Figure 1: 2007 Population Estimates of Comparator Metropolitan Areas from the Census Bureau
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area Estimates, 2007.[1]
Figure 2: Portland Metropolitan Area GDP (2001-2006)
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by State and Metropolitan Area, 2001-2006[2]
Figure 3: GDP for Portland and Comparator Metropolitan Areas, 2006
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by State and Metropolitan Area, 2006.[2] Note: Regions are ordered by population size.
Figure 4: Personal and Per Capita Income, Portland-Vancouver MSA (1969 to 2007)
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Economic Accounts. Personal income, population, per capita personal income 1969-2007 (Tables CA1-3)[3]
Figure 5: Per Capita Personal Income for Portland and Comparator Metropolitan Areas (2007 Preliminary Estimate)
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Economic Accounts. Personal income, population, per capita personal income 2007 (Tables CA1-3)[3] Note: Regions are ordered by population size.
2. How Does Our Region Measure Up?
How does the prosperity of the Portland region compare to that of other metropolitan areas? Below, we discuss several measures of prosperity and compare the statistics for Portland against those for some peers. We choose regions for comparison based on several criteria described below. Table 1 and Figure 1 show the comparator regions and their population in 2007.
Table 1: 2007 Population Estimates of Comparator Metropolitan Areas from the Census Bureau
| Metropolitan Statistical Area | Population Estimate July 1, 2007 |
|---|---|
| Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ | 4,179,427 |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA | 3,309,347 |
| Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI | 3,208,212 |
| San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA | 2,974,859 |
| Denver-Aurora, CO | 2,464,866 |
| Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA | 2,175,113 |
| Las Vegas-Paradise, NV | 1,836,333 |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | 1,803,643 |
| Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC | 1,651,568 |
| Austin-Round Rock, TX | 1,598,161 |
| Salt Lake City, UT | 1,099,973 |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area Estimates, 2007.[4]
Which U.S. Regions Are Portland’s Peers?
1. Index of Metropolitan Similarity. A study by PSU’s Population Research Center in 2001 developed a methodology for measuring similarity and dissimilarity among metropolitan areas based on:
- Demographic structure (age composition and outlook).
- Ethnic composition.
- Social indicators including public school enrollment, crime rate and infant mortality.2
- Income and employment.
- Employment structure.
This study showed that overall, the metropolitan regions with the greatest degree of similarity to Portland were: Denver, Fort Worth, Minneapolis, Charlotte, and Seattle (Edmonston and Proehl, 2001).
2. Migration Patterns. We also examined migration patterns to determine which metropolitan areas were connected with Portland via migration. Metropolitan areas that show the migration to the Portland region include Los Angeles, Seattle, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Phoenix, Chicago, and Spokane. Metropolitan areas that show the highest migration from our area include Seattle, Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, and Spokane.
3. Peers Identified by Partner Organizations. The Portland Development Commission, the Regional Partners for Business and Greenlight Greater Portland also gather comparative data for Portland. The peer regions they use include: Albuquerque, Austin, Denver, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, and Seattle.
4. Size of Metropolitan Area. Finally, we limited the peer regions to metropolitan areas of similar population size to the Portland MSA. Taking each of these factors into account, and consulting with our advisory board, we opted to include the metropolitan areas shown in Table 1.
2.1 Metropolitan Gross Domestic Product
Table 2 shows the growth of the Portland region’s economy in terms of Gross Domestic Product compared to other metropolitan regions for 2001 to 2006. Figure 2 shows the growth of metropolitan GDP for Portland between 2001 and 2006. Figure 3 provides a clearer picture of the relative size of these economies for 2006 only.
Table 2: Metro Level GDP for Portland and Comparator Metropolitan Areas
| Gross Domestic Product (Millions of Current Dollars) | ||||||
| Metropolitan Area | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austin-Round Rock, TX | 53,497 | 52,983 | 55,226 | 59,785 | 64,862 | 71,176 |
| Denver-Aurora, CO | 109,152 | 113,380 | 116,193 | 121,916 | 131,509 | 139,600 |
| Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC | 80,839 | 88,724 | 90,711 | 97,265 | 106,408 | 114,147 |
| Las Vegas-Paradise, NV | 54,720 | 58,041 | 63,303 | 72,087 | 80,486 | 91,500 |
| Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI | 142,733 | 147,753 | 154,475 | 165,293 | 172,118 | 179,683 |
| Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ | 125,295 | 130,751 | 138,293 | 147,358 | 160,028 | 179,489 |
| Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA | 77,181 | 79,407 | 81,556 | 89,377 | 93,816 | 103,413 |
| Salt Lake City, UT | 42,012 | 43,001 | 43,582 | 46,589 | 51,368 | 56,458 |
| San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA | 112,435 | 120,165 | 126,838 | 138,630 | 148,390 | 157,509 |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | 119,750 | 111,025 | 110,885 | 116,752 | 125,354 | 135,080 |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA | 155,695 | 158,031 | 163,224 | 171,025 | 184,419 | 197,686 |
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by State and Metropolitan Area, 2006.[2]
Of the comparator metropolitan areas used for this study, Seattle has the largest economy in terms of Gross Domestic Product. Portland’s economic output in 2006 was about 52 percent of Seattle’s output, while its population in 2006 was about 65 percent of the Seattle region’s population. GDP in the Portland region grew by 34 percent between 2001 and 2006. The region experienced similar GDP growth rates to Salt Lake City region and Austin region which grew at 34 percent and 33 percent respectively. Las Vegas experienced a 67 percent increase in Metropolitan GDP. San Jose suffered from a comparatively low rate of income growth at 12 percent due to the languishing technology sector.
Table 3: Metropolitan GDP Growth for the Portland Metropolitan Region and Comparator Regions (2001-2006)
| Metropolitan Area | Metro GDP Growth Rate 2001-2006 |
|---|---|
| Austin-Round Rock, TX | 33.05% |
| Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC | 41.20% |
| Denver-Aurora, CO | 27.90% |
| Las Vegas-Paradise, NV | 67.21% |
| Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI | 25.89% |
| Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ | 43.25% |
| Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA | 33.99% |
| Salt Lake City, UT | 34.39% |
| San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA | 40.09% |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | 12.80% |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA | 26.97% |
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by State and Metropolitan Area, 2001-2006.[2]
We will revisit the relationship between income and population in the next section.
2.2 Personal Income
The personal income for a metropolitan region is the current income that is received by, or on behalf of, the residents of that area from all sources, minus their contributions for social insurance. Table 4 and Figure 4 show that personal income for the Portland Metropolitan Region has grown from $4.3 billion in 1969 to 83.8 billion in 2007.
The region’s per capita personal income has grown from about $4,000 to $38,511. Figure 5 shows how the region’s per capita personal income compares to our peer regions. Of these regions, Portland is about in the middle, with the San Jose region leading our peers in per capita income with over $58,716. The comparator region with the lowest level of per capita income is Phoenix, with $35,010.
Table 4: Personal and Per Capita Income for the Portland Metro Area (1969 to 2006)
| Year | Personal Income (in thousands) |
Population | Per Capita Personal Income (in dollars) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1969 | $4,325,682 | 1,069,708 | $4,044 |
| 1970 | $4,685,460 | 1,085,025 | $4,318 |
| 1971 | $5,104,331 | 1,105,374 | $4,618 |
| 1972 | $5,686,211 | 1,134,259 | $5,013 |
| 1973 | $6,400,845 | 1,157,768 | $5,529 |
| 1974 | $7,267,803 | 1,174,809 | $6,186 |
| 1975 | $8,034,671 | 1,192,510 | $6,738 |
| 1976 | $9,078,142 | 1,213,090 | $7,483 |
| 1977 | $10,137,652 | 1,242,430 | $8,160 |
| 1978 | $11,688,105 | 1,275,246 | $9,165 |
| 1979 | $13,341,864 | 1,312,315 | $10,167 |
| 1980 | $15,002,259 | 1,346,705 | $11,140 |
| 1981 | $16,459,566 | 1,364,523 | $12,063 |
| 1982 | $17,066,653 | 1,373,347 | $12,427 |
| 1983 | $17,963,463 | 1,371,007 | $13,102 |
| 1984 | $19,712,894 | 1,380,339 | $14,281 |
| 1985 | $20,875,070 | 1,391,424 | $15,003 |
| 1986 | $22,014,399 | 1,409,733 | $15,616 |
| 1987 | $23,274,605 | 1,423,238 | $16,353 |
| 1988 | $25,432,583 | 1,454,141 | $17,490 |
| 1989 | $28,087,980 | 1,487,217 | $18,886 |
| 1990 | $30,914,208 | 1,535,965 | $20,127 |
| 1991 | $32,648,556 | 1,584,767 | $20,601 |
| 1992 | $34,811,293 | 1,625,751 | $21,412 |
| 1993 | $37,352,048 | 1,669,701 | $22,371 |
| 1994 | $40,122,528 | 1,708,216 | $23,488 |
| 1995 | $43,598,382 | 1,749,224 | $24,924 |
| 1996 | $47,265,531 | 1,797,066 | $26,301 |
| 1997 | $50,912,454 | 1,839,867 | $27,672 |
| 1998 | $54,105,615 | 1,875,365 | $28,851 |
| 1999 | $56,918,006 | 1,906,262 | $29,858 |
| 2000 | $62,189,975 | 1,936,294 | $32,118 |
| 2001 | $63,933,229 | 1,977,059 | $32,338 |
| 2002 | $64,908,688 | 2,014,037 | $32,228 |
| 2003 | $66,576,262 | 2,039,111 | $32,650 |
| 2004 | $69,328,033 | 2,059,861 | $33,657 |
| 2005 | $73,086,912 | 2,092,906 | $34,921 |
| 2006 | $78,618,336 | 2,133,775 | $36,845 |
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Economic Accounts. Regional Economic Profile, 1969-2006 (Tables CA30)[3]
Table 5: Personal and Per Capita Income by County, Portland Metropolitan Region, 2006
| County | Population | Personal Income (Thousands of Dollars) |
Per Capita Income |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clackamas | 371,489 | $15,371,418 | $41,378 |
| Clark | 409,230 | $13,492,375 | $32,970 |
| Columbia | 48,217 | $1,454,907 | $30,174 |
| Multnomah | 687,373 | $26,483,785 | $38,529 |
| Skamania | 10,524 | $297,460 | $28,265 |
| Washington | 513,181 | $18,607,666 | $36,259 |
| Yamhill | 93,761 | $2,910,725 | $31,044 |
| Portland MSA | 2,133,775 | $78,618,336 | $36,845 |
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Economic Accounts. Personal income, population, per capita personal income 1969-2007 (Tables CA1-3)[3]
Table 5 shows how personal and per capita income vary by county within the Portland metropolitan region. Clackamas County has the highest level of per-capita income in the seven county region, followed by Multnomah County. Skamania County has the lowest level of per capita income, while Washington County is very close to the average for the metropolitan area.
