|
POLICOM specializes in studying the
dynamics of local economies. From its research, it determines if an area is
growing or declining, what is causing this to happen, and offers ideas and
solutions to communities to improve the situation.
POLICOM
addresses the condition of an economy from the viewpoint of
it's impact upon the “standard of living” of the
people who live and work in an area.
The economic strength rankings are created
so POLICOM can study the characteristics of strong and weak economies. The
highest ranked areas have had rapid, consistent growth in both size and
quality for an extended period of time. The lowest ranked areas have been in
volatile decline for an extended period of time.
The Flow of Dough
In your local
economy.
For info, click here. |
|
For a PDF Flier
of POLICOM's services, CLICK HERE.
For a PDF Version
of Metropolitan - Micropolitan area maps for all states,
CLICK HERE.
For a PDF Version
of the 2008 Economic Strength Rankings
CLICK HERE |
POLICOM has created economic strength
rankings for all Metropolitan Statistical Areas and all Micropolitan
Statistical Areas.
Metropolitan Statistical Areas have at least one urbanized area with
a population of at least 50,000, plus adjacent territory (counties) which
have a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as
measured by commuting ties. They must have at minimum one county but most
often include several counties.
There are now 363 Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (hereafter called METROS) in the United States Among the 3,142 counties in the United States, 1,092 are included in the 363
areas. Approximately 82% of the nation’s population reside in the METROS.
Micropolitan Statistical Areas did not
exist prior to the new definitions.
Once looked upon as quasi rural areas, a
Micropolitan Statistical Area must have an urbanized area (city) with a
population of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000 population. They must be
at least one county and most are. Among the 3,142 counties in the United
States, 694 of them are included in Micropolitan Statistical Areas
(hereafter called MICROS).
The OMB has identified 577
MICROS in the United States. Approximately 11% of the
nation’s population resides in the MICROS.
The formulas used to determine economic
strength measure how the economy has behaved, not what has caused it to
perform.
The following are the data sectors used to
create the rankings.
Group 1 – These sectors reflect the
overall growth in size and quality. The “quality” of the economy is based
upon what people earn, as this influences their “standard of living” more
than anything.
All Workers - Earnings
All Workers - Jobs
All Workers – Wages
Per Capita Total Worker Earnings
Per Capita Personal Income
Earnings by Place of Residence
Per Capita Earnings by Residences
Wage & Salaried Workers - Earnings
Wage & Salaried Workers - Jobs
Wage & Salaried Workers - Wages
Group 2 – These sectors reflect how the
economy is behaving. Small businesses and the construction and retail
industries are extremely reactive to the “flow of money” coming into an
area. They typically grow or decline in direct proportion to the condition
of the economy. There are, of course, exceptions. Areas which have become
destinations for retirement age individuals will have high growth numbers in
both construction and retail, while they might not have a strong economy.
(No system is perfect.)
Non Farm Proprietors - Earnings
Non Farm Proprietors - Jobs
Non Farm Proprietors - Wages
Construction - Worker Earnings
Construction - Jobs
Construction - Wages
Retail - Worker Earnings
Retail - Jobs
Retail - Wages
Group 3 – These
sectors are negative sectors. Growth in these reflect a poor economy.
Per Capita Income Maintenance (Welfare)
Actual Per Capita Income Maintenance (Welfare)
Per Capita Medical Assistance for the Poor - (Medicaid)
Actual Per Capita Medical Assistance for the Poor – (Medicaid)
“Redundancy” and “counter balances” are
built into the criteria which compensate for anomalies which might occur in
one or two of the items.
As an example, an area might have a very
high percentage growth rate in Per Capita Income Maintenance. This might
mean the economy is on decline. However, percentages are funny things and
can sometimes be misleading. It is much easier for an area with a low basis
to have high percentage increases than an area with a high basis.
The Reno, Nevada MSA, from 1998 to 2002,
had the 30th fastest growth rate in Per Capita
Income Maintenance among the 361 METROS. However, it also has the 19th
lowest actual amount. While the rate of growth is high, “twice nothing is
still nothing.”
The reverse is also sometimes true. The
Stockton, California MSA ranked 354th in the growth rate, but has the 9th
highest Per Capita Income Maintenance of all the METROS.
There are, of course, the extremes. The
Saginaw, Michigan MSA had the 53rd fastest growth percentage and also had
the 20th highest actual amount. The Madison, Wisconsin MSA had a very slow
growth rate (ranked 345th) and also has the 21st lowest per capita welfare.
If only these criteria were used, the
example MSA’s would be ranked in the following order: Madison, Reno,
Stockton, and Saginaw.
POLICOM is also aware of anomalies in
labor data. It has found economies which are on decline sometimes have a
very high growth rate in the number of people employed in Retail Trade.
Retail is a reactive industry, which grows and declines in direct proportion
to the condition of the economy.
So how can retail jobs grow in a declining
economy? It is because labor data counts full and part-time jobs all as
“jobs.” This means two part-time jobs are counted as two jobs in the data.
When an area is in decline, retailers
switch from full-time workers to part-time workers. A small retailer might
have four full time workers. If the retailer lays off three full time people
but hires five part-timers to replace them, there is a statistical gain in
the labor data of two jobs. The retailer now has six workers, in the data,
which is a 50% increase from when he had four full timers.
To counter balance or compensate, the
total earnings and wages are included. Under the above scenario, both
earnings and wages will decline; bringing down the area in the rankings.
The average annual increase is calculated
for each of the items for three time periods. (2005 data
was released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in May of 2007.)
Last five years: 2006-2002
– Weighted once.
Last ten years: 2006-1997
– Weighted twice.
Previous Ten Years: 1996-1987
– Weighted once.
The percentage increases are then adjusted
mathematically for consistency. Data sectors which reflect wages are counted
twice, giving equal emphasis to quality as to the growth in size.
The growth rates are then ranked. The
rankings are totaled. The areas are then ranked for economic strength based
on their total overall rankings.
Consistency of Growth
Simply identifying the areas that have the
fastest or slowest growth rates is insufficient when trying to determine the
character of a local economy. The rate, consistency, or stability of the
growth is equally important.
Areas with unstable, boom and bust
economies are difficult places to conduct business. Residents of these areas
are subject to economic uncertainty and stress.
A merchant may lease extra floor space
following three or four great years, only to go bankrupt after a subsequent
economic decline. Residents might make long term financial commitments based
upon rapid increases in earnings and employment, only to loose everything
due to a sudden downturn causing massive layoffs.
To better understand the nature of
economic stability, we will examine the consistency of the Construction
Industry for three areas which had the same average annual percentage
increase.
The first graph shown depicts a Mythical
Area, which had an Average Annual Percentage Increase in Construction
Employment of 3.9% from 1991 through 2000.

This Area had a 3.9% increase from 1990
to 1991. From 1991 to 1992 it again had a 3.9% increase. Each and every
year, the area had exactly a 3.9% increase. This means construction
employers, each and every year, increased the number of people they employed
by 3.9%.
As a result, by averaging the 10-year
history, the Mythical Area, obviously, had a 3.9% average annual percentage
increase (AAI).
Most importantly, the area had perfect
consistency as depicted by the straight horizontal line on the graph. The
flow of money into the area, which supports this industry, grew in an
absolutely consistent manner. This is a perfect situation. However, this is
myth, not reality.

Let us examine the economic stability of
the Minneapolis MSA for the same element.
Minneapolis, during the
same ten years had an AAI in Construction Employment of 3.9%. This rate of
growth ranked 116th highest among the 363 metropolitan areas for this ten
year period.
The
graph shows the percentage increase or decline each year. You can see the
rate of growth is not absolutely stable.
While over the 10 years it averages 3.9%,
there are obvious fluctuations year by year. From 1990 to 1991, there was a
4% decline in construction employment. The next year a
4.9% increase. The next year an
2%
increase, so on and so forth.
For the 10 years, the average of the
annual increases is 3.9%. However, the rate of growth is not nearly as
stable as the Mythical Area. The growth line is not straight but goes up and
down.
While the rate of growth of Construction
Employment for Minneapolis is not absolutely stable, it is considerably more
stable than the Great Falls, MT metropolitan area.

As with Minneapolis and the Mythical Area,
Great Falls had an average annual increase of 3.9%
over the 10 years. As you can see in the graph, the rate of growth was
extremely volatile.
From 1990 to 1991, the
Great Falls
area lost 3% of its construction jobs and the next year gained
11%. Then it lost 6%, gained
16% and so on. Over
the course of the ten years, these “ups and downs” average 3.9%, the same
as Minneapolis.
Obviously, simply relying upon economic
growth percentages is not sufficient in order to determine the character of
a local economy. Economic stability must be considered.
To measure economic stability, the
difference or deviation in each successive year's percentage of growth is
calculated (absolute number) and averaged, creating the Average Deviation
from Previous Year (DEV).
To determine the measurable consistency of
growth, the DEV is subtracted from the AAI. This number is used for
POLICOM's economic strength rankings. Inconsistent economies area ranked
lower than consistent economies.
|