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.
^ We're talking about two very different concepts of Economic Diversity though, I think.
You're saying how many industries are apparent in a market. I cant name one industry that Houston doesn't have. You're right it has them all. Including ones that Dallas-Fort Worth doesn't like Port Activity.
But what I am talking about is how much of those sectors take percentage (%) of the over all economy.
- Houston's Energy (hypothetically) can be 17% of its over all economy.
Just because Houston has other industries doesn't make its economy automatically diverse though. It needs have balanced reliance on its other industries just as much as its niche ones. Like Chicago is very balanced it has two niche industries (Mercantile Exchange & Transportation) but along with all the other industries apparent in Chicago, neither dwarf higher percentages of anything else.
In Houston its not the same case.
And Boston isn't the leader in Tech, that's Bay Area. And then Seattle. There is only one best for each niche industry. Take it or leave it situation. Bay Area is number one for Tech. Boston is number one for Medical Research & Education. Chicago is number one for Mercantile Exchange & Transportation. Houston is number one for Energy & Port Activity (tonnage). Los Angeles is number one for Film Industry & Port (cargo). New York City is number one for Finance. Miami is number one for International Banking.
Don't get me wrong, Houston has come a long way since 1984 when its economy was 85% Oil & Energy to today where it is way less balanced with 23% Energy. That's a drastic improvement in 2 decades and is only getting more diverse by the day. But claiming to have every sector/industry doesn't make an economy diverse it just makes the economy more in depth. Houston is more in depth than Dallas-Fort Worth, where as Dallas-Fort Worth is probably more diverse (balanced).
That's how it is. No number 2's. Only count it if it's # 1 in something.
I meant to put Education for Boston and I understand what your saying, but if this was just based simply on diversity; many cities could make the list. However, I think this list looks more at diversity and significance.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780
I meant to put Education for Boston and I understand what your saying, but if this was just based simply on diversity; many cities could make the list. However, I think this list looks more at diversity and significance.
Diversity yes. That article was pretty good about that but there are two main hiccups to that article now:
- It's now 2010, and the article was 2003. Houston, New York City, & Washington DC definitely have to be more diverse than what they were in 2003. At least Houston & New York City are.
- If it's stating significance, then why are Little Rock, Fresno, & Norfolk mentioned in the article but not San Francisco, Boston, & Dallas-Fort Worth?
Diversity yes. That article was pretty good about that but there are two main hiccups to that article now:
- It's now 2010, and the article was 2003. Houston, New York City, & Washington DC definitely have to be more diverse than what they were in 2003. At least Houston & New York City are.
- If it's stating significance, then why are Little Rock, Fresno, & Norfolk mentioned in the article but not San Francisco, Boston, & Dallas-Fort Worth?
Actually I was speaking more about the list H-town posted.
Actually I was speaking more about the list H-town posted.
The list she posted was based on city, not metro area. Even so, San Francisco and DFW dont have significant economies? They are bigger than many cities on the initial list.
Actually I was speaking more about the list H-town posted.
My list was written by Canadians. Do you really trust crazy Canadians?? lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme02
The list she posted was based on city, not metro area. Even so, San Francisco and DFW dont have significant economies? They are bigger than many cities on the initial list.
Not as significant as these:
1. Chicago
2. Los Angeles
3. Toronto
4. Boston
5. new York
6. Detroit
7. Houston
8. Washington
9. Philadelphia
10. Hotlanta.
The Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) is broken down into 10 Economic Sectors, which are further broken down into 23 Industry groups. These groups are as follows:
I wonder how many areas does DFW have a presence in?
Here is another list.
Major Economic Sector Data
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing
Construction
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Government finance
Labor Market data
Manufacturing
Mining
Retail Trade
Services
Transportation, Communications, Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services
Wholesale Trade
The Location Quotient Technique is the most commonly utilized economic base analysis method. It was developed in part to offer a slightly more complex model to the variety of analytical tools available to economic base analysts. This technique compares the local economy to a reference economy, in the process attempting to identify specializations in the local economy. The location quotient technique is based upon a calculated ratio between the local economy and the economy of some reference unit. This ratio, called an industry "location quotient" gives this technique its name.
This is why Houston is Better.
1. It has a higher per capita income.
2. It has only one more exported industry than Dallas, but more significant LQs
Dallas is a regional economic power, Houston is Global
Quote:
Where one city has a location quotient greater than 1, the others have an LQ value less than 1. If we combined the Texas Triangle cities by simply adding them together, the variance of the computed LQs for the combination should be smaller than an average of the variance of the individual cities.
The average LQ for Dallas , Austin and SA are all below one. the average for Houston is 1.26
The list she posted was based on city, not metro area. Even so, San Francisco and DFW dont have significant economies? They are bigger than many cities on the initial list.
I never said San Francisco didn't; I said Dallas.
Btw, I'm not agreeing with the list and do think Dallas has one of the most diverse economies in the country, but my purpose was that while it has a diverse economy; it's not significant like Chicago or Boston. It be one thing if Dallas was a leader or at least a key player in multiple sectors, but it's really not.
Dallas is a regional economic power, Houston is Global
Fair enough, the article you posted heavily implies:
1) DFW has a more diverse economy than Houston
2) DFW and Houston's economies dont overlap virtually at all
3) Houstons economy is more international, DFW's is national
Though DFW is too important to simply be just reigional. At very least, it would be national. But there are lots of international industires here as well, just not to the degree of Houston.
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.
