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.
Same difference. Basically people seem to talking about how all the stuff with the competing city would be in the other city instead.
lol, they are not the same.
If the Bay area was never there LA cannot claim industries that never were.
Quote:
You agreed with this statement, isn't all the HQ's going to Houston instead of Dallas basically the same thing as "absorbing" it?
If these cities didn't have to compete with these others nearby cities then wouldn't all the stuff that city has just go to the closest competitor?
If by removing the competition and the other city is not absorbing what it has, then what exactly are we comparing?
No, what Grapico said was that because of the low tax in Texas a lot of businesses are relocating there. In the absence of Dallas they would most likely go to Houston instead of being shared amongst the two.
so moving to Texas because of Tax benefit is not the same as absorbing industries in SF. SF tax benefits are not the reason why the companies are there.
It may seem to you as splitting hairs, but it is not. It is harder to say that w/o Dallas or SF all the people in Dallas would be living in Houston and all the people in SF would be living in LA. What is more reasonable to say is that if the city develops w/o a direct competitor then that city would most likely benefit more. Like Houston benefiting from the tax breaks without a competitor also enjoy the breaks
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are at no disadvantage whatsoever due to proximity of any other city. They are the number 1, 2 and 3 cities by a very large margin.
It is debatable whether or not Houston would benefit from not having Dallas in the same state. There is no finite way to ever figure out just how Houston would have grown without Dallas in the State or vice versa. For all we know the two together is the reason why they both became big cities in the first place. Also, they're economies are different enough that they compliment each other more so than they deter each other from growth.
There is also the matter that Texas is pretty big freaking State with a ton of resources. There is enough room for 4 or 5 big cities with several million residents each. In other words, there is more than enough to go around for both places to grow on their own. I don't really buy the whole argument that either Dallas or Houston would be more powerful if the other wasn't around.
New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are at no disadvantage whatsoever due to proximity of any other city. They are the number 1, 2 and 3 cities by a very large margin.
It is debatable whether or not Houston would benefit from not having Dallas in the same state. There is no finite way to ever figure out just how Houston would have grown without Dallas in the State or vice versa. For all we know the two together is the reason why they both became big cities in the first place. Also, they're economies are different enough that they compliment each other more so than they deter each other from growth.
There is also the matter that Texas is pretty big freaking State with a ton of resources. There is enough room for 4 or 5 big cities with several million residents each. In other words, there is more than enough to go around for both places to grow on their own. I don't really buy the whole argument that either Dallas or Houston would be more powerful if the other wasn't around.
I respect your argument, but you don't think Houston would benefit at all in the absence of Dallas?
He was trying to discredit my post without even thinking about what he was saying
Actually, it's a self-inflicted injury. Rather than sit here and disagree however, I live in a pretty great city, so I'm going out to enjoy it. Enjoy the rest of your evening.
so moving to Texas because of Tax benefit is not the same as absorbing industries in SF. SF tax benefits are not the reason why the companies are there.
It may seem to you as splitting hairs, but it is not. It is harder to say that w/o Dallas or SF all the people in Dallas would be living in Houston and all the people in SF would be living in LA. What is more reasonable to say is that if the city develops w/o a direct competitor then that city would most likely benefit more. Like Houston benefiting from the tax breaks without a competitor also enjoy the breaks
Ok so basically this thread is about Houston and Dallas because none of those others cities are in competition really with the smaller ones you paired them up with nor are they in low tax states. Got it
Ok so basically this thread is about Houston and Dallas because none of those others cities are in competition really with the smaller ones you paired them up with nor are they in low tax states. Got it
I don't know, you tell me. I have no idea what SF industries are other than what I know about the tech industry, so you would be better at talking about the industries that LA and SF compete with each other in.
I know they are both major entry points for people of Asian origin.
I know that LA is massive for sea shipping, I am not familiar with the same in SF but I do know about the Rails from there.
If you don't mind I would like to learn more. It is not all about Houston and Dallas, those cities are just the ones I can talk the best about
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
I respect your argument, but you don't think Houston would benefit at all in the absence of Dallas?
I'm just saying there is no way to qualify that for the most part.
What I do know that between the two of them Dallas and Houston have about 12.8 million residents and a combined GDP of about $800 billion. Neither city as they are could handle any where near that many residents or have an economy that large with the industries they have as they currently they are. It is more of a testament to Texas itself that it can handle two successful cities like that.
To think Houston is some how disadvantaged by Dallas when it is responsible for half of that is not born in reality IMHO.
he was the one who brought up those cities. Here is his post:
now that he is seeing that other people are giving other opinions he is changing his story
So typical and boring HTown - CHERRY PICKER
For anyone who cares read the context - though is really not that interesting.
Yes you are so right HTOWN Houston belongs in the conversation with NYC, LA, and Chicago, cough...
WTF - I think i am just going to put you on block, I dont know why I let myself get annoyed by delusional posters; especially when they debate delusion and change like the wind to defend the delusional thoughts...
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.
