NewGeography.com blogs

The Department of Commerce released trade balance numbers for January this morning, reporting that the monthly deficit jumped to $46.3 billion, up from $40.3 billion in December. Economists had been projecting a deficit of $41.5 billion. The larger than expected number may lead some economists to “lower their estimates for economic growth in the January-March quarter based on the wider deficit.”

However, buried within the dark clouds is a silver lining. U.S. exports actually hit an all time high of $167.7 billion during the month, potentially showing signs of a strengthening economic recovery. This is up from $125.4 billion in January, 2009 and $144.7 billion in January, 2010. American exporters appear to be on a roll, and gaining momentum.

Exports of services also continues to be a point of trade strength for the nation. While year over year increases were smaller than those in overall exports (47.2 billion, up from 44.2 billion in January, 2010) the nation actually had one month trade surplus of $13.4 billion in services. This is up from past years, and is not an anomaly- the nation has marked a trade surplus in the services sector throughout the past two years.

The increase in the size of the deficit can largely be attributed to issues in two areas; petroleum and consumer goods. As oil prices continue to rise, the cost of oil imports have surged as well. In January alone, the nation imported 34.9 billion in petroleum products, leading to a deficit of $26.7 billion. This represents an increase of 21.5% over last January, and up 4.7% over the previous month.

The rise in the consumer goods deficit may actually be good news, of a sort. While the deficit itself is disconcerting, the detailed numbers show that imports of apparel, textiles, appliances, and other household related products are up notably. While increased imports in these sectors serve to worsen our trade balance with China (up to $23.3 billion in January, from $20.7 billion in December), increased demand for such retail goods could be a sign that the American economy, largely centered around consumer spending, is starting to catch some momentum again. According to economist Joseph LaVorgna, interviewed by CNN, while the deficit is wider, “the numbers actually imply a very healthy economy… The gain in imports was in every category. Domestic demand is still very firm and producers are rebuilding their inventories.”

The Hartford metropolitan area grew 5.5 percent between 2000 and 2010, according to new census data that has just been released. In 2000, the metropolitan area had 1,149,000 residents, a figure that rose to 1,221,000 in 2010.

The city of Hartford, the historical core municipality, grew from 124,100 (the 2000 base) to 124,800 over the period, for a growth rate of 0.5 percent. This small growth was a turnaround for Hartford, which had a peak population of 177,000 in 1950. Then, Hartford was the largest municipality in Connecticut, but has since been passed by both Bridgeport and New Haven. The city accounted for one percent of the metropolitan area's growth.

The suburbs grew at a rate of 6.2 percent and captured 99 percent of the metropolitan area's growth. Tolland County grew 12.0 percent, nearly double or more the population growth rates in the other two counties. Middlesex County grew 6.8 percent. The core county, Hartford (which includes the city of Hartford), grew the slowest, at 4.3 percent.

Just released census data indicates that the Pittsburgh metropolitan area declined in population from 2,431,000 in 2000 to 2,356,000 in 2010, a loss of 3.1 percent. The loss reflects a continuing trend of regional declines. The present geographical area of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area has a population below that of 1930 and has lost 400,000 residents (at percent) since 1960. No other major metropolitan area has experienced a loss since 1960 (including Katrina ravaged New Orleans).

Both the historical core municipality, the city of Pittsburgh and the suburbs declined. The suburbs experienced a loss of 2.2 percent, but accounted for 61 percent of the metropolitan area loss. All six suburban counties except Butler (5.6 percent) and more distant Washington (2.4 percent) experienced losses. The core county of Allegheny (which includes the city of Pittsburgh) lost 4.6 percent of its population and nearly 80 percent of the metropolitan area's numeric population loss.

The city of Pittsburgh continued its long decline, falling to 306,000 in 2010 from 335,000 in 2000, a loss of 8.6 percent. The city accounted for 39 percent of the metropolitan area population loss. Pittsburgh's population peaked in 1950 at 677,000 and has fallen 55 percent since that time. Its 2010 population is lower than in any previous census since 1880 (based upon the combined population of Pittsburgh and Allegheny, which subsequently consolidated).

The Columbus (Ohio) metropolitan area increased in population from 1,613,000 in 2000 to 1,837,000 in 2010 (13.9 percent). This growth rate is likely to have been among the strongest in the Midwest and is greater than the growth rate of Seattle, which had grown more quickly in recent decades.

The historical core municipality, the city of Columbus, which is largely suburban in form, grew from 713,000 to 787,000, an increase of 10.4 percent. The city of Columbus captured 33 percent of the metropolitan area's growth.

The suburbs experienced a growth rate of 16.7 percent and captured 67 percent of the metropolitan area growth. Suburban Delaware County had a population increase of 58 percent, while more distant counties, Union (28 percent) and Fairfield (19 percent) also experienced strong growth. The core county of Franklin, which includes the city of Columbus, grew nine percent.

The Cleveland metropolitan area population fell from 2,148,000 in 2000 to 2.077,000 in 2010, according to the just released 2010 census figures. All of the loss was attributable to the city of Cleveland. However, population growth in the suburbs was small.

The 2010 census data indicates that the city of Cleveland lost 16.9 percent of its population between 2000 and 2010, the largest loss yet reported by a historical core municipality (excluding Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans). Cleveland dropped from 477,000 in 2000 to 397,000 in 2010. The city of Cleveland reached its population peak of 914,000 in 1950 and has since fallen 57 percent.

The suburbs added 10,000 residents, for a growth rate of 0.6 percent. This small gain was insufficient to offset the loss of 80,000 residents in the city of Cleveland and the metropolitan area suffered a population loss of 3.3 percent.

The core county of Cuyahoga (which includes the city of Cleveland) declined 114,000 residents, for a loss of 8.2 percent. All of the four suburban counties gained, with by far the largest gain (14 percent) in Medina County.