Thirteen of the nation's 100 biggest labor markets have regained all of the jobs that slipped away during the recession. The other 87 are still fighting to break even.
For the period 2006-2011, only 13 metros have posted gains in employment. Dying Pittsburgh is in this elite group. A surprise to no one, Texas cities dominate the list.
During the recession of the early 1990s, Seattle and Minneapolis were the two cities I heard about as a good place to weather the downturn. The buzz helped establish the two metros as destinations for talent from elsewhere in the country. I expect Pittsburgh to follow a similar path.
3 comments:
I think this shows that everyone deep down things quantitative growth (whether in jobs or people), is still a key marker of urban success.
Urban quantitative growth is de rigueur. The qualitative approach (e.g. educational attainment rates) is relatively new. But if I want to sing Pittsburgh's praises to a wide audience, then I have to use quantitative growth.
One difference is, Seattle and Minneapolis were never saddled with nearly the reputation baggage that Pittsburgh was. Pittsburgh has been considered a lousy city since the time it began to grow. Hell, in the 1930's a magazine asked, "Is Pittsburgh civilized?" I worry that it could require much more than five years of good press to counteract over 100 years of bad press.
Post a Comment