Matching Items (3)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

43587-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsRex, Tom R. (Author) / The Pride Publishing Company (Client)
Created2000-08
Description

Unlike the rest of the Phoenix metropolitan area, population density in central Phoenix dropped during the 1970s and 1980s. The primary cause was a decrease in the number of housing units. Rising vacancy rates contributed, but the increase in vacancy rates was similar to that of the entire metropolitan area.

Unlike the rest of the Phoenix metropolitan area, population density in central Phoenix dropped during the 1970s and 1980s. The primary cause was a decrease in the number of housing units. Rising vacancy rates contributed, but the increase in vacancy rates was similar to that of the entire metropolitan area. Between 1990 and 1995, population density rose in central Phoenix. A sharp decline in vacancy rates was a major factor in the turnaround, though the vacancy rate decline only matched that of the entire metro area. Another major factor in the increase in density was the rising number of people residing in prisons, homeless shelters, or on the streets.

68389-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsRex, Tom R. (Author) / Arizona Indicators (Project) (Publisher) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Publisher)
Created2010-08-01
Description

Examines the size and growth of Arizona’s economy and the productivity and prosperity of its residents. Learn about Arizona’s gross product, occupational mix, per capita personal income, and more.

68347-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsRex, Tom R. (Author) / Arizona Indicators (Project) (Publisher) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Publisher)
Created2013-08
Description

Per capita earnings in Arizona has been lower than the national average for decades. The 2011 differential of 19 percent is the largest on record; the typical differential has been between 10 and 15 percent. Thus, for residents who have spent some or all of their working life in the

Per capita earnings in Arizona has been lower than the national average for decades. The 2011 differential of 19 percent is the largest on record; the typical differential has been between 10 and 15 percent. Thus, for residents who have spent some or all of their working life in the state, the state’s historically low per capita earnings help to explain the state’s below-average per capita property income.