50 years of Population in in Ten Largest Municipalities in the US

Just for grins, I looked to see how the ten largest cities around the time I was born have changed in terms of rank.  The top ten in 1960 and their current rank:

1. New York (still # 1)
2. Chicago (now 3)
3. Los Angeles (now 2)
4. Philadelphia (now 5)
5. Detroit (now 18)
6. Baltimore (now 21)
7. Houston (now 4)
8. Cleveland (now 45)
9. Washington, DC (now 24)
10. St. Louis (now 58!)

New York is a bit larger now, and has for more than 50 years been more than twice as large as the second largest city, making the spirit of George Zipf happy. LA and Houston have gained population as well as rank; the other seven all lost.  St. Louis is hemmed in by a boundary that was drawn more than a century ago, but it doesn't lack land--the area north of downtown is basically field and forest.  Cleveland, Baltimore and, of course, Detroit have lots of empty space within their boundaries as well.

For symmetry, let's look at where the current top ten were in 1960.

1. New York (1)
2. Los Angeles (3)
3. Chicago (2)
4. Houston (7)
5. Philadelphia (5) (note: the top 5 were all in the top 7 in 1960).
6. Phoenix (29)
7. San Antonio (17)
8. San Diego (18)
9. Dallas (13)
10. San Jose (57)

The cities in the second five moved pretty dramatically.  They all had lots of available land in 1960 and are all, of course, sunbelt (although I suppose on could argue that northern California is not sunbelt).  

Note: All data come from 2010 Census and http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab19.txt.

  

Ryan Avent doesn't believe 2.8 percent unemployment is a reasonable possibility

Ryan Avent on the assumptions underlying the Ryan plan:


http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/04/facts_and_figures

A couple of other points: Ryan seems to think that the two basic problems facing the country are: (1) too many defined benefits and (2) too much equality.

Dalton Conley Talks about Intergenerational Wealth--and it is not pretty

Dalton gave a very nice talk at USC on Friday, presenting his Center for American Progress paper 

Wealth Mobility and Volatility in Black and White.  The CAP page on the paper summarizes the findings:

• What family an individual comes from ƒƒexplains about three-quarters of where they end up in the wealth distribution as adults. For African Americans, however, the impact of family background is substantially lower, at 37 percent.
• Individuals are more likely to mainƒƒtain wealth than to attain wealth, or more precisely, low-wealth children are unlikely to become high-wealth adults, while high-wealth children are very likely to be high-wealth adults. Looking at previous years’ data, less than 10 percent of children who grew up in families in the bottom wealth quartile, which had a maximal cut off of about $8,000 in 1984, reached high wealth levels by adulthood between 1999 and 2003 (when the top group’s minimal value was $82,501and the median was over $189,000). And over 55 percent of children who grew up in families in the top wealth quartile—over $155,000 of net worth back in 1984—held on to their high wealth levels by adulthood.
• The strongest predictor of an adult’s ƒƒrelative wealth status is his or her income, which in turn is highly predicated on his or her parents’ income and wealth.
• Wealthy white children are much more ƒƒlikely to become wealthy adults than wealthy African-American children: Over 55 percent of all white children raised by parents in the top wealth quartile hold onto the top wealth position as adults. This is contrasted to only the 37 percent of African-American children raised by parents in the top wealth quartile who hold onto the top wealth position as adults.

Soon-take Chang Describes South Korea's Countercyclical Housing Finance Policy

His paper is very interesting.  Section 3 begins:

Macroeconomic instability greatly affected the financial crisis in Korea at the end of 1997. The need for macroprudential supervision in Korea was highlighted by the bursting of the credit card bubble in 2003.

During the credit card lending boom, the supervisory authority did not respond adequately to the growth of household delinquencies stemming from the reckless behavior of credit card issuers.

The authority was not sensitive to systemic distress originating from households because its prudential oversight was primarily focused on the soundness of individual financial institutions (Lee, 2006). This case underlined the importance of placing greater emphasis on detecting early warning signs before the build-up of excessive imbalances continued for too long (Kang and Ma, 2009).

After the credit card bubble burst, there was a new, widespread appreciation of macroprudential policy. Mortgage loans had increased sharply since 2000, which undermined the stability of the overall housing market. The supervisory authority has taken steps to prevent overheating in mortgage lending and to minimize the risk of loan default.

First, the supervisory authority raised the risk weighting for mortgage loans. The authority also raised the minimum loan loss reserve ratios for banks’ household and corporate loans that were classified as normal and precautionary in November 2002 and in December 2006.

Second, in 2002, the authority started to reduce the maximum LTV ratio for mortgage loans, from approximately 75 percent to 40 percent in the Seoul metropolitan area.

The authority imposed additional measures, such as a ceiling of 40 percent on the DTI ratio for certain types of borrowers, as well as other restrictions on granting mortgage loans and maturity extensions on existing mortgage loans for properties in the Seoul metropolitan area. These various restrictions on mortgage lending were imposed on both banks and non-banking financial institutions.

Note that Korea's loan terms were conservative by OECD standards even before the tightening.   But given how well Korea's economy has survived the downturn, they may be onto something.

From The New Yorker: Wisconsin: The Cronon Affair

Wisconsin: The Cronon Affair

I was especially taken with this:

Second, the Republicans seem remarkably fragile. A professor writing a blog post gives them the shivers. It’s a good thing they chose politics, and not the kind of career where the going can really get rough. Professors, for example, teach their hearts out to surly adolescents who call them boring in course evaluations and write their hearts out for colleagues who trash their books in snarky reviews. These Wisconsin Republicans may never have survived ordeals like that. Happily, Cronon has been toughened by decades of academic life. He’ll be blogging—and teaching and writing—long after Wisconsin voters have sent these Republicans back to obscurity.

There are days when I wonder if tenure is an anachronism. The Cronon affair strongly suggests to me that it is not.

Shani Hilton on Gentrification in DC

Worth reading....

Confessions of a Black D.C. Gentrifier

The Census estimate for the US for 2009 was less than the Count for 2010

The estimate, at 307,006,550, was .6 percent less than the count of 308,745,538.  Yet for the ten largest cities, the estimate was 4 percent higher than the count.  Again, it would be nice no know whether cities were overestimated in 2009 or undercounted in 2010. 

To finish the previous post's thought.

The 2009 population estimate for Detroit was 821,792.  The 2010 count was 713,777.

Overestimates or Undercounts? Does this mean Detroit didn't lose quite so many people?

When the 2010 census count for New York City came out today, it struck me as a little light.  So I decided to compare the 2009 population estimates for the ten largest cities in the country againt that 2010 counts.  In all cases expect San Diego, the census count was lower than the 2009 estimate.  The average difference was four percent, which is four years of population growth at the national growth rate.  Here are the numbers: the first column of numbers is the 2009 estimate; the second is the 2010 count.  What is going on here?

New York City	8,391,881	8,175,133
Los Angeles	3,831,868	3,792,621
Chicago	2,851,268	2,695,598
Houston	2,257,926	2,099,451
Phoenix	1,593,659	1,445,632
Philadelphia	1,547,297	1,526,006
San Antonio	1,373,668	1,327,407
San Diego	1,306,300	1,307,402
Dallas	1,299,542	1,197,816
San Jose	964,695	945,942

Is Inside Job correct about the corrupting influence of money on the economics profession?

I think it may be, but not in the way implied by the movie.  Charles Ferguson makes a big deal out of the fact that Glenn Hubbard, Frederic Mishkin, Larry Summers and Martin Feldstein were paid well by financial institutions and governments who wound up becoming major contributors to the crisis.  HIs implication is that all of these well-known economists ignored the danger signals arising from financial deregulation because they were well paid to do so.

I really doubt this is true.  I say this because I remember thinking at the time it was passed that Gramm-Leach-Bliley was on net good policy, because is was (1) necessary in order to allow New York to compete with London and (2) I thought people at places like Goldman Sachs (especially Goldman Sachs) were smart and competent and would protect their franchise.  I was, at the time, very impressed with Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin.    I had no financial stake at all in any of these beliefs, other than the fact that I wanted my kids' college fund and my wife and my retirement fund to do well.

And by all indications, the economy was doing well.  Unemployment fell to historically low levels, the employment to adult population ratio hit its zenith, and low wage workers were seeing increases in income.  I even remember walking to work in Madison in 1999 or so, and thinking to myself, "could the economy get any better than it is?"  I am thus in no position at call to complain about others having the same view.  All this said, Ferguson was spot on when he called for economists to disclose financial interests that might in any way be related to their research.

But the problem, I think, is far more insidious.  For people who are both successful and reflective, there must often be an undercurrent of doubt as to whether the success is "deserved:" is it a product of virtue or of luck. The neoclassical paradigm allows successful people to feel good about themselves.  It is not much of a leap to infer from it the proposition that people in a neoclassical world can make their own choices, and that when they make "good"choices, they are rewarded, and when they make "bad" choices, they are not.  The number of important choices available to us are, however, limited.  I try to remember that I did not get to choose the country where I was born, I did not get to choose that I had loving, well-educated parents, I did not get to choose that I grew up in a safe community, and I did not get to choose that I have never been seriously ill.  The problem with economics, I think, is not the money people take from various countries and companies, but a broader lack of reflection on the circumstances that produce outcomes.

To me the most disturbing aspect of Inside Job is not the revelation of consulting relationships, but the fact that the economists interviewed by Ferguson seem not to have changed their view of the world even a little.      Feldstein's statement that he had "no regrets" about AIG was the ultimate expression of this.    

Planes, Trains, Automobiles, George Will and Paul Krugman

I haven't blogged in awhile, so I am catching up a little....

Paul Krugman writes two blog posts about rail, one of which I like, and one of which I don't.

This one is, I think, correct:

Oh, boy — this George Will column (via Grist) is truly bizarre:

So why is America’s “win the future” administration so fixated on railroads, a technology that was the future two centuries ago? Because progressivism’s aim is the modification of (other people’s) behavior.

Forever seeking Archimedean levers for prying the world in directions they prefer, progressives say they embrace high-speed rail for many reasons—to improve the climate, increase competitiveness, enhance national security, reduce congestion, and rationalize land use. The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.


As Sarah Goodyear at Grist says, trains are a lot more empowering and individualistic than planes — and planes, not cars, are the main alternative to high-speed rail.

And there’s the bit about rail as an antiquated technology; try saying that after riding the Shanghai Maglev.


But anyway, it’s amazing to see Will — who is not a stupid man — embracing the sinister progressives-hate-your-freedom line, more or less right out of Atlas Shrugged; with the extra irony, of course, that John Galt’s significant other ran, well, a railroad.

Will nowadays seems to get the vapors over anything like a public good.  Air travel is indeed the alternative to rail, and it really is awful. The Acela in the Northeast is often prefrable to air travel, and my understanding is that it is profitable.  Perhaps similar quality service from, say, San Diego to Ventura County, along with a few other high density corridors, would work (I am skeptical about the ability of high speed rail to compete with Southwest Airlines, but let's leave that for another time).  Cars, moreover, do indeed produce environmental damage and congestion that is not priced properly,  European gas taxes and Singaporean congestion fees make lots of economic sense.  One could even use the revenue to hold low-income people harmless from the increased cost of auto transporation.

But in his next blog post, Krugman says:

And don’t get me started on how much more freedom of movement I feel in New York, with subways taking you almost everywhere, than in, say, LA, where you constantly have to worry about parking and traffic.

Well, trains take you almost everywhere on the West Side of Manhattan.  The trains are also mostly radial lines into Manhattan--try going from someplace in Queens to someplace in Brooklyn, and you will see that trains are not so wonderful.  Look, I think the New York City Subway System (and Metro North and the Long Island Rail Road and Path), are great things, but I am not sure how "liberating" it is to live in New York is you can't afford to live in Manhattan. My daughters lived in Brooklyn last summer, and getting around was not a walk in the park for them (except when they walked through a nearby park).

So I decided to look at American Community Survey Data (click on the spreadsheet) comparing the benighted among us who live in LA with those liberated New Yorkers.  The mean travel time for workers in Los Angeles County is 29 minutes.  In New York County it is 30 minutes.  In the four boroughs outside of Manhattan, it is 42 minutes in Kings, Queens, and Richmond Counties, and 41 minutes in Bronx County.  In metropolitan Los Angeles, 11 percent have a one-way commute of more than one hour; in metropolitan New York, almost 20 percent have such a long commute.  


[Update: in response to Minka's comment, I looked up the average one-way commute in metro San Francisco--it is the same as LA.  As for LA being a cultural wasteland, anyone who would say that after living here is willfully ignoring the music, theater and restaurant scene here.  LA is also far more diverse than San Francisco, which for me makes it a more interesting city.]

 


.

Mike Lea and Tony Sanders diss the 30 year fixed rate mortgage

They do so in a paper.  I think Mike and Tony are smart guys.  But I think their reasoning is flawed here..

They basically argue that Fannie and Freddie were responsible for the 30-year fixed rate mortgage, and that they have been a catastrophe, and that therefore the 30-year fixed rate mortgage was a catastrophe.  But had FF done two things--stuck to prime 30-year fixed rate mortgages and matched the duration of their liabilities to the duration of their assets by using callable debt--they almost certainly would not have imploded.

FF imploded because they invested in AAA tranches of low quality mortgages (which were originated and securitized in the private sector) and Alt-A mortgages, and because they had to roll over too much short-term debt in 2008.

Lea and Sanders also argue that there is "nothing special about housing finance."  I am not sure I agree.  It is the one method households have to take on large amounts of leverage, and households are not in the position to hedge risk (not that our financial institutions proved to be particularly good at hedging).  

James Madison Harris 1915-2011

My father-in-law, James Madison Harris, died on Feb 26, 2011. As a young man in the Philippines, he was a cliff-diver. He played baseball and soccer professionally, and recorded 13 holes in one on the golf course. He was in the Army Signal Corp during World War II, and was a boilermaker on the Southern Pacific Railroad. He was in the railroad union and he played the violin. He was married to Flora Harris for 59 years. He was kind to everyone, and had a hell of a fine daughter.

Why aren't there more foreclosures in Europe?

Dwight Jaffee shows that mortgage foreclosures in Europe are still rare, even in distress countries such as Spain and the United Kingdom.  The question is why.  I have heard people in seminars suggest that it is because of recourse--it is ubiquitous in Europe.  But perhaps it is because the social safety net in Europe is stronger.   When Americans lose their jobs, it is hard for them to make mortgage payments.  When Europeans lose their jobs, it is still hard, but perhaps less so than in the US.  Just a thought....

Why I admire Mark Zandi

He work is speedy enough to be of use to the business community and policy debates; his work is rigorous enough to be credible.  He also doesn't take himself too seriously.  This short piece in Slate sums him up nicely.

Joel Kotkin cannot find evidence of a "Back to the City" movement

He puts together a table of suburban and core urban growth based on 2000 and 2010 census data.

MSA                   Core Growth                         Suburban Growth                             Total Growth

Austin	20.4%	56.1%	37.3%
Baltimore	-4.6%	9.9%	6.2%
Chicago	-6.9%	9.0%	3.9%
Dallas-Fort Worth	0.8%	30.2%	23.4%
Houston	7.5%	39.3%	26.1%
Indianapolis	5.0%	28.3%	15.2%
San Antonio	16.0%	43.7%	25.2%
Washington	5.2%	16.8%	15.4%
Total	3.2%	21.7%	15.7%

These are places for which the Census had released data by mid-February. Some of the places for which data has been released since then--St. Louis, Las Vegas and Birmingham--have the same pattern: in all cases suburban growth has outpaced central city growth. St. Louis' population has dropped to its lowest level since 1870.

The results seem particularly surprising for Chicago and Washington, which have had successful redevelopment in their urban cores. But redevelopment can actually reduce density. Gentrification often means that wealthy households rehabilitate mult-family properties into single family homes. This can lead to an increase in wealth in cities, but does not necessary translate into a relative increase in population.

I have long rooted for cities (although I confess that I myself live in an "urban" suburb). But facts are facts, and the facts from the 2010 census at this point do not support the idea of a reversal from suburbanization to urbanization.

From my daughter's blog: Hannah in Paris: Politics or nostalgia? » North by Northwestern

Hannah in Paris: Politics or nostalgia? » North by Northwestern

Property rights and time

When I moved to LA a bit more than two years ago, I bought a dryer.  Last week, the heating element went out.  The good news is that the dryer is still under warranty.  The bad news is that when the repair guy came to my house, he didn't have the part to fix it.  As I result, someone needs to be home a second time for the machine to get repaired.

The store from which I bought the dryer will only tell you what day they will come to do repairs--they won't give you a window of time for the day until the night before.  Consequently, to get a dryer that is under warranty repaired, one might well be required to give up two days. 

Because professors have a lot of flexibility in their jobs, this is not a huge deal for me.  For my wife, however, who is a phycician, this would be a big deal.  It would also be a big deal for any production or service worker who has little to no control over hours worked. 

The appliance store that sold and will repair the dryer has essetially asserted a property right to its customers' time--it is imposing costs that it is not forced to bear.  I am not sure whether it is true that this is happening over larger and larger swaths of the economy, but it sure seems so.  For instance, sometimes when I want to change a plane ticket, I am not allowed to do so on the web.  When I call the airline's number, I am sometimes required to wait on hold for a long time before I can talk to someone.  Now it is possible that the time saved on the web when I use it and the lower cost of airfare makes up for the cost of the dreadful phone service, but I am not sure.

Ryan Avent on Density and Skyscrapers

He writes:

This comparison encourages a lot of people (not necessarily Richard Green) to decide that we don’t need skyscrapers. Defenders of the Washington height limit often fall into this category. But there are two points worth making in response to this. One is that it would be harder to build Paris in America than it would be to build Manhattan. Paris’ tiny streets are more hostile to the automobile than anything in the US, including Manhattan. And Paris has relatively tall buildings over a vast area; it’s easier for me to imagine Washingtonians tolerating 30-story buildings downtown than 10-story buildings in a central neighborhood like Brookland. If you need 10-story buildings in every little Brookland-like neighborhood to generate the same density you achieve with 30-story buildings in a central business district, then you can basically forget about generating high densities in American cities. The NIMBYs are just too strong.


The second point is that Glaeser isn’t directing people to go out and build skyscrapers. He’s not a planner. He’s merely saying that, yes, allowing developers to meet demand with supply will often yield tall buildings, and that’s a good thing. It will increase densities relative to the alternative, supply-limited case, and it will improve affordability relative to the alternative, supply-limited case. People who read Glaeser lauding density and who go on to tout the advantages of Paris get his argument precisely backwards. Because density is good, it’s costly — in terms of the metropolitan economy and affordability — to adopt Parisian limits on growth. Unless your city is one of the architectural jewels of the modern world, and if you live in America it isn’t, you should work very hard to avoid such constraints.

I think the comment about Brookland is very much on point.  At the same time, I can't help but wonder if Washington would be a more attractive and affordable city if it allowed a bunch of six floor buildings almost anywhere, instead of skyscrapers in certain districts.  BTW, I think Washington is close to being one of the architectural jewels of the modern world--its vistas are among its best features.

But now let us consider Los Angeles, another expensive city that has relatively few skyscrapers. Because of regulations arising from seismic concerns, it is very expensive to build steel-framed glass-curtainwall buildings here.   At the same time, while land is expensive in LA, it is nowhere near as expensive as Manhattan.  The combination of high construction costs and (lower) land costs leaves me skeptical about whether high-rise buildings could be economically feasible here.

On the other hand, we should use our land more densely and efficiently here.  Lots of four-to-six story buildings would help.  Maybe narrowing some minor street would help--particularly in the San Fernando Valley and Orange County.

As I said in my original post, high rises are almost certainly the right hammer for very large cities, such as Mumbai, Cairo, Mexico City and Sao [Paulo].  Singapore and Hong Kong have proved that cities that rely on the skyscraper can be beautiful and livable (although affordable is actually still an issue in those places).  But not every city is a nail.

Are Skyscrapers Necessary for Density?

I just read Ed Glaeser's Atlantic piece on skyscrapers (which is excerpted from his new book on cities that I need to read).  I agree with nearly everything he says, particularly about the need for tall buildings in Mumbai, but I also think it is worth mentioning that one can get a lot of density without a lot of skyscrapers.  The municipality of Paris has a residential density of about 54,000 people per square mile; Manhattan has a residential densisity of about 71,000 people per square mile.  Paris has about 1.7 million workers, while Manhattan has about 2.1 million workers.  Yet as Ed notes, Manhattan has lots of skyscrapers, and Paris has few, and almost none outside of Le Defense.  How is this possible?

Let's look at a Google Earth image of Paris from 50,000 feet up:

Now lets's look at Manhattan from the same height:

Notice how at this scale you can see the minor streets of Manhattan pretty clearly, but not the minor streets of Paris?  Paris actually uses its land very efficiently--it does not waste space on streets or setbacks.  As a consequence, while it can be livable (if not affordable) with 3/4 of the denisity of Manhattan and a small fraction of the number of tall buildings of Manhattan.

There is no question that Ed is correct that mega-cities such as Mumbai, Cairo, Mexico City and Sao [Paulo] require skyscrapers to house people adequately and affordably.  But as he also notes, building skyscrapers is a lot more expensive than low-rise buildings.  For many cities, more efficient land-use could go a long way toward making cities more livable, more walkable, and less expensive.