Jump to content

GR Metro Unemployment Drops

Rizzo

By Rizzo
in Grand Rapids

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 16
  • Created
  • Last Reply
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
Posted
:lol: Another stat I noticed is that the GR area gained in the civilian labor force number from 402,500 to 403,900, and total employed grew even better from 380,500 to 384,900. So the unemployment percentage did not drop due to workers leaving the unemployment rolls, but by gaining employment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
torgo Town

torgo

Posted
Posted

I wonder if this is a trend and if it continues how will it translate to population changes here in Metro GR?

Current estimates are that GR proper is down from 2000. I dont know about the metro area, but I would guess its still increasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
Posted

I think we will continue to see the 3% or so growth in the Metro area, although Ottawa County continues to explode. If the trend continues so that GR is lower than the Michigan average, tt may cause more people in the Detroit-Warren-Livonia area to look this way for possible relocation, if they want to stay near family in Michigan. I'm already hearing some of that. Are we considered an ex-ex-ex-exurb of Detroit then? :P

You're right Andy, city population is down from 2000 - 2004, but according to ProximityOne, the metro area is estimated to have grown from 742,894 to 767,539 (3.32%)

http://proximityone.com/msarank04.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
torgo Town

torgo

Posted
Posted

GRDAD, NO!!!!

Thankyou andy. Not so good, but its what I expected.

Well I am not planning on commuting to Livonia any time soon. :P

I was actually surprised at the loss of population within the city. I figured we would be seeing a slight increase over the 2000 population, maybe to 199,000 or 200,000. They are estimates, though.

On a related note, all of the 'burbs except E. GR (Kentwood, Wyoming, Walker, Grandville) are estimated to be of a higher population than in 2000, so I would venture to say that the metro area is still growing at a pretty good clip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
Posted

See my earlier post Andy^^^^That's a pretty cool spreadsheet at Proximity One. You can play around with the rankings by clicking on the top. Surprisingly, it's interesting that we gained more people than some other notable much larger cities. I won't mention names of cities to keep the trolls from coming out <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HolidayInnExpress Whistle-Stop

HolidayInnExpress

Posted
Posted

If that ratio doesn't change, then what are you worried about? There will be plenty of jobs for unskilled people.

I'm not sure where you are getting your facts though.... Everything I've read implies that is the opposite of what is happening.

Well, I am not exactly worried, just preparing my children so that they can at least be competitive for those 25% of jobs in the economy that offer them the path to a middle class lifestyle. My commentary is not nor has ever been based upon emotions or worries, but simply objective analysis of reality and trends.

The thing to note is that if these 25% of jobs that require a college degree, which usually also provide income that places one in the middle class, preserves the ratio of jobs in the economy that require a college degree...this is a BAD THING. The reason is that, theoretically, the middle class would primarily come from these educated workers. This means, in the extreme scenario, that 60% or more of workers would be in low wages jobs and the lower class, which is radically different from today. It also would likely mean that taxes on middle and upper income folks would have to be increased to make up for the loss tax revenue of the higher incomes of the past when un educated workers made good pay. It also will likely increase the need of taxes for transfer payments and programs for the increased number of poor, lest we have a more callous society that ignores their plight.

Sometimes people cannot see the forest due to the trees that surrond them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GaryP Burg

GaryP

Posted
Posted

The thing to note is that if these 25% of jobs that require a college degree, which usually also provide income that places one in the middle class, preserves the ratio of jobs in the economy that require a college degree...this is a BAD THING. The reason is that, theoretically, the middle class would primarily come from these educated workers. This means, in the extreme scenario, that 60% or more of workers would be in low wages jobs and the lower class, which is radically different from today. It also would likely mean that taxes on middle and upper income folks would have to be increased to make up for the loss tax revenue of the higher incomes of the past when un educated workers made good pay. It also will likely increase the need of taxes for transfer payments and programs for the increased number of poor, lest we have a more callous society that ignores their plight.

First of all I disagree with your 25% ratio argument; I don't know what the ratio is now or what it is projected to become, but I believe it will expand to a larger percentage than it is now in the future.

The second part of the paragraph is very similar to another argument we had earlier. If you are right about your analysis then unskilled workers can either be supported by the government and high taxes for rich people, or unions who control wages by inflating the price of goods and services. What is the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HolidayInnExpress Whistle-Stop

HolidayInnExpress

Posted
Posted

Did you incorrectly reply to yourself HolidayInnExpress? If not, and this was an attempt to just bump your topic to the top, that is considered spam and is not allowed.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=260

Let me know if it was an error and I can delete it for you.

Thanks

Jeff

Yeah....that was a mistake. I got kind of lazy when I noticed I had quoted my own thread instead of editing it. You can delete the one before it as the last post contained the edit.

I am not sure of all the rules and regulations......but I have no interest in bumping up post...thats childish and I am an adult physically and mentally. Thanks for asking though and not simply assuming a childish intent on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.