urbanSTL

Auggie wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Feb 20, 2025

Auggie wrote:https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPALL29510

You take the difference between 2023 and 2021 and then subtract the inflation rate.

Slay: -11.3%
Krewson: 1.2%
Jones: 2.8%

Thanks for sending. I don’t think you’re factoring in inflation properly because Real GDP already factors in inflation. I’m assuming they are using real as opposed to nominal GDP in that source, but it doesn’t call that out specifically.

I’d also point out the pandemic impact at the end of Krewson’s term really throws off any direct comparison of GDP growth during the tenures of each Mayor this century. The growth in Jones’ term is recovery from that dip right before she started. I have no complaints with the GDP growth recovery during Jones’ term, but it requires more context.

The biggest jump was 2020 to 2021. That's where the vast majority of the pandemic recovery occurred.

Are we looking at the same numbers? That’s not true.

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Feb 20, 2025

Auggie wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Feb 20, 2025

Thanks for sending. I don’t think you’re factoring in inflation properly because Real GDP already factors in inflation. I’m assuming they are using real as opposed to nominal GDP in that source, but it doesn’t call that out specifically.

I’d also point out the pandemic impact at the end of Krewson’s term really throws off any direct comparison of GDP growth during the tenures of each Mayor this century. The growth in Jones’ term is recovery from that dip right before she started. I have no complaints with the GDP growth recovery during Jones’ term, but it requires more context.

The biggest jump was 2020 to 2021. That's where the vast majority of the pandemic recovery occurred.

Are we looking at the same numbers? That’s not true.

2019: $31.4B
2020: $30.1B
2021: $32.75B

The vast majority of the city's GDP recovery happened from 2020 to 2021 and is not included in Jones' term.

Auggie wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Feb 20, 2025

Auggie wrote: The biggest jump was 2020 to 2021. That's where the vast majority of the pandemic recovery occurred.

Are we looking at the same numbers? That’s not true.

2019: $31.4B
2020: $30.1B
2021: $32.75B

The vast majority of the city's GDP recovery happened from 2020 to 2021 and is not included in Jones' term.

And 2022 was an even larger jump, but you’re choosing to leave that out. Pandemic recovery continues even today and that’s affected GDP growth locally and nationally.

This is one reason why GDP isn’t really an effective measure of economic success for one Mayors vs another. That and the growth numbers you’ve posted multiple times here are not accurate.

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Feb 20, 2025

Auggie wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Feb 20, 2025

Are we looking at the same numbers? That’s not true.

2019: $31.4B
2020: $30.1B
2021: $32.75B

The vast majority of the city's GDP recovery happened from 2020 to 2021 and is not included in Jones' term.

And 2022 was an even larger jump, but you’re choosing to leave that out. Pandemic recovery continues even today and that’s affected GDP growth locally and nationally.

This is one reason why GDP isn’t really an effective measure of economic success for one Mayors vs another. That and the growth numbers you’ve posted multiple times here are not accurate.

I've explained multiple times where and how I get the numbers. They're accurate.

It seems more like you just don't like the fact that the numbers look good for Jones and therefore they must be fake?

Auggie wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Feb 20, 2025

Auggie wrote: 2019: $31.4B
2020: $30.1B
2021: $32.75B

The vast majority of the city's GDP recovery happened from 2020 to 2021 and is not included in Jones' term.

And 2022 was an even larger jump, but you’re choosing to leave that out. Pandemic recovery continues even today and that’s affected GDP growth locally and nationally.

This is one reason why GDP isn’t really an effective measure of economic success for one Mayors vs another. That and the growth numbers you’ve posted multiple times here are not accurate.

I've explained multiple times where and how I get the numbers. They're accurate.

It seems more like you just don't like the fact that the numbers look good for Jones and therefore they must be fake?

I have no issue with where you’re getting the numbers. I’m using the same source. You’re just not calculating the growth rates right at all.

As I’ve said, I’m perfectly fine with the economic growth rates under Jones’ term, but the way your using GDP growth rates as a comparison between the Mayors of this century both lack accuracy and context.

Here's a straightforward rundown of different ways you can show GDP data by Mayor:

Raw: (STL MSA)
-Slay: 27.2% (37.4%)
-Krewson: 11.7% (15.1%)
-Jones: 15.2% (14.5%)

Real: (STL MSA)
-Slay: -5.6% (14.4%)
-Krewson: 3.1% (6.5%)
-Jones: 6.7% (4.9%)

My Method: (STL MSA)
-Slay: -11.3% (-1.1%)
-Krewson: 1.2% (4.6%)
-Jones: 2.8% (2.1%)

Auggie wrote:Here's a straightforward rundown of different ways you can show GDP data by Mayor:

Raw: (STL MSA)
-Slay: 27.2% (37.4%)
-Krewson: 11.7% (15.1%)
-Jones: 15.2% (14.5%)

Real: (STL MSA)
-Slay: -5.6% (14.4%)
-Krewson: 3.1% (6.5%)
-Jones: 6.7% (4.9%)

My Method: (STL MSA)
-Slay: -11.3% (-1.1%)
-Krewson: 1.2% (4.6%)
-Jones: 2.8% (2.1%)

There’s some blinking numbers there that should make you question whether you’re doing this right. Slay at 27% in the raw data? The city declining 5.6% while the MSA grew nearly 15% in the real data? Doesn’t that seem statistically unlikely?

Two considerations:
I’d suggest looking at the average year over year growth rather than the total, so that you can account for the vastly different lengths of time between the data sets.

Real GDP already factors in inflation, so I don’t know what the difference between your method and that is.

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Feb 21, 2025

Auggie wrote:Here's a straightforward rundown of different ways you can show GDP data by Mayor:

Raw: (STL MSA)
-Slay: 27.2% (37.4%)
-Krewson: 11.7% (15.1%)
-Jones: 15.2% (14.5%)

Real: (STL MSA)
-Slay: -5.6% (14.4%)
-Krewson: 3.1% (6.5%)
-Jones: 6.7% (4.9%)

My Method: (STL MSA)
-Slay: -11.3% (-1.1%)
-Krewson: 1.2% (4.6%)
-Jones: 2.8% (2.1%)

There’s some blinking numbers there that should make you question whether you’re doing this right. Slay at 27% in the raw data? The city declining 5.6% while the MSA grew nearly 15% in the real data? Doesn’t that seem statistically unlikely?

Two considerations:
I’d suggest looking at the average year over year growth rather than the total, so that you can account for the vastly different lengths of time between the data sets.

Real GDP already factors in inflation, so I don’t know what the difference between your method and that is.

It may be statistically unlikely but when you had a mayor as bad as Slay, anything is possible. I also think it shows how much capital was being moved from the city to the county and suburbs, meaning the city's decline was not reflected in the MSA's increase.

What more recent data shows is that the suburbs aren't attracting nearly as much from outside the MSA as they previously have and the exodus form the city has greatly slowed from the Slay years to a point where the economy is actually growing as opposed to shrinking.

All I do is assume the GDP should grow at the same rate is the inflation rate and subtract the inflation from the GDP growth. It's not the same as how Real GDP is calculated, but I prefer what I do.

I got it from an economics professor a few years ago.

Find me 10 voters who are voting on the city GDP.

Baltimore Jack wrote: ↑

Feb 21, 2025

Find me 10 voters who are voting on the city GDP.

Well considering I've heard the argument time and time again that Jones has been "weak" on downtown and most of those people tend to fall into the Spencer camp..... and I've seen on here alleged business owners testifying that their businesses have been hampered by the Jones Administration as a reason they are supporting Spencer......

GDP would be one of if not the single best empirical way to judge the mayor's handling of business and the city's economy. It's a piece of data that would reflect a bad business environment or terrible handling of downtown since at least a plurality of the city's GDP is concentrated in downtown.

So I would say that quite a few people are voting on GDP, even if they don't know it. But you're probably right, we shouldn't let reality get in the way of whatever story you're trying to tell. Who's voting on [the business environment and economy] anyway?

^"alleged business owners"

So you think stlgasm doesn't actually own STLStyle?

Auggie wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Feb 21, 2025

Auggie wrote:Here's a straightforward rundown of different ways you can show GDP data by Mayor:

Raw: (STL MSA)
-Slay: 27.2% (37.4%)
-Krewson: 11.7% (15.1%)
-Jones: 15.2% (14.5%)

Real: (STL MSA)
-Slay: -5.6% (14.4%)
-Krewson: 3.1% (6.5%)
-Jones: 6.7% (4.9%)

My Method: (STL MSA)
-Slay: -11.3% (-1.1%)
-Krewson: 1.2% (4.6%)
-Jones: 2.8% (2.1%)

There’s some blinking numbers there that should make you question whether you’re doing this right. Slay at 27% in the raw data? The city declining 5.6% while the MSA grew nearly 15% in the real data? Doesn’t that seem statistically unlikely?

Two considerations:
I’d suggest looking at the average year over year growth rather than the total, so that you can account for the vastly different lengths of time between the data sets.

Real GDP already factors in inflation, so I don’t know what the difference between your method and that is.

It may be statistically unlikely but when you had a mayor as bad as Slay, anything is possible. I also think it shows how much capital was being moved from the city to the county and suburbs, meaning the city's decline was not reflected in the MSA's increase.

What more recent data shows is that the suburbs aren't attracting nearly as much from outside the MSA as they previously have and the exodus form the city has greatly slowed from the Slay years to a point where the economy is actually growing as opposed to shrinking.

All I do is assume the GDP should grow at the same rate is the inflation rate and subtract the inflation from the GDP growth. It's not the same as how Real GDP is calculated, but I prefer what I do.

I got it from an economics professor a few years ago.

Those strange numbers you’re posting aren’t just unlikely, they didn’t happen. I don’t know what you’re calculating, but your raw, real, and own method numbers are wrong.

I also gotta call BS that an Econ prof gave you a new method of calculating this that subtracts inflation from a number that already factors in inflation, cause that doesn’t make any sense.

For those following along, here are the actual GDP growth rates (averaged year over year). I’m also including national rates as the 3rd number for additional context:

City, MSA, National

SLAY: 2%, 2.9%, 3.5%
KREWSON: 1%, 1.6%, 3.4%
JONES: 5.7%, 5.4%, 7.7%

These numbers shouldn’t be surprising. During Slay’s term the cities economy grew, but moderately slower than the MSA and the country.

Under Krewson, there was accelerated growth that was halted by the pandemic. We had the same slower growth than the MSA and the country.

Under Jones, we and the rest of the country have seen accelerated growth coming out of the pandemic recovery. The City is still is growing slower than the country, but we have surpassed the MSA, which tracks with the dialogue we’ve been having on the County and East Side’s struggles.

I think it’s easier to pin the City’s GDP trends to Slay because he served for so long. For Krewson and Jones, not so much. Many of the drivers of GDP trends in a 3-4 year period happen before that time period.

You can’t post GDP numbers here with a made up method and not source that method. You also can’t drop GDP numbers and act like that’s an “empirical and comprehensive” argument for the economic performance of a Mayor.

The economy is tough on small businesses.  I am part owner of one in the Grove.  I have mentioned before how our insurance jumped from year 1 to year 2 (8K to 30K) citing crime in our area.  I voted for Spencer in the last election.  I live off Jefferson and am a proponent for the Green Line.  I agree things in the city are improving under Jones, and this site has listed some wins for downtown (which I also want to see thrive).

I think we will learn more about these two candidates after the primary.  I have emailed Spencer for her stand on the Green Line (to see for myself) and it has been days with no response.

I think if we have an issue with City services, we alert our mayor and let her work on it.  I am not sure city services are what should drive elections.  That sounds very typical of elections today.  They are incredibly "me" centric leaving behind what is the greater good.  We can work on trash and snow removal, what does this city REALLY need?  Focus on that for the election.

Open question whether Jones even advances to the runoff. Might end up Spencer vs. Butler.

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Feb 21, 2025

Open question whether Jones even advances to the runoff. Might end up Spencer vs. Butler.

If it was, you would have seen Jones go on attach vs Butler, instead of saw her endorse him. 

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Feb 21, 2025

Ebsy wrote: ↑

Feb 21, 2025

Open question whether Jones even advances to the runoff. Might end up Spencer vs. Butler.

If it was, you would have seen Jones go on attach vs Butler, instead of saw her endorse him. 

Two weaker candidates trying to ensure one of them ends up in the runoff was my read on it.

Totally, butler really wants to see jones get votes from his voters in order for him to advance

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Feb 21, 2025

Auggie wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Feb 21, 2025

There’s some blinking numbers there that should make you question whether you’re doing this right. Slay at 27% in the raw data? The city declining 5.6% while the MSA grew nearly 15% in the real data? Doesn’t that seem statistically unlikely?

Two considerations:
I’d suggest looking at the average year over year growth rather than the total, so that you can account for the vastly different lengths of time between the data sets.

Real GDP already factors in inflation, so I don’t know what the difference between your method and that is.

It may be statistically unlikely but when you had a mayor as bad as Slay, anything is possible. I also think it shows how much capital was being moved from the city to the county and suburbs, meaning the city's decline was not reflected in the MSA's increase.

What more recent data shows is that the suburbs aren't attracting nearly as much from outside the MSA as they previously have and the exodus form the city has greatly slowed from the Slay years to a point where the economy is actually growing as opposed to shrinking.

All I do is assume the GDP should grow at the same rate is the inflation rate and subtract the inflation from the GDP growth. It's not the same as how Real GDP is calculated, but I prefer what I do.

I got it from an economics professor a few years ago.

Those strange numbers you’re posting aren’t just unlikely, they didn’t happen. I don’t know what you’re calculating, but your raw, real, and own method numbers are wrong.

I also gotta call BS that an Econ prof gave you a new method of calculating this that subtracts inflation from a number that already factors in inflation, cause that doesn’t make any sense.

For those following along, here are the actual GDP growth rates (averaged year over year). I’m also including national rates as the 3rd number for additional context:

City, MSA, National

SLAY: 2%, 2.9%, 3.5%
KREWSON: 1%, 1.6%, 3.4%
JONES: 5.7%, 5.4%, 7.7%

These numbers shouldn’t be surprising. During Slay’s term the cities economy grew, but moderately slower than the MSA and the country.

Under Krewson, there was accelerated growth that was halted by the pandemic. We had the same slower growth than the MSA and the country.

Under Jones, we and the rest of the country have seen accelerated growth coming out of the pandemic recovery. The City is still is growing slower than the country, but we have surpassed the MSA, which tracks with the dialogue we’ve been having on the County and East Side’s struggles.

I think it’s easier to pin the City’s GDP trends to Slay because he served for so long. For Krewson and Jones, not so much. Many of the drivers of GDP trends in a 3-4 year period happen before that time period.

You can’t post GDP numbers here with a made up method and not source that method. You also can’t drop GDP numbers and act like that’s an “empirical and comprehensive” argument for the economic performance of a Mayor.

I literally posted a link to the FRED page where I got STL City's numbers. You have failed to do exactly what I did and claim that I didn't do.

Auggie wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Feb 21, 2025

Auggie wrote: It may be statistically unlikely but when you had a mayor as bad as Slay, anything is possible. I also think it shows how much capital was being moved from the city to the county and suburbs, meaning the city's decline was not reflected in the MSA's increase.

What more recent data shows is that the suburbs aren't attracting nearly as much from outside the MSA as they previously have and the exodus form the city has greatly slowed from the Slay years to a point where the economy is actually growing as opposed to shrinking.

All I do is assume the GDP should grow at the same rate is the inflation rate and subtract the inflation from the GDP growth. It's not the same as how Real GDP is calculated, but I prefer what I do.

I got it from an economics professor a few years ago.

Those strange numbers you’re posting aren’t just unlikely, they didn’t happen. I don’t know what you’re calculating, but your raw, real, and own method numbers are wrong.

I also gotta call BS that an Econ prof gave you a new method of calculating this that subtracts inflation from a number that already factors in inflation, cause that doesn’t make any sense.

For those following along, here are the actual GDP growth rates (averaged year over year). I’m also including national rates as the 3rd number for additional context:

City, MSA, National

SLAY: 2%, 2.9%, 3.5%
KREWSON: 1%, 1.6%, 3.4%
JONES: 5.7%, 5.4%, 7.7%

These numbers shouldn’t be surprising. During Slay’s term the cities economy grew, but moderately slower than the MSA and the country.

Under Krewson, there was accelerated growth that was halted by the pandemic. We had the same slower growth than the MSA and the country.

Under Jones, we and the rest of the country have seen accelerated growth coming out of the pandemic recovery. The City is still is growing slower than the country, but we have surpassed the MSA, which tracks with the dialogue we’ve been having on the County and East Side’s struggles.

I think it’s easier to pin the City’s GDP trends to Slay because he served for so long. For Krewson and Jones, not so much. Many of the drivers of GDP trends in a 3-4 year period happen before that time period.

You can’t post GDP numbers here with a made up method and not source that method. You also can’t drop GDP numbers and act like that’s an “empirical and comprehensive” argument for the economic performance of a Mayor.

I literally posted a link to the FRED page where I got STL City's numbers. You have failed to do exactly what I did and claim that I didn't do.

I got the absolute numbers from the exact link you posted. It’s the calculations you do from there that lead you astray.

2001 $21B
2017 $28.9B
Says current dollars, so not inflation adjusted.
April 2001 to April 2017 CPI inflation 38.2%
21* 1.382 = $29B
No GDP growth over 16 years

2017 $28.9B
2021 $32.75B
April 2017 to April 2021 CPI inflation 9.2%
28.9 * 1.092 = $31.56B
32.75/31.56 -1 = 3.8% over 4 years

2021 $32.75B
2023 $38.6B
April 2021 to April 2023 CPI inflation 13.6%
32.75 * 1.136 = $37.2B
38.6/37.2-1 = 3.8% over 2 years

Talking GDP at the county/municipal level alone is statistically questionable. During a very turbulent four years at the macro level, even more so.

I think TJ has been no more or less impactful on economy than any modern mayor.

quincunx wrote:2001 $21B
2017 $28.9B
Says current dollars, so not inflation adjusted.
April 2001 to April 2017 CPI inflation 38.2%
21* 1.382 = $29B
No GDP growth over 16 years

2017 $28.9B
2021 $32.75B
April 2017 to April 2021 CPI inflation 9.2%
28.9 * 1.092 = $31.56B
32.75/31.56 -1 = 3.8% over 4 years

2021 $32.75B
2023 $38.6B
April 2021 to April 2023 CPI inflation 13.6%
32.75 * 1.136 = $37.2B
38.6/37.2-1 = 3.8% over 2 years

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, the source Auggie is using is real GDP, which already accounts for inflation..