1 Dallas-Fort Worth Leads Metro Areas in Numerical Growth U.S. Census Bureau

7
1 Dallas-Fort Worth Leads Metro Areas in Numerical Growth U.S. Census Bureau /www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/01167

description

3 Percentage Changes, The 50 fastest-growing metro areas were concentrated in two regions — 27 in the South and 20 in the West. One metro area, Fayetteville, Ark.-Mo., straddled both the South and Midwest regions. Sioux Falls, S.D., and Springfield, Mo., were the two metro areas among the 50 fastest-growing located completely in the Midwest. None of the 50 was in the Northeast. That region’s fastest-growing metro area was York, Pa., which ranked 107th.

Transcript of 1 Dallas-Fort Worth Leads Metro Areas in Numerical Growth U.S. Census Bureau

Page 1: 1 Dallas-Fort Worth Leads Metro Areas in Numerical Growth U.S. Census Bureau

1

Dallas-Fort Worth Leads Metro Areas in Numerical Growth

U.S. Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/011671.html

Page 2: 1 Dallas-Fort Worth Leads Metro Areas in Numerical Growth U.S. Census Bureau

2

Population Changes, 2006-2007• Dallas-Fort Worth had the

largest numeric gain of any metro area between 2006 and 2007, increasing by 162,250, according to July 1, 2007, estimates of metro area population size and growth released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

• Atlanta (151,063), Phoenix (132,513) and Houston (120,544) rounded out the metro areas with a gain of at least 100,000.

Page 3: 1 Dallas-Fort Worth Leads Metro Areas in Numerical Growth U.S. Census Bureau

3

Percentage Changes, 2006-2007• The 50 fastest-growing metro

areas were concentrated in two regions — 27 in the South and 20 in the West.

• One metro area, Fayetteville, Ark.-Mo., straddled both the South and Midwest regions.

• Sioux Falls, S.D., and Springfield, Mo., were the two metro areas among the 50 fastest-growing located completely in the Midwest.

• None of the 50 was in the Northeast. That region’s fastest-growing metro area was York, Pa., which ranked 107th.

Page 4: 1 Dallas-Fort Worth Leads Metro Areas in Numerical Growth U.S. Census Bureau

4

How about us?

Table 3. Population Change in the 100 Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas as of July 1, 2007

(Number of metropolitan statistical areas=363)

Rank in 2007

pop. Metropolitan statistical area

Population estimates Change, 2006 to 2007

July 1, 2007

July 1, 2006 Number Percent

11 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 4,467,592 4,494,906 -27,314 -0.6

25 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 2,096,471 2,105,319 -8,848 -0.4

22 Pittsburgh, PA 2,355,712 2,363,214 -7,502 -0.3

88 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 570,704 576,602 -5,898 -1.0

46 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 1,128,183 1,133,349 -5,166 -0.5

36 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 1,600,856 1,604,342 -3,486 -0.2

59 Dayton, OH 835,537 838,189 -2,652 -0.3

34 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 1,658,754 1,660,990 -2,236 -0.1

7 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 5,413,212 5,415,440 -2,228 0.0

79 Toledo, OH 650,955 652,640 -1,685 -0.3

80 Syracuse, NY 645,293 646,571 -1,278 -0.2

54 Honolulu, HI 905,601 906,715 -1,114 -0.1

71 Akron, OH 699,356 700,095 -739 -0.1

50 Rochester, NY 1,030,495 1,030,991 -496 0.0

Page 5: 1 Dallas-Fort Worth Leads Metro Areas in Numerical Growth U.S. Census Bureau

5

How does migration work?

• Simple model• Who moves?

– People – Move to places with higher utility.– Businesses – Move to places with higher profit.

• When people move in– Land Rents – Wages

• Why?

Page 6: 1 Dallas-Fort Worth Leads Metro Areas in Numerical Growth U.S. Census Bureau

6

• Suppose businesses start losing money in Michigan.

• They need lower wages or lower rents.

Wages and Rents

• Why would the curves be shaped this way?

R*

WagesUtility constantProfits constant

W*

W**

R**

Page 7: 1 Dallas-Fort Worth Leads Metro Areas in Numerical Growth U.S. Census Bureau

7

Wages and Rents

• Over time, firms and individuals migrate.

• When do they stop?– Profits are the same

everywhere.– Utility is the same

everywhere. R*

WagesUtility constantProfits constant

W*

W**

R**