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.
The biggest problem is that there is already a top city for each sector and it isnt Chicago or Toronto. NYC for finance BY FAR, and LA for show biz BY FAR.
Chicago and Toronto appear to be secondary, satellite locations that are more regionally influential whereas places like New York, Los Angeles and Silicon Valley pretty much define to the entire world what their respective industries are--they are considered ground zero, the epicenter, the world capital.
And yet it a point that is very hard to argue.
As I said earlier, follow the money people, that's where the real power is:
Here is Wealth-Xs ranking for Europe and the US in 2011
Here is the US ranking for 2012
Interesting how the list of the top 5 more or less coalesces with GAWCs ranking of the world's most well rounded cities.
London, New York, Los Angeles, Paris & San Francisco. Hmmm.
This ranking came out in 2004 prior to 2 very important developments.
1. The social networking revolution had not even begun yet. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc were all either in development or just the figments of their founders' imagination. These people found their way to the Bay Area and turned their products into global brandnames.
Today:
Facebook: 1 Billion users
Twitter: 500 Million users
LinkedIn: 100 Million users
And that's not even speaking about the fact that Bay Area companies control the most popular websites in virtually every country in the world.
2. Apple and Google had not yet released into the world their iPhone and Android platforms and touch-screen smart phones---that revolutionized the wireless communications industry as the world knew it, prior to that the US was the laughing stock of the developed world as telecommunications cos. from Asia to Europe to Canada(Blackberry) had made the US look archaic. Well no more.
What's the problem if a city isn't the top city for a field? SF isn't top city for banking, pharmaceuticals, retail, energy and a whole host of other things but it still ranks highly in a lot of them. It's also not as if these places are all just regional locations or branches of another company--these are actual industry players working out of these cities.
What is the point that you find hard to argue? It's a very rough correlation for influence and power among many other lists posted.
Social media is still in its infancy. It could be much bigger than anticipated or it could be less, the thing is it's trending heavily now so it's hard to tell.
I agree. The guy with a huge chip on his shoulder has hijacked this thread & ruined everything. Typical booster from Oakland with insecurity issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maintainschaos
I don't really have a dog in this fight, and this thread has gone on for way too long, but the phrase is actually "one fell swoop"--nothing nefarious is sweeping in...
Its certainly an important industry, but not with social media like Facebook or Twitter. I just dont think its that innovative.
Well, if you're unimpressed or don't like to use them that's fine but it doesn't mean social media doesn't have or will not have some powerful effects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
I realize its difficult to compete with greatness. Perhaps you should focus on places in your level like Toronto and Frankfurt-important but not on the level of a Bay Area or LA.
I mean sure, satellite offices are nice and even tho trading floors are mostly obsolete, We'll let you brag about them, poor things.
Im starting to believe this is why the finance industry is so eager to rank cities that have lots of their employees-they recognize the decentralization of the industry that is currently underway.
New York and London, due to their vast reach in so many industries, would still be the global centers of the industry, but secondary places like Chicago and Singapore might fall through the cracks into obscurity. Left behind. Forgotten.
So sorry.
You make a very good point, but you can't limit it to just the financial services industry or that being the top of one industry right now gives a place immunity. The Bay Area is also a bit lopsided with how it's generating wealth and it's a kind of industry and model that's quickly being copied and easily distributed. The Bay Area also lacks the vast breadth and depth of New York and London with the overall gap between the Bay Area and places such as New York and London dwarfing any kind of gap between the Bay Area and Chicago or Singapore. The good thing is that all three of these lower ranking cities have fairly diversified economies with Chicago being the most of the three. They won't have the many sturdy legs that a New York or London would rest on, but they still do quite well.
What about San Fran, and Philly? IMHO they are better then D.C. D.C is just ahead becuase it has B-More. And SF has Oakland and all them other cities. Philly really just fights by itself. And does a good job at it.
The Bay Area also lacks the vast breadth and depth of New York and London
Well as far as the number of corporations perhaps, but as far as the aggregate amount of money invested worldwide into local companies, the Bay Area is actually closer to New York relative to the rest of the country. Everywhere else is far behind including Chicago.
Number of corporations with a market capitalization of $5 Billion+ and their aggregate market cap, 10/19/2012:
1-New York, United States: 84 companies, $2.923 Trillion
2-San Francisco, United States: 49 companies, $2.313 Trillion
.
.
.
.
3-Houston, United States: 36 companies, $768.49 Billion
4-Chicago, United States: 31 companies, $669.45 Billion
5-Boston, United States: 25 companies, $409.12 Billion
This is another reason that Im still not convinced as to the perception that Chicago is as important to even the world markets as people say, let alone the world economy overall--especially when I have doled out stat after stat after stat different ways in which the Bay Area is actually more important overall.
How exactly is Chicago more important than the Bay Area to the world economy at this particular point in time? I don't think it is.
Well as far as the number of corporations perhaps, but as far as the aggregate amount of money invested worldwide into local companies, the Bay Area is actually closer to New York relative to the rest of the country. Everywhere else is far behind including Chicago.
Number of corporations with a market capitalization of $5 Billion+ and their aggregate market cap, 10/19/2012:
1-New York, United States: 84 companies, $2.923 Trillion
2-San Francisco, United States: 49 companies, $2.313 Trillion
.
.
.
.
3-Houston, United States: 36 companies, $768.49 Billion
4-Chicago, United States: 31 companies, $669.45 Billion
5-Boston, United States: 25 companies, $409.12 Billion
This is another reason that Im still not convinced as to the perception that Chicago is as important to even the world markets as people say, let alone the world economy overall--especially when I have doled out stat after stat after stat different ways in which the Bay Area is actually more important overall.
How exactly is Chicago more important than the Bay Area to the world economy at this particular point in time? I don't think it is.
Well as far as the number of corporations perhaps, but as far as the aggregate amount of money invested worldwide into local companies, the Bay Area is actually closer to New York relative to the rest of the country. Everywhere else is far behind including Chicago.
Number of corporations with a market capitalization of $5 Billion+ and their aggregate market cap, 10/19/2012:
1-New York, United States: 84 companies, $2.923 Trillion
2-San Francisco, United States: 49 companies, $2.313 Trillion
.
.
.
.
3-Houston, United States: 36 companies, $768.49 Billion
4-Chicago, United States: 31 companies, $669.45 Billion
5-Boston, United States: 25 companies, $409.12 Billion
This is another reason that Im still not convinced as to the perception that Chicago is as important to even the world markets as people say, let alone the world economy overall--especially when I have doled out stat after stat after stat different ways in which the Bay Area is actually more important overall.
How exactly is Chicago more important than the Bay Area to the world economy at this particular point in time? I don't think it is.
Well, you as well as academics who do actually study these things for a living acknowledged that there is no single metric to identify economic importance and even this one you pulled out speaks to the point that New York definitely has a lot sturdier legs as the far larger number of companies contributing to that list. There are a lot of other studies weighting different things that put Chicago ahead of the Bay Area and the Bay Area ahead of Chicago, but nothing with the Bay Area or Chicago ahead of NYC or London. I actually do think the Bay Area is more influential currently because its chief industries are creating large currents of change in a way that other metros are now following the trend as well, but the difference between Chicago and the Bay Area in overall importance aren't that large when you consider other far more influential and important cities. The two seem to switch back and forth enough on various lists and stats that it's probably arguable for either side.
What's more pertinent to this topic is why Chicago is included but LA and SF are not. The two links in the OP don't really explain all that much and the only thing I can think of is how decentralized LA and SF are and that doesn't fit into the narrative being put out, but there's nothing in the links hinting at that either. If anyone's got some sort of more in-depth links to explain it, it'd probably help the conversation along rather than forcing this topic to be about the same thing as every other most important/influential metro/city in the US topic. Also, the actual writing in the whitesheet doesn't seem to emphasize the global economy. It talks a lot more about acting as cities as geopolitical forces of their own or as part of an axis which can be pretty confusing without some further clarification.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-02-2013 at 05:49 PM..
Philly is ninth in the world which means it has a bigger GDP than SF.
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.
