Scorecard 2014

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

1/84

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

2/84

Founded in 1845, the Toronto Region Board of Trade is the chamber of commerce for Canadaslargest urban centre, connecting more than 12,000 Members and 250,000 business professionalsand inuencers throughout the Toronto region.

The Board fuels the economic, social and cultural vitality of the entire Toronto region by foster-ing powerful collaborations among business, government, thought leaders, and communitybuilders. Toronto Region Board of Trade plays a vital role in elevating the quality of life andglobal competitiveness of Canadas largest urban centre.

Membership with the Board offers the opportunity to be part of a network of our regionsmost inuential business leaders, who are working together to help shape the future of theToronto region.

2014 Toronto Region Board of Trade

Certied Management Accountants of Ontario continues to be a proud sponsor of the Toronto Region Board of Trades Annual Scorecard on Prosperity.

In our sixth year as lead sponsor, CMA Ontario is indicated on the cover by the wordmark of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

3/84

Toronto as a Global City: Scorecard on Prosperity 2014 / 1

CONTENTS

FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2

PREFACE 4

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION 14

3 METHODOLOGY 17

Metropolitan Area Selection Process 17

Indicator Selection Process 18

Ranking Method 18

Comparing Scorecard 2010 and 2014 20

4 THE BIG PICTURE 21

Overall Ranking 22

5 THE ECONOMY 24

Introduction 24

Whos Best? 25

Focus on Torontos Economy 35

Concluding Observations: Economy 38

6 LABOUR ATTRACTIVENESS 39

Introduction 39

Whos Best? 40

Focus on Torontos Labour Attractiveness 47

Concluding Observations: Labour Attractiveness 49

7 RETROSPECTIVE 508 LOOKING AHEAD: ECONOMIC FORECASTS FOR TORONTO 56

Toronto Base Case Outlook to 2035 57

Toronto Competitive Outlook to 2035 63

9 CONCLUSION 78

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

4/84

2 / Toronto Region Board of Trade

FOREWORD & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

On behalf of the 12,000 Members of the Toronto Region Board of Trade, we are pleased to presentour annual global benchmarking report, Toronto as a Global City: Scorecard on Prosperity 2014 .

While this is the sixth annual edition of the report, the setting this year is markedly different. Witha municipal vote scheduled for late October and a provincial election expected as early as this spring,2014 is a year of decision for voters in the Toronto region and in the province at large.

But it must also be a turning point. It must be a time when voters armed with a clear picture of theregions future economic and social outcomes demand more from their candidates and make trulyinformed choices at the polls.

The Toronto region accounts for nearly half of Ontarios GDP and about 20 percent of Canadastotal GDP. Given the critical role of the Toronto region in both provincial and national economies,research contained in this years report will weigh prominently in both election campaigns.

Global rankings must naturally be based on comparative data using known inputs, and in thissense they are a look through the rear-view mirror. However, this years report is also a look at theroad ahead or more precisely, at two potential routes we can choose. It features new long-termforecasts on the state of the Toronto regions economy in 2035 based on two different scenarios.

The first scenario envisions a business-as-usual approach where current trends in public invest-ments, infrastructure development, and business planning are maintained. For brevitys sake, werefer to this outcome as the base case forecast or good enough scenario. This scenario shows theregion will enjoy a modicum of economic growth and will continue to be one of the more desirableplaces in the world to live and work. But under the good enough scenario, the Toronto region fallsshort of its potential, with profound implications for the municipal, provincial, and national economies.

The second competitive forecast or great scenario projects a more prosperous future for theregion resulting from improvements in transportation, cluster development, human capital, andother strategic capital investments. By encouraging candidates and parties in the upcoming electionsto focus on the issues that matter most to our regions economic success, we can choose greatinstead of merely good enough. We can choose to build on our evident strengths, enhance ourglobal competitiveness, create quality jobs for our young people, narrow the prosperity gap, andachieve the greatness that is within our reach.

Understanding the strengths and challenges facing our economy helps business and governmentsmake better choices in guiding our regions economic future. How is the Toronto region economyfaring against other global city-regions? What economic fundamentals need improvement to increaseour competitiveness?

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

5/84

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

6/84


PREFACE

Preparing for Our Future Together

We are constantly told we face an uncertain undefinedfuture. To many that uncertainty is both challenging andunnerving, for it seems as though we have no touchstonesor anchors to which we can attach ourselves, if only for ashort time, so that we may safely pause as we chart a newfuture. We are also told that not only is change a certainty,but that the myriad changes facing us is ever increasing.These are facts we must accept. They are irrefutable. Thechallenge we face is how best to adapt, prosper and win in

uncertain, undefined times.Surely the key to our future success must be a re-visioningof what we do, how we operate and how best to positionourselves professionally, so that we may prosper in todayand tomorrows hyper-competitive global economy.Our success tools must include adaptability, flexibility,ongoing professional development, and a readiness toaccept change as well as to change.

The former Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontarioand Certified Management Accountants of Ontario haveseen these changes coming for some time. That is why wehave worked so hard on behalf of members to create a newvision for a combined and stronger designation. Our goal isto ensure that in a new era for all accounting professionals,members will have the necessary skills, training and des-ignation strength to meet any and all challenges. Togetherwe believe that the true potential in realizing our vision tobe the pre-eminent, internationally recognized Canadianaccounting designation and business credential that bestprotects and serves the public interest can only be accom-

plished when both organizations are prepared to embracethe change and accept the challenge that lies ahead.Today, the momentum to adopt the Chartered ProfessionalAccountant (CPA) designation is strong in Ontario andnationwide. CMA Ontario, CPA Ontario and the CertifiedGeneral Accountants of Ontario collectively representapproximately 80,000 professional accountants in thisprovince. Across Canada, this vision would comprise 14accounting bodies and 185,000 professional accountants.

Unification of the accounting profession did not happen

overnight it took many years just as a new vision for theToronto region will also take time. This years Scorecard on Prosperity demonstrates the possibilities and opportunitiesthat lie ahead if we not only imagine them but put actionplans in place to capitalize on these burgeoning opportuni-ties. Dan Millman, athlete, coach and author of numerousbooks including The Way of the Warrior said, Now isthe time, the place is here. Stay in the present. You can donothing to change the past, and the future will never comeexactly as you plan or hope for. We look forward to chartingthe future with our business community partner, the TorontoRegion Board of Trade, and we encourage the businesscommunity to ready itself and embrace this vision with con-fidence and anticipation as we build upon our strengths andestablish a community that is ready for what lies ahead. Ourworld is changing that is a certainty. Will you be ready?

Merv Hillier, MBA, MSc HRM, CPA, FCMA, C.Dir., CMCPresident and Chief Executive OfficerCertified Management Accountants of Ontario

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

7/84


Introduction

Six years of reporting on Torontos prosperity have deep-ened our understanding of how the region has performedin the recent past. Previous editions of the Scorecard havepointed to Torontos strong financial sector and Canadaswell-regulated banking system as critical pieces underpin-ning our relative success, particularly during the mostrecent global recession. And beyond the financial sector,the Toronto region has successful high-value industryclusters, including food & beverage, and health sciences.

Torontos workforce draws from a diverse and well-edu-cated population, establishing Toronto as the fourth-bestmetro in North America on measures of human capital(Scorecard 2013 ). Yet, on key measures of economic suc-cess, such as productivity and real Gross Domestic Product(GDP) growth, Toronto lags behind innovative and high-performing metros like San Francisco, Boston and Seattle.

Now, in this 2014 edition of the Scorecard on Prosperity ,Toronto Region Board of Trade (the Board) looks ahead toTorontos potential economic future by 2035. Recognizingwe are starting from a solid base, we also acknowledgethat significant challenges threaten Torontos envied posi-

tion among global metropolitan regions. Furthermore, weaspire to an economic future for the Region that is betterthan solid or good enough. Toronto possesses the hu-man and capital resources to be excellent provided they aredeployed smartly and efficiently. As noted in TD Econom-ics 2013 Special Report on Toronto (Staying on Track),the Toronto region has weathered the recession better

than most large North American regions but a big task liesahead if we are to sustain this momentum. 1 In particular,issues such as worsening gridlock, an aging workforce, alarge infrastructure deficit, and underutilization of humancapital, among others, emerge as key structural issuesneeding attention. 2

As part of our special lens this year, we use two differentscenarios to generate economic forecasts for the region in2035. First of all, a base case forecast takes a conventionallook at Torontos future, using known investment projects

and demographic and productivity projections based oncurrent trends as a starting point. Secondly, a competitiveforecast is created to analyze the effects on Torontoseconomy if actions on four key policy fronts are imple-mented in a coordinated way. Under this scenario,Torontos ranking on critical indicators like real GDPgrowth, productivity growth, employment growth andunemployment rate would improve. In order to achievethis result, leaders in the Toronto region must focus onintegrated delivery of: 1) the next wave of projects drawnfrom The Big Move; 2) investments in other types of publicinfrastructure; 3) higher productivity in key industryclusters; and 4) a better match between employee skillsand labour market needs. The citizens of Toronto wouldfeel the impact of these four key initiatives directly through less congestion, more efficient infrastructure,and a stronger labour market with higher wages andsalaries. In contrast, relying on the base case business-as-usual scenario puts Toronto at risk of seriousunder-performance.

1 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Derek Burleton and Sonya Gulati, Staying on Track: Sustaining Torontos Momentum After the Global Recession,TD Economics, April 11, 2013, p.1.

2 Ibid, p. 2.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

8/84


Report Contents

This sixth edition of the Scorecard on Prosperity , continuesthe Boards examination of Torontos economy and labourattractiveness, benchmarking the Toronto Census Metro-politan Area (CMA) against 23 other metropolitan areasaround the globe. As these urban regions find their wayout of the global recession, they face mounting challengesin the competition for much-needed capital and skilled

labour.

In keeping with the previous five reports, we use ascorecard to measure and monitor the Toronto CMAsperformance and its potential for success, based on 33indicators grouped into two domains: Economy (18) andLabour Attractiveness (15). We have reported on theseresults by ranking and grading each of the benchmarkedmetropolises. Over the course of the past six years,Torontos overall rankings have shifted only modestly,but all the while holding onto its status as one of the worldmost attractive metropolitan regions. Toronto remains aleader in Labour Attractiveness, and a middle-of-the road

performer in the Economy.

In order to further our understanding of the benchmark-ing results, we have included special features (lenses) ineach of the Scorecards . Each of these lenses has enabledus to explore in depth critical components of the regionseconomy and quality of life, including capital investment;performance during and after the North American reces-sion; transportation infrastructure; economic clusters;and human capital, among others. While highlightingthe factors supporting Torontos economic performance,these featured lenses point to areas for improvementin the Toronto region.

This edition of the Scorecard includes a retrospective lookat Torontos progress over the course of five years of report-ing, comparing Torontos 2014 results with Scorecard 2010 ,when the report first assumed its current form.

As noted, this years edition of the Scorecard includestwo economic forecasts for the region, looking ahead to2035. The base case business-as-usual scenario forecastscurrent trends in productivity and demographic growth

to continue to the end of the outlook period. By contrast,the competitive scenario assumes higher levels of invest-ment coming from action on four critical policy initiatives:1) implementing the next wave of projects from The BigMove; 2) closing 70 percent of the infrastructure gap;3) improving productivity in key industry clusters; and4) improving the match between skills and jobs. All of theseinitiatives link back to previous editions of the Scorecards ,where the economic benefits accruing from such actionswere discussed.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

9/84


The Big Picture: Toronto Ranks Third Overall

Ranking Metro Area

1 Paris

2 Calgary

3 Toronto

4 Oslo

5 London

6 Stockholm

7 Seattle

8 Sydney

9 San Francisco

10 Boston

11 Vancouver

12 Montral

13 Dallas

14 Tokyo

15 New York

16 Halifax17 Hong Kong

18 Berlin

19 Chicago

20 Los Angeles

21 Milan

22 Shanghai

23 Madrid

24 Barcelona

This years results lift Toronto to its highest ranking ever

since the Board started benchmarking five years ago.

In third place, Toronto moves up from sixth in Scorecard2013 , again drawing on a strong performance in labourattractiveness, and boosted by some improved economicrankings. For the second consecutive year, Toronto rankshigher than all other U.S. metros. Overall, Toronto placedthird on Labour Attractiveness and 12 th on Economy. It isworth pointing out that Torontos higher composite scoreon the Economy is the story of resilience and economicpotential but not yet the story of continued growth andmomentum in absolute terms.

For the fourth consecutive Scorecard , Paris is the topglobal metro region, while Calgary holds onto secondplace, after moving up from fourth in Scorecard 2012 .

Paris holds onto its number one ranking, with a strangle-hold on the top spot on Labour Attractiveness, while show-ing appreciable strength in certain aspects of the Economy,albeit less robustly than in Scorecards 2012 and 2013 .Paris ranks among the top three metros on one-third of all

Labour Attractiveness indicators, and is the world leaderon air quality and cultural occupations. Although Parisgets mixed results in the Economy domain, it shines whenit comes to three particular indicators: productivity (#1),market size (#1), and high-tech employment (#1). Addi-tionally, Paris has a strong professional employment sector,ranking fifth.

Calgary continues as the second-best metro overall, rankedsixth in the Economy, and fourth in Labour Attractiveness.Calgarys solid economic performance continues, out-performing all other Canadian metros. Calgary continuesto show strong income and employment growth, while

maintaining a favourable Total Tax Index (TTI). In thisedition of the Scorecard , Calgary became the second-bestmetro on real GDP per capita; only Oslo was higher. OnLabour Attractiveness, Calgary improves from sixth tofourth, just behind Toronto. Calgary benefits from highpopulation growth (#2), relatively affordable housing (#1),low commute times (#1), and a young labour force (#3 on25-34 year olds).

Oslo stays in fourth place for the second consecutiveyear, after climbing from eighth place in Scorecard 2012 .Oslo strengthened its economic credentials with afifth-place ranking in the Economy domain, up two spotsfrom Scorecard 2013 . Oslos rise is propelled by gainson several wealth indicators; most prominently, on realGDP per capita.

In fifth place, London stumbled from third in Scorecards 2012 and 2013 , while maintaining its number two rank-ing in Labour Attractiveness. London continues as a worldleader in attracting international visitors, and boasts adiverse, young population. But deepening economic woescontributed to distancing London from the leaders on theEconomy domain, and ultimately on the overall rankings.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

10/84


Ranked 12 th , Torontos position has budged little sinceScorecard 2010 , when it ranked 11 th . However, Torontoimproves from a C grade in Scorecard 2013 to a B,in large measure due to deepening economic crises inparts of Europe.

Toronto appears to have weathered the economic recessionand its aftermath better than many others. A closer lookat the indicators reveals that Toronto has its best suite of

results ever on the Economy, earning six A grades, com-pared to an average of only three in previous Scorecards .While some of Torontos gains come at the expense of with-ering economies in Barcelona and Madrid, Torontos rank-ings did improve on ten indicators. However, in the NorthAmerican context, Toronto was unable to gain any groundagainst the four top U.S. metros and Calgary, but it hasnearly drawn even with New York. In summary, Torontoshigher composite score on the Economy comes on the backof resilience and economic potential rather than a resultof sustained growth and momentum in absolute terms.

In relative terms, Toronto made the biggest gains among

the growth indicators, as its ranking went up on measuresof real GDP growth, productivity growth, employmentgrowth and income growth, suggesting that Toronto isclosing the gap with the leaders. Employment growth isa particular bright spot, as Toronto moved up four placesin the rankings to 8 th place. When it comes to professionalemployment, Toronto has always enjoyed a high ranking,although it moved up into fourth position after slipping tofifth place last year. With more than one in five workersemployed in this sector, Toronto jumped ahead of Parisonce again. Although not as strong a performer as Seattle,Boston and San Francisco on high-tech employment,

Toronto is nonetheless the leading CMA in Canada andcan lay claim to a good high-tech employment base.

With the drop in renting Class A office space downtown,Toronto became a more affordable place to do business,especially compared to several U.S. metros where rentsfor comparable office space rose considerably (notably,Boston, San Francisco, New York). Furthermore, Torontoscorporate tax burden remains at about 56 percent ofthe U.S. average, enabling Toronto to stay in fourth placeranking on TTI.

Focus on the Economy:Toronto Stays in the Middle

Economy

Rank Metro Area Grade

1 San Francisco A

2 Boston A

3 Seattle A4 Dallas A

5 Calgary A

6 Oslo A

7 Stockholm A

8 Paris A

9 Sydney A

10 Tokyo A

11 New York B

12 Toronto B

13 Montral B

14 Hong Kong B

15 Chicago B

16 Halifax B

17 Vancouver B

18 Los Angeles B

19 Berlin B

20 London B

21 Shanghai B

22 Milan B

23 Madrid C

24 Barcelona D

Ever since Scorecard 2011 , San Francisco , Boston andSeattle have ranked first, second, and third the bestmetropolitan regions in the Economy domain. This year,Dallas regains its 2011 and 2012 fourth place position fromTokyo, which dropped to 10 th place. Calgary rounds out thetop five, up three spots from last year. San Francisco andBoston continue to enjoy outstanding performance on keymarkers of innovation, ranking in the top four on patents,venture capital investment, income per capita and realGDP per capita.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

11/84


All of these strengths, when matched with Torontos bigmarket size, relatively affordable business environment,and well-educated labour force point to a brightereconomic picture for the region. However, as previouseditions of the Scorecard have noted, Toronto needs toimprove its productivity and attract more investment inorder to catch up to the global economic powerhouses.

Labour Attractiveness:Toronto Keeps Getting Better

Labour Attractiveness

Rank Metro Area Grade

1 Paris A

2 London A

3 Toronto A

4 Calgary A

5 Barcelona B

6 Vancouver B

7 Madrid B

8 Montral B

9 Stockholm C

10 Sydney C

11 Oslo C

12 Halifax C

13 Hong Kong C

14 Berlin C

15 Seattle D

16 Tokyo D

17 New York D18 Dallas D

19 Chicago D

20 Milan D

21 Boston D

22 San Francisco D

23 Los Angeles D

24 Shanghai D

While the overall results on Labour Attractiveness aresimilar to last years Scorecard , Toronto has brokenthrough the B barrier to earn an A grade and third-placeranking, up two places from Scorecard 2013 . For the fourthconsecutive year, Paris and London rank first and second.Furthermore, nine of the top ten performing metros stayin the top ten; along with Toronto and Montral, Calgaryand Vancouver improved in the rankings compared to lastyear. Again just as in Scorecards 2012 and 2013 , only eightmetros earn B grades or better. Four of these eight areCanadian metros; four are European.

Paris (#1) retains its ranking for the fourth year in a row,earning A or B grades on all but two indicators. Parisranks among the top three metros on one-third of allindicators, with a strong cultural sector, low homicide rate,favourable commuting travel modes, healthy air, and aseveryone knows, it is one of the worlds premier desti-nations for international travelers. However, Parisianscontinue to struggle with long commute times a keyshortcoming when it comes to labour attractiveness.

Like Paris, London (#2) earns A or B grades on all buttwo indicators but ranks among the top three metros ononly two indicators, compared to Paris five. For the fifthyear in a row, London is the top metro for attracting inter-national visitors and only one of two metros to score an Agrade on this indicator (Hong Kong is second). Londonsother strengths come from a diverse population (rankedthird behind Toronto and Vancouver), a young labourforce, a vibrant cultural sector, and a good record on non-automobile commuting. However, Londons attractivenessis tarnished by very poor commuting times (74 minutes),and relatively high homicide rates the second-worst

outside the U.S.Toronto claims third place, rising two spots fromScorecards 2013 and 2012 , and moving from a B toan A grade. Torontos s trong performance is capped byits number one ranking on foreign-born population, adistinction held since the first Scorecard was produced.With 47.9 percent of the population foreign-born, Torontooutranks second-place Vancouver (42.7 percent) and by aconsiderable margin, third-place London at 35.9 percent.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

12/84


Toronto has been among the world leaders in the LabourAttractiveness domain, because of the regions diversity,excellent student-teacher ratio, steady population growth,and overall solid results on water and air quality.

Yet in the Economy domain, Toronto remains stubbornlyin the middle of the pack, ranking twelfth in Scorecard2014 , just as in 2010. 3 Despite what this stable rankingmay suggest, Toronto has seen some improvements in the

Economy domain; many come at the expense of deteriorat-ing economies elsewhere, such as Madrid, Barcelona andMilan. Specifically, Toronto recorded gains on five indica-tors, but only one can be described as significant; namely,the growth in residential building permits. In Scorecard2010, Toronto ranked ninth of twelve metro regions withnegative growth in residential building permit activity.By Scorecard 2014 , Toronto had jumped to third placebased on 3.6 percent growth in residential building per-mits. Toronto benefitted from the relative strength of theCanadian banking system that prevented a U.S.-stylehousing crisis. As Toronto improved, most metros in theU.S. were struggling to regain stability in the housing mar-ket. In this years Scorecard , six of seven U.S. metros stillposted negative growth in residential building permits.

Minor gains occurred in the unemployment rate andincome growth. Toronto improved from 21 st on the unem-ployment rate in Scorecard 2010 to 17 th in 2014. In this case,Torontos rise in the rankings occurs despite an absoluteincrease in the unemployment rate, as other metros expe-rienced far deeper unemployment problems. Madrid andBarcelona have been particularly hard hit, while stagnat-ing job growth in the U.S. enabled Torontos ranking onthe unemployment rate to get ahead of New York, Chicago

and Los Angeles. On income growth, Toronto jumpedfrom ninth to fifth place, moving from a C to a B grade.Once again, Torontos gain came at the expense of falteringeconomies in Madrid and Barcelona, as well as Los Angeleswhere income growth fell from 5.5 percent to 2.5 percent.

Compared to last years Scorecard , Torontos scores andranking improved on six of the indicators; most notably onteachers per 1,000 school-age population, population withBachelors degrees or higher, and homicides per 100,000population. With regard to teachers, Toronto has its bestresult since Scorecard 2010 . Toronto has shown consid-erable growth from last year, propelling Toronto fromseventh to third place. When it comes to higher education,33.3 percent of Torontonians have at least a Bachelorsdegree, up from 30.2 percent reported in previousScorecards . Toronto ranks eighth, up three places fromScorecard 2013 , and ahead of all other Canadian CMAs.

Another highlight for Toronto this year must be itsimproved homicide rate matching the lowest rate ofall Scorecards , first reported in 2012. At 1.8 homicidesper 100,000, Toronto ranks eighth with an A grade,and is considerably better off than last year.

Successive Scorecards have supported Torontos reputa-tion as a liveable metropolis; and this years edition is noexception. In fact, Toronto earned its best overall score

ever, building on its strengths, and in a few instances,improving on its weaknesses. However, Toronto continuesto be plagued by poor results on both transportation indica-tors: namely, mode of travel to work and commute times.

Five-Year Retrospective:Toronto Improves but Work Still to beDone on Productivity Performance

In looking back at five years of performance, this Scorecard compares Torontos 2014 results with Scorecard 2010 ,when the report first assumed its current form. Over the

past five years, Toronto improved from fifth to third placeoverall, boosted by higher rankings on certain indicatorswithin the Economy domain, and consistently stellar per-formances on Labour Attractiveness. Still, Torontos highercomposite score on the Economy is the story of resilienceand economic potential rather than the story of sustainedgrowth and momentum in absolute terms. From the outset,

3 2010 Economy rankings used to compare with Scorecard 2014 were recalculated to ensure apples-to-apples comparisons.

Economic data initially presented in 2002 dollars in Scorecard 2010 has been recalculated to reflect 2007 dollars for six indicators.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

13/84


from a diverse and well-educated population. Yet, on keymeasures of economic success, such as productivity andreal GDP growth, Toronto lags behind innovative and high-performing metros like San Francisco, Boston and Seattle.

In looking ahead to 2035, we use two different scenarios togenerate economic forecasts for the region. 4 First of all, asshown in Table 1, a base case forecast takes a conventionallook at Torontos future, using known investment projects

and demographic and productivity projections based oncurrent trends as a starting point. The second scenariobuilds on the first to generate a competitive forecast onethat challenges Toronto to do better, within achievablebut aspirational parameters. This assumes an integrated,regional approach to carry out four policy actions forhigher levels of investment in Toronto for transit, otherinfrastructure, cluster development, and human capital.

Under the base case scenario, forecasts are rooted in abusiness-as-usual approach, assuming in the case ofinvestments, the execution of projects underway. Forexample, this would include: the first wave of The Big

Move; revitalization of the Toronto waterfront; constructionof facilities for the 2015 Pan Am Games; and constructionof Toronto Hydros $195-million downtown transformerstation; etc. Forecasts for key economic indicators dependon solid demographic projections, based on assumptionsabout fertility, mortality, and net migration. Under thebase case, the regional population will grow by 2.2 millionto 8.7 million by 2035. Demographic forecasts regardingthe population age structure are the basis for generatingassumptions about labour force growth. When combinedwith projections of the increase in labour productivity determined by factors such as growth in investment of

machinery and equipment and technology, changes in theskill level of the workforce, and the introduction of newinnovative processes the result is a forecast of thefuture long-term growth in real GDP for the Toronto CMA.The real GDP forecast in turn generates a projection ofemployment growth and the unemployment rate.

Yet on the hot button economic measures of real GDPper capita and productivity, Toronto is still dwarfed by theeconomic powerhouses of San Francisco, Boston, Seattleand Dallas. Exacerbated by persistently low scores onpatents, Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), and venture capitalinvestment, the gap between Toronto and the U.S. leadersremains wide. Toronto has yet to demonstrate the improve-ment in the determinants of productivity growth that arerequired if the CMA is to enjoy future prosperity.

This persistent gap between Toronto and the leadersprompted a closer look at Bostons economy in Scorecard2011 , which noted that Toronto and Boston are compa-rably-sized metro regions and share similar industrialprofiles (e.g., strong financial and real estate; humanhealth sciences). Boston has excelled where Toronto hasnot, with high levels of productivity, real GDP, patents,and venture capital. Boston has been successful in leverag-ing its strongest asset a strong post-secondary educa-tion cluster to achieve robust growth. Boston has beenhelped, where Toronto has not, by focused monetarysupport from government, efficient industry cooperation,and high levels of venture capital investment (ten timesgreater than Toronto).

Looking Ahead:Economic Forecasts for Toronto

Looking back has helped us understand Torontos progressover the course of five Scorecards ; looking ahead helps tochart a roadmap for the future. Recognizing we are startingfrom a solid base, we also acknowledge that significantchallenges threaten Torontos envied position amongglobal metropolitan regions. Previous editions of the Score-card have pointed to Torontos resilience during and afterthe global recession, largely attributable to Canadas strongbanking sector and conservative lending practices thatprevented a collapse in the housing market. And beyondthe financial sector, the Toronto region has successfulhigh-value industry clusters, including food & beverage,and human health sciences. Torontos workforce draws

4 Note that this section presents information in $CAD, unless otherwise indicated.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

14/84


Each of these four assumptions stems from work carried outby the Board, supported by previous editions of the Score-card , where special lenses focused on unique economicchallenges. For instance, Scorecard 2013 examined humancapital, concluding that Toronto needs a better match ofeducation, skills, and jobs to compete with top metros likeSan Francisco and Boston. In Scorecard 2012 , Torontosperformance was benchmarked on ten strategic industryclusters (e.g., finance, bio-pharma and bio-medical, food& beverage), and once again, Torontos productivity gapundermined some otherwise positive results. Scorecard2012 recommended that Toronto carry out a regionalcluster strategy to drive innovative growth in a focusedway, leading to improved productivity. In Scorecard 2011 ,Toronto was a D performer when it comes to Transporta-tion, ranking 19 th of 23 metro regions. Apart from notori-ously bad commute times, Torontos worst results comefrom indicators related to transit, including: ridership,distance travelled, rail vehicle kilometers, and expenditureon transit. In order to improve productivity and economicgrowth, Scorecard 2011 recommended to invest in more

commuter rail infrastructure to lower commute times.

Achieving the growth forecast in the competitive scenariodepends on integrating all four components across theregion, consistent with the Boards policy to address prior-ity challenges for transportation infrastructure expansion,cluster development, and regional economic cooperation.And the results are worth it. When compared to the basecase scenario, the economic impact of the competitivescenario is significant, providing Toronto with a spring-board to be one of the great economic metropolitan regionsin the world. Highlights reveal that:

Real GDP per capita growth would average 1.4 percentper year between 2014 and 2035 in the competitivescenario, compared to just one percent per year underthe base case. The result is real GDP per capita that isalmost ten percent higher in the competitive scenario.

Higher economic activity and a better matching ofskills with the needs of the labour market will generate165,000 more jobs and lower unemployment to4 percent instead of 5.7 percent by 2035.

Overall, the base case forecasts that Toronto economy willgrow at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent from 2014 to2035, while productivity growth is forecast to be 1.1 percentannually. The unemployment rate is expected to improveto 5.7 percent by the end of the outlook period as employ-ment growth outpaces growth in the labour force. Slowergrowth in the labour force is anticipated due to the agingpopulation and accompanying wave of retirees. But is thisthe best that Toronto can do? The answer is no, particu-larly when compared to other North American metros. Forinstance, productivity growth in Dallas is expected to beclose to 2 percent annually, about double that of Toronto.Recognizing that we need to aim higher or risk fallingfurther behind, a competitive forecast was created, nudg-ing the Toronto region forward with more strategic andintegrated investments.

The second scenario builds on the first to generate a com-petitive forecast that includes four new assumptions tiedto higher levels of investment in Toronto. Specifically, thisincludes an analysis of the impact on Torontos economyof significant investments in transportation improvements,other strategic infrastructure, industry clusters, and humancapital. For each of these four categories, a set of optimisticbut achievable assumptions is created, as follows:

1. Transportation infrastructure will be improved throughimplementation of the next wave of The Big Move($21.6 billion invested over the next 22 years). 5

2. More than 70 percent of the municipal infrastructuregap in roads, water, and wastewater systems will be met($22 billion invested), and $500 million per year will beinvested in the regions electricity distribution system($11 billion invested over the next 22 years).

3. Productivity in key industry clusters will rise toone-half the level of the leading North Americanmetro for each cluster.

4. Human capital will improve through bettermatching of skills with jobs to achieve a natural rateof unemployment at four percent by 2035.

5 Excludes Hamilton LRT.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

15/84


No improvement in the rankings is expected, however,on real GDP per capita or productivity. The existing gapbetween Toronto and the leading U.S. metros is too wideto overcome.

In conclusion, the Board forecasts a much more vibrantToronto economy if actions on four key policy fronts wereto be implemented in a coordinated way. Leaders in theToronto region must focus on the integrated delivery of: the

next wave of The Big Move; investments in other types ofpublic infrastructure; higher productivity in key industryclusters; and a better match between employee skills andlabour market needs. The citizens of Toronto would feelthe impact directly, through less congestion, more efficientinfrastructure, and a stronger labour market with higherwages and salaries.

Labour productivity growth would average 1.3 percentper year over the forecast horizon, 0.2 percentage pointshigher than in the base case. Labour productivity wouldstand over 7 percent higher in 2035 in the competitivescenario as compared to the base case.

Under the competitive scenario, Torontos ranking on aset of core economic indicators for North American metroswould improve markedly over the base case results,

with Toronto placing ahead of San Francisco, New Yorkand Boston for the first time. Toronto would place fourth(compared to eighth in the base case scenario), thanks toa stronger performance on employment growth, theunemployment rate, and real GDP and productivity growth.In fact, on employment growth, Toronto would be tops inNorth America. The significant job gains expected in thecompetitive scenario would also boost Torontos rankingon the unemployment rate. Furthermore, Torontos real GDPgrowth is forecast to be second-best, just behind Dallas.

Table 1: Base Case vs Competitive Economic Forecasts in 2035

Key Economic Indicators Base Case Competitive DifferenceCompetitive-BasePercentagefrom Base

Population (Thousands) 8,698 8,873 175 2.0

GDP at basic prices (Millions 2007 $CAD) 519,818 582,028 62,210 12.0

Real GDP per capita (2007 $CAD) 59,761 65,593 5,833 9.8

Real GDP per capita growth (%) 1 1.4 0.4 n/a

Labour productivity (2007 $CAD) 120,579 130,032 9,543 7.3

Productivity growth (%) 1.1 1.3 0.2 n/a

Personal disposable income per capita (2007 $CAD) 31,146 32,791 1,645 5.3

Employment (Thousands) 4,311 4,476 165 3.8Unemployment rate (%) 5.7 4.0 -1.7 n/a

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

16/84


In this sixth edition of the Scorecard on Prosperity , TorontoRegion Board of Trade (the Board) continues its exami-nation of Torontos economy and labour attractiveness,benchmarking the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area(CMA) against 23 other metropolitan areas around theglobe. While each of these great urban metropolises reflectstheir unique national heritage, they share similar aspira-tions for a prosperous future, rooted in a healthy urbanenvironment. As the global competition for skilled labourand capital investment intensifies, urban regions through-out the world strive to attract and retain talented workers.

As they find their way out of the global recession, thesemetropolises face even greater challenges in the competi-tion for much-needed capital and skilled labour.

The Board continues to play a vital role in elevating thequality of life and global competitiveness of the Torontoregion by building on its legacy of public policy advocacy.The economic development of the Toronto region is centralto the mandate of the Board, and we recognize that Toron-tos success depends on continuous improvements. DespiteTorontos well-earned reputation as one of the worldsmost liveable city-regions, we cannot afford to take this forgranted. A 2013 report from TD Economics makes the casefor a competitive cost environment, noting that this will becrucial to ensuring the Toronto region economy has suc-cess in attracting jobs and investment as well as expandingin foreign market. Businesses in the region will likely faceincreased competition over the next five years... 6

The Board understands the importance of maintaining aregional focus on Torontos economic prosperity. Bench-marking Toronto against other key Canadian CMAs andthe worlds great metropolises is one way to deepen ourknowledge of the entire Toronto regions strengths andweaknesses.

In keeping with the previous five reports, we use ascorecard to measure and monitor the Toronto CMAsperformance and its potential for success, based on 33indicators grouped into two domains: Economy (18) and

Labour Attractiveness (15). We have reported on theseresults by ranking and grading each of the benchmarkedmetropolises. Over the course of the past six years,Torontos overall rankings have shifted modestly, yetToronto has consistently emerged as one of the worldleaders in Labour Attractiveness, and a middle-of-the-roadperformer in the Economy.

In order to further our understanding of the benchmark-ing results, we have included special features (lenses) ineach of the Scorecards . Each of these lenses has enabledus to explore in depth critical components of the regionseconomy and quality of life, including for example: capital

investment; performance during and after the North Ameri-can recession; transportation infrastructure; economicclusters; and human capital, among others.

2 | INTRODUCTION

6 TD Economics, Staying on Track: Sustaining Torontos Momentum After the Global Recession, April 11, 2013, p 13.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

17/84


While highlighting the factors underpinning Torontoseconomic performance, these featured lenses point to areasfor improvement in the Toronto region; in turn, allowingthe Board to propose policy initiatives for governments andthe private sector.

As this is the Boards sixth Scorecard on Prosperity , wehave included a Retrospective, a special section lookingback at Torontos progress from the early Scorecards . Inorder to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison, Scorecard2010 was chosen as the base year rather than the inaugural

Scorecard from 2009. The pilot report of 2009 not onlyincluded fewer indicators, it also included fewer metropol-itan areas, and in two instances, included metros no longerbenchmarked (Qubec City, Rome).

This years edition of the Scorecard includes a long-termeconomic forecast for the Toronto region based on twopossible scenarios: 1) a base case forecasting currenttrends; and 2) a competitive scenario based on the achieve-ment of significant improvements in transportation,investments in other types of public infrastructure, clusterdevelopment and human capital. The analysis underscoresthe importance of these strategic investments, showing

the economic benefits accruing from the competitiveapproach, while the business-as-usual scenario bringsrisks of serious under-performance.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

18/84


Milton

Oakville

Mississauga

City of Toronto

Brampton

Halton Hills

Caledon

Orangeville

Mono

New Tecumseth

BradfordWest

Gwillimbury

King

Vaughan

Aurora

Newmarket

East Gwillimbury

Whitchurch-Stouffville

Richmond Hill

MarkhamAjax

Pickering

Uxbridge

Georgina

Chippewas of Georgina IslandFirst Nation

Toronto CMA

City of Toronto

Surrounding Municipalities

Map of the Toronto CMA

Source: Statistics Canada

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

19/84

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

20/84


Indicator Selection Process

The search for indicators began with a commitment to findmeasures that showed the degree of economic strength andthe degree of labour attractiveness.

The selection of indicators for each domain evolved overa period of weeks, to allow for consultation with the CBoCand to enable a test run for data availability and reliabil-ity. The indicators that were selected provide valuableinformation on the performance or status of a metropolitanarea within a particular domain, either as a direct output(e.g., disposable income) or a proxy measure (e.g., numberof teachers per 1,000 people of school age as a proxy foraccess to education). In the end, a total of 33 indicatorswere chosen for the Economy and Labour Attractivenessdomains.

Unfortunately, it was impossible to collect data on all 33indicators for every metropolitan area due mainly to dataincomparability. But all 33 indicators were available forthe Toronto CMA. We screened all data sources rigorously

to ensure that each indicator for the international citieshad the same definition as its Canadian counterpart. Inother words, we wanted to avoid an apples-to-orangescomparison. But there were a couple of exceptions. Somevital indicators, like housing affordability, were includeddespite slight differences in definitions across countries.In these cases, we standardized the data by dividing eachcitys indicator by its national average.

Benchmarking studies use annual historical data as ameans of comparison. 7 Given that this study was launchedin the fall of 2013, data beyond the year 2012 was unavail-able for all indicators. This does not imply, however, that

the results of this study are compromised. A benchmarkinganalysis, by definition, is a relative comparison. Therefore,it is reasonable to assume that if 2013 full-year data wereincluded in this study, the overall rankings would remainfairly stable.

In the section discussing Torontos long term economicforecast, however, data is included for the years 2013 to2035. This represents forecasted data, estimated by CBoC(for the Canadian metros) or Moodys (for the U.S. metros).

Ranking Method

This study uses a report card-style ranking of ABCDto assess the performance of metropolitan areas for each

indicator. We assigned a grade level to performance usingthe following method: for each indicator, we calculatedthe difference between the top and bottom performer anddivided this figure by four. A metropolitan area receiveda scorecard ranking of A on a given indicator if its scorewas in the top quartile, a B if its score was in the secondquartile, a C if its score was in the third quartile and aD if its score was in the bottom quartile. A metropolitanarea was assigned an N/A if the data was unavailable forthat indicator.

For example, on the labour attractiveness indicatorproportion of the population that is foreign-born, thetop performer (Toronto) had 47.9 percent of its populationforeign-born in 2011 and the bottom performer (Shanghai)had only 1.1 percent. Applying the method for scoringyields the following ranges for each grade:

A: 47.9 36.2 percent

B: 36.1 24.5 percent

C: 24.4 12.8 percent

D: 12.7 1.1 percent

(Note: In this example, a high score indicates a high levelof performance. For indicators where a low score signifies

a high level of performance such as the homicide rate the ranking levels are reversed, i.e., the highest resultreceives the lower grade.)

7 All international data was converted to U.S. dollars using OECD purchasing power parity exchange rate estimates for the given year.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

21/84


To calculate a domain ranking, the metropolitan areas werethen ranked according to their composite index scores.No attempt was made to give explicit differential weightsto indicators according to importance we are implicitlygiving equal weight to each indicator. We assigned a gradelevel to the overall domain performance using the fol-lowing method: we calculated the difference between thedomain composite index of the top and bottom performerand divided this figure by four.

A metropolitan area received a scorecard rating of A forthe domain if its score was in the top quartile, a B ifits score was in the second quartile, a C if its scorewas in the third quartile and a D if its score was in thebottom quartile. The Overall ranking is determined usingthe scores from the Economy and Labour Attractivenessdomains only. The rankings created from the long termeconomic forecast and the retrospective do not affect theOverall ranking. Even though we generate an Overall scorethat ranks each metro area based on the scores from theEconomy and Labour Attractiveness domains, we do notcreate an Overall composite letter grade. The Economy andLabour Attractiveness domains cover entirely different setsof indicators, so assigning an overall grade would falselyassume that the two domains can be aggregated.

It must be emphasized that two ci ties getting an A gradedo not necessarily perform equally according to this meth-odology. In the example above, a city scoring 38 percentwould get an A grade in the same way that a city scoring40 percent would. However, when we establish a rankingof cities, the city getting a result of 40 percent would beplaced higher than the one scoring 38 percent even if theyboth get an A grade. Thus, in the tables below, when look-ing at cities with the same letter grade, the one with thehigher score is listed first. It must also be emphasized thatthe rankings for each indicator are relative. A city receivesan A grade because i t outperforms all other cities in oursample, not because it is a global leader.

The overall domain rankings are based on a compositeindex (an average of the normalized scores for each indica-tor in the specific domain). In other words, the top-rankingmetropolitan area for a given indicator will receive aone, while the bottom-ranking metropolitan area willreceive a zero.

Normalization FormulaNormalized value = (indicator value minimum value) (maximum value minimum value)

To use the example above, a score of one would be attrib-uted to Toronto given that it leads with 45.7 percent of itspopulation foreign-born (47.9-1.1) (47.9-1.1). Mean-while, a zero would be attributed to Shanghai given that itranks last with 1.1 percent of its population foreign-born (1.1-1.1) (45.7-1.1). A metropolitan area with a 25 percentforeign-born population, for example, would get a score of0.52 (25.0-1.1) (45.7-1.1).

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

22/84


Furthermore, to allow for a truer comparison betweenScorecards 2010 and 2014 , adjustments were made to somekey economic data. Economic data initially presented in2002 dollars in Scorecard 2010 has been recalculated toreflect 2007 dollars, in line with the data in Scorecard 2014 .This applies to: Real GDP per capita, Real GDP growth,

Productivity, Productivity growth, Employment growth, and Unemployment rate.

Further harmonization was carried out to enable truercomparisons of the economic indicators. In Scorecard2010 , different base years had been used for different datasets, sometimes varying by metropolitan area. 8 With theaim of facilitating comparisons between Scorecards , westandardized the base year of comparison. For Scorecard2014 , the year 2012 is the base year of comparison for alleconomic data; for growth indicators, the five-year periodfrom 2007 to 2012 is used. In recalculating economicdata for Scorecard 2010 , the base year of 2007 was used,enabling all of the cities in the sample to have a commonyear of comparison; growth indicators were based on the2002 to 2007 time period.

Comparing Scorecard 2010 and 2014

The five-year Retrospective compares Torontos perfor-mance in Scorecard 2014 with that of Scorecard 2010 . Thisallows for a direct and true comparison between the mostrecent five-year period (2007-2012) and the five-year period(2002-2007) immediately preceding it. Ideally, the reviewwould have been based on a comparison with the inauguralScorecard in 2009; however, certain changes have been in-

troduced in the aftermath of this pilot year. The Scorecard began to take its current form in 2010, with the introductionof new indicators and new metropolitan areas, including:Tokyo, Sydney, Milan, Berlin and Halifax. At the sametime, Rome and Qubec City were eliminated from theroster of comparator metros. In addition, five new indica-tors were added to the Economy domain, drawn from thespecial Capital Lens, in Scorecard 2010 . These indicatorsshed light on a metropolitan areas ability to attract capitalinvestment (e.g., through venture capital, and Initial PublicOfferings (IPOs). With regard to the Labour Attractivenessdomain, three new indicators were added in 2010: 1) com-

muting time; 2) air quality; and 3) international visitors.Therefore, in order to carry out the best possible apples-to-apples comparison, Scorecard 2010 is used as the baseyear, allowing for a five-year retrospective.

Even so, some minor differences between Scorecards 2010 and 2014 are worth noting, as follows:

The cost-of-living indicator was eliminated as a stand-alone indicator in Scorecard 2011 and instead was usedto deflate after-tax per capita income.

The market size indicator was redefined in Scorecard2011 to measure the purchasing power of the population

within 500 miles, not simply the total population. Either new or additional data sources have allowed for

a fuller dataset in Scorecard 2014 , generally affectingEuropean and Asian metros. This means that somedata points missing in Scorecard 2010 are available inScorecard 2014 .

8 For instance, the GDP per capita and Productivity indicators used the year 2005 as the year of comparison for all metro areas, whilethe Unemployment Rate ranked each cities performance using the 2007 value. Meanwhile, for GDP growth, Productivity growth andEmployment growth, varying time periods were used based on the latest historical data of each metro area, though all were rankedusing the five-year average growth rate. Standardizing all of the historical data to a 2007 base year allows for a more accurate

comparison between the two scorecards.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

23/84


Population of Metro Areas 2012*

Metropolis Population

Tokyo 35,682,460

Shanghai 20,210,000

New York 19,015,900

London 15,529,179

Los Angeles 13,052,920

Paris 11,914,812

Chicago 9,522,430

Milan 8,132,175

Hong Kong 7,177,900

Dallas 6,645,680

Madrid 6,387,824

Toronto 5,941,488

Barcelona 5,357,422

Berlin 5,097,712

Boston 4,640,800

Sydney 4,627,345

San Francisco 4,455,560

Montral 3,957,715Seattle 3,552,160

Vancouver 2,463,677

Stockholm 2,091,473

Calgary 1,309,221

Oslo 1,169,539

Halifax 413,710

*2011 for: Sydney, Shanghai

The big picture provides an overall comparison of24 global metropolises, based on the combined resultsof the Economic and Labour Attractiveness indicators.The results contribute to our understanding of whatmakes some cities prosperous and attractive, while othersstruggle. The 24 metro regions represent a global picture,stretching from Australia and the Asian Pacific to Europeand North America. They range in size from less thanhalf a million to more than 35 million making Tokyoan urban region with more people than all of Canada. TheToronto CMA includes 5.94 million people, positioning

Toronto in the middle of the group, as the 12 th largest.

For the fourth consecutive Scorecard on Prosperity , Parisis the top global metro region, while Calgary holds ontosecond place, after moving up from fourth in Scorecard2012 . Toronto, in third place, achieves its best ranking todate on the reliable strength of its labour attractiveness aswell as improved economic measures. Eight of the top tenmetros repeat as top ten scorers, with modest changes inindividual rankings. Stockholm jumps into sixth place, andfor the first time, is included among the top ten best metros.After placing 11 th in Scorecard 2013 , Boston returns to atop ten spot, a position it enjoyed in every other Scorecard .Two metros struggled to stay near the top; most dramati-cally, Madrid dropped from fifth to 22 nd , and Tokyo slippedfrom tenth to 14 th . Madrids collapse is attributable to thefaltering Spanish economy.

4 | THE BIG PICTURE

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

24/84


Paris also can boast a relatively young and well-educatedlabour force. Compared to Scorecard 2013 , Paris falterson one important indicator, revealing a rise in incomeinequality.

The labour market in Paris is still suffering a little, asaverage employment growth was only -0.1 percent from2007 to 2012, and ranked #18 on the unemployment rate.

Although Paris gets mixed results in the Economy domain,it shines when it comes to three particular indicators:productivity (#1), market size (#1), and high-tech employ-ment (#1). At the same time, Paris has a strong professionalemployment sector, ranking fifth. Still, Paris remains anexpensive place to do business, with the highest tax bur-dens (last place on the Total Tax Index (TTI), and 21 st onoffice rents).

Calgary continues as the second-best metro overall, rankedfifth in the Economy, and fourth in Labour Attractiveness.Both rankings are good enough for an A grade. Calgaryhas been a consistent and solid economic performer,ranking among the top three on five indicators, and out-performing all other Canadian metros. Calgary continues toshow strong income and employment growth, while main-taining a favourable tax burden (TTI). In this edition of theScorecard , Calgary became the second-best metro on realGross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita; only Oslo washigher. On Labour Attractiveness, Calgary improves fromsixth to fourth, just behind Toronto (as it did last year).Calgary benefits from high population growth, (ranked#2), relatively affordable housing (#1), low commute times(#1), and a young labour force (#3 on 25-34 year olds).

Right behind Calgary, Toronto is in third place, earning

its highest ranking ever. Toronto jumped from sixth placein Scorecard 2013 , switching places with London, lastyears third-ranked metro. Toronto continues to draw onits strengths in Labour Attractiveness, where it has domi-nated the field on foreign-born population right from thevery first Scorecard . Toronto was third-best on the LabourAttractiveness domain, fortifying its position with a stringof improved results on indicators such as: homicides per100,000 population, teachers per 1,000 school age popula-tion, Gini coefficient (measuring income inequality) and

Overall Ranking

Ranking Metro Area

1 Paris

2 Calgary

3 Toronto

4 Oslo

5 London

6 Stockholm

7 Seattle

8 Sydney

9 San Francisco

10 Boston

11 Vancouver

12 Montral

13 Dallas

14 Tokyo

15 New York

16 Halifax17 Hong Kong

18 Berlin

19 Chicago

20 Los Angeles

21 Milan

22 Shanghai

23 Madrid

24 Barcelona

Paris holds onto its number one ranking, with a strangle-

hold on the top spot in the Labour Attractiveness domain,while showing appreciable strength in the Economy,albeit less robustly than in Scorecards 2012 and 2013 .Paris ranks among the top three metros on one-third ofall Labour Attractiveness indicators. They demonstrate: a strong cultural occupation sector (#1) healthy air quality (#1) a low homicide rate (#3) a favourable travel mode (non-auto commuting) (#3) an attractiveness to international visitors (#3)

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

25/84


London stumbled from third to fifth place overall, whilemaintaining its #2 ranking in Labour Attractiveness. Lon-don continues as a world leader in attracting internationalvisitors, and boasts a diverse, young population. But deep-ening economic woes contributed to distancing Londonfrom the leaders on the Economy domain, and ultimatelyon the overall rankings. For instance, London was one ofonly four metros to experience a rise in the unemploymentrate, compared to Scorecard 2013 (including Shanghai,Madrid, and Barcelona). And at the same time, Londonsrankings on real GDP growth, productivity growth, andemployment growth all went down.

Stockholm (#6) is the most improved metro, comparedto Scorecard 2013 , when it ranked twelfth. Stockholmgained ground in both the Economy (from #10 to #7)and the Labour Attractiveness domains (from #10 to #9).Stockholms economy grew impressively in the 2007-2012period, making Stockholm the second best metro on realGDP growth just behind first place Dallas. Furthermore,Stockholm improved on four other key growth indicators:productivity, employment, and income. When it comesto Labour Attractiveness, Stockholms most outstandingcharacteristic is defined by income equality. Ranked #1on Gini coefficient, Stockholm is metropolitan regionwith the fairest distribution of income.

This Big Picture overview reflects the combined resultsof the 33 indicators used in the Economy and LabourAttractiveness domains. All Scorecards since 2010 haveexamined the same 24 metropolitan areas using the sameindicators, with two minor exceptions: 1) the indicator formarket size was redefined in Scorecard 2011 to measurethe purchasing power of the population within 500 miles,

not simply the total population; and 2) the cost-of-livingindicator was eliminated as a stand-alone indicator inScorecard 2011 and instead was used to deflate after-taxper capita income. Accordingly, in this edition, the TorontoRegion Board of Trade includes a retrospective lookingover five years of reporting, highlighting Torontos winsand losses.

population with Bachelors degrees or higher. On economicmeasures, Toronto has garnered its best suite of resultsever, earning six A grades, compared to an average ofthree in previous Scorecards . Nonetheless, Torontosoverall ranking near the middle of the pack (#12) has beenfairly consistent. Torontos relative success in Scorecard2014 is attributable, at least in part, to the witheringfortunes of certain European metros, such as Barcelona,Madrid, and Milan.

Toronto achieved its overall third place result, despiteranking only 12 th on the Economy, and 3 rd on Labour At-tractiveness. While at first glance, this may seem counter-intuitive, the Methodology section explains how combiningcomposite scores in each domain can sometimes lead tosuch results. In Torontos case, although the ranking in theEconomy domain did not change vis--vis 2013, the valueof the composite score has increased yielding a higheroverall score. This is largely attributable to the exception-ally poor performances of Madrid, Barcelona and Milan.However, Torontos higher composite score did not lead toa higher ranking compared to the results from Scorecard2013 . Since most cities benefitted from the poor perfor-mance of Madrid, Barcelona and Milan in the Economydomain, Torontos 12 th place ranking remained the sameas last year. In fact, Toronto regions high composite scorecomes on the back of resilience and economic potentialrather than a result of sustained growth and momentumin absolute terms.

Oslo stays in fourth place for the second consecutiveyear, after climbing from eighth place in Scorecard 2012 .Oslo strengthened its economic credentials with a sixth-place ranking in the Economy domain, up one place from

Scorecard 2013 . Oslos rise is propelled by gains on severalwealth indicators; most prominently, on real GDP percapita. At $102,795, Oslo is about 60 percent higher than itsclosest competitor. In addition, Oslo ranks first or secondon productivity, employment growth and unemploymentrate. Although not as powerful on the Labour Attractive-ness domain, Oslo ranks well on a number of key indica-tors, portraying a metropolitan region with good incomeequality, low commute times, and a young, well-educatedpopulation.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

26/84


Economy Overall

Rank Metro Area Grade(normalization score)

1 San Francisco A 0.65

2 Boston A 0.64

3 Seattle A 0.61

4 Dallas A 0.58

5 Calgary A 0.57

6 Oslo A 0.57

7 Stockholm A 0.568 Paris A 0.55

9 Sydney A 0.55

10 Tokyo A 0.54

11 New York B 0.53

12 Toronto B 0.53

13 Montral B 0.49

14 Hong Kong B 0.49

15 Chicago B 0.48

16 Halifax B 0.48

17 Vancouver B 0.48

18 Los Angeles B 0.47

19 Berlin B 0.46

20 London B 0.46

21 Shanghai B 0.45

22 Milan B 0.45

23 Madrid C 0.31

24 Barcelona D 0.20

IntroductionThe overall picture emerging from the Economy domainshows little change from previous years at the very top ofthe rankings, but some important shifts within the top ten,as well as significant movement toward the bottom of thepack. For the second year in a row, Toronto is in 12 th place,but improves from a C to a B grade thanks to economicupheaval in the Eurozone with particularly disastrousresults for Madrid and Barcelona.

Data for the key economic indicators are, for the most part,

drawn from a base year of 2012 to allow for comparabilityamong all metro regions. Where dollar values are used,they are reported in $US PPP (purchasing power parity).The more recent data is available for all metros thanks toa change in source, enabling a comparison of all areas ina current economic context.

Ever since the inaugural Scorecard on Prosperity in 2009,U.S. metros occupy at least half of the top ten rankingson the Economy. Consistently strong results on measuresof productivity, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), income,and patents have contributed to their dominance. For thefourth consecutive year, San Francisco, Boston and Seattlerank first, second and third. However, employment growthcontinues to be a vulnerable part of the economy for U.S.metros, with all experiencing lower growth than in theprevious scorecard. Offsetting weak results on employmentis a surge in productivity growth. All U.S. metros earn Agrades and six (of seven) U.S. metros top the rankings;New York, the weakest, comes in tenth.

5 | ECONOMY

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

27/84


Overall, nine of the top ten metros are the same as lastyear, with slight shifts in individual rankings. For thefirst time since Scorecard 2010 , Sydney (#9) ranks in thetop ten, with solid results in GDP per capita, productiv-ity, unemployment rate, and professional employment.Sydney gained at the expense of New York, which slippedout of the top ten for the first time in six Scorecards to rankeleventh. New Yorks drop can be attributed to a number offactors, like relatively weak results in GDP and productiv-ity growth, and a higher unemployment rate, Sydney alsoovertook Tokyo, which fell to tenth place. Although Tokyoperforms well in high-tech employment, Initial PublicOfferings (IPOs), and patents, it struggles with low GDPper capita and productivity, and the very high cost ofdoing business.

Apart from Calgary, Canadian Census Metropolitan Areas(CMAs) are not top performers on the Economy. Montral,Halifax, and Vancouver fall below Toronto, ranking 13 th ,16 th , and 17 th and report similar economic weaknesses onreal GDP and productivity. A few other shifts in the overallrankings from Scorecard 2013 are worthy of a closer look.Calgary, Sydney and Oslo all jumped on measures of GDPand productivity, as the updated economic data significant-ly benefitted these resource-based economies. Los Angelesand Chicago also moved up, thanks to a better GDP result.However, both remain in the bottom half of the overallrankings. On the other hand, Hong Kong took a significantstep down, from 11 th to 14 th position, as the recent econom-ic data suggests that GDP growth and productivity growthslowed considerably the past few years. Meanwhile, a dipin productivity growth contributed to declines for bothMilan (#13 to #22) and Tokyo (#4 to #10). Finally, Madridhas now joined Barcelona at the bottom of the rankings.The decline of the Spanish economy becomes very appar-ent here, as both metros finished dead last in GDP growth,productivity growth, and employment growth. In addi-tion, both have the highest unemployment rates. In fact,the rankings for these two metros have dropped so far thatevery other city receives an A or B grade on the overalleconomic ranking, by comparison.

Whos Best?

Ever since Scorecard 2011 , San Francisco, Boston andSeattle have ranked first, second, and third the best met-ropolitan regions in the Economy. This year, Dallas regainsits 2011 and 2012 fourth place position from Tokyo, whichdropped to 10 th place. Oslo rounds out the top five, up twospots from last year. San Francisco and Boston continue toenjoy outstanding performance on key markers of innova-

tion, ranking in the top four on patents, venture capitalinvestment, income per capita and real GDP per capita.

San Francisco continues to prove why it is a world leaderin technology and innovation. With nearly 221 patents per100,000 population, San Francisco has nearly twice thenumber of patents as second-place Seattle, and more thantwice that of third-ranked Boston. It is the only metro withan A grade; thus continuing a pattern begun in Scorecard2010 . Once again, San Francisco enjoys the most successin attracting venture capital investment. At $17,447.5 (per$1-million GDP), the value of venture capital investmentcontinues to be heads-and-shoulders above all other metro

areas in the sample. On a per capita basis, San Franciscosventure capital investments are nearly twice that of Boston(#2). By comparison, venture capital investment (per$1-million GDP) in Toronto is $1,421.

Compared to Scorecard 2013 , San Francisco kept its first-place ranking on only two of five indicators (patents andventure capital investment). Its ranking slipped on theother three: real GDP per capita, income per capita, andproductivity, although San Francisco still ranks in the topfive on those indicators. Like previous years, high produc-tivity levels and personal incomes (both about 45 percenthigher than Torontos) were achieved at the expense ofemployment growth. Indeed, for the second year in a row,San Francisco lost employment, recording -0.6 percentaverage growth between 2007 and 2012; thus continuinga downward trend noted in Scorecard 2013 . But SanFrancisco was not the worst performer on employmentgrowth; Chicago and Los Angeles also posted negativeresults, as did Milan, Madrid and Barcelona.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

28/84


9 Toronto Board of Trade, Toronto as a Global City: Scorecard on Prosperity-2011, p. 31.

With Dallas back up in fourth place, U.S. metros claim thetop four spots in the Economy. Dallas maintained its out-standing results on real GDP growth (#1) and productivitygrowth (#2), although values for real GDP per capita andproductivity are lower. Dallas continues to be an inexpen-sive place to do business, and ranks at the top on the aver-age investment per venture capital firm; outperformingSan Francisco, Seattle and Boston. However, with so fewventure capital deals in 2012, Dallas ranked at the bottomon venture capital investment per $1-million GDP. Dallascan also boast the strongest employment growth of any U.S.metro, with 0.5 percent growth per year from 2007-2012.

Calgary claims fifth place, up three spots from Scorecard2013 . Strong oil and gas prices and continued energy-related investment has placed Calgary as a top-performingeconomy. Indeed, ever since the first Scorecard , Calgaryhas been the top Canadian metro and the only A metroamong the Canadian CMAs. Unlike the other CanadianCMAs, Calgary performs extremely well on measures ofreal GDP (#2) and real GDP growth (#3), and impressesfurther when it comes to income growth (#3) and employ-ment growth (#4).

Oslo , in fifth position, jumped two spots from Scorecard2013 , propelled by steady gains on several wealth indica-tors. What is most striking is the surge in real GDP percapita. At $102,795, Oslo is about 60 percent higher than itsclosest competitor. Oslo makes great strides in other indi-cators as well, with first or second-place rankings on pro-ductivity, employment growth and unemployment rate. Butbesides a top ten ranking on office rents, Oslo only placesin the middle or at the bottom for most other indicators.

Five other metro areas round out the top ten: Oslo (#6),Stockholm (#7), Paris (#8), Sydney (#9) and Tokyo (#10). Stockholm jumped three positions, thanks to a solidranking on real GDP growth, as well as being the Euro-pean leader in income growth. Stockholm also benefitsfrom a strong performance on high-tech employment (#2),employment growth (#3), which overshadows middlingresults on real GDP per capita, income, productivity anda last place finish on IPO size.

Although still in second place, Boston has gained someground against San Francisco, just missing out on the topspot. Like San Francisco, Boston (#2) excels on innova-tion and wealth indicators: patents, venture capital, percapita income, and per capita real GDP. Scorecards 2010 and 2011 examined Bostons achievements in more detail,citing excellence in its 35 universities and colleges andresilient economic sectors, particularly health care andscience. Scorecard 2011 concludes that Boston can likelylay claim to the strongest post-secondary education sectorin the world. Boston has been able to successfully lever-age this advantage to achieve strong economic growth... 9 Boston also ranks fourth on high-tech employment, whichaccounts for 7 percent of total employment. But as we havedocumented with San Francisco and other U.S. metros,productivity and incomes have flourished in tandem withstagnant employment growth. Bostons five-year averageemployment growth was only 0.1 percent between 2007and 2012.

Right behind San Francisco and Boston, Seattle is stillthird-best. Generally, the fundamentals of success arerobust enough to keep Seattle near the top, ranking numberone on income per capita and productivity growth. As well,Seattle ranks fifth on real GDP per capita, and second onpatents, third on high-tech employment, and third onceagain on venture capital investment/firm. And Seattle staysat the top of all North American metros when it comes tohigh-tech employment (only Paris and Stockholm are high-er). Like all U.S. metros, Seattle struggles with employmentgrowth; with five-year growth of -0.4 percent, Seattlesunemployment rate rose to 7.4 percent in 2012.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

29/84


Among others, a slightly worse showing on economicindicators like real GDP per capita, productivity andunemployment rate bumped New York (#11) out of thetop ten. However, New York still performs well on value ofIPOs and office rents. London continues to hover near thebottom of the rankings, as a slow recovery from the reces-sion underpins its poor performance. This is particularlyevident when looking at growth indicators like income,productivity and employment. Meanwhile, Shanghaicontinues to show improvement. Although finishing laston per capita indicators like GDP, income and productivity,Shanghai is moving in the right direction, improving eachyear and narrowing the gap with the other metro areas.

Paris dropped three places to rank eighth, its lowestranking since Scorecard 2010 (ranked tenth). However,Paris cemented its #1 ranking on productivity, high-techemployment and market size, while at the same timehaving a strong base of professional employment (#5).Still, Paris is an expensive place to do business, rankinglast on the Total Tax Index (TTI) and 20 th on office rents.The labour market in Paris is still suffering; employmentgrowth came in at -0.1 percent from 2007 to 2012, and the8.7 percent unemployment rate in 2012 put Paris in 18 th position rate.

Sydney improved on its 14 th place ranking last year,jumping all the way to ninth. A change in data source forreal GDP per capita has contributed to boosting Sydneysranking from 16 th to seventh on that indicator in this yearsScorecard . Sydneys real GDP per capita in 2012 is esti-mated at $58,836, nearly 50 percent higher than Torontos.In turn, this fed Sydneys productivity ranking, which alsojumped into the top ten. In addition, Sydney posted thehighest growth in the value of residential building permits,and had respectable results on employment growth andunemployment, and a number two ranking on professionalemployment (behind Hong Kong).

Finally, rounding out the top ten is Tokyo , dropping froma fourth place finish in last years Scorecard . Tokyomaintained its outstanding results on productivity growth(#8), unemployment rate (#3), high-tech employment (#5)and patents (#4). Tokyo also maintains its number oneranking in the value of IPOs, a move they made in Score-card 2013 . However, Tokyo is hindered by its high cost ofbusiness, with bottom-of-the-pack rankings on TTI andoffice rental costs.

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

30/84


EconomicIndicators Denition Signicance

What AboutToronto? The Grade

Real grossdomesticproduct(GDP) percapita

# citiesranked: 24

Overall valueof goods andservices producedwithin the metroregion. Real GDPis divided by totalpopulation to getreal GDP percapita.Data is from 2012,based on 2007dollars.

Real GDPper capita iscommonly usedto comparerelative wealthamong regions.

Toronto , 17th out of 24,continues at the bottomof the pack, below all U.S.metros, but ahead of theother Canadian CMAsexcept Calgary. Calgarysurged to second placefrom eleventh in Scorecard2013 . Torontos real GDPper capita is less than halfof Oslos (#1). Real GDPper capita rose for allmetros except London,Barcelona, Madrid, Milanand Sydney, comparedwith Scorecard 2013 .

1. Oslo A ($102,795) 2. Calgary B ($65,991) 3. Boston C ($63,213) 4. San Francisco C ($62,483) 5. Seattle C ($61,381) 6. New York C ($59,249) 7. Sydney C ($58,836) 8. Paris C ($57,131) 9. London C ($54,990)10. Los Angeles C ($54,507)11. Stockholm C ($52,480)12. Dallas C ($52,328)

13. Chicago C ($50,819)14. Milan C ($45,306)15. Hong Kong D ($42,852)16. Tokyo D ($41,137)17. Toronto D ($39,008)18. Vancouver D ($35,747)19. Halifax D ($34,970)20. Berlin D ($34,553)21. Montral D ($32,704)22. Madrid D ($29,064)23. Barcelona D ($26,361)24. Shanghai D ($24,194)

Real GDPgrowth

# citiesranked: 24

The averageannual increase inreal GDP over ave-year period,from 2007-2012.

Stronger growthgenerates,among otherthings, moreemploymentopportunities.

Toronto ranks 12 th amongthe 24 comparator regions.Just as in previous years,Torontos ve-year averageannual growth rate (0.7%)is far below that of rstplace Dallas (2.4%).Toronto is the weakestof all Canadian CMAs.

Calgary, Halifax, and Van-couver all ranked amongthe top 10. However, siz-able job cuts in Madrid andBarcelona means Torontostill garners an A grade.

1. Dallas A (2.4%) 2. Stockholm A (2.0%) 3. Calgary A (1.8%) 4. Halifax A (1.7%) 5. Seattle A (1.6%) 6. Boston A (1.5%) 7. Berlin A (1.4%) 8. Vancouver A (1.4%) 9. Hong Kong A (1.1%)

10. Tokyo A (1.0%)11. Montral A (0.9%)12. Toronto A (0.7%)

13. New York A (0.4%)14. San Francisco A (0.2%)15. Sydney B (0.2%)16. Chicago B (0.1%)17. Shanghai B (-0.1%)18. Oslo B (-0.2%)19. Los Angeles B (-0.3%)20. Paris B (-1.6%)21. London B (-1.8%)

22. Milan B (-1.9%)23. Madrid D (-6.2%)24. Barcelona D (-6.8%)

Productivity

# citiesranked: 24

Productivity is thelevel of real GDPdivided by employ-ment, measuringtotal output perworker.Data for all metrosis 2012, based on2007 dollars.

High produc-tivity levelsgenerate wealth,allowing busi-nesses to payhigher salariesand wages.

Toronto ranks 17 th with aC grade. Like all previ-ous Scorecards since 2011,Toronto ranks below allU.S. metros. Torontos pro-ductivity remains nearly thesame as in Scorecard 2010 .After three years at thetop, San Francisco dropsto #3, due to a surgingParis (#1) and Oslo (#2). At$158,684, Paris productiv-ity is more than doublethat of Toronto. AmongCanadian CMAs, Calgaryremains the consistentleader, and this year haswidened the gap consider-ably. Shanghai stays theweakest of all 24 metros,but is closing the gap.

1. Paris A ($158,684) 2. Oslo A ($154,455) 3. San Francisco A ($140,856) 4. Los Angeles A ($135,247) 5. New York A ($132,679) 6. Seattle A ($127,547) 7. Boston B ($119,315) 8. Sydney B ($115,626) 9. Dallas B ($115,553)10. Calgary B ($114,816)11. London B ($112,193)12. Chicago B ($110,782)

13. Hong Kong B ($109,575)14. Milan B ($104,101)15. Stockholm B ($96,498)16. Tokyo C ($79,731)17. Toronto C ($77,067)18. Vancouver C ($69,101)19. Berlin C ($68,971)20. Madrid C ($68,506)21. Barcelona C ($65,502)22. Montral C ($65,408)23. Halifax D ($64,314)24. Shanghai D ($33,421)

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

31/84




Productivitygrowth

# citiesranked: 24

Productivity growthshows how quicklya CMA is gaining inwealth, measuredover the 2007-2012period.

Strongproductivitygrowth allowsfor economicgrowth withoutinationarypressures,fostering greater

purchasingpower forhouseholds.

Torontos productiv-ity growth, negligiblein Scorecard 2013 , hasdipped into negative ter-ritory. Ranked 14 th (-0.4%),Toronto nonetheless earnsa B grade, due to thesteep decline in several

European metros. Afterweak productivity growthin the 2004-2009 period,(as reported in Scorecard2013 ), Seattle and Dallashave rebounded to rank1st and 2 nd .

1. Seattle A (2.0%) 2. Dallas A (1.8%) 3. Boston A (1.4%) 4. Los Angeles A (1.0%) 5. Chicago A (0.9%) 6. San Francisco A (0.8%) 7. Berlin A (0.8%) 8. Tokyo A (0.5%)

9. New York A (0.5%)10. Halifax B (0.3%)11. Montral B (0.1%)12. Calgary B (0.1%)

13. Vancouver B (0.0%)14. Stockholm B (0.0%)15. Toronto B (-0.4%)16. Hong Kong B (-0.7%)17. Shanghai B (-1.0%)18. Sydney C (-1.4%)19. Paris C (-1.5%)20. Milan C (-1.6%)

21. London C (-1.6%)22. Oslo C (-2.1%)23. Barcelona D (-3.5%)24. Madrid D (-4.1%)

Employmentgrowth

# citiesranked: 24

Five-year averageannual percentagegrowth in totalemployment ismeasured for2007-2012.

Strong employ-ment growthmeans betteropportunitiesfor securingwork. A highgrowth CMA ismore attractive.

Toronto posted its highestranking to date (#9), asve-year annual averageemployment growth rosefrom 1% to 1.2% comparedto Scorecard 2013 , goodenough for an A grade.Meanwhile, U.S. metroscontinue to struggle

creating jobs, with Dallasbeing the top performingU.S. metro with an averagegrowth rate of 0.5%. Oslo

jumped to rst place de-spite seeing a slight dropin the growth rate fromlast year, while Shanghaisgalloping growth nallyslowed down to 1.6%.

1. Oslo A (1.9%) 2. Hong Kong A (1.8%) 3. Stockholm A (1.8%) 4. Calgary A (1.7%) 5. Shanghai A (1.6%) 6. Sydney A (1.6%) 7. Vancouver A (1.4%) 8. Halifax A (1.3%) 9. Toronto A (1.2%)

10. Montral A (0.7%)11. Berlin A (0.6%)12. Dallas B (0.5%)

13. Tokyo B (0.5%)14. Boston B (0.1%)15. New York B (0.0%)16. Paris B (-0.1%)17. London B (-0.3%)18. Milan B (-0.4%)19. Seattle B (-0.4%)20. San Francisco B (-0.6%)21. Chicago C (-0.8%)

22. Los Angeles C (-1.4%)23. Madrid D (-2.2%)24. Barcelona D (-3.5%)

Unemploymentrate

# citiesranked: 24

The percentage ofthe labour forcenot working, basedon 2012 data.

A metropolitanarea with alower unem-ployment rateindicates a moreengaged work

force. In turn,such places aremore likely toattract people.

Just as in Scorecard 2013 ,Toronto is the weakest ofall Canadian CMAs, butsaw the unemploymentrate drop (from 9.6% to8.5%). Compared to last

yearsScorecard

, everyNorth American metro(except New York, whichstayed the same) had lowerunemployment rates. HongKong topped Oslo as the#1 metro, with only 3.3%unemployment. Madridand Barcelona continuedto decline, with unemploy-ment rising to 18.7% and21.6% respectively.

1. Hong Kong A (3.3%) 2. Oslo A (3.5%) 3. Tokyo A (4.3%) 4. Shanghai A (4.7%) 5. Calgary A (4.8%) 6. Sydney A (4.9%)

7. Stockholm A (5.7%) 8. Boston A (6.1%) 9. Halifax A (6.2%)10. Dallas A (6.7%)11. Vancouver A (6.7%)12. Seattle A (7.4%)

13. Milan A (7.6%)14. San Francisco B (8.1%)15. London B (8.1%)16. Montral B (8.5%)17. Toronto B (8.5%)18. Paris B (8.7%)

19. New York B (8.8%)20. Chicago B (8.9%)21. Los Angeles B (10.1%)22. Berlin B (11.4%)23. Madrid D (18.7%)24. Barcelona D (21.6%)

8/12/2019 Scorecard 2014

32/84




Disposableincome percapita

# citiesranked: 24

Average after-taxincome of the met-ro area* is dividedby total population,adjusted for cost-of-living. Data isbased on averageafter-tax income in

US$ in 2010.

Metro regionswith highaverageincomes arelikely to draw inmore people.

Toronto ranks #13,one spot lower than inScorecard 2013 but stillwith a C grade. Overall,rankings have changedlittle since Scorecard 2010 .Canadian CMAs (exceptCalgary) lag behind the

U.S., Seattle, San Fran-cisco, and Boston theonly metros where incomesexceed $40,000. Shanghairemains an outlier and sitsin last place with incomesat $6,046 a little morethan one-third of the next-lowest metro, Barcelona.

1. Seattle A ($44,687) 2. San Francisco A ($44,593) 3. Boston A ($44,517) 4. Dallas A ($38,712) 5. Chicago A ($35,114) 6. New York B ($33,728) 7. Calgary B ($32,881) 8. Sydney B ($31,059)

9. Los Angeles B ($30,890)10. Oslo B ($28,300)11. Tokyo B ($26,123)12. Stockholm B ($25,901)

13. Toronto C ($24,215)14. Halifax C ($24,161)15. Vancouver C ($23,764)16. Montral C ($21,833)17. Paris C ($21,391)18. London C ($21,156)19. Milan C ($19,530)20. Hong Kong C ($18,298)

21. Madrid C ($17,962)22. Berlin C ($17,583)23. Barcelona C ($17,172)24. Shanghai D ($6,046)

Disposableincomegrowth

# citiesranked: 24

Percentagechanges in dispos-able i

Scorecard 2014

Documents

Transcript of Scorecard 2014