Connecticut cities are generally growing less in socio-economic terms than cities across the country, with Waterbury having less growth than almost any city in the United States.
New Haven, Danbury and Stamford also saw limited growth, while Bridgeport did much better.
The statistics are based on a study covering 2008 to 2013 by WalletHub.com, a website that focuses on financial information and describes itself as “The Social Network for Your Wallet.”
The study looked at 516 cities of varying sizes across the country, ranking them based on 10 metrics, from population growth rate to unemployment rate decrease.
Cities in Texas and the Carolinas did particularly well, while cities in Nevada did poorly. The top ranked city, Mission, Texas, has about 80,000 residents and is a large citrus-growing area. Mission is in the far south part of Texas, near the Mexican border.
Eight Connecticut cities were included in the study. Here is how the state’s cities were ranked:
167. New Britain
352, New Haven
Top U.S. cities
Here are the top 10 U.S. cities for growth:
1. Mission, Texas
2. Irving, Texas
3. North Charleston, S.C.
4. Greenville, N.C.
5. Edinburg, Texas
6. Springdale, Ark.
7. Concord, N.C.
8. Austin, Texas
9. Pharr, Texas
10. East Los Angeles, Calif.
Bottom U.S. cities
Here are the bottom 10 cities for growth:
507. North Las Vegas, Nev.
508. Hampton, Va.
509. Centennial, Colo.
510. Glendale, Ariz.
511. Macon, Ga.
512. Skokie, Ill.
513. Kendall, Fla.
514. Waterbury, Conn.
515. Inglewood, Calif.
516. Sunrise Manor, Nev.
Nation is growing slowly
In 2013, the United States experienced its lowest population gain since the Great Depression, according to WalletHub. Growth stood at 0.7%, contrasted with the 5% of the 1990s, a period of prosperity.
Demographer William H. Frey of the Brookings Institution attributed the decline to the economic downturn. Not only did the crisis deter job-seeking migrants from flocking to the United States, but it also discouraged couples from having children.
Meanwhile, movement took place domestically. Population numbers shifted. Some cities grew while others pushed out even more residents.
Some cities attract, some don’t
Some cities have it all — the jobs, the schools, the museums, the nightlife, you name it. They know the recipe for attractiveness. People come, and they stay — sometimes for good.
But other cities like Detroit (ranked 387th) are still mired in recession. Chances of soon turning upward are slim. And their most productive citizens, an economy’s best chance of recovery, leave to search for greener pastures.
How did cities known as being hip and popular with young people do in the study? In general, perhaps not as well as might be expected.
Here are the rankings for some cities known as being trendy: Austin, Texas (8th); Asheville, N.C. (13th); Denver (38th), Portland, Ore. (45th); Nashville, Tenn. (52nd); Sunnyvale, Calif. (69th); Pittsburgh (72nd), Seattle (89th), Durham, N.C. (91st); Boulder, Colo. (109th); Boston (117th), San Francisco (122nd), Miami (123rd), Madison, Wisc. (134th), and Providence, R.I. (162nd).
Factors used in the study
The 10 factors that were considered in the WalletHub study were:
— population growth
— working-aged population growth (ages 16 to 64)
— educational attainment growth (percentage of people with at least a bachelor’s degree or higher)
— uninsured rate decrease
— jobs and economic environment
— median household income growth
— unemployment rate decrease
— job growth
— poverty rate decrease
— ratio of full-time to part-time jobs increase
— growth of regional Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita
To view the complete study, click below: