Jump to content

Economic Trends in NWA


Mith242

Economic downturn  

45 members have voted

  1. 1. How would you attribute the recent downturn in the metro?

    • The growth in NWA was overhyped.
      16
    • The metro has overbuilt it's infrastructure.
      8
    • A pause in growth that will pick back up in a few years.
      14
    • Just a minor issue like higher gas/food costs and the market making a slight correction.
      5
    • I don't see much of a slowdown.
      2


Recommended Posts

In a related matter, of the 100 largest metropolitan areas, the Brookings Institute ranked Little Rock the 7th-strongest economy in the country during the first quarter.

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Business/262220/

Yeah I read that. Although I thought it was odd they mentioned no other Arkansas metro was listed. But what other Arkansas metro is in the top 100? Unless you are going to mention West Memphis, there isn't any. And it's not too big of a surprise that Memphis isn't too high on the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Another indication that the economy in NWA is turning around- there were 42 permits issued for single family homes in the metro the week of Set. 28th. Bentonville as usual had the most-32- in a price range from $163,000 to $334,000. Fayetteville had 8 permitted with one priced at $826,000.

More housing starts mean more jobs and more retail sales as people buy stuff to put in those houses- all good news for local residents and governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another indication that the economy in NWA is turning around- there were 42 permits issued for single family homes in the metro the week of Set. 28th. Bentonville as usual had the most-32- in a price range from $163,000 to $334,000. Fayetteville had 8 permitted with one priced at $826,000.

More housing starts mean more jobs and more retail sales as people buy stuff to put in those houses- all good news for local residents and governments.

Amen to that, Z.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another indication that the economy in NWA is turning around- there were 42 permits issued for single family homes in the metro the week of Set. 28th. Bentonville as usual had the most-32- in a price range from $163,000 to $334,000. Fayetteville had 8 permitted with one priced at $826,000.

More housing starts mean more jobs and more retail sales as people buy stuff to put in those houses- all good news for local residents and governments.

Right before I went on vacation I had seen something listing metros that were coming out of the recession. NWA, Little Rock and Hot Springs were the ones listed for Arkansas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Here's an interesting fact from a local newspaper article-from January through October local real estate agents sold 4,703 homes valued at $764.14 million. This compared to 4,649 home sales worth $849.37 million in the same period last year. For the month of October sales were up 27% from a year ago.

These figures cover both Washington and Benton counties and don't include sales made without an agent. Granted some of that was the stimulus credit for first time home buyers but it is still positive news. Since the credit has been extended and expanded more sales growth should follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting fact from a local newspaper article-from January through October local real estate agents sold 4,703 homes valued at $764.14 million. This compared to 4,649 home sales worth $849.37 million in the same period last year. For the month of October sales were up 27% from a year ago.

These figures cover both Washington and Benton counties and don't include sales made without an agent. Granted some of that was the stimulus credit for first time home buyers but it is still positive news. Since the credit has been extended and expanded more sales growth should follow.

Yeah I saw the latest numbers for Sept. It's still showing NWA coming out of recession along with Little Rock and Hot Springs. The other Arkansas metros are still being listed as in recession. But overall numbers are still a bit weak. It's certainly a good sign don't get me wrong. But overall I think everyone is still holding their breath before they get excited. From what I remember some of the other numbers like production and unemployment are still weak and not showing a lot of improvement yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Some rough news yesterday/today with the University of Arkansas seeing another $2.7 million cut for the current budget year, meaning the cut has to be absorbed by June. The University had already seen over a $2 million cut earlier this year and barely slid through that one without staff and faculty cuts by keeping some positions vacant and the $1 million gift from athletics to help prevent a tuition increase. The UofA has been asked to grow it's enrollment by the current chancellor, is expected by experts to experience a little growth as a result of the lottery scholarship, and is being asked to make budget cuts and likely institute a hiring freeze (which will meant not adding new faculty the school definitely needs to absorb an enrollment increase, not to mention there being no money to expand facilities that are already at or near capacity) all at the same time.

You can find the article here: http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2010/jan/13/fayetteville-ua-job-freeze-other-cuts-lik-20100113/

Or if you don't have access, a very very brief summary here: http://www.4029tv.com/mostpopular/22218181/detail.html

Thoughts on how these conflicting goals can be accomplished?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some rough news yesterday/today with the University of Arkansas seeing another $2.7 million cut for the current budget year, meaning the cut has to be absorbed by June. The University had already seen over a $2 million cut earlier this year and barely slid through that one without staff and faculty cuts by keeping some positions vacant and the $1 million gift from athletics to help prevent a tuition increase. The UofA has been asked to grow it's enrollment by the current chancellor, is expected by experts to experience a little growth as a result of the lottery scholarship, and is being asked to make budget cuts and likely institute a hiring freeze (which will meant not adding new faculty the school definitely needs to absorb an enrollment increase, not to mention there being no money to expand facilities that are already at or near capacity) all at the same time.

You can find the article here: http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2010/jan/13/fayetteville-ua-job-freeze-other-cuts-lik-20100113/

Or if you don't have access, a very very brief summary here: http://www.4029tv.com/mostpopular/22218181/detail.html

Thoughts on how these conflicting goals can be accomplished?

It's no secret what the university's cash cow is; athletics (specifically, football). Considering the primary mission of the university should be education a move of some of the athletic money to education should be looked at. The athletic programs already have a very advantagous financial situation with a largely upaid workforce if you don't include those at the top. Since they seem to be more and more a business venture and not part of the education mission it just seems appropriate that some of that money go to the university as a whole.

Said tongue in cheek- don't expect it to happen except in the form of another gift. There does need to be nationwide reform of the college athletic system as far as financials are concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no secret what the university's cash cow is; athletics (specifically, football). Considering the primary mission of the university should be education a move of some of the athletic money to education should be looked at. The athletic programs already have a very advantagous financial situation with a largely upaid workforce if you don't include those at the top. Since they seem to be more and more a business venture and not part of the education mission it just seems appropriate that some of that money go to the university as a whole.

Said tongue in cheek- don't expect it to happen except in the form of another gift. There does need to be nationwide reform of the college athletic system as far as financials are concerned.

One common misconception is that Razorback Athletics and the UofA are directly (in an administrative/financial way) connected. Razorback athletics are not a "cash cow" for the University, they're a cash cow for Arkansas Athletics and it's related entities (like the Razorback Foundation). Razorback athletics are normally quite profitable, but they're an independent entity (one of the few, if the the only, self-supporting collegiate athletics program in the nation. They used to be the only one, but that may have changed) of the University in the traditional sense. That said, since the UofA does not directly fund or subsidize any of their budget, there's no direct connection or requirement for them to contribute to the general budget. The "gift" from athletics earlier this fiscal year was a well-intended political gesture to show support of academics from the athletic program (and of course, quell rumblings and griping about athletics being so well off and paying multi-million dollar salaries while the academic departments are cash strapped). I don't think athletics are really obligated to support the academics of the university in any way, they make their own money and they can spend it as they choose, (and crowds aren't paying $45 a ticket to sit in a lecture hall and listen to organic chemistry lectures), but I do think there are some ethical reasons they should support the UofA in times of need through these one-time gifts. Although the UofA isn't going to go under or anything that dire, the profitable programs of Razorback Athletics would not exist without the UofA, and if the UofA does well, it helps generate additional interest in the Razorbacks too.

EDIT: I do agree with you about reform though- the era of $5 million college football coaches and the media money and frenzy that go with them should not be taking a priority to the quality of an institutions academics, but in some places, it seems that is happening. Sports are fun to watch, but this country throws billions of dollars away paying for multi-million dollar coaches and cushy scholarships for players that might otherwise go to a University's endowment or general scholarship fund. Although it'd never happen, I'd love to see a study to compare giving levels of people that donate to the University's endowment versus the Razorback foundation, and the levels of giving on people that donate to both. I'm willing to bet people don't donate equally, and that if you support one, you tend not to support the other near as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One common misconception is that Razorback Athletics and the UofA are directly (in an administrative/financial way) connected. Razorback athletics are not a "cash cow" for the University, they're a cash cow for Arkansas Athletics and it's related entities (like the Razorback Foundation). Razorback athletics are normally quite profitable, but they're an independent entity (one of the few, if the the only, self-supporting collegiate athletics program in the nation. They used to be the only one, but that may have changed) of the University in the traditional sense. That said, since the UofA does not directly fund or subsidize any of their budget, there's no direct connection or requirement for them to contribute to the general budget. The "gift" from athletics earlier this fiscal year was a well-intended political gesture to show support of academics from the athletic program (and of course, quell rumblings and griping about athletics being so well off and paying multi-million dollar salaries while the academic departments are cash strapped). I don't think athletics are really obligated to support the academics of the university in any way, they make their own money and they can spend it as they choose, (and crowds aren't paying $45 a ticket to sit in a lecture hall and listen to organic chemistry lectures), but I do think there are some ethical reasons they should support the UofA in times of need through these one-time gifts. Although the UofA isn't going to go under or anything that dire, the profitable programs of Razorback Athletics would not exist without the UofA, and if the UofA does well, it helps generate additional interest in the Razorbacks too.

EDIT: I do agree with you about reform though- the era of $5 million college football coaches and the media money and frenzy that go with them should not be taking a priority to the quality of an institutions academics, but in some places, it seems that is happening. Sports are fun to watch, but this country throws billions of dollars away paying for multi-million dollar coaches and cushy scholarships for players that might otherwise go to a University's endowment or general scholarship fund. Although it'd never happen, I'd love to see a study to compare giving levels of people that donate to the University's endowment versus the Razorback foundation, and the levels of giving on people that donate to both. I'm willing to bet people don't donate equally, and that if you support one, you tend not to support the other near as much.

Well, I realize they aren't fully connected (it's made clear when the company I work for won't match athletic foundation gifts but will academic foundation gifts) but I think they should be. I'm a Razorback fan and love the athletic programs but the present system really stinks nationwide. I buy season tickets and donate to the athletic foundation so I'm guilty of what I'm dissing but I would no problem with it changing.

For me the primary mission of the university is an academic one- sports are an extracurricular activity. In this day that sounds a little strange to say but the big sports athletic programs are more a business now than something the university should be connected with. If we want professional sports like the bigtime college sports seem to have become someone should start a professional football team in the state. The university could lease the stadium to them and pocket a big chunk of money.

Back to your original post- I keep hearing that some academic programs are in danger of being discontinued because of a lack of student interest. Supposedly that was one of the reasons John White wanted to grow enrollment- to gain enough students so the programs wouldn't have to be cut. Maybe this is the time to look at what the university offers and tailor it more to demand. I've also heard that some buildings on campus are under utilized much of the time- is that so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just speaking on the athletic issue. I'd also point out that most of the revenue is generated by football. Basketball can also generate some money but not to the extent of football. Everything else pretty much doesn't generate any profit. Our baseball team might come close but it would be the exception to the trend across the nation.

As mentioned increasing enrollment would help matters. I'm sure some buildings are underutilized. But some buildings are also not in the best of shape currently either. I read something not too long ago about some money being put into renovating Peabody. I'm guessing that will still go forward. But this might be a sign that other future renovations might get put on hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just speaking on the athletic issue. I'd also point out that most of the revenue is generated by football. Basketball can also generate some money but not to the extent of football. Everything else pretty much doesn't generate any profit. Our baseball team might come close but it would be the exception to the trend across the nation.

As mentioned increasing enrollment would help matters. I'm sure some buildings are underutilized. But some buildings are also not in the best of shape currently either. I read something not too long ago about some money being put into renovating Peabody. I'm guessing that will still go forward. But this might be a sign that other future renovations might get put on hold.

Football, Basketball(Usually), and Baseball all pay for themselves and more. None of the others do. And in some ways, you could say that the Athletic Department contributes to the university in the fact that they pay for all of the scholarships. All of that money is like normal tuition that frankly, the university would not receive if it were not for sports. I don't know how much that would be, but assuming that there are 85 scholarships for the football team, they alone bring the university anywhere from 1.2 to 1.9 million every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the question: no, there really isn't much space in the buildings that is underutilized at this point. The only buildings that might not be running quite full are the newest ones like Walker and JB Hunt (and they're running pretty full), and possibly a little space in Walton. The engineering classrooms are all booked and are having space issues with classes from Fulbright (the arts and sciences (core) college and the biggest one overall) spilling over into some of their space. Fulbright is out of room. Education is out of room (nursing classes didn't have enough slots to accept their current students into required classes for graduation, let alone more) and has expanded into the former Phoenix House on Arkansas Avenue. Bumpers may have a little space, but not much with the growth in their Life Sciences and Food sciences programs. One thing a lot of people in the community don't realize is that the university has been growing pretty steadily... in the last four years it's gone from around 17,000 students to just under 20,000 students. That's a huge increase considering the only new academic construction in that time period has been JB Hunt and Walker, and they largely just took strain off of other buildings, not create extra space. The other problem people don't even think about most of the time is faculty- regardless of student to faculty ratio (which the university is committed to keeping low, preferably at it's current level), we don't have enough current faculty to teach the extra sessions of core classes that would be needed with virtually any increase in enrollment, and you can't just say "well, tuition will pay for it", because there are already current shortfalls in many areas due to the budget cuts- we'd have to increase enrollment to break even right now, and that wouldn't provide any of the money needed to hire faculty to teach new sessions of the core classes all students have to take...

In short, it's going to be interesting. The UofA is certainly far better off than some other universities in the nation (University of California system, anyone?) but they're stuck with budget issues while trying to grow, yet not being able to afford to add the infrastructure and faculty for a growth in enrollment until the growth happens (if then), so it's an unfortunate situation to be stuck in. Hopefully there are some bright people at the top and some people working with private fundraising for more stable income sources like the endowment that will be able to work things out. All I can say is, without the campaign for the 21st century (an extremely impressive achievement for a top-end private school or much larger state flagship, let alone that it was done for the UofA when it was about 4-5,000 students smaller and having more serious problems... good job late 90s early 2000 administration!), not only would the UofA not have reached it's current level, it'd be absolutely screwed right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd mention the U of A situation again. Apparently the shortfall is going to be handled by a hiring freeze, dipping into reserve funds and also using some of the tv revenue from the athletic dept. The SEC recently did a new deal with ESPN so the U of A should be getting more money through tv revenue than in past years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd mention the U of A situation again. Apparently the shortfall is going to be handled by a hiring freeze, dipping into reserve funds and also using some of the tv revenue from the athletic dept. The SEC recently did a new deal with ESPN so the U of A should be getting more money through tv revenue than in past years.

The only issue is the Razorbacks are not the UofA. The only reason the University has the $1 million from the TV deal is due to the one-time gift from the Athletics department. Since the Razorbacks don't use a dime of state money and are funded through media, ticket sales, concession and advertising deals, and the Razorback foundation, there's no reason to believe they will give any more of the TV money to the University's general budget, nor are they obligated to.

I think the UofA will be okay in the next few years once the state stabilizes, but if I were top level administration, I'd be focusing a lot on University Development and increasing and protecting the endowment to help weather future storms. We're still a LOT better off than most major state universities, but that's not saying too much these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only issue is the Razorbacks are not the UofA. The only reason the University has the $1 million from the TV deal is due to the one-time gift from the Athletics department. Since the Razorbacks don't use a dime of state money and are funded through media, ticket sales, concession and advertising deals, and the Razorback foundation, there's no reason to believe they will give any more of the TV money to the University's general budget, nor are they obligated to.

I think the UofA will be okay in the next few years once the state stabilizes, but if I were top level administration, I'd be focusing a lot on University Development and increasing and protecting the endowment to help weather future storms. We're still a LOT better off than most major state universities, but that's not saying too much these days.

What would the Razorbacks be without the University of Arkansas part? They are very much a part of the university. Let's say they try and detach themselves completely from the UA, including building their own off-campus stadiums. I guess they'd have to get non-UA-students for athletes too. That'd be a disaster; they're not so independent. And all that non-public money is possible only because of their very close relationship with a very public university.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its symbiotic.

UA provides infrastructure, althought the ADept builds its own stadiums. The UA gets a lot of good publicity from its sports teams, and a chance to advertise the university nationally. The ads that run at halftime of games don't talk about the sports teams; they talk about the school and Fayetteville.

The ADept is more or less free to the U of A at this point, and self sufficient in many ways. What the athletic department gives back to the U of A at this point far outweighs anything the UA spends from its general fund, both in dollars and intangibles. The athletic department does not drag the UA down financially in any way. That isn't the case at Arkansas's smaller schools, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would the Razorbacks be without the University of Arkansas part? They are very much a part of the university. Let's say they try and detach themselves completely from the UA, including building their own off-campus stadiums. I guess they'd have to get non-UA-students for athletes too. That'd be a disaster; they're not so independent. And all that non-public money is possible only because of their very close relationship with a very public university.

That wasn't the point I was getting at-wmr hit a lot of what I was trying to say right on the head. What I was saying is that the Razorbacks are separate from the University financially, and somewhat administratively, therefore, there was no reason they would be putting money back into the University- their money is their money, not the University's. I wasn't implying that the Razorbacks would become some sort of independent entity brand-wise, obviously they are the University of Arkansas's sports team and always will be. The relationship between them and the University of Arkansas the academic entity are of two separate operations joined by administrative liaisons and infrastructure support. The reason athletics were made to be self-supporting in the first place was so that they would not have a negative financial impact on the academic mission of the UofA by siphoning state and tuition funding that would otherwise go to academics. It's a wonderful relationship and a rare one in the world of college sports, I am certainly not complaining about that arrangement, I was just clarifying Mith's point where he said that "The SEC recently did a new deal with ESPN so the U of A should be getting more money through tv revenue than in past years." was not a correct interpretation of what would happen. An increase in TV revenue for the Razorbacks does not directly translate into any new money for the UofA. It's possible that increased recognition of the Razorbacks nationally helps with new freshmen recruitment (although that's not as logical a conclusion as it sounds outright, but I won't get in to that now- lots of conflicting opinions on that without a lot of hard data) and that would translate into an indirect increase in revenue through more students paying tuition, but I was simply trying to say that the Razorbacks making more money does not mean the UofA making more money.

Sorry if I muddled that point, I was just trying to explain the independence of athletics, at least financially, in relation to the University's general budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't the point I was getting at-wmr hit a lot of what I was trying to say right on the head. What I was saying is that the Razorbacks are separate from the University financially, and somewhat administratively, therefore, there was no reason they would be putting money back into the University- their money is their money, not the University's. I wasn't implying that the Razorbacks would become some sort of independent entity brand-wise, obviously they are the University of Arkansas's sports team and always will be. The relationship between them and the University of Arkansas the academic entity are of two separate operations joined by administrative liaisons and infrastructure support. The reason athletics were made to be self-supporting in the first place was so that they would not have a negative financial impact on the academic mission of the UofA by siphoning state and tuition funding that would otherwise go to academics. It's a wonderful relationship and a rare one in the world of college sports, I am certainly not complaining about that arrangement, I was just clarifying Mith's point where he said that "The SEC recently did a new deal with ESPN so the U of A should be getting more money through tv revenue than in past years." was not a correct interpretation of what would happen. An increase in TV revenue for the Razorbacks does not directly translate into any new money for the UofA. It's possible that increased recognition of the Razorbacks nationally helps with new freshmen recruitment (although that's not as logical a conclusion as it sounds outright, but I won't get in to that now- lots of conflicting opinions on that without a lot of hard data) and that would translate into an indirect increase in revenue through more students paying tuition, but I was simply trying to say that the Razorbacks making more money does not mean the UofA making more money.

Sorry if I muddled that point, I was just trying to explain the independence of athletics, at least financially, in relation to the University's general budget.

Now you have me wondering- I know the Razorback Foundation is a private group but the U of A Athletic Department is part of the state university system and very public...right? I would imagine that is the case at other schools as well. So if the State Legislature wanted to they could direct some of that TV revenue to other parts of the school. I doubt that would happen without a nationwide movement to do so but if the education mission of the university is suffering while the big sport coaches are making 6 and 7 figure salaries it is something to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The new numbers on employment came out for Arkansas metros. I know the economy was/is bad but still just weird to see our metro with numbers this high, well relatively speaking. NWA still has the lowest unemployment numbers in the state. And we knew those ridiculously low numbers we had in the 90's wouldn't last. But there certainly isn't a big gap between NWA and most of the other Arkansas metros. NWA isn't a whole lot lower than Little Rock. NWA came in at 6.8% up from 5.7%, Little Rock at 7.4% up from 6.5%. Jonesboro 8% up from 7%, Hot Springs 8.6% up from 7.5%, Ft Smith 8.9% up from 7.9%, and Pine Bluff 10.5% up from 9.7%. Seems like it wasn't that long ago when Ft Smith also had one of the better unemployment numbers in the state, after NWA of course. Now it's near the bottom, beating out only Pine Bluff. You know you're in bad shape when your numbers are being compared to Pine Bluff. But overall I imagine we'll see numbers a little more like this. Not necessarily this high once the economy picks back up. But probably the two biggest metros, NWA and central Ark, with the best numbers.

In other news, this won't come as any big surprise but the newest Skyline Report has shown there's still plenty of commercial space available. So don't expect to see more construction going on in the aspect anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

NWA still leads the state as the top place to do business according to Forbes. But we did drop down a bit, including the other Arkansas metros as well. NWA is 15th down from 4th last year. Little Rock was 49th down from 22nd and Ft Smith was 85th down from 72nd. Other info listed was the median household income at $46,373. The median home price at $105,000. We ranked 15th in job growth, 22nd in cost of doing business, 30th in cost of living and 35th in projected job growth. NWA also has a gross metro product of $14 billion. Not sure if I've ever seen that figure listed before. Maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw some figures in a recent article that I thought I'd post here. Although many might not come to a big surprise to anyone, I'm not sure if many actually know any of the exact figures. No big surprise that several businesses factor in to the big growth the metro has experienced the past couple of decades. About 9% of the metro's workforce is employed at a corporate HQ. That's about 6 times higher than the US average and higher than any other metro. The median age for the metro is 33.1, while statewide the figure is 37. So overall we have a rather young base which should bode well for future growth. Overall I think we all know the low unemployment rates and low crime numbers is a plus for us. But let's look at some of the negative aspects. We seem to have higher health care costs in general. The average income is a little under $39,000, which is $5,000 less than the national average. It would be nice if we could work that number up a bit. Although compared to other areas I think our overall cost of living isn't quite as high either. We need a better educated workforce. Despite the U of A being located here we don't rate very well with education. But perhaps one of the biggest problems would seem to be the transportation infrastructure. There's already problems with I-540 and there's not really anything else out there. The Hwy 412 bypass is probably decades away. We seem to be having problems even getting the Bella Vista bypass going. That might be a number of years away as well. Overall having the spread-out metro with no 'core city' really has hurt us with that. After the census the area should start being able to better control transportation funding. But even then there could be problems. Focusing on one end of the metro is likely to frustrate those on the other end. But we've got to start somewhere. Anyway thought it would be interesting to post some of these figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Not sure which thread this should go in...

Anyway, found an interesting, interactive map that shows intra-US migration patterns at the county level.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html

Benton County is definitely stronger at drawing people in than Washington, with inflow coming from within Arkansas and big cities (especially LA, and SoCal in general) along with some strong outflow to Houston. Washington county is quite different, and what you'd expect with the UA being so dominant. Lots of intake from more rural counties inside Arkansas (along with LA again...), along with more scattered, generalized outward flow to bigger metros.

Detroit's a horror show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure which thread this should go in...

Anyway, found an interesting, interactive map that shows intra-US migration patterns at the county level.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html

Benton County is definitely stronger at drawing people in than Washington, with inflow coming from within Arkansas and big cities (especially LA, and SoCal in general) along with some strong outflow to Houston. Washington county is quite different, and what you'd expect with the UA being so dominant. Lots of intake from more rural counties inside Arkansas (along with LA again...), along with more scattered, generalized outward flow to bigger metros.

Detroit's a horror show.

That's a really cool map. Thanks for posting that link. Benton County does have the advantage, I think we all know that. But I also think Washington County doesn't look quite as good because we have a lot of college kids who end up going elsewhere for jobs.

Wow, you weren't kidding about Detroit. That's just plain horrible. But even looking at places like SoCal is surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.