Why big cities thrive, and smaller ones are being left behind [View all]
You don’t want to be hit by a recession in a city like Steubenville, Ohio.
Eight years into the economic recovery, there are thousands fewer jobs in the metropolitan area that joins Steubenville with Weirton, West Virginia, than there were at the onset of the Great Recession. Hourly wages are lower than they were a decade ago. The labor force has shrunk by 14 percent.
The dismal performance is not surprising. Built on coal and steel, Steubenville and Weirton were uniquely ill suited to survive the transformations brought about by globalization and the information economy. They have been losing population since the 1980s.
But what made them such bad places to ride out a recession was not just their industrial mix. With only about 120,000 people, they were just too small to adapt to the shock. And they may be too small to survive.
Steubenville and Weirton are on the losing side of yet another cleavage dividing the haves from the have-nots across the United States: geographic inequality.
Whether they rely on steel mills or coal mines, or a hospital or a manufacturing plant, small metropolitan areas are having a hard time adapting to economic transitions.
This inability has not only slowed their recovery. As technology continues to make inroads into the economy — transforming industries from energy and retail to health care and transportation — it bodes ill for the future of such areas.
They can be “dangerous places for working people,” said Mark Muro of the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program.
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2017/10/10/why-big-cities-thrive-and-smaller-ones-are-being.html?ana=e_du_prem&s=article_du&ed=2017-10-10&u=ColXVN5SPzQtLHFP87ho2w07857290&t=1507675323&j=78969281
= new reply since forum marked as read