Atlanta's Census Estimates for 2009: A New Growth Paradigm

[Trae]

Originally Posted by dante2308

Frankly those numbers don't add up.

How? It's from the BEA. Link: www.bea.gov/regional/gdpmetro

Originally Posted by cabasse

dallas is a notably larger metro and as much as many want to deny, houston's economy is still primarly energy and oil (only 5 or 6 of its 29 f500s are not directly related to the energy or oil biz!) no surprise it has the highest GDP.

[spoiler]data from the american factfinder community survey, 2007

houston and dallas have more mega-wealthy for sure, and that definitely gives overall numbers the upper hand.

Energy is very broad. A lot of things fall under it...not just oil.

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by Trae

How? It's from the BEA. Link: www.bea.gov/regional/gdpmetro

If Houston's GDP per capita is as shown, then it is 14.3% higher than our own. Houston's MSA is 7.16% larger than our own and yet the GDP is 49.45% larger?

That doesn't add up.

Based on the per capita it would be 22.48% larger, but I don't trust the per capita figures from BEA to begin with because they are inconsistent with other data as posted here.

[cybele]

Well, one thing I would like to see is the ATL concentrating on quality and not quantity for a while. We generally get a pretty good quality of people down here but I have been in other towns where they have the sorriest bunch you have ever seen. We need to focus on bringing in the type who will work and carry their share of the load and help pay for some of these light rails and so forth instead of just sitting around complaining and drawing a check from somebody. So I wouldn't worry about going up in numbers all that much, as long as it depends on who you get.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by dante2308

If Houston's GDP per capita is as shown, then it is 14.3% higher than our own. Houston's MSA is 7.16% larger than our own and yet the GDP is 49.45% larger?

That doesn't add up.

Based on the per capita it would be 22.48% larger, but I don't trust the per capita figures from BEA to begin with because they are inconsistent with other data as posted here.

You have to also look at what makes up each economy. Even though Atlanta has a very diverse economy, it's more of a real estate/construction economy, which is why it was hit harder this recession. It'll be interesting to watch the Big Four in the South for the next decade. Finally turning into more mature cities.

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by Trae

You have to also look at what makes up each economy. Even though Atlanta has a very diverse economy, it's more of a real estate/construction economy, which is why it was hit harder this recession. It'll be interesting to watch the Big Four in the South for the next decade. Finally turning into more mature cities.

You do see what I'm saying about the math right?

Also, like I said, Houston is growing faster than Atlanta which kind of means that their construction industry is bigger.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by dante2308

You do see what I'm saying about the math right?

Also, like I said, Houston is growing faster than Atlanta which kind of means that their construction industry is bigger.

But Houston's economy is not as tied into construction/real estate as Atlanta is. Even though the construction industry is larger in Houston than Atlanta (going by what you said), it is not as large of a part of Houston's economy as it is Atlanta's. So, when it and real estate went down, it hurt Atlanta's economy more than Houston's or Dallas'. Miami was more like Atlanta this recession though worse.

And I see what you're saying about the math, but again, you have to look at what makes up each economy.

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by Trae

But Houston's economy is not as tied into construction/real estate as Atlanta is. Even though the construction industry is larger in Houston than Atlanta (going by what you said), it is not as large of a part of Houston's economy as it is Atlanta's. So, when it and real estate went down, it hurt Atlanta's economy more than Houston's or Dallas'. Miami was more like Atlanta this recession though worse.

And I see what you're saying about the math, but again, you have to look at what makes up each economy.

How do you figure that a city the same size with more construction has a lower share of a construction industry? I feel like Houston's energy complex is just more famous and people assume that everyone there is an oil baron. Meanwhile we have a massive media complex, education and health services like you wouldn't believe, we are the state capital, and we have significant manufacturing in so many sectors and Atlanta is dubbed as construction based.

Here is the labor force by occupation in 2003,


Atlanta
Size of nonagricultural labor force: 2,158,600

Number of workers employed in . . .

natural resources and mining: 1,800

construction: 115,600

manufacturing: 170,300

trade, transportation and utilities: 492,000

information: 97,500

financial activities: 148,000

professional and business services: 337,900

educational and health services: 213,100

leisure and hospitality: 200,700

other services: 94,000

government: 287,800

Houston,
Size of nonagricultural labor force: 2,095,800

Number of workers employed in . . .

natural resources and mining: 63,400

construction: 158,300

manufacturing: 188,900

trade, transportation and utilities: 440,900

information: 37,300

financial activities: 124,500

professional and business services: 293,000

educational and health services: 233,600

leisure and hospitality: 178,000

other services: 86,300

government: 291,700

[Matthew]

Maybe retail, but not office or residential. For much of the 1990's, little office development happened. This is how Winston-Salem was able to build the nation's tallest building completed in 1995 (at only 34 storeys). A 28-storey office building in Tennessee took the title in 1994 and a 449 foot tower took the title in 1996. From 1993 - 1999, there wasn't much office or residential high-rise development in Atlanta to talk about. A 388 foot - 24 storey federal building was the tallest built in Atlanta during that time. And of the five Atlanta buildings built during that time, only one was completed between 1993-1996.

[dante2308]

Looks to me like construction is even bigger in Houston than it is here

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by Matthew

Maybe retail, but not office or residential. For much of the 1990's, little office development happened. This is how Winston-Salem was able to build the nation's tallest building completed in 1995 (at only 34 storeys). A 28-storey office building took the title in 1994 and a 449 foot tower took the title in 1996. From 1993 - 1999, there wasn't much office or residential high-rise development in Atlanta to talk about. A 388 foot federal building was the tallest built in Atlanta during that time. And of the five buildings built during that time, only one was completed between 1993-1996.

No.

Office space construction was several times higher in the 90's than in the following decade. I want to find the graph for you but it was much higher.

[Matthew]

I remember reading articles, including one in the Wall Street Journal at that time on the bad office real estate market. A few buildings near the end of the fast paced 1980's office development years were completed in the early 1990's, but much of the decade was spent trying to fill existing inventory. Some people questioned if we would see another decade for office construction like the 1980's. Or buildings over 50 storeys again.

... And when the inventory of office space was absorbed, office construction returned.

[dante2308]

Did some research and dug up an old report. No need to guess about it. One thing I don't do is make stuff up.

Looks to me like the mid and late 90's were stellar and we could only dream of construction and absorption rates that high. Of course the bubble busted and it just never came back. Simple facts are that three years in the 90's saw more office space construction than the entire last decade.

[Matthew]

You're talking about industrial space (factories & warehouses). I thought you were talking about office space. The office market nationally was in rough shape from 1993-1998 and Atlanta was an over-built city for office towers at that time.


fdic.gov

Industrial "factory" jobs moved to China, thanks to Free Trade.

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by Matthew

You're talking about industrial space (factories & warehouses). I thought you were talking about office space. The office market nationally was in rough shape from 1993-1998 and Atlanta was an over-built city for office towers at that time.

LOL

Here


Fact: there was a commercial and industrial construction boom in the late 90's that bubbled and burst at the turn of the century. I just don't see any other way to read the above chart. By the way I really don't see how someone can declare growth below 1980 when absolute numbers are higher.

[Matthew]

Your graph only shows the last four years, when the nation's office market was recovering and likely includes 15-20 counties. You can see 1996 on your graph and have an idea of how bad it was. For about half of the decade, office construction was almost non-existent, before it recovered and yes, it does recover, as the graphs show. Housing will return too. I found a graph for retail and retail also dropped in the mid-1990's to near non-existent levels. Didn't the early 1980's experience the burst of an extreme housing bubble? I've heard about it, but don't remember any details. It's a cycle and it returns and it will bring the jobs and population growth back. If anything, all of these graphs prove I'm right on peaks, valleys and peaks again. Look for housing construction to return in Atlanta.

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by Matthew

Industrial "factory" jobs moved to China, thanks to Free Trade.

...

...

No.

We don't have free trade with China.

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by Matthew

Your graph only shows the last four years, when the nation's office market was recovering and likely includes 15-20 counties. You can see 1996 on your graph and have an idea of how bad it was. For about half of the decade, office construction was almost non-existent, before it recovered and yes, it does recover, as the graphs show. Housing will return too. I found a graph for retail and retail also dropped in the mid-1990's to near non-existent levels. Didn't the early 1980's experience the burst of an extreme housing bubble? I've heard about it, but don't remember any details. It's a cycle and it returns and it will bring the jobs and population growth back. If anything, all of these graphs prove I'm right on peaks, valleys and peaks again. Look for housing construction to return in Atlanta.

I really don't see why I care about mid 90's and I don't know how bringing it up makes the bubble in the 90's (as I said) not exist. The graph shows no such thing about the office market. The office market never. NEVER. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER got back to 1999 levels. You can bet your horse that we wont see it recover this decade too.



Isn't it your own graph that declares the very peak of the boom in the 90's that looks like a dream just a shadow of the 80's?

[Trae]

Originally Posted by dante2308

How do you figure that a city the same size with more construction has a lower share of a construction industry? I feel like Houston's energy complex is just more famous and people assume that everyone there is an oil baron. Meanwhile we have a massive media complex, education and health services like you wouldn't believe, we are the state capital, and we have significant manufacturing in so many sectors and Atlanta is dubbed as construction based.

Here is the labor force by occupation in 2003,


Atlanta
Size of nonagricultural labor force: 2,158,600

Number of workers employed in . . .

natural resources and mining: 1,800

construction: 115,600

manufacturing: 170,300

trade, transportation and utilities: 492,000

information: 97,500

financial activities: 148,000

professional and business services: 337,900

educational and health services: 213,100

leisure and hospitality: 200,700

other services: 94,000

government: 287,800

Houston,
Size of nonagricultural labor force: 2,095,800

Number of workers employed in . . .

natural resources and mining: 63,400

construction: 158,300

manufacturing: 188,900

trade, transportation and utilities: 440,900

information: 37,300

financial activities: 124,500

professional and business services: 293,000

educational and health services: 233,600

leisure and hospitality: 178,000

other services: 86,300

government: 291,700

Then tell me why the GDP's are vastly different and why one metro area saw a large drop off in growth while the other weathered the recession just fine and actually grew faster during the recession. The data you posted is nice, but Atlanta's economy is more tied into the real estate/construction field than Houston is. So was Miami. So was Phoenix. So was Vegas. You could even say Charlotte. What do all of these cities have in common? Sun Belt cities that boomed during the boom times but were hit hard during the recession (some more than others). They were large on real estate and build a lot of speculation rather than going with the market. The Texas metros increased growth during that time. But, it is probably more of a state thing than city thing.

I think the growth this year for Atlanta is more inline with what it will do in the future. I don't believe we'll see the high growth rates/numbers of earlier this decade happen again. Besides, more moderate growth is needed now so the infrastructure can catch up. This is for all metro areas actually. One thing is for sure though, Atlanta won't be a declining metro like Detroit, and is here to stay.

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by Trae

Then tell me why the GDP's are vastly different and why one metro area saw a large drop off in growth while the other weathered the recession just fine and actually grew faster during the recession. The data you posted is nice, but Atlanta's economy is more tied into the real estate/construction field than Houston is.

I think thats the question we are trying to answer. I don't think the GDP is vastly different and I don't see any evidence to support your claim that Atlanta is more construction based.

Looks like the data clearly shows that jobwise, they have more mining, construction, and slightly more manufacturing and we have the same amount of or more of everything else. I think it's a pretty good indicator to use number of jobs and they had 37% more construction jobs than we did. If you have any statistics to the contrary please show it.

By the way, are you a girl?

[Trae]

As for GDP's, Houston is now closer to Chicago's GDP than it is Atlanta's.

And am I a GIRL??? I'm offended.

*signs off*