Thanks for this analysis. You raise good questions about locations, especially with regard to “redeveloping” old sites.
I do wonder why you denture the BLs BED data. It is far more current . And your citing gold standard BDS Firm data is wierd as your analysis is all based on establishment data at the county level. I am not saying that firm data is not useful. But your analysis is at estab level.
I suggest that you look next at land use. Open land is hard to find in totally developed urban counties. I live in Fairfax Va and there is limited available new space for large scale manufacturing with the usual ecological issues.
Next, as you know, the whole nature of manufacturing has changed since over the decades. Comparisons to the 1980s etc become less useful. Thus, again, the most recent BED might be the most useful data for both asking the questions and answering them.
Certainly it is well-known that the local labor force is the most dominant decision maker for businesses. As the nature of new many processes change so does the need for increasingly selective occupations. Look there for location decisions.
Thanks for reading and for the good thoughts on land use and supply (e.g., being completely "built-out"). Agree that's part of the equation, although there's a lot of vacant and underutilized land within most metro footprints -- not Sun Belt megasite parcels perhaps, but potential industrial land nonetheless.
Only one graphic and one accompanying paragraph are at the establishment level, and they draw on BLS data to do exactly as you say, i.e., draw the trend line current. Everything else is done at the firm level, and BED doesn't provide the combined geographic and sectoral detail needed to conduct an analysis like this. The companion analysis cited in the opening examines these trends at the national scale and does use BED. But it's unfortunately just not possible here.
Thanks for this analysis. You raise good questions about locations, especially with regard to “redeveloping” old sites.
I do wonder why you denture the BLs BED data. It is far more current . And your citing gold standard BDS Firm data is wierd as your analysis is all based on establishment data at the county level. I am not saying that firm data is not useful. But your analysis is at estab level.
I suggest that you look next at land use. Open land is hard to find in totally developed urban counties. I live in Fairfax Va and there is limited available new space for large scale manufacturing with the usual ecological issues.
Next, as you know, the whole nature of manufacturing has changed since over the decades. Comparisons to the 1980s etc become less useful. Thus, again, the most recent BED might be the most useful data for both asking the questions and answering them.
Certainly it is well-known that the local labor force is the most dominant decision maker for businesses. As the nature of new many processes change so does the need for increasingly selective occupations. Look there for location decisions.
Thanks for reading and for the good thoughts on land use and supply (e.g., being completely "built-out"). Agree that's part of the equation, although there's a lot of vacant and underutilized land within most metro footprints -- not Sun Belt megasite parcels perhaps, but potential industrial land nonetheless.
Only one graphic and one accompanying paragraph are at the establishment level, and they draw on BLS data to do exactly as you say, i.e., draw the trend line current. Everything else is done at the firm level, and BED doesn't provide the combined geographic and sectoral detail needed to conduct an analysis like this. The companion analysis cited in the opening examines these trends at the national scale and does use BED. But it's unfortunately just not possible here.