More Related Content
Featured
Featured (20)
Joel Kotkin presentation
- 1. HOW TEXAS GOT ON TOP-‐-‐HOW IT CAN STAY THERE Presenta8on by Joel Kotkin to Texas EDC, Aus8n, Texas September 25th 2012
- 2. Reasons for Texas Ascendency • Role of Resources • Business Climate and Job Growth • Favorable Demographics
- 3. 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 Jan-‐07 Apr-‐07 Jul-‐07 Index: Jan. 2007 = 100 Oct-‐07 Jan-‐08 United States Apr-‐08 Jul-‐08 Oct-‐08 Jan-‐09 Apr-‐09 California Jul-‐09 Oct-‐09 Jan-‐10 Texas Apr-‐10 Non-‐Farm Jobs Jul-‐10 Oct-‐10 Jan-‐11 New York Apr-‐11 Jul-‐11 Oct-‐11 Jan-‐12 Florida Apr-‐12 Jul-‐12
- 4. Employment Growth December 2001-‐December 2011 Color threshold is Zero
- 5. Grand Delusions won’t save California *Green Jobs *High-‐Speed Rail *Social Media “boom”
- 6. In Texas, they realize that in a post-‐ industrial age, stuff s8ll maers…
- 7. Room to Grow Total Arable Land Arable Land (thousand hectares) 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 United Canada Australia Germany United China India South States Kingdom Korea
- 8. America’s Opportunity Food and Agriculture Organiza8on of the United Na8ons
- 9. Growth Rates: Real GDP vs. Manuafacturing 6% 5.2 5% 4.7 4% 3% 2% 1.7 1% 0% Real GDP Industrial Production: Manufacturing 2011 2011 Feb. 2011 to Feb. 2012
- 10. Natural Gas Produc>on, Billions of Cu M United States 593 Russia 547 European Union 182 Canada 161 Iran 116 Norway 104 Algeria 87 China 83 Netherlands 80 Saudi Arabia 77 Qatar 77 Indonesia 70 Uzbekistan 68 Egypt 63 Mexico 60 United Kingdom 59 Malaysia 57 United Arab Emirates 50 Australia 42 Argen8na 41 Trinidad and Tobago 39 India 39 Pakistan 38 Kazakhstan 36 Turkmenistan 34 Nigeria 33 Thailand 29 Oman 24 CIA World Factbook, Venezuela 23 most recent year: 2008 & 2009 Azerbaijan 23 Ukraine 21
- 12. Oil and Gas Extrac>on Employment Growth 2001-‐2011 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 400% 450% North Dakota Georgia Pennsylvania Arkansas South Carolina Wisconsin Minnesota South Dakota Hawaii Idaho Nevada Colorado Iowa Delaware Utah New Hampshire Washington Florida Arizona Virginia Montana New Jersey Oregon Maine Source: EMSI Complete Employment, 2011.4
- 13. Growth in Middle Skill Jobs, 2002-‐2010 14.7% 5.3% 2.1% Texas California US Aggregate Source: EMSI Complete Employment, 3rd Quarter 2010 Analysis by Praxis Strategy Group
- 14. Growth in STEM Jobs, 2002-‐2010 14.0% 5.4% 1.7% Texas California US Aggregate Source: EMSI Complete Employment, 3rd Quarter 2010 Analysis by Praxis Strategy Group
- 15. STEM Job Growth, 2009-‐2011 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% District of Columbia Michigan Vermont North Dakota Washington Utah South Carolina Alaska Texas Nebraska Maryland New Hampshire Wyoming Arkansas Ohio Massachuses West Virginia Georgia Oregon Virginia South Dakota Kentucky California Na8on Source: EMSI Complete Employment, 2011.4
- 16. 1960 Fortune 500 Headquarters CharloOe Atlanta Houston Boston DFW St. Louis Philadelphia SF Bay Detroit LA Cleveland PiOsburgh Chicago NYC 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
- 17. 1980 Fortune 500 Headquarters CharloOe Atlanta DFW St. Louis Boston Philadelphia Cleveland Houston Detroit PiOsburgh SF Bay LA Chicago NYC 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
- 18. 2006 Fortune 500 Headquarters Cleveland CharloOe PiOsburgh St. Louis Boston Philadelphia Atlanta Detroit DFW LA Houston SF Bay Chicago NYC 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
- 19. Housing Affordability Median Mul>ple: Median housing price divided by median family income San Francisco 7.2 6.1 Los Angeles 5.9 5.0 SeaOle 5.0 4.4 Raleigh 3.5 3.3 Houston 2.9 2.9 Dallas-‐Fort Worth 2.7 2.5 Kalamazoo 2.5 2.4 Fort Wayne 2.2 Affordability: Below 3.0 2.0 South Bend 2.0 Demographia Housing Affordability Survey
- 20. Domestic Migration by State: 2000-2009 10 LARGEST STATES FL TX NC GA Data from PA Census Bueau OH MI IL CA NY -‐2.0 -‐1.5 -‐1.0 -‐0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Millions: Net Domes>c Migra>on
- 21. Sources of Net Migra>on to Texas, 2004-‐2008 O’Neil Center for Global Markets and Finance SMU Cox School of Business
- 22. Net Domes>c Migra>on Rate, 2010-‐2011 Tampa 0.96% Denver 0.75% Miami 0.64% Dallas 0.60% Seale 0.50% Washington 0.38% Houston 0.35% Riverside 0.35% Atlanta 0.23% San Francisco 0.13% Phoenix 0.13% San Diego 0.03% Minneapolis 0.02% Boston -‐0.04% Bal8more -‐0.05% Philadelphia -‐0.22% St. Louis -‐0.36% Los Angeles -‐0.39% New York -‐0.52% Detroit -‐0.56% Chicago -‐0.57% U.S. Census Popula8on Es8mates Program
- 23. Houston MSA Net Migra>on Flows 2000-‐2010 Net Oualows to Blue Net Inflows from Orange IRS Tax Return Data. Net flow of tax return exemp8ons
- 24. Tarrant County Net Migra>on Flows 2000-‐2010 Net Oualows to Blue Net Inflows from Orange IRS Tax Return Data. Net flow of tax return exemp8ons
- 25. Change in 5-17 Population: 2000-2010 TOP 20 MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREA EXAMPLES Raleigh Las Vegas Austin Charlotte Phoenix Atlanta Dallas-Fort Worth Orlando Houston San Antonio Riverside-San Bernardino Nashville Indianapolis Denver Tampa-St. Petersburg Salt Lake City Columbus Washington Sacramento Source: Oklahoma City Census Data AVERAGE Chicago San Francisco Boston -‐10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
- 26. Absolute Change: College Graduates HOUSING AFFORDABILITY: MAJOR METRO AREAS: 2007-9 6% Change in College Graduates: 2007-‐2009 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 52 Metropolitan Areas over Million Population 2007 0% Under 3.0 3.0-4.0 4.0-5.0 5.0-6.0 6.0-8.0 Over 8 Median House Price/Median Household Income: 2007
- 27. Major Demographic Challenges Ahead • Making Immigrants the New Mainstream • Improve Educa8onal Performance • Maintain the sense of op8mism
- 28. Immigra>on Rates Top 15 Regions Annual Average, 2001-‐2008 Miami 10.1 Los Angeles 8.0 San Francisco 7.5 New York 7.4 Dallas 6.5 Houston 6.5 Washington 6.0 Phoenix 5.8 Chicago 5.2 Atlanta 4.8 Boston 4.6 SeaOle 4.1 Areas are MSA Riverside 3.3 U.S. Census Popula8on Es8mates Detroit 2.5 Philadelphia 2.1
- 29. The Millennial Genera>on is the Most Diverse in American History Percent of U.S. Population That Is African American, Hispanic, Asian Pacific Islander, American 50% Indian, and Other; By Age – December 2004 45% § Echo Boomers! 40% § Generation X! § Baby Boomers! 35% § Pre-Baby Boomers! 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, Dec. 2004
- 30. Ethnic Purchasing Power Continues To Soar Spending Power by Ethnic Groups (in Billions) 1990, 2000, 2008, with 2013 projections $318.1 $590.2 Black $913.1 $1,239.5 $211.9 $489.5 Hispanic $951.0 $1,386.2 $116.5 $268.9 Asian $509.1 $752.3 1990 2000 2008 2013 Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (2008)
- 31. Big Changes in Composi>on of New Entrepreneurs Share of All New Entrepreneurs (1996, 2010)
- 32. It all depends on her… Educa8on is the biggest challenge for Texas…making progress but more is needed
- 33. Bachelor's Degree and Above Educa>onal AOainment Level, 2010 Aus8n 39.4% Denver 38.2% Provo 35.2% Tallahassee 34.2% Atlanta 34.1% Omaha 33.0% Kansas City 32.5% Charloe 32.2% Dallas 31.1% Ogden 30.1% Columbia 29.8% Nashville 29.7% Knoxville 28.8% Spokane 28.5% Houston 28.4% Boise City 28.3% United States 28.2% Oklahoma City 27.6% Wichita 27.1% Greenville 26.9% New Orleans 26.8% Baton Rouge 26.6% Birmingham 26.3% Tampa 26.2% Reno 26.0% Greensboro 25.6% San Antonio 25.4% Memphis 25.1% Tulsa 24.8% Kennewick 24.1% Las Vegas 21.6% Mobile 21.0% Corpus Chris8 20.0% McAllen 15.8% Yakima 15.6% Beaumont 15.0% Brownsville 14.3%
- 34. Growth in Popula>on with a Bachelor's Degree or Higher, 2000-‐2010 Las Vegas 78.4% Provo 73.7% McAllen 70.7% Ogden 62.4% Boise City 52.8% Aus8n 52.3% Charloe 51.7% San Antonio 48.1% Nashville 42.4% Omaha 40.1% Kennewick 40.0% Baton Rouge 39.8% Tampa 39.6% Houston 39.5% Reno 38.4% Dallas 36.9% Atlanta 36.1% Columbia 35.7% Denver 35.2% Greenville 34.6% Knoxville 33.8% Oklahoma City 33.5% Brownsville 33.3% Spokane 31.5% Kansas City 31.0% United States 29.5% Memphis 27.4% Birmingham 26.3% Corpus Chris8 24.7% Tulsa 23.3% Wichita 23.1% Greensboro 22.7% Mobile 21.2% Tallahassee 17.4% Yakima 13.8% New Orleans 10.1% Beaumont 5.9%
- 35. Chance for College by Age 19 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 South Dakota Minnesota North Dakota Iowa Nebraska Kansas Colorado Wyoming Na8on Oklahoma New Mexico Montana Texas
- 36. Share of 8th Grade Students at or Above Proficient in Mathema>cs, 2011 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Minnesota Montana North Dakota Colorado South Dakota Kansas Texas Wyoming Iowa Na8on Nebraska Oklahoma New Mexico
- 37. Share of 8th GradeStudents at or Above Proficient in Reading, 2011 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Montana Colorado Minnesota Wyoming South Dakota Nebraska Kansas North Dakota Iowa Na8on Texas Oklahoma New Mexico
- 38. Can Texas Keep its Momentum? Cri8cal Factors: • Maintain Pro-‐Business Aotudes • Integra8on of Immigrants • Improve educa8on and skills
- 39. JOELKOTKIN.COM A vivid snapshot of America in 2050 focusing on the evolu8on of the more in8mate units of American society—families, towns, neighborhoods, industries. It is upon the success or failure of these communi8es that the American future rests.