Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LA is the "Freeway Capital of the world" which is legit, or "Entertainment Capital of the World"- Fake Image ( Stop your children letting Hollywood show them the Star Celebrity life because this is not what LA really is.) Those are only two "Capitals" LA is known for lol.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,031,388 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMFORD.
None of this matters in regards to this topic. This per-capita obsession on this forum is getting out of hand.
Per Capita obsession? I've never even demonstrated any of that before this thread and one other thread before. I thought of it as a relative factor, in which case it is one of many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMFORD.
Per capita or not, there are still more wealthy people in Los Angeles than the Bay Area.
Yes & No.
Yes many wealthy people do live in Los Angeles area, but not as many as the Bay Area. In terms of Millionaires, Billionaires, and even the top 5 richest counties in California are in Northern California.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMFORD.
In the eyes of the Fed, Los Angeles is still more important to the country than Bay Area because more money comes out of Los Angeles. Los Angeles supplies more revenue to the country than the Bay Area. The output that comes out of Los Angeles is more beneficial to the fiscal health of this country than the smaller/higher "per capita" output of the Bay Area.
I can agree to this because its something that I do say quite a bit myself. Or did before understanding the concept that Per Capita, and total GDP, and population are not the be all end all criteria for importance.
The federal government see's Bay Area in more regard to be honest, their placement of the Federal Reserve Bank Branch there is indicative of their decision. They also do receive more tax dollars coming from Northern California than Southern California., As already stated twice before, Northern California is 20% of California's population but covers 33% of the states overall taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMFORD.
And yes, total GDP is very important, large population or not. Again, the total GDP of Los Angeles is more important to the country than "per capita", which IMO is useless in the grand scheme of things.
Its not that I don't agree with you on this, but its just that I really don't agree with this statement. Its not wrong but its solely your perception. You're thinking short term benefits, large exponential output coming in from Los Angeles compared to a smaller one from the Bay Area. But Bay Area's is rather large also and not that far behind Los Angeles (overall). 866 Billion to 508 Billion. With the Bay Area GDP growing at a marginally faster rate and closing that gap between the two.
So yes total GDP is important but if that were the case, would you say China is more important globally as of the moment than Japan, or that China is physically more powerful overall then Japan, UK, France? The more developed nations. Which is where Per Capita is more indicative of the true wealth and prosperity a region holds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMFORD.
Luxembourg has a higher per capita GDP, higher millionaire %, higher per capita income than the United States of America. Is Luxembourg the more important country? Is Luxembourg more of a capital of the West than the United States? I don't think so.
Not really. See you're only looking at it in terms of one metric. But out of my entire post you had just wanted to show how GDP correlation is more relevant than Per Capita. It can go either way. So lets say we take both out of the mix. Both are gone.
Which area is more important? Remember GDP is the total revenue. But the Bay Area is wealthy enough to have more pocket change than Los Angeles area. Apple alone has $40 Billion for pocket change (not included in GDP), you can always add that as rain check money, Yahoo!, FaceBook, among others are in that same situation. Los Angeles area cant boost that same level of private "in cash, on hand" wealth.
Frankly, there are many that see a top 5 Metro area a different way. Many will see it like this:
Top 5 for Most People:
- New York City
- Chicago/Los Angeles (interchangeable)
- Los Angeles/Chicago (interchangeable)
- Washington DC
- Bay Area
Others will see it like this:
- New York City
- Washington DC
- Los Angeles/Chicago (interchangeable)
- Los Angeles/Chicago (interchangeable)
- Bay Area
Some might even see it like this:
- Washington DC
- New York City
- Chicago/Los Angeles (interchangeable)
- Chicago/Los Angeles (interchangeable)
- Bay Area
But I personally see it like this the best:
- New York City
- Washington DC
- Bay Area
- Chicago/Los Angeles (interchangeable)
- Chicago/Los Angeles (interchangeable)
There's more wealth, more innovation, more of a future expansion economically, more of a creative class, more of a hands on "have every economic element" factor, the Bay Area has pretty much any economic sector/industry you can think of. Los Angeles doesn't, which is why I view the Bay Area in higher regards despite having a smaller population and GDP. Finance, Education, Social Progression, Political influence, port activity, Media control, History related to American Expansion westward, Banking, Tech, Medical research, Fashion, etc.. the Bay Area literally excels at everything it touches. Which is why I personally feel its the more dominating Metro in the West Coast. But I like Los Angeles & Chicago more though.
Per Capita obsession? I've never even demonstrated any of that before this thread and one other thread before. I thought of it as a relative factor, in which case it is one of many.
Yes & No.
Yes many wealthy people do live in Los Angeles area, but not as many as the Bay Area. In terms of Millionaires, Billionaires, and even the top 5 richest counties in California are in Northern California.
I can agree to this because its something that I do say quite a bit myself. Or did before understanding the concept that Per Capita, and total GDP, and population are not the be all end all criteria for importance.
The federal government see's Bay Area in more regard to be honest, their placement of the Federal Reserve Bank Branch there is indicative of their decision. They also do receive more tax dollars coming from Northern California than Southern California., As already stated twice before, Northern California is 20% of California's population but covers 33% of the states overall taxes.
Its not that I don't agree with you on this, but its just that I really don't agree with this statement. Its not wrong but its solely your perception. You're thinking short term benefits, large exponential output coming in from Los Angeles compared to a smaller one from the Bay Area. But Bay Area's is rather large also and not that far behind Los Angeles (overall). 866 Billion to 508 Billion. With the Bay Area GDP growing at a marginally faster rate and closing that gap between the two.
So yes total GDP is important but if that were the case, would you say China is more important globally as of the moment than Japan, or that China is physically more powerful overall then Japan, UK, France? The more developed nations. Which is where Per Capita is more indicative of the true wealth and prosperity a region holds.
Not really. See you're only looking at it in terms of one metric. But out of my entire post you had just wanted to show how GDP correlation is more relevant than Per Capita. It can go either way. So lets say we take both out of the mix. Both are gone.
Which area is more important? Remember GDP is the total revenue. But the Bay Area is wealthy enough to have more pocket change than Los Angeles area. Apple alone has $40 Billion for pocket change (not included in GDP), you can always add that as rain check money, Yahoo!, FaceBook, among others are in that same situation. Los Angeles area cant boost that same level of private "in cash, on hand" wealth.
Frankly, there are many that see a top 5 Metro area a different way. Many will see it like this:
Top 5:
- New York City
- Chicago/Los Angeles (interchangeable)
- Los Angeles/Chicago (interchangeable)
- Washington DC
- Bay Area
Others will see it like this:
- New York City
- Washington DC
- Los Angeles/Chicago
- Los Angeles/Chicago
- Bay Area
Some might even see it like this:
- Washington DC
- New York City
- Chicago/Los Angeles
- Chicago/Los Angeles
- Bay Area
But I personally see it like this the best:
- New York City
- Washington DC
- Bay Area
- Chicago/Los Angeles (interchangeable)
- Chicago/Los Angeles (interchangeable)
There's more wealth, more innovation, more of a future expansion economically, more of a creative class, more of a hands on "have every economic element" factor, the Bay Area has pretty much any economic sector/industry you can think of. Los Angeles doesn't, which is why I view the Bay Area in higher regards despite having a smaller population and GDP. But I like Los Angeles & Chicago more though.
I feel that I live in the 2nd biggest City but the economy feels weak to me. I mean Chicago Economy feels bigger than LA. Why is that even though LA has more people? Even Houston's feels bigger or atleast better.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,031,388 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Scholar
I feel that I live in the 2nd biggest City but the economy feels weak to me. I mean Chicago Economy feels bigger than LA. Why is that even though LA has more people? Even Houston's feels bigger or atleast better.
Its not necessarily that. The thing with Chicago is, it has the most diverse economy in the country, Bay Area & New York City do also. They have so many sectors in their economy that you can feel the presence of a larger scaled economy despite GDP being smaller.
With Houston, you can feel it because its growing right now, its visible. How can you tell a growing metro from a stagnant one? Or a declining one? When you notice the basic changes in everyday life. More stores opening up, more construction going on, more master planned neighborhoods popping out of no where, more offices opening up, etc.
In a stagnant place you don't see anything come much or leave much, its just all the same. Everything that was there is still pretty much to a large extent still there.
With a declining location economically you will see more places leaving, even if they are shops and restaurants, it reflects how your economy is doing. If you see foreclosure homes a lot, and people putting cardboard and wood over the windows and shutting places down. Job losses, where you can noticeably see people around you that don't have jobs and see that number grow, where you see less people out shopping, etc... and conserving money more.
Houston & Los Angeles don't at all have a diverse enough economy like Bay Area, Chicago, New York City, & Boston. But with their economies if something changes you can immediately feel it faster and its effects.
And it also to a lesser extent has to do with the overall how much money and wealth your Metro brings in. Seattle economically feels larger than it is, more attraction to White Collar industries than anything else. Its noticeable in Metros like that.
Take Las Vegas for example, their economy got battered, you'll feel that when you visit it, all the foreclosed homes, less people outdoors, shops and other places closing down and leaving, etc.
Did I ever say that I wanted you to go outside? I was just pointing out that you have 20+ post a day compared to my one.
20 posts amounts to 20 minutes. So what? I don't see your point, have you seen the people who have 50 000 posts? just because you post one post per day doesn't mean you have to act all grand.
Boy a lot of very influential well-known people must be blind that they are living in a "Hell hole" See, it's that kind of mindless comment that lowers the discussion to juvenile name-calling devoid of thoughtful discourse. Plus, I've notice you have only a few dozen posts yet seem very active on this subject; you wouldn't be a formerly banned poster re-emerging again, would you?
You noticed that I have a few dozen post but don't know why my rep is high for a new member? Maybe because people like what I post. I don't refer LA as a "hell hole" it's just what it seems on this site. I love LA but I'm not going to boost it, only when it deserves to be, one must travel outside of California to know what else is good in the nation. Chicago is by far the best place I've been to ( Outside of California). I'm on this thread a lot because it's amazing how "Some" people can't admit that Houston will pass LA economically, but not population wise. If Houston can grow a 200 billion GDP to 400 billion in 4 years how can't it pass LA economically? The population is 6 million in Houston's MSA. Compared to LA's MSA 632 billion GDP, and LA's MSA population is 12.8 million. This is coming from a Angelino. I don't mean to disrespect LA in anyway. Just got to give Houston some props. Going through some of these threads I seen hatred toward Houston, Phoenix, Miami, and Los Angeles.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,031,388 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Scholar
You noticed that I have a few dozen post but don't know why my rep is high for a new member? Maybe because people like what I post. I don't refer LA as a "hell hole" it's just what it seems on this site. I love LA but I'm not going to boost it, only when it deserves to be, one must travel outside of California to know what else is good in the nation. .
I like the initiative you took to make a good connection with other posters and explain your situation out. Thats very respectable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Scholar
Chicago is by far the best place I've been to ( Outside of California).
My favorite dense city too! But yeah, its a really cool city, my favorite among the super dense cities for sure. Plus I was born there, and live there partially.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Scholar
I'm on this thread a lot because it's amazing how "Some" people can't admit that Houston will pass LA economically, but not population wise. If Houston can grow a 200 billion GDP to 400 billion in 4 years how can't it pass LA economically? The population is 6 million in Houston's MSA. Compared to LA's MSA 632 billion GDP, and LA's MSA population is 12.8 million. This is coming from a Angelino. I don't mean to disrespect LA in anyway. Just got to give Houston some props. Going through some of these threads I seen hatred toward Houston, Phoenix, Miami, and Los Angeles.
Normally the moment someone even props Houston in this manner its short lived, there will be a group of known people who will obsessively interrogate you with questions because we're talking about Houston & Los Angeles (two of the most hated cities on this site) I can already see it right now "do you seriously think Houston will keep growing the same way? just curious". In general yes, the cities you listed are known to attract the most di*kriders and followers on this site.
So in general I'm just going to say, yes Houston has come very far economically, today its continuing to diversify its economy and look at potential new industries it can benefit from in the future. Its investing in a brighter future for itself, but there is no way we'll know what will happen tomorrow. Anything can happen at any given time. So before it attracts one of those posters that love to quote all things Houston (or Los Angeles), things are uncertain, and its still significantly smaller than Los Angeles in many terms. We'll just have to see how the future goes, since only time will tell. Who knows maybe its GDP will become larger or maybe not... we'll let time do its course.
Be ready in the morning to answer a few people when they quote you and ask the same retarded question I used as an example in the previous paragraph.
And the OP of this thread was talking about population apparently, so my answer is, no the gap in terms of Metro population (MSA & CSA) is far to large to fill in my lifetime by any city. So no, Los Angeles is staying where its at, being the largest.
I like the initiative you took to make a good connection with other posters and explain your situation out. Thats very respectable.
My favorite dense city too! But yeah, its a really cool city, my favorite among the super dense cities for sure. Plus I was born there, and live there partially.
Normally the moment someone even props Houston in this manner its short lived, there will be a group of known people who will obsessively interrogate you with questions because we're talking about Houston & Los Angeles (two of the most hated cities on this site) I can already see it right now "do you seriously think Houston will keep growing the same way? just curious". In general yes, the cities you listed are known to attract the most di*kriders and followers on this site. They know who they are, they do it in every single thread about the following cities.
So in general I'm just going to say, yes Houston has come very far economically, today its continuing to diversify its economy and look at potential new industries it can benefit from in the future. Its investing in a brighter future for itself, but there is no way we'll know what will happen tomorrow. Anything can happen at any given time. So before it attracts one of those posters that love to quote all things Houston (or Los Angeles), things are uncertain, and its still significantly smaller than Los Angeles in many terms. We'll just have to see how the future goes, since only time will tell.
Be ready in the morning to answer a few people when they quote you and ask the same retarded question I used as an example in the previous paragraph.
And the OP of this thread was talking about population apparently, so my answer is, no the gap in terms of Metro population (MSA & CSA) is far to large to fill in my lifetime by any city. So no, Los Angeles is staying where its at, being the largest.
[/thread]
I agree, If my prop is short lived I'm fine with that but Facts live on! Ignorance is venomous, and it murders one's soul
SPREADING LIKE A VIRUS RUNNING RAMPANT, OUT OF CONTROL
Last edited by CA Scholar; 09-27-2010 at 01:11 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
