District injury death rates down since 1999

The incidence of death by injury—which includes accidental and intentional deaths—has been on the decline in the District. The rate of death by injury decreased by 12.7 percent between 1999 and 2014, despite a steady national increase in the rate over that time. The injuries counted include accidental deaths such as a falls or drug overdoses, as well as intentional deaths such as murder or suicide. The actual number of deaths by injury in 2014 (385) is about the same as in 1999 (382), but because the population in the District has steadily increased over that time, the rate has decreased. Only two other states – Alabama and Nevada – saw a decrease from 1999 to 2014, and the District had the largest percentage rate decrease of any state. While some year to year fluctuations occurred in all the states throughout the 15 years, most states have seen a steady rise in death by injury rates.image001.png

Until 2010, the District stood apart from Virginia and Maryland as the incidence of death by injury in the city was above the national level. Now the District is more like its neighboring states, all three of which are now below the national rate. image003.png

The decline in intentional injury deaths (murder and suicide) is the major factor in the overall decrease in the District’s injury death rates.  Compared to 1999, intentional injury death rates have decreased by 40% in the District, while accidental deaths rates have increased by about 17%, although both categories have been somewhat erratic over the period.

image005.png

Accounting for Population Size

It may be argued that comparison to the national rate is not useful, given the District’s small population. So we also looked at how the District compared to the four least-populous states, two with fewer people than the District (Vermont and Wyoming) and two with more people (Alaska and North Dakota).  We found the incidence of death by injury has increased in all four of these states.  Alaska’s injury rate grew 11%, Wyoming grew 15%, North Dakota grew 25%, and Vermont grew a whopping 53% increase over 1999 rates.

image007.png

While intentional injury death rates decreased significantly in the District, the other least populous states saw increases.image009.png

All of the least populous states saw increases in accidental injury death rates.image011.png

Could the growth the District has experienced over the last 15 years be playing a factor in the injury death rate decrease?  If so this would be unique to the District.  States with population growth rates higher than the District experienced an injury death rate growth of an average 13.7%, while states with population growth lower than the District experienced an average injury death growth rate of 28.8%.  But individual state rates vary so widely, this is not sufficient explanation. Population growth may play a part in our lower injury death rate, but nearly all states saw an increase, so the District’s 12% decrease still stands out.

Other Demographics

When we break out the total deaths by sex and race, some of the totals are too small to analyze on a year to year basis.  However, we can report that overall injury death rates for whites in the District have increased 43% since 1999, while rates for African Americans has decreased by 7%.  These results are driven mainly by the reduction in intentional injury death rates for African Americans, and an increase in accidental injury death rates for whites.

Injury death rates for females in the District have increased 62% since 1999, while rates for males have decreased 28%.  Boys and men are still more likely than girls and women to die of injury, which fits with earlier research (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222499/), but the trend away from this stands out.

 

What is this data?

The data source is the Fatal Injury Data in the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) operated by the National Center for Health Statistics under the Centers for Disease Control. (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_injury_reports.html)

DC’s startup economy- How much does it pay to work at a startup in DC compared to other companies and other cities?

Start-up companies play a vital role in the economy, fostering innovation and providing job opportunities for those who want to go at it on their own and/or prefer to work in what is typically a less hierarchical environment.  In the digital information era, the glorified image of young entrepreneurs and workers who start hugely successful companies masks some of the risks associated with working at startup companies. Typically these companies do not have the deep pockets to pay salaries comparable to established companies and failure rates among startups tend to be higher than for established companies.  This may be a risk worth undertaking as the payoffs for working at start-up companies that eventually become successful can be significant, particularly in high tech companies that go public. For younger individuals, job security and pay related to seniority and tenure can be less of a factor than for older individuals, making the risk of working at a startup less severe.

In this post we examine how average salaries for startup companies compare to salaries across companies in DC and other cities. We use industry-wide data for all age groups and then show this separately for 25-34 year olds.

Table 1: Average Salaries for Startups vs All Companies, All Age Groups

1

Source: US Census Bureau, DistrictMeasured.com

  • As shown above, for all age groups, salaries at startups ranged between 56 percent and 76 percent of salaries at all companies among the comparison cities.
  • DC was at the lower end of the range at 61.2 percent exceeding only NYC at 56.2 percent.

Table 2: Average Salaries for Startups vs All Companies, 25-34 year olds

2

 

Source: US Census Bureau, DistrictMeasured.com

  • For the 25-34 year old age group the ratio of start-up salaries compared to all salaries was higher than the average for all age groups shown in Table 1. This is likely related to the fact that salaries for younger individuals are typically lower and more compressed to begin with.
  • The ratio of pay varied considerably among cities.
  • In San Francisco and Austin, the pay for young individuals working for startups was comparable to the pay at more established companies.
  • In San Francisco the pay for 25-34 year at startups exceeded pay for all other age groups.
  • DC and New York were at the lower end of the scale again. Pay at startups was, respectively, 72.7 percent and 68.5 percent of the pay at more established companies.

Here is a summary graph of the pay ratios for all ages and the 25-34 year old age group.

Graph 1: Ratio of Salaries at Startups Compared to all Companies, Ages 25-34 and All Ages   3

Source: US Census Bureau, DistrictMeasured.com

Finally we looked to see if there was considerable variation among select industries that could explain some of the differences in pay at startups in DC compared to San Francisco for instance.

Here’s what we found:

Table 3: Startup pay to ratio to all companies among industries in San Francisco and DC, Ages 25-34

4

Source: US Census Bureau, DistrictMeasured.com

Notably, in San Francisco the pay ratio for Professional Scientific and Technical Services, one of the largest industries for tech startups, far exceeded that in DC, almost 100 percent compared to 78 percent.

With the exception of Health Care and Social Services, pay ratios in the other industries also exceeded or were similar to DC.

Summary

The difference in pay ratios for start-up pay likely reflects a more vibrant start up economy in San Francisco and Austin, compared to more traditional career paths in established financial and legal services firms in DC and NYC. The causes for this could include- stronger ties to venture capital funding that provide greater financing to startups , or simply stronger competition for young talent among startups in San Francisco and Austin.

What exactly is the data?     Data on wages is from the U.S. Census Bureau, Local Employment Dynamics Data for 2014. Start-up companies are defined as firms that are less than 4 years old.

Bob Zuraski contributed to this report         

Resident employment grew four times faster in DC than in the suburbs over the past 4 years

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of employed DC residents rose from 323,823 in April 2012 to 370,204 in April 2016, a 14.3% increase of 46,381. This increase stands out in the context of recent labor market trends in the US and in the Washington metropolitan area:

—The percentage increase was more than twice that in both the US economy (6.6%) and four times the increase in the DC suburbs (3.5%),

—The increase represented almost one-third of the increase in the entire metropolitan area, although DC’s regional resident employment share is just under 12%.

—The percentage change in DC’s resident employment was more than twice the increase in jobs located in DC. (14.3% v. 6.2%). For the US and the rest of the metropolitan area, resident employment actually grew a little less rapidly than wage and salary employment.

—The increase, averaging 11,595 per year, is about equal to the growth in DC’s population over that period.

table may 1

Three places to look in helping to explain this remarkable increase in employed DC residents are: (1) growth of wage and salary jobs in DC, (2) unemployed persons returning to work, and (3) labor force growth. As noted below, all of these have contributed, but the most important explanation lies with labor force growth and related dynamics, particularly population growth.

Wage and salary employment located in DC. DC employers added 45,467 wage and salary jobs from April 2012 to April 2016, about the same number of jobs as the increase in resident employment. These new jobs could certainly be a source of employment for additional DC residents. Although DC’s jobs grew a little faster than those in the suburbs, there was, however, nothing very unusual about this increase. DC’s share of the new jobs in the metropolitan area over the past four years (26.6%) was close to its recent average share of all metropolitan area jobs (about 24%).

 

table may 2

A growing job base no doubt helps to attract workers to the District of Columbia, but job growth in DC cannot explain why employed residents grew by 14.3% while jobs grew 6.2%. It should be noted that from April 2012 to April 2016 the percentage increase in resident employment (6.6%) in the US economy was actually a little less than the 7.5% wage and salary job growth, and the Washington metropolitan area growth pattern was similar, albeit a little slower—4.6% for resident employment and 5.6% jobs.

 

Unemployment. DC unemployment declined by 8,481 from April 2012 to April 2016, which represents about 18% of the increase in resident employment. However, falling unemployment cannot explain why resident employment increased so much faster in DC than elsewhere. DC’s percentage decline in unemployment was less than in the Washington metropolitan area suburbs and the US.

Looked at another way, over the past four years, it took an increase of 5.5 DC employed residents to reduce unemployment by one (46,381 increase in resident employment divided by 8,481 decline in unemployment). In the US the ratio was 2.1 new employed resident for every decline of one in unemployment, and in the suburbs the ratio was 1.9 new employed resident for every reduction of one in unemployment.

table may 3.png

table may 4

 

tabel may 5

 

Labor force dynamics. By definition, the increase in resident employment must be equal to the sum of the reduction in unemployment plus the increase in the labor force. Consequently, over 80% of the growth in resident employment is accounted for by labor force growth.

 

table may 6

Along with resident employment, the increase in DC’s labor market represents another unusual change over the past four years. The 10.6% increase in DC’s labor force was 3.7 times greater than in the US (2.9%) and more than 7 times greater than in the suburbs (1.5%). With about 12 percent of the region’s labor force, DC accounted for 46.5% of the region’s increase over the past four years.

table may 7

tabel may 8

Population growth is the principal reason why DC’s labor force is rising so significantly. Over the past four years DC’s population grew 7.5%, compared to 4.8% in the suburbs and 3.2% in the US. If DC’s labor force had grown at the same rate as population, the labor force would have grown by 26,617. This growth in labor force due strictly to population would account for about 70% of the 37,901 labor force increase, and 57% of the 4 year increase in DC resident employment. About 30% of the labor force increase, however, is related to factors other than population growth. These factors cannot be explained by this data. For example, DC’s rising population may have an unusually large share of people in the labor force. Or the entire population may be changing so that the proportion persons in the labor force is rising. Or rising employment opportunities may be pulling more of the people who have left the labor force into DC’s labor market, although it is not obvious why this should be more true in DC than elsewhere.

table may 9

Where do the additional DC employed residents work? The BLS data used in this survey do not indicate the place of employment for DC residents. The increase in DC resident employment from April 2012 to April 2016 is the result of some combination of (1) a portion of the increase in new wage and salary jobs added in DC, (2) DC residents filling jobs formerly held by commuters who retired or otherwise left their positions, (3) additional DC residents commuting to the suburbs, and (4) additional DC workers who report they are working but are not as wage and salary employees.

The importance of commuting patterns is underscored by trends in suburban jobs and resident employment over the April 2012 to April 2016 period. During those four years suburban resident employment growth was far below the percentage change in jobs located in the suburbs (3.5% v 5.4%), and the increase in wage and salary jobs exceeded the growth of resident employment by more than 30,000. This difference between job growth and resident employment growth in the suburbs would appear to provide employment opportunities for DC residents commuting to the suburbs—and employment opportunities as well for persons commuting from outside of the Washington DC metropolitan area. In addition, the relatively slow growth in the suburban labor force could indicate a slowing of interest in commuting to the District of Columbia.

table may 10

What is this data?

This analysis of labor market trends in the US and the DC area covers the period from April 2012 to April 2016, a time that includes the most recent four years of recovery from the Great Recession. (Recovery from the recession officially began in June 2009.) The analysis uses data from two Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys that are conducted each month: (1) wage and salary employment data by place of work and (2) labor market data by place of residence, which includes labor force, resident employment, and unemployment. The data for April 2012 and April 2016 are three month averages for February, March, and April. Population data for the first quarters of 2012 and 2016 are from Moody’s Analytics.

It should be noted that the data presented here can be revised as Census and BLS sort through additional information that becomes available to them.

 

 

 

Apartments growing more rapidly than population, while new office space lags employment growth

Over the past three years population and jobs in DC have grown steadily and at about the same rate. From the first quarter of 2013.1 to 2016.1. DC’s population grew a little over 34,000 or 5.3%. This percent increase is just a little bit faster than wage and salary employment. DC added almost 33,000 jobs over the period, a 4.4% percentage increase.

People need to live somewhere and they need to work somewhere, so it would be expected that both the number of apartments and the amount of office space would increase as well. The impact is much greater for apartments, however, than for office space. According to CoStar, from 2013.1 to 2016.1 the number of apartment units increased by 12,805 (7.8%), well over the percent gain in population. By contrast, the net increase of 1.22 million square feet of commercial office space represents an increase of only 0.8% over the three years, a percentage change far less than the gain in employment.

steve table 1

 

What accounts for these different relationships? The short answer is that most of the new population lives in apartments, but the connection between commercial office space and jobs is much looser.

Apartments tracked by CoStar represent about 55% of all housing units in DC. The other units are mostly in single family or other small structures whose numbers have not increased much over the past 3 years, although some have been reconfigured for more units. The housing supply for a growing population is thus mostly in larger multi-family buildings, principally apartments.

By contrast, many of the jobs added to the District’s economy do not need office space. For example, retail and food services accounted for more than one-third of all new jobs in DC over the past three years. In addition, other jobs are located in schools, hospitals, government office buildings and other locations that are not commercial offices. The relationship between job gains and commercial office space is further weakened by the well-documented decline in the number of square feet of space needed by many office workers, reflecting factors such as telecommuting, open office layouts, and reduced need for libraries in law firms.

steve table 2

 

Construction dynamics

Looking back over the past decade, construction trends for apartments and commercial offices reflect the business cycle as well as responses to growth in people and jobs and other market forces. As the Great Recession approached in 2007, construction of apartment units and commercial office space, measured as percent of inventory, was increasing. As shown in the following chart, construction as a percent of inventory was over 3% for apartments and about 5% for offices in early 2008. Construction fell sharply with the recession, reaching about 1% of inventory in 2010 for both apartments and offices.

With the recovery, apartment construction ramped up sharply starting in 2011, reaching 6.9% in the third quarter of 2015. Commercial office construction, however, was a very different story. It increased slowly, never getting close to the pre-recession pace. Furthermore, the majority of the office construction did not result in a net increase in office space. The primary effect of the new office construction seems to have been directed to meeting demand for improved amenities or better location. As shown in tables on the next page, over the past three years, more than 92% of the new apartments delivered to the market resulted in a net increase in inventory. For commercial office space, net inventory rose less than one-third of the newly delivered office space.

steve picture 2

 

steve table 3

 

steve table 4