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.
See this is why people argue about Trenton in Philly, based on commuter rates it should be in the Philly CSA (in NY based a pure technicality with a lessor commuter rate), it actually only misses the MSA by .2% not to mention Atlantic City (Atlantic County is less than 20 miles from Center City Philly) which would be an additional 20 Billion as it includes Ocean City NJ (or even Allentown/Beth another 28 Billion right on the doorstep)
7. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA $380.046 Billion Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area $335,112 Trenton-Ewing Area $25,409 Reading, PA Metro Area $14,588 Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ Metro Area $4,873
8. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA $363.201 Billion
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area $363.201
9. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA $359.835 Billion
Athens, TX Micro Area
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area $356,615
Sherman-Denison, TX Metro Area $3,220
Do you think they will combine Philly and NYC this year into one CSA when they redo the CSA's latter on?
Do you think they will combine Philly and NYC this year into one CSA when they redo the CSA's latter on?
Really depends on what happens with Mercer County, if it comes back into the Philly MSA, then yes, but that would not be until 2012 or 2013 I believe when all the commuter and demographic data is out, silly though in many ways as they are intertwined but really uniquely different at the cities, the weird part is a population the size of DC/Baltimore or SF/SJ sits in 60 miles in between them
Combined as a CSA it would 1.735 Trillion almost the size of the whole state of CA
Last edited by kidphilly; 02-23-2011 at 10:09 PM..
Okay, so there isnt data for Micro Areas, so here is a compilation of our Largest CSAs and the Miami MSA for 2008 released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the US Commerce Department 9-24-09.
Combined Statistical Areas by Total Gross Product, 2008
1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA $1.434 Trillion
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metro Area $81,389
Kingston, NY Metro Area $4,679
New Haven-Milford, CT Metro Area $37,643
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area $1,264,896
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metro Area $21,029
Torrington, CT Micro Area
Trenton-Ewing, NJ Metro Area $24,458
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA $866.095 Billion
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area $717,884
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metro Area $35,080
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area $113,080
3. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA $533.542 Billion
Baltimore-Towson, MD Metro Area $133,012
Lexington Park, MD Micro Area
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area $395,747
Winchester, VA-WV Metro Area $4,783
4. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA $526.895 Billion
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metro Area $520,672
Kankakee-Bradley, IL Metro Area $3,094
Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metro Area $3,336
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA $508.418 Billion
Napa, CA Metro Area $7,434
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area $310,825
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area $146,687
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metro Area $9,903
Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metro Area $20,229
Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metro Area $13,340
6. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA $413.930 Billion
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metro Area $299,590
Concord, NH Micro Area
Manchester-Nashua, NH Metro Area $20,782
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metro Area $65,152
Worcester, MA Metro Area $28,406
7. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA $403.202 Billion
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area $403,202
8. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA $383.082 Billion
Athens, TX Micro Area
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area $379,863
Sherman-Denison, TX Metro Area $3,219
9. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA $351.680 Billion
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area $331,897
Reading, PA Metro Area $14,838
Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ Metro Area $4,945
10. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL $276.197 Billion
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metro Area $269,799
Gainesville, GA Metro Area $6,398 11. Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area $261.263 Billion
12. Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI CSA $236.457 Billion
Ann Arbor, MI Metro Area $17,891
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metro Area $200,856
Flint, MI Metro Area $11,406
Monroe, MI Metro Area $6,304
13.Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA: $240.808 Billion
14. Minneapolis-St.Paul-St.Cloud, MN-WI CSA: $201.476 Billion
15. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA: $187.431 Billion
1) New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA: -$54.5 billion 2) Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA: +$10.373 billion
3) Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA: +17.007 billion
4) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA: +26.909 billion 5) Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA: -$11.776 billion
6) Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA: -$2.425 billion
7) Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA: -$40.001 billion
8) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA: -$23.247 billion 9) Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA: +$2.893 billion 10) Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL: -$5.341 billion
11) Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area: -$8.616 billion 12) Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA: +$10.828 billion 13) Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI CSA: -$19.063 billion 14) Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud, MN-WI CSA: -$4.08 billion 15) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro Area: +3.294 billion
Top 5 gainers
1) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA: +26.909 billion (overtook Chicago in ranking)
2) Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA: +17.007 billion
3) Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA: +$10.828 billion (overtook Detroit in ranking)
4) Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA: +$10.373 billion
5) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro Area: +3.294 billion
Top 5 losers
1) New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA: -$54.5 billion
2) Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA: -$40.001 billion
3) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA: -$23.247 billion
4) Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI CSA: -$19.063 billion (dropped below Seattle in ranking)
5) Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA: -$11.776 billion (dropped below SF Bay Area in ranking)
Overall, what a HORRIBLE year it was for the US economy in 2009. I hope some gains can be posted for 2010 and 2011. I'm deeply surprised at the losses the huge Texas metros posted in the 2009 fiscal year. That just goes to show how deep the recession hit us! Congrats to the metros that did gain GMP!
would you PLEASE......show the same GDP data; but just for MSA's NOT CSA's. THANKYOU......IMHO...that's a fairer comparison of cities/metropolitan areas.
GDP by MSA, in millions:
1. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island - 1,210,387
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA - 730,941
3. Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI - 508,712
4. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 407,463
5. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX - 363,201
6. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - 356,615
7. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA - 335,563
8. Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD - 335,112
9. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH - 298,256
10. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA - 264,700
11. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL - 252,647
12. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA - 228,797
13. Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ - 190,725
14. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI - 189,801
15. Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI - 185,800
16. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA - 171,471
17. Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO - 152,868
18. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA - 147,370
19. Baltimore-Towson, MD - 138,420
20. St. Louis, MO-IL - 124,558
21. Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA - 117,006
22. Pittsburgh, PA - 111,597
23. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL - 111,377
24. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA - 110,565
25. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC - 110,427
26. Kansas City, MO-KS - 103,137
27. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH - 103,020
28. Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL - 100,711
29. Indianapolis-Carmel, IN - 98,799
30. Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN - 98,260
31. Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA - 94,391
32. Las Vegas-Paradise, NV - 91,742
33. Columbus, OH - 91,308
34. Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI - 82,692
35. Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC - 79,600
36. Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT - 79,424
37. Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT - 78,805
38. Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - 78,426
39. San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - 77,712
40. Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN - 75,764
41. New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA - 68,008
42. Salt Lake City, UT - 65,221
43. Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA - 64,341
44. Memphis, TN-MS-AR - 62,735
45. Richmond, VA - 61,447
46. Oklahoma City, OK - 61,099
47. Jacksonville, FL - 58,303
48. Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN - 55,850
49. Birmingham-Hoover, AL - 53,276
50. Raleigh-Cary, NC - 52,556
51. Honolulu, HI - 50,071
52. Tulsa, OK - 47,066
53. Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA - 45,733
54. Rochester, NY - 43,517
55. Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY - 43,157
56. Baton Rouge, LA - 39,686
57. Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY - 39,597
58. New Haven-Milford, CT - 38,834
59. Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA - 37,719
60. Albuquerque, NM - 35,498
61. Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA - 34,962
62. Madison, WI - 34,786
63. Durham-Chapel Hill, NC - 34,285
64. Dayton, OH - 32,897
65. Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR - 32,884
66. Tucson, AZ - 32,697
67. Greensboro-High Point, NC - 31,829
68. Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI - 31,657
69. Columbia, SC - 31,101
70. Bakersfield-Delano, CA - 29,053
71. Fresno, CA - 29,017
72. Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ - 28,597
73. Knoxville, TN - 28,424
74. Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA - 28,064
75. Worcester, MA - 28,043
76. Wichita, KS - 26,967
77. Akron, OH - 26,944
78. Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC - 26,691
79. Syracuse, NY - 26,352
80. El Paso, TX - 26,333
81. Trenton-Ewing, NJ - 25,409
82. Toledo, OH - 25,397
83. Anchorage, AK - 25,368
84. Colorado Springs, CO - 25,270
85. Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME - 25,201
86. Boise City-Nampa, ID - 24,771
87. Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC - 24,762
88. Jackson, MS - 23,689
89. North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL - 23,067
90. Springfield, MA - 22,514
91. Lexington-Fayette, KY - 22,114
92. Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY - 21,499
93. Manchester-Nashua, NH - 20,865
94. Winston-Salem, NC - 20,785
95. Chattanooga, TN-GA - 20,285
96. Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL - 19,910
97. Huntsville, AL - 19,882
98. Stockton, CA - 19,698
99. Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA - 19,603
100. Reno-Sparks, NV - 19,546
4. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA $550.025 Billion Napa, CA Metro Area $7,057
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area $335,563
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area $147,370
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metro Area $9,969
Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metro Area $19,603 Stockton, CA $19,698 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metro Area $15,765
Incredibly close to DC-Baltimore...
3. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA $550.549 Billion Baltimore-Towson, MD Metro Area $138,420
Lexington Park, MD Micro Area
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area $407,463
Winchester, VA-WV Metro Area $4,666
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,133,054 times
Reputation: 4047
I'm content with whatever goes, so long as to Houston stays ahead of Dallas/Fort Worth. It's in intra-state rivalry, and its going to stay that way until one of them significantly outdoes the other. 2009 was a pretty bad year economically for most places in the country, I remember it being the year that most Texas cities saw massive job losses, ever increasing unemployment rate, & divisions cut in general.
2010 was a much better year for a lot of these places on the list, Chicago itself went from 2% over the national level for unemployment to below it in just a year time frame. New York & Philadelphia got themselves above national unemployment to below it, & both Texas metro's sliced large amounts of their unemployment rates, oil prices started kicking up, and job creation continued on forth with los losses coming at a minimal. Brookings had their report out 2 months ago, they didn't list the new GDP figures for 2010 but they gave the percentages that large metro's take up for the United States total GDP, both Texas metros were back to their normal shares (actually a tiny bit shorter), New York was slightly up, Chicago got back to where it was, but Washington DC saw a decrease though (was the only one to decrease though). Don't know why but its an article I'm going to dig back up again.
2010 was a great year for nearly every place in the country as compared to 2009, which along with 2008 were probably the worst two fiscal years in the recession it seems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Does the BEA have Income out yet? to me a better proxy
It actually came out for 2009 some months ago. This (thread) is the list on GDP for 2009 and the GDP figures always come out 4 months after Total Personal Income figures do, and here is the list on total personal income for 2009: (Which should go with the GDP figures for 2009)
The Total Personal Income List 2009:
01. New York City: 998,776,802
02. Los Angeles: 551,271
03. Chicago: 418,929
04. Washington DC: 309,080
05. Philadelphia: 271,943
06. San Francisco-Oakland: 257,761
07. Houston: 255,635
08. Dallas-Fort Worth: 254,769
09. Boston: 246,471
10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale: 229,380
11. Atlanta: 199,747
12. Seattle: 166,902
13. Detroit: 165,311
14. Phoenix: 149,611
15. Minneapolis-St. Paul: 149,594
16. San Diego: 139,345
17. Baltimore: 129,061
18. Riverside-San Bernardino: 124,004
19. Denver: 117,350
20. St. Louis: 114,127
21. San Jose: 101,926
22. Tampa: 101,045
23. Pittsburgh: 99,418
24. Portland: 86,822
25. Sacramento: 85,596
26. Cincinnati: 82,897
27. Cleveland: 82,288
28. Kansas City: 81,915
29. San Antonio: 71,489
30. Orlando: 71,458
31. Las Vegas: 71,275
32. Columbus: 68,907
33. Indianapolis: 66,850
34. Virginia Beach: 66,434
35. Providence: 65,291
36. Charlotte: 65,234
37. Milwaukee: 65,031
38. Austin: 60,568
39. Nashville: 60,548
40. Hartford: 59,402
41. Jacksonville: 51,533
42. Richmond: 51,065
43. Memphis: 48,094
44. New Orleans: 47,419
45. Louisville: 47,208
46. Oklahoma City: 46,525
47. Birmingham: 43,511
48. Raleigh-Cary: 42,611
49. Buffalo: 42,155
50. Salt Lake City: 41,805
51. Honolulu: 41,282
52. Rochester: 40,586
My bad, I didn't add up the CSA for the Bay Area, Southland, & DMV though, kind of lazy haha if someone else wants to add them up, they're more than welcome too.
The difference between Gross Domestic Product and Total Personal Income is very evident between both lists. For example, places that rely heavily on one industry (20% or more) see a lot of inflation at GDP level, GDP measures the size of the economy for better or worse it doesn't have to be all organic figures and some can be more so of a "steroid" effect where GDP's in general are inflated to reflect more wealth in a region than there really is. For example, from 2005 to 2008 the Houston area gained $110 Million into it's GDP, about only 32% of that was organic and the rest was inflation which came directly from the impact of its industry (Energy), while oil prices were favorable to the regions output. The dropped in 2009 (as seen by Dallas & Houston's performance) and picked back up in 2010, not all the generated money was organic. The same thing applies to New York and finance, which is a major driver to New York's economy.
Total personal income shows more so of the exact wealth a region contains, all the money generated and all the money that the area has and it's all organic.
In Summary:
Either way, both metrics are relevant, both show things the other doesn't, and when applying it into context of how large an economy is, both should be noted for what they are. I still wouldn't say one is a better metric than the other, because they simply show two different things, one shows the total wealth generated in a region organically (Total Personal Income) & the other shows the size of the economy with or without any regards to inflation (Economic Output- GDP). Both are meaningful and both should always be considered for.
I'm content with whatever goes, so long as to Houston stays ahead of Dallas/Fort Worth. It's in intra-state rivalry, and its going to stay that way until one of them significantly outdoes the other. 2009 was a pretty bad year economically for most places in the country, I remember it being the year that most Texas cities saw massive job losses, ever increasing unemployment rate, & divisions cut in general.
2010 was a much better year for a lot of these places on the list, Chicago itself went from 2% over the national level for unemployment to below it in just a year time frame. New York & Philadelphia got themselves above national unemployment to below it, & both Texas metro's sliced large amounts of their unemployment rates, oil prices started kicking up, and job creation continued on forth with los losses coming at a minimal.
2010 was a great year for nearly every place in the country as compared to 2009, which along with 2008 were probably the worst two fiscal years in the recession it seems.
It actually came out for 2009 some months ago. This is the list on GDP for 2009, and here is the list on total personal income for 2009:
The Total Personal Income List 2009:
01. New York City: 998,776,802
02. Los Angeles: 551,271
03. Chicago: 418,929
04. Washington DC: 309,080
05. Philadelphia: 271,943
06. San Francisco-Oakland: 257,761
07. Houston: 255,635
08. Dallas-Fort Worth: 254,769
09. Boston: 246,471
10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale: 229,380
11. Atlanta: 199,747
12. Seattle: 166,902
13. Detroit: 165,311
14. Phoenix: 149,611
15. Minneapolis-St. Paul: 149,594
16. San Diego: 139,345
17. Baltimore: 129,061
18. Riverside-San Bernardino: 124,004
19. Denver: 117,350
20. St. Louis: 114,127
21. San Jose: 101,926
22. Tampa: 101,045
23. Pittsburgh: 99,418
24. Portland: 86,822
25. Sacramento: 85,596
26. Cincinnati: 82,897
27. Cleveland: 82,288
28. Kansas City: 81,915
29. San Antonio: 71,489
30. Orlando: 71,458
31. Las Vegas: 71,275
32. Columbus: 68,907
33. Indianapolis: 66,850
34. Virginia Beach: 66,434
35. Providence: 65,291
36. Charlotte: 65,234
37. Milwaukee: 65,031
38. Austin: 60,568
39. Nashville: 60,548
40. Hartford: 59,402
41. Jacksonville: 51,533
42. Richmond: 51,065
43. Memphis: 48,094
44. New Orleans: 47,419
45. Louisville: 47,208
46. Oklahoma City: 46,525
47. Birmingham: 43,511
48. Raleigh-Cary: 42,611
49. Buffalo: 42,155
50. Salt Lake City: 41,805
51. Honolulu: 41,282
52. Rochester: 40,586
The difference between Gross Domestic Product and Total Personal Income is very evident. For example, places that rely heavily on one industry (20% or more) see a lot of inflation at GDP level, GDP measures the size of the economy for better or worse it doesn't have to be all organic figures and some can be more so of a "steroid" effect where GDP's in general are inflated to reflect more wealth in a region than there really is. For example, from 2005 to 2008 the Houston area gained $110 Million into it's GDP, about only 32% of that was organic and the rest was inflation which came directly from the impact of its industry (Energy), while oil prices were favorable to the regions output. The dropped in 2009 (as seen by Dallas & Houston's performance) and picked back up in 2010, not all the generated money was organic. The same thing applies to New York and finance, which is a major driver to New York's economy.
Total personal income shows more so of the exact wealth a region contains, all the money generated and all the money that the area has and it's all organic.
In Summary:
Either way, both metrics are relevant, both show things the other doesn't, and when applying it into context of how large an economy is, both should be noted for what they are. I still wouldn't say one is a better metric than the other, because they simply show two different things, one shows the total wealth generated in a region organically (Total Personal Income) & the other shows the size of the economy with or without any regards to inflation (Economic Output- GDP). Both are meaningful and both should always be considered for.
Houston could surpass DFW this yeah, because oil&gas prices are very high, remember 2008 where Houston was recession-free ?
And big surprise for me : Houston ahead NYC about per capita income it's unbelievable
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,133,054 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderful Jellal
Houston could surpass DFW this yeah, because oil&gas prices are very high, remember 2008 where Houston was recession-free ?
And big surprise for me : Houston ahead NYC about per capita income it's unbelievable
It was towards the end of 2008 when Texas in general started seeing some slaps in the face in terms of the recession, it was much later than everyone else though but it really caught up very fast there, by 2009 Texas was doing better than average but the recession had pounded Texas too and a lot.
By 2010 (around March), the recovery started and it took off, its doing a lot better for private sector today than it was in 2009. And yes, you're right oil prices started going up also and if you recount to GDP, that means its that time of the decade again where Houston's GDP see's a massive inflation and unorganic "growth" due to that.
On your point about the per capita income as per GDP, you have to try to remember that saying particular economies are larger than others is a bit more different. For example, any city with a niche at first glance will have a larger performance than a city without it, which is why you'll see such a stark difference between Washington DC MSA and Dallas/Fort Worth MSA. GDP level wealth is both organic (real) and unorganic (inflation) which alters both the size of the economy and the "perceived" generated wealth of the region. That's where the total personal income rankings show a better perception of where the wealth is and how big it is in contrast to other places. Also another thing though, a niche is a blessing and a curse given the time of hardship or time of joy, as you can see for 2009 it was a curse for New York, Houston, Chicago (trade peaked in 2008, declined in 2009, regained in 2010), Miami (Latin American International banking & finance), and then in 2010 having those same niche's were blessings more so again with a quick recovery (besides Miami/Fort Lauderdale).
Which is where Total Personal Income comes in, for example the difference in 2009 in size of both Houston & Dallas/Fort Worth at MSA level was some 580,000 people yet Houston has the larger GDP & larger Total Personal Income, that's where Dallas/Fort Worth lagged a lot, and for a MSA much larger than Washington DC and also Philadelphia, Dallas/Fort Worth's GDP & Total Personal Income never reflected it. At CSA level though, Dallas/Fort Worth was 350,000 larger than Philadelphia & 900,000 people larger than Houston yet its GDP was once again smaller than Houston's and just very barely ahead of Philadelphia's, and total personal income at CSA level was just barely ahead.
But no doubt though, whatever held places back in 2009, didn't do so as much in 2010, all places performed better and at healthier levels too.
Houston could surpass DFW this yeah, because oil&gas prices are very high, remember 2008 where Houston was recession-free ?
And big surprise for me : Houston ahead NYC about per capita income it's unbelievable
Not surprising, in 2009 companies like Lehman Brothers had a payroll of $0.
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.
it's unbelievable 
