Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Tweet[IWS] Brookings: MetroMonitor TRACKING ECONOMIC RECESSION IN AMERICA'S 100 LARGEST METROPOLITAN AREAS [June 2010]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Brookings Institution
Metropolitan Policy Program
MetroMonitor Tracking Economic Recession and Recovery in America's 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas
Howard Wial and Richard Shearer
June 2010
[full-text, 23 pages]
[excerpt]
The MetroMonitor, an interactive barometer of the health of America's metropolitan economies, looks "beneath the hood" of national economic statistics to portray the diverse metropolitan landscape of recession and recovery across the country. It aims to enhance understanding of the local underpinnings of national economic trends, and to promote public and private sector responses to the downturn that take into account metropolitan areas' distinct strengths and weaknesses.
This edition of the Monitor examines indicators through the first quarter of 2010 (ending in March) in the areas of employment, unemployment, output, home prices, and foreclosure rates for the nation's 100 largest metropolitan areas. It finds that:
-All of the 100 largest metropolitan areas had growth in output in the first quarter of 2010, but the rate of output growth declined in 90 metropolitan areas. The number of metropolitan areas that had a quarter-to-quarter gain in output rose from 33 in the second quarter of 2009 to 87 in the third quarter, 98 in the final quarter of 2009, and 100 in the first quarter of 2010. With only two exceptions, once output began to increase it continued to increase in subsequent quarters. (In Harrisburg and Portland, OR, output grew in the second quarter of 2009, fell in the third quarter, and then grew again subsequently.) However, only 10 metropolitan areas (El Paso, McAllen, Rochester, Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, Allentown, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Cape Coral) had faster output growth in the first quarter of 2010 than in the last quarter of 2009. The remaining 90 had slower output growth.
-Employment recovery has been much less widespread and less consistent than output recovery. The number of metropolitan areas that had quarter-to-quarter employment growth rose from six in the third quarter of 2009 to 25 in the last quarter of 2009 to 36 in the first quarter of 2010. Job growth in one quarter was no guarantee of continued job growth in subsequent quarters. Of the 25 metropolitan areas that gained jobs in the last quarter of 2009, only 10 gained jobs in the first quarter of 2010.
-The metropolitan areas that have had the most consistent job growth over the past year are mainly in the South. Only McAllen gained jobs in the first quarter of 2010 and the three previous quarters. Only Stockton gained jobs in the first quarter and the two previous quarters. All but one of the eight other metropolitan areas that gained jobs in the first quarter and the previous quarter (Augusta, Austin, Charleston, Chattanooga, Dallas, Honolulu, Jackson, and Raleigh) are in the South.
-A substantial minority of metropolitan areas had made a complete output recovery by the first quarter of 2010 but none had made a complete jobs recovery. Thirty-two metropolitan areas had recovered their pre-recession levels of output in the fourth quarter, including 19 (Albuquerque, Austin, Baltimore, Boston, Colorado Springs, Honolulu, Little Rock, Madison, McAllen, New York, Ogden, Omaha, Orlando, Raleigh, Richmond, San Antonio, Seattle, Virginia Beach, and Washington) that had continuous output growth since at least the second quarter of 2009. Most of these metropolitan areas are state capitals or other government or military centers.
-In March 2010, for the first time since the beginning of the recession, the unemployment rate was lower than it was a year ago in a few metropolitan areas. In Buffalo, Chattanooga, Denver, and Minneapolis (all areas with unemployment rates below the national rate in March 2009), the unemployment rate was lower March 2010 than in March 2009. In all other metropolitan areas it was higher. All of the 100 largest metropolitan areas had higher unemployment rates in March 2010 than in March 2007.
-Seventy-nine of the 100 largest metropolitan areas lost a greater share of jobs nine quarters after the start of the Great Recession (the fourth quarter of 2007) than they did during the first nine quarters after the start of any of the previous three national recessions. Nine quarters after the start of the national recession, the 100 largest metropolitan areas combined had lost 6.3 percent of the jobs they had at the start of the Great Recession that began in 2007, compared to 2.1 percent for the 2001 recession, and 1.4 percent for the 1990–1991 recession. However, in the 1981–1982 recession, employment in the 100 largest metropolitan areas had grown 1.3 percent in the first nine quarters after the start of the national recession. In general, the metropolitan areas that ranked lowest on the Monitor's overall index (i.e., those that suffered most during the Great Recession and subsequent recovery) were also ones in which the jobs recovery was weaker after the Great Recession than after all three previous recessions. Those that ranked the highest were also ones in which the current jobs recovery was stronger than that of one or two of the previous three recessions/recoveries.
-Housing markets remained weak, with house prices lower in the first quarter of 2010 than in the first quarters of 2007 and 2009 in all of the 100 largest metropolitan areas and house price declines accelerating in most metropolitan areas. In all but 12 metropolitan areas house prices declined at a faster rate between the first quarters of 2009 and 2010 than between the first quarters of 2007 and 2009. Foreclosures continued to grow in most metropolitan areas in the first quarter; 84 metropolitan areas had increases in the number of real estate-owned (REO) properties during that quarter.
-Employment has begun to grow and housing markets are no longer in free-fall in some of the metropolitan areas that suffered most from the housing bust during the last three years. During the first quarter, Bradenton, Cape Coral, Jacksonville, Modesto, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Jose (among other areas) had job growth for the first time since the recession began, while Stockton had its third consecutive quarter of job growth. The 13 metropolitan areas where the rate of house price decline was smaller between first quarter 2009 and first quarter 2010 than between first quarter 2007 and first quarter 2009 were areas hit hard by the housing bust: Bakersfield, Cape Coral, Fresno, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Modesto, Oxnard, Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, and Stockton. The 16 metropolitan areas where the number of REO properties fell in the first quarter of 2010 included hard-hit Bakersfield, Las Vegas, Modesto, Oxnard, Stockton, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose (among other areas).
Overall, the economic indicators for the nation's 100 largest metropolitan areas reinforce the national story of a jobless and increasingly fragile recovery. However, there are some recent signs of improvement, notably in parts of the South and in some of the metropolitan areas that suffered most from the housing bust. In addition, vast differences in performance continued to separate the metropolitan areas that the recession hit the hardest from those less affected.
________________________________________________________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
****************************************
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
