Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-22-2013, 04:32 PM
 
411 posts, read 720,365 times
Reputation: 460

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
I said five years not ten. Redo your math from 2002 to 2008 and see what you get. as I said Houston took a dip after 2008 so obviously the ten year average will be much lower.

Listen to what I say before you react. What I said was PRE RECESSION levels were 8.4% and higher, how the heck are you going to calculate the last 5 years since the recession began as Pre recession values?
I don't have time to collect numbers for every year. You show me two consecutive years of 8.4% growth or higher and you win this argument

I do have the 2001 to 2005 numbers, which you refer to as boom years when 8.4% was common, yet the average rate is just under 7.5%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2013, 04:33 PM
 
Location: Cumberland County, NJ
8,632 posts, read 13,006,897 times
Reputation: 5766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos View Post
Why aren't people looking at real GDP as opposed to nominal?
Are the numbers that different that it greatly effects the rankings?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,967,780 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkup View Post
I don't have time to collect numbers for every year. You show me two consecutive years of 8.4% growth or higher and you win this argument

I do have the 2001 to 2005 numbers, which you refer to as boom years when 8.4% was common, yet the average rate is just under 7.5%

knock yourself out
2008 Combined Statistical Area Gross Product-Released 9/24/2009
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 04:37 PM
 
14,798 posts, read 17,700,727 times
Reputation: 9251
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Are the numbers that different that it greatly effects the rankings?
I don't know, but nominal GDP growth is rarely used. Look at the BEA map on the release, they use real gdp.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 04:40 PM
 
411 posts, read 720,365 times
Reputation: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
ok u win, from 2005 to 2008, the growth rate was just above 9%. (see edit below)

Granted, that was a boom period though when the whole country was growing quickly based on inflated housing and asset prices and debt-leverage

edit: the number in that thread has since been corrected; 2008, Houston was at 396B, rather than 408B, meaning the growth rate was just below 9%. http://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional..._metro0213.pdf (scroll down to Table 1)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 04:46 PM
 
411 posts, read 720,365 times
Reputation: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by benleis View Post
Is anyone willing to workout how these numbers compare to 2006 pre-recession? I'm curious how many regions have reversed the slide.

Ben
http://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional..._metro0213.pdf

scroll down to Table 1; it shows 2008 versus 2011, which is somewhat reflective of the recession's impact
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,868 posts, read 25,167,969 times
Reputation: 19093
Top Five by GDP per capita using 2011 estimates.

NY: $55k
LA: $49.6k
DC: $67.3k
SF: $76.1k
Chicago: $57k
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 06:18 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
14,186 posts, read 22,759,909 times
Reputation: 17399
The title of the topic I posted on the Pittsburgh board says it all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,625 posts, read 14,466,386 times
Reputation: 4201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toure View Post
My projections of 2025 are:
1. N.Y (You already know the story)
2. LA. (will be the same, just more population. LOL!)
3. D.C (will be finally be dense)
4. San Francisco {tech capital of the world} /Philadelphia {Art/innovation capital of the world/major history spot}(will be top destinations in the world soon)
6. Chicago (makes me sad to put it this low.)
7. Houston (when will y'all CD'ers ever learn? Boom doesn't last long!!! Houston WILL level out soon.)
8. Dallas/FTW
9. Boston (Boston is Boston)
10. San Antonio (Dont believe me just watch. Guys this city is amazing! It will be a top destination. Will explode very soon)
I love Philly but since when is it the innovation capital of the world? According to the rankings I've seen it goes Boston, SF, and NYC as the top 3 on the planet...though Philly usually ranks pretty high to.

However it's insane to think it's going to jump up to the #4 CSA GDP
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,967,780 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkup View Post
ok u win, from 2005 to 2008, the growth rate was just above 9%. (see edit below)

Granted, that was a boom period though when the whole country was growing quickly based on inflated housing and asset prices and debt-leverage

edit: the number in that thread has since been corrected; 2008, Houston was at 396B, rather than 408B, meaning the growth rate was just below 9%. http://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional..._metro0213.pdf (scroll down to Table 1)
thank you finally.

It doesn't bother me if it was slightly above 9 or slightly below. My point was simply that this 8.4% may not be a one time fluke, because that was the level it was at before the recession. The percentage is even higher if you use the 2001 numbers instead of 2005

As to whole Country growing that fast, I don't see it. I think DC and DFW were at about 7.5s but I don't see other large metros having grown as much. Especially in raw numbers. While Houston was hanging with Miami and ATL at about 200B, DFW, Philly, Boston, SF, etc were flirting with the 300s. Things started to dip about 2004 Nationally but for some reason Houston, DFW and DC still exhibited strong growth
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:05 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top