County GDP’s “Broad Growth” Problem: 2,273 Up, 809 Down—But One County at $813.7B Tells the Real Story

On 2026-02-05, the Bureau of Economic Analysis rolled out a combined county GDP and personal income release that trumpets “broad growth” across the map. The top-line: real GDP increased in 2,273 counties, decreased in 809, and was unchanged in 24. But the same document shows county economies ranging from $813.7 billion in New York County (NY) to just $15.7 million in Issaquena County (MS). Counting counties equally without weighting by size risks telling the wrong macro story.

Here’s what the data reveals:

• The “broad growth” framing leans on a simple count of counties—while output is overwhelmingly concentrated in a handful of places.

• Among large counties, the “Trends” series shows 145 growth, 0 decline, 1 unchanged, with a percent-change range from +10.7% (Pinal County, AZ) to 0.0% (Johnson County, KS)—no large-county contractions in 2024, even as 809 counties fell overall.

• Real GDP is in chained 2017 dollars, while personal income is in current dollars; mixing real and nominal metrics without deflators invites misreads on “growth.”

• Extremes are eye-catching but context-light: county real GDP ranged from +76.6% (Carter County, MT) to −46.3% (Baca County, CO); personal income from +22.6% (Harding County, SD) to −23.3% (Issaquena County, MS)—mostly small, volatile bases.

• Structural shifts complicate comparisons: county GDP and personal income are now combined into one release, metro-area statistics were discontinued, Connecticut moved to planning regions (excluded from percent-change ranges), 2020–2023 history was revised without magnitudes, and in-release tables are gone—pushing users to the Interactive Data Application.

Breadth Without Weight: Counting Counties Isn’t the Economy

The headline—2,273 counties up—reads like momentum. But when one county posts $813.7 billion of GDP and another $15.7 million, the map is not the territory. Equal-weight county counts give the same tally to New York County and Issaquena County. If many “growing” counties are tiny, macro strength is overstated. Conversely, if declines are concentrated in small and mid-sized counties, national output may be less exposed than the count suggests.

The data itself hints at this. Large counties saw zero declines, while 809 counties declined overall. Weakness lives outside the biggest hubs, which the release doesn’t foreground. The distribution matters: investors need to separate geographic participation from economic heft.

The Large-County Mirage: All Clear at the Top, Choppier Below

Within “large counties,” the range runs +10.7% to 0.0%—not a single decline reported in 2024. That’s an asymmetric picture: stability where the dollars live, softness in the long tail.

• Large county growth: 145 up, 0 down, 1 unchanged

• Overall: 2,273 up, 809 down, 24 unchanged

That imbalance is the real story. It implies resilience in the core urban and suburban economies that dominate national output, while medium and small counties show both upside blowouts and deep contractions. The release doesn’t reconcile this split, yet it is pivotal for assessing systemic risk. For markets, it argues against broad macro fragility—even as it flags localized stress that matters for municipal credit, regional banks, and community-level real estate.

Real vs Nominal: The Apples-and-Oranges Problem

The release places real GDP (chained 2017 dollars, percent changes) alongside personal income (current dollars). Without a local price deflator for income—and without an explicit bridge—the reader is invited to infer momentum from mixed bases. A county can show flat or falling real output while personal income rises nominally due to inflation, transfers, or wage mix shifts. Or vice versa.

This matters for cash flow analysis:

• Real GDP captures volume and productivity.

• Personal income (nominal) captures dollars before prices—sensitive to inflation and policy supports.

Putting them side by side without deflator context can overstate true purchasing-power gains or hide real declines. For investment screening, pair county income growth with CPI/PCE proxies or wage inflation to isolate real gains.

Outliers Without Gravity: Big Swings, Small Weights

The press text leans on headline-grabbing extremes—real GDP from +76.6% to −46.3%, personal income from +22.6% to −23.3%—but provides no weight or driver. In practice, these swings cluster in small counties where a new mine, plant shutdown, or single firm can move the needle. That volatility makes great copy, but it doesn’t shift national aggregates.

Meanwhile, the absence of month-to-month or even intra-year path means we can’t tell if these were one-off events or sustained moves. The release aligns with the national (September 25, 2025) and state (September 26, 2025) annual updates, but does not provide sequential quarterly county detail. Don’t read a “trend” where no trend is reported.

Methodology Drift and Transparency Trade-Offs

Three shifts matter for users:

• Combined release and table removal: Folding GDP and personal income together and pushing detailed tables to the Interactive Data Application reduces in-release transparency. Key ranges and counts are harder to validate at a glance.

• Geographic redefinitions and discontinuations: Connecticut’s switch to planning regions (excluded from percent-change ranges) breaks continuity; discontinuing metro/micro/CSA statistics removes a critical lens for functional labor markets.

• Revisions without magnitudes: 2020–2023 county series were revised to align with national/state updates, but the press text gives no size or direction. History has been rewritten, but by how much? The release also warns that the 2024 data will be superseded when 2025 county statistics arrive on December 2, 2026.

For anyone modeling local growth or muni credit, that’s revision risk and comparability risk baked in.

The Numbers Behind the Narrative

Note: Beginning in 2024, Connecticut data use planning regions; these are excluded from the percent-change ranges in the release.

What This Means for Markets

• Equities: The “no declines among large counties” dynamic supports earnings resilience for firms levered to core metros—think national retailers, enterprise software, diversified healthcare, and business services. Small-cap domestics tied to rural/industrial counties may face more uneven demand.

• Munis: Concentration risk runs both ways. General obligation and revenue bonds anchored to major counties look sturdier post-2024; rural issuers deserve tighter credit screens and thicker cushions. Underwrite with updated population inputs (Census 2020–2024) and be wary of per capita optics boosted by volatile denominators.

• Regional banks and CRE: Watch portfolios exposed to medium/small counties with negative real GDP prints. Localized contractions—unseen in the large-county aggregates—can pressure collateral values and borrower cash flows.

• Macro trades: These county data do not point to broad deterioration in the growth centers. The spread between large-county stability and small-county volatility argues for maintaining core U.S. beta while hedging tail risk in rate-sensitive, rural-exposed segments.

• Data risk: With 2020–2023 revised and 2024 slated for supersession after December 2, 2026, there’s nontrivial revision risk. Be cautious using this vintage to make hard allocation calls without scenario buffers.

The Investor Takeaway

• Weight the map by money, not municipalities. The “2,273 up” headline masks that national growth is anchored in a handful of large counties that did not contract in 2024. That favors exposures tied to major urban economies.

• Separate real from nominal. Don’t equate real GDP gains with nominal personal income pops. Overlay inflation to avoid chasing optical growth.

• Treat outliers as noise unless weighted. A +76.6% spike or −46.3% plunge in tiny counties is not a macro signal.

• Adjust for methodology drift. Metro series are gone, Connecticut’s geography shifted, and history was revised. Build comparability checks and avoid naïve year-over-year charts that cross the 2024 structural break.

• Positioning:

The bottom line: The 2026-02-05 release describes a country where the centers hold and the fringes sway. For investors, the smart approach is to lean into the weight of the economy—major counties with stable growth—while underwriting the long tail as idiosyncratic risk, not a macro verdict.