn't mean anything when the rest of your economy is completely shot. Milwaukee has retained a greater portion of its industrial base than the majority of rust-belt cities so as far as actually exporting things (not just having corporate HQ's), I'm willing to bet Milwaukee is actually a bigger player than the burnt out husk of Detroit's industrial base especially when you take the greater size of the Detroit area into account.

For a city that is more than 2x the size of Milwaukee, Detroit sure is lacking Fortune 1000 companies. Milwaukee has 18, Detroit has 21, which obviously is limited in what it tells us about their economies.

However, the point is Milwaukee is hardly a "bit of a backwater" compared to Detroit when it has 5/6 the amount of F1000's with less than 1/2 the population especially when 13 of Detroit's 21 companies are a part of or reliant on a single industry. Meanwhile Milwaukee's F1000's include dominant companies in industries ranging from Mining to Motorcycles to Water Management to Automation to Green Energy to Tools to Pharmaceuticals to Printing to Chemicals. And that only includes Milwaukee's industrial F1000's and not companies like NML, Manpower, Fiserv, and MGIC which represent a far more robust financial/professional services sector than Detroit's auto-finance reliant sector.

So yeah, is Detroit's economy technically larger? I suppose, but Milwaukee is absolutely nowhere near a "backwater" compared to Detroit. There is a reason Milwaukee has been booming over the past 10 years while Detroit has be foundering and that is Milwaukee's extremely diverse manufacturing base and dominance of emerging industries like water management and energy efficiency. Then to bring STL which doesn't even have a dominant position in a critical industry like the auto industry in Detroit into the same sentence is absolutely absurd.

I'm not trying to be a booster and not trying to suggest Milwaukee is the greatest city ever, just trying to dispute the absurd statement that Milwaukee is a "backwater" compared to DET or STL.

[the urban politician]

^ Not to get too far o/t, but Milwaukee is booming?

That's news to me. I really don't think any midwestern city is truly booming right now.

Also, I think when discussing international trade, which was the context being used when describing Milwaukee as a "backwater" (poor choice of words), Detroit and Milwaukee aren't even on the same map. Detroit's exported volume in dollars (even thought it is only from one industry), is orders of magnitude greater than Milwaukee's. Remember, we are not arguing about the health of the cities, or their economic diversity, we are discussing international "pull", and we all know that international export volume is a BIG element of that.

St Louis is perhaps a different story.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I'm not trying to be a booster and not trying to suggest Milwaukee is the greatest city ever, just trying to dispute the absurd statement that Milwaukee is a "backwater" compared to DET or STL.

yeah, "backwater" was an unfortunate choice of words on lawfin's part, but i don't think you're gonna find many people who would agree with you that milwaukee is at the same level as detroit in terms of international economic importance.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

That's news to me. I really don't think any midwestern city is truly booming right now.

Madison has been doing really well, but it has a much smaller base so perhaps it's not quite as impressive as larger metros.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Yeah, but when is Madison not booming? It's hard to not boom when you have one of the largest and most important universities on earth, a state capital, and a slough of growing companies in the Biotech and other growing industries. Hell, Epic alone seems determined to reduce the unemployment rate of Madison to 0%. Unemployment in Madison is at it's highest in decades and is still only 4.8%. In 2007 it was threatening to break 2%...

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Not to get too far o/t, but Milwaukee is booming?

That's news to me. I really don't think any midwestern city is truly booming right now.

Also, I think when discussing international trade, which was the context being used when describing Milwaukee as a "backwater" (poor choice of words), Detroit and Milwaukee aren't even on the same map. Detroit's exported volume in dollars (even thought it is only from one industry), is orders of magnitude greater than Milwaukee's. Remember, we are not arguing about the health of the cities, or their economic diversity, we are discussing international "pull", and we all know that international export volume is a BIG element of that.

St Louis is perhaps a different story.

Again though, Detroit has headquarters, not necessarily factories. Just because those headquarters count as the point of sale doesn't mean that it is actually reflective of the amount of exports generated in Detroit. Hell,some of those "exports from Detroit" that you are referring to are actually manufactured in Milwaukee even though they count as sales for Detroit companies. That is my point, sure Detroit might have notoriety because the paper exports of the city represent a large and visible industry, but the actual importance of the things actually manufactured or created in Detroit is low. Meanwhile Milwaukee's industrial base is in quite good shape and a source of products that are exported all over the world.

And again, my point isn't that Milwaukee is necessarily MORE important than Detroit, it is that it is certainly not leagues less important. It's awfully hard to argue that a city of 1.8 million is more important than one of 5.4 million or whatever Detroit Metro is.


And yes TUP, Milwaukee is doing quite well. Milwaukee proper is probably doing the best out of all large, rust belt, central cores outside of Chicago. The amount of infill being constructed there is nutty. In fact, Milwaukee seems to have more infill going up than even Chicago does and it hasn't slowed since the boom, the economy has done little to hold it back.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

In fact, Milwaukee seems to have more infill going up than even Chicago does

a meaningless statement without numbers

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

That's what I figured people were talking about, but I guess I didn't realize that all big three vehicles are manufactured in Detroit and then exported elsewhere...

Just having corporate headquarters (in one industry none-the-less) doesn't mean anything when the rest of your economy is completely shot. Milwaukee has retained a greater portion of its industrial base than the majority of rust-belt cities so as far as actually exporting things (not just having corporate HQ's), I'm willing to bet Milwaukee is actually a bigger player than the burnt out husk of Detroit's industrial base especially when you take the greater size of the Detroit area into account.

For a city that is more than 2x the size of Milwaukee, Detroit sure is lacking Fortune 1000 companies. Milwaukee has 18, Detroit has 21, which obviously is limited in what it tells us about their economies.

However, the point is Milwaukee is hardly a "bit of a backwater" compared to Detroit when it has 5/6 the amount of F1000's with less than 1/2 the population especially when 13 of Detroit's 21 companies are a part of or reliant on a single industry. Meanwhile Milwaukee's F1000's include dominant companies in industries ranging from Mining to Motorcycles to Water Management to Automation to Green Energy to Tools to Pharmaceuticals to Printing to Chemicals. And that only includes Milwaukee's industrial F1000's and not companies like NML, Manpower, Fiserv, and MGIC which represent a far more robust financial/professional services sector than Detroit's auto-finance reliant sector.

So yeah, is Detroit's economy technically larger? I suppose, but Milwaukee is absolutely nowhere near a "backwater" compared to Detroit. There is a reason Milwaukee has been booming over the past 10 years while Detroit has be foundering and that is Milwaukee's extremely diverse manufacturing base and dominance of emerging industries like water management and energy efficiency. Then to bring STL which doesn't even have a dominant position in a critical industry like the auto industry in Detroit into the same sentence is absolutely absurd.

I'm not trying to be a booster and not trying to suggest Milwaukee is the greatest city ever, just trying to dispute the absurd statement that Milwaukee is a "backwater" compared to DET or STL.

Well it seems I have created a bit of a stir. St Louis export economy is 56% larger than Milw, Detroit's export economy is nearly 3 times the size of milw export economy.

The number of people directly employed in exports in milw is approximately 29k, versus 49k in St. Louis, versus 79k in detroit
The number of people employed in export supported work are milw 61k, St Louis 95k, Detroit 186k.

Chicago's numbers roughly are double Detroit numbers across the board.Addressing TUP thought that Detroit's export economy is larger than Chicago; no, Chicago's export economy is the third largest in the country approx double the value of Detroit export economy. In the scheme of things every other city in the Midwest is an intl / export backwater in contrast to Chicago.

Milw export economy is smaller than Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati; I am not sure that list is comprehensive but that would put milw 8th in the Midwest.
Now I love milw too. I go there several times a year for long weekends to get away from the city. But in terms of the size of its intl pulllor its export economy the numbers are quite clear; not withstanding the bruised homerism of a certain forumer milw is an intl / export backwater especially vis-a-vis Detroit. The absurdity is basing an opinion on bruised ego versus the verifiable numbers.


All numbers easily accessible here: http://www.brookings.edu/info/export...teractive.aspx