Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Daily Ranking - inflation adjusted income growth

So I missed this last week, but I was away.  We've been noticing that Pittsburgh has been faring well in income growth of late compared to other regions.. but Wendell Cox in takes it a bit further and adjusts for regional cost of living differences to measure recent growth rates.  We weren't number 1, but note what picture they used: Personal Income in the 2000s: Top and Bottom Ten Metropolitan Areas


Anonymous BrianTH said...

This in my mind is a massively underreported/underdiscussed result in Burghonomics (although I accept Chris's excuse for being a little late). We are accustomed to good numbers for Pittsburgh, but this is a fairly sophisticated measure of REAL income growth, and as such that number is relatively huge--by any standards, really, and certainly given how the rest of the country has fared in this period.

At least it is possible to explain Baltimore and Washington--this was an era of bipartisan exploding deficits at the federal level, so unusual real income growth in our federal-capital CSA is not such a surprise.

But how the heck did Pittsburgh get up there? For that matter, even Philadelphia should view its number as astonishing, and yet Pittsburgh's number was far higher still.

I guess one could call it a period of catch-up growth, and maybe its rapidity could be explained away in that fashion. Cox now has us at #8 in cost-of-living-adjusted per capita income, however:

So I think that explanation has run its course, and this is definitely something to keep an eye on going forward.

Thursday, February 03, 2011 3:52:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home