Metro Baltimore gets 'B' on best economies list
The Milken Institute published its annual list of the best-performing cities, economically speaking. Metro Baltimore was No. 64 on the list of the 200 biggest metro areas for 2009, ranking well in high-tech production and gross domestic product growth. It beat out most metro areas in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. But it ranked far below dozens of southern towns -- partly, as the report admits, because the oil economy boosted metro areas in Texas and Louisiana. The Milken Institute also credits the south's lower costs.
You should note, however, that a lot of the data is from 2008, possibly before the economic crash took full effect. I bet Baltimore, which has been helped by stimulus and other government spending this year, would do much better if ranked now.
Texas took four of the top five spots -- Austin, Kileen-Fort Hood, McAllen and Houston. Salt Lake City was No. 3. The only northern city in the top 10 is Olympia, Washington. The highest-ranking city that's even remotely in the Northeast was metro Washington D.C. Next is New York at 38th and Hartford at 48th.
Out of the 200 biggest metro areas, metro Baltimore ranked 23rd in one high-tech "location quotient" and 56th in another. It was 38th in 1-year, high-tech GDP growth and 54th in 5-year, high-tech GDP growth. For other measures, such as overall job growth and wage and salary growth, it ranked lower.
Comments
Jay,
If not for its proximity to Washington DC and the federal government jobs program I fear Baltimore would be giving Detroit a run for its money, or lack thereof. Such should be the cost of the city's and state's war against private enterprise.
Posted by: Dan | November 12, 2009 8:04 AM
You have it backwards Jay. Washington DC is only in existence because of cities like Baltimore. Baltimore people pay the taxes that make the artificial environment know as Washington possible. Baltimore did very well before Washington was created, and it would do even better if Washington ceased to exist 40 miles away from us. Washington sucks life out of Baltimore. If Washington wasn't there, Baltimore would be to the Mid-Atlantic what Boston is to New England.
Thanks for the thoughts, 30. But I'm with Dan, thinking that Baltimore might look more like Detroit or at least St. Louis without the Feds. You can do the math -- we get tons more federal dollars than we contribute in taxes, and if you subtract federal spending the region's GDP goes down by billions. -- Jay
Posted by: 30 Floors Up | November 12, 2009 9:15 AM
30 Floors Up,
You present an interesting economic theory that financial success in one region will, of a necessity, suck financial capital out of a neighboring region. Can you provide any other pair of cities that support this model? I sure cannot think of any.
More likely financial success breeds growth in the surrounding areas. Just drive south of the Potomac and, for good and bad, you will see commercial enterprise in all its glory
What has happened to Baltimore is that rent seeking from the Feds has made it too easy for policymakers to reject private industry. Why give favorable tax deals to business when one can keep the cake and eat it too? Why give in on environmental issues? Why bother to go the extra mile to clean up the streets?
I wish it was not so. I wish Baltimore could be the Boston of the mid-Atlantic. That it is not is cannot be blamed on DC.
Posted by: Dan | November 12, 2009 1:45 PM
One of the things I hate when talking about Baltimore and federal employment, is that people automatically think that the federal jobs in Baltimore exist only because of the proximity of Baltimore to Washington. That simply isn’t true. Baltimore deserves federal facilities because we have earned them.
Many other cities have larger federal work forces than the Baltimore does. San Diego has a huge military workforce. Atlanta, Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, El Paso, and Norfolk to name a few, are all metropolitan areas with more federal employment than the Baltimore area. Yet no one says those jobs exist in those cities because of their proximity to Washington. They simply think they exist because the federal government located facilities there.
Atlanta has the Centers for Disease Control. Baltimore has the Social Security Administration. I don’t here people saying that if it weren’t for the CDC, Atlanta would be like Detroit. I don’t here people saying that if it weren’t for the Navy, San Diego would be like Detroit.
Baltimore is one of the nation’s oldest cities and as such it deserves to have federal installations. After all if it wasn’t for Baltimore during the war of 1812, we would all be saluting the Queen of England and Washington would still be a be a cinder.
Posted by: 30 Floors Up | November 12, 2009 3:12 PM