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)
View Poll Results: What is San Francisco's relative stature in the US?
Top 5 99 63.06%
6-10 46 29.30%
11-15 7 4.46%
Outside the top 15 5 3.18%
Voters: 157. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-21-2015, 11:45 PM
 
1,024 posts, read 1,136,602 times
Reputation: 423

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calisonn View Post
Maybe so, but not to the same effect as the Feds leaving DC, that would devastate it, and no entertainment is definitely not the dominant industry in LA.
DC is adapting & has several other sectors of its economy now. in 2014 the DC area had 15 fortune 500 companies, the same amount as Los Angeles in 2014. This is despite Los Angeles having 18 million people in their metro region compared to DC's 6 million. Do the math.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/vi...&oe=UTF8&msa=0
Which Washington-area companies make the Fortune 500? - Washington Business Journal
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2015, 11:58 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
183 posts, read 173,036 times
Reputation: 264
Something that goes unnoticed is that DC and LA are major tourist destinations. I imagine tourism is a significant driver of both cities' economies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 12:09 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,325,783 times
Reputation: 6288
Direct federal government jobs account for 13% of the DC area's total employment. It's the big driver in DC's economic boom. There is no way on Earth the entertainment industry is that big in LA. I'd argue that finance has a larger employment share in New York as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 05:05 AM
 
Location: A box below 59th
655 posts, read 521,812 times
Reputation: 1228
SF is booming right now because of tech. Whether you roll San Jose in or not, it's still tech town and tech is big business.

Right now, talented people are flocking to SF to get a piece of the action. It's like a white collar gold rush. People all over the world know of Apple, Google and Facebook, even if they don't know that these companies have anything to do with San Francisco.

It would be madness to put SF anywhere but in the top five... right now. It's probably fourth after NYC, DC and LA.

Over the long term it's an entirely different question. The city is squandering the tech boom. Much of the private wealth the boom is generating is being eaten by housing, which is inflated because of artificial supply constraints.

Worse, the city is dancing around the edges of expensive infrastructure upgrades without really getting stuck in. If it was better managed, the city would annex -- or at least align with -- its neighboring councils and build a world-class subway system to serve its residents. It would be increasing population density through sensible housing policy. It'd be trying to diversify its economy to prepare for the boom's decline. And finally, it would be dealing with the horrendous homelessness and poverty within its borders while it has money sloshing around its economy.

If it stays on its current trajectory, I'd say it'll drop out of the top five once the boom is over. Probably well out. The Ivy MBAs swarming over it will go back to Connecticut, or onto the next boomtown. It'll go back to being a sleepy little city with an interesting history and a very liberal culture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 12:07 PM
 
1,353 posts, read 1,136,954 times
Reputation: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by compactspace View Post
SF is booming right now because of tech. Whether you roll San Jose in or not, it's still tech town and tech is big business.

Right now, talented people are flocking to SF to get a piece of the action. It's like a white collar gold rush. People all over the world know of Apple, Google and Facebook, even if they don't know that these companies have anything to do with San Francisco.

It would be madness to put SF anywhere but in the top five... right now. It's probably fourth after NYC, DC and LA.

Over the long term it's an entirely different question. The city is squandering the tech boom. Much of the private wealth the boom is generating is being eaten by housing, which is inflated because of artificial supply constraints.

Worse, the city is dancing around the edges of expensive infrastructure upgrades without really getting stuck in. If it was better managed, the city would annex -- or at least align with -- its neighboring councils and build a world-class subway system to serve its residents. It would be increasing population density through sensible housing policy. It'd be trying to diversify its economy to prepare for the boom's decline. And finally, it would be dealing with the horrendous homelessness and poverty within its borders while it has money sloshing around its economy.

If it stays on its current trajectory, I'd say it'll drop out of the top five once the boom is over. Probably well out. The Ivy MBAs swarming over it will go back to Connecticut, or onto the next boomtown. It'll go back to being a sleepy little city with an interesting history and a very liberal culture.

^^^You raise stereotypically partially true points.

For instance, housing prices and general cost of living for anything in the Bay Area eats up that wealth creation. Moreso now than in New York, for instance, however, the same can be said for New York. Before San Francisco's extreme inflation as of late, everyone always joked about living in a shoebox in New York and $100k salaries being for poor people because of the cost of living there. And yet, New York consistently does fine. San Francisco has never been cheap, and not even adjusted for inflation was almost as expensive in the Gold Rush days as it is now (i.e. think 2015 SF USD for things back in 1850, which is utterly insane).

You also fail to realize that San Francisco's culture, which quite frankly includes the homelessness, is very different from the rest of the country in some respects. And it's the inclusiveness, openness, and "liberal"/collaborative (I'd say more laissez faire/libertarian) nature embedded in the culture that sets SF apart, makes it desirable, and allows tech and creative modern industries and scientific fields to flourish in the area moreso than they could anywhere else.

"Sleepy" little town is relative. SF is the second densest major city in America and serves a region of 8 million people...really more like 12 million since it is the "hub" of NorCal. If there is a tech downturn, this will still hold true. Immigration and tourism are large components of the area and the city. San Francisco itself receives about the same level of net immigration as much larger Chicago. Combine SF and SJ and you're looking at the 4th largest region in the country behind NYC, LA, and Miami for net immigration, just ahead of DC and well ahead of Boston/Chicago and of course the rest. In terms of international tourism, again, we're talking a major city that sees over 3 million international tourists a year, compared with LA's 3.8 million, Orlando's 3.7 million, Miami's 4 million, and New York's 9.6 million. SF has more international tourism than LV and Honolulu, and has nearly twice as much as the next traditional city - DC, which has 1.7 million international tourists. So this is a HUGE piece of both the vibrancy of the city and its economy, that is mutually exclusive from tech.

This is certainly not the first time SF has boomed, nor is it remotely the first time tech has boomed in the area...though it's the first time tech has boomed *in the city limits itself*, which in my opinion is a very good thing to the sustainability of tech in the region. It clearly indicates that despite what everyone thinks, as tech matures and changes with time, with sub-sets of "tech" that develop, so too does the Bay Area and the employment scene in the area. Different facets of tech have set up shop ALL ACROSS the Bay Area, including in the E Bay.

In fact,as a percentage of the Bay Area employment, due to loss of tech manufacturing and maturation of the industry towards income-producing online businesses (which was the premature goal of the late 90s anyway), tech sector employment in the entire Bay Area is 19%, down from 21% during Dot-Com peak. Absolute employment numbers are also down, still, from that peak.

Bay Area nears record levels of employment - San Jose Mercury News

In SF, that number has risen from 4% in 1990 to 13-14% today, so it's a large number.

Top Analysts Predict Another Year of Growth for SF Economy | SPUR

But one has to consider other facts - we're talking today of much lower leverage, fewer IPOs and more stringent standards for public fundraising, and a lot of risk remains on the private equity side rather than either the debt or public markets side. An absolute crash in tech today would look radically different from that of 2001, all things the same. But all things aren't the same - many of the now public tech firms are legitimate operating businesses. Big blue chips like Google, Facebook, and Apple aren't going anywhere, and companies like Twitter and Uber are well on their way to joining those ranks. The fact that Uber is mentioned really goes to show the diversity of tech these days, and that these are businesses with lots of income. Not just ideas.

Regarding employment outside of tech, the Bay Area is right basically alongside Boston as the world's biotech/life sciences hub. In fact, Boston has more mature companies with a presence there, and they acquire Bay Area companies, but the Bay Area receives the highest amount of biotech VC funding and is a robust research center that won't go away if tech downturns, necessarily. People discount how big biotech is in the Bay Area, and frankly other fields of sciences, as well. People talk about the "Google" buses, but companies like Genentech also have their buses picking up workers from SF and bringing them down or over to the labs.

And unlike LA or DC that are leaders in really one, maybe two industries, SF is a big time leader across a multitude, including still finance.

SF still has a huge financial sector that has seen tapered losses in employment since its peak relative to New York's financial sector. Bay Area is HQ for following firms:

#3 Chevron (oil)
#5 Apple (tech, not going anywhere in tech downturn)
#15 McKesson (pharma/distributor)
#17 HP (tech)
#29 Wells Fargo (finance)
#46 Google (tech, not going anywhere in tech downturn)
#53 Intel (tech)
#55 Cisco (tech)
#67 Safeway (retailer/grocery)
#69 Ingram Micro (tech manufacturing)
#82 Oracle (tech)
#154 Amgen (biotech)
#178 The Gap, Inc (retailer)
#180 Ebay (tech)
#183 PG&E (energy/utility)
#238 VISA (finance)
#250 Gilead (biotech)
#256 URS (engineering...acquired by LA based AECOM in late 2014)
#260 Synnex Corp (services)
#277 ROSS Stores (retail)
#337 Franklin Templeton (finance)
#341 Facebook (tech, not going anywhere)
#346 Core-Mark (packaging)
#350 Applied Materials (manufacturing)
#378 Symantec Corporation (tech)
#384 Agilent Technologies (biotech/manufacturing)
#411 NetApp (tech, cloud storage)
#422 SanDisk Corporation (tech, manufacture)
#432 Sanmina Corp (manufacturing)
#451 Clorox (consumers)
#459 Charles Schwab (finance)
#474 Advanced Micro Devices (tech, manufacture)

32 in F500 (13-14 related to the broad idea that is "tech")

#521 Levi Strauss (retail)
#522 Yahoo! (tech, not going anywhere)
#523 Juniper Networks (tech, manufacture)
#544 Intuit (tech, not going anywhere so long as people need to do taxes)
#560 William-Sonoma (retail)
#563 Netflix (tech, entertainment)
#577 Robert Half International (staffing)
#589 NVidia (tech, manufacturing)
#599 Salesforce (tech services)
#601 Adobe Systems (tech)
#619 Del Monte Foods (consumer/food)
#620 Electronic Arts (tech, gaming)

...


Forbes list of largest private companies:

#4 Bechtel (engineering)
#120 E&J Gallo Winery (seems random)
#153 Wilbur-Ellis (agri, distribution)
#184 DPR Construction


Some other things not going away in a tech downturn:

Universities: Stanford, Berkeley, UCSF, Penn's W Coast campus, CMU's W Coast campus, UC Hastings, SFU, SFSU, all of the prestigious art universities that fuel the city's arts and fashion scene, etc etc

Billionaires and people with vested interest: #2 region behind NYC metro for people of $$$$ and combine that with CA politics and easily and forever a top 5 if not 3 or 4 region for people with power/influence

Foreign trade: Top 5/6 port in the US with Port of Oakland though that might slip with latest strike

Mild Weather

Access to world class outdoor amenities
(Yosemite, Tahoe, Redwoods, Big Sur all just a short step away)

Intelligent population looking to solve problems

There's just no way that the Bay Area is NOT a top 5 most important region in the country. It serves an important role across *many* industries, ranging from Entertainment to energy. It's politically quite important. It's financially quite important. And it has lots of attributes that just can't be replicated elsewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,479 posts, read 7,719,547 times
Reputation: 7295
After New York, Los Angeles, and Washington there are Chicago and San Francisco.

Last edited by Facts Kill Rhetoric; 03-22-2015 at 02:42 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,479 posts, read 7,719,547 times
Reputation: 7295
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalAtheist View Post
My question is if people perceive Chicago as somewhat 'falling off', what has LA done (or avoided) in recent history to avoid this same criticism?
It stayed ahead.

United States population centers versus the states of the United States (all places over $150 Billion):
- California: $2.202 Trillion
- Greater New York: $1.683 Trillion
- Texas: $1.532 Trillion
- New York (state): $1.311 Trillion
- Greater Los Angeles: $999.661 Billion
- Florida: $800.492 Billion
- Illinois: $720.692 Billion
- Greater San Francisco Bay Area: $664.687 Billion
- Greater Washington and Baltimore: $657.039 Billion

- Pennsylvania: $644.915 Billion
- Greater Chicago: $597.805 Billion
- Ohio: $565.272 Billion
- New Jersey: $543.071 Billion
- Greater Houston: $517.367 Billion
- Greater Boston: $514.586 Billion

- North Carolina: $471.365 Billion
- Virginia: $454.585 Billion
- Georgia: $454.532 Billion
- Greater Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex: $451.436 Billion
- Massachusetts: $446.323 Billion
- Michigan: $432.573 Billion
- Greater Philadelphia: $429.838 Billion
- Washington (state): $408.049
- Maryland: $342.382 Billion
- Indiana: $317.102 Billion
- Greater Atlanta: $314.759 Billion
- Minnesota: $312.081 Billions
- Greater Seattle: $309.577 Billion
- Greater Miami: $297.071 Billion
- Colorado: $294.443 Billion
- Tennessee: $287.633 Billion
- Wisconsin: $282.486 Billion
- Arizona: $279.024 Billion
- Missouri: $276.345 Billion
- Greater Detroit: $262.166 Billion
- Louisiana: $253.576 Billion
- Connecticut: $249.251 Billion
- Greater Minneapolis-Saint Paul: $236.389 Billion
- Oregon: $219.590 Billion
- Greater Denver: $209.648 Billion
- Greater Phoenix: $209.523 Billion
- Greater San Diego: $197.886 Billion

- Alabama: $193.566 Billion
- Greater Portland: $189.268 Billion
- South Carolina: $183.561 Billion
- Kentucky: $183.373 Billion
- Oklahoma: $182.086 Billion
- Greater Cleveland: $170.063 Billion

United States population centers versus the countries of the world:
01. United States: $16.8 Trillion
02. China: $9.240 Trillion
03. Japan: $4.901 Trillion
04. Germany: $3.634 Trillion
05. France: $2.735 Trillion
06. United Kingdom: $2.522 Trillion
07. Brazil: $2.245 Trillion
08. Russia: $2.097 Trillion
09. Italy: $2.071 Trillion
10. India: $1.876 Trillion
11. Canada: $1.825 Trillion
- Greater New York: $1.683 Trillion
12. Australia: $1.560 Trillion
13. Spain: $1.358 Trillion
14. South Korea: $1.304 Trillion
15. Mexico: $1.261 Trillion
- Greater Los Angeles: $1 Trillion
16. Indonesia: $868.346 Billion
17. Turkey: $820,207 Billion
18, Netherlands: $800.173 Billion
19. Saudi Arabia: $745.273 Billion
- Greater San Francisco Bay Area: $664.687 Billion
- Greater Washington and Baltimore: $657.039 Billion

20. Switzerland: $650.782 Billion
21. Argentina: $611.755 Billion
- Greater Chicago: $597.805 Billion
22. Sweden: $557.938 Billion
23. Nigeria: $522.638 Billion
24. Poland: $517.543 Billion
- Greater Houston: $517.367 Billion
- Greater Boston: $514.586 Billion

25. Norway: $512.580 Billion
26. Belgium: $$508.116 Billion
- Greater Dallas: $451.436 Billion
27. Venezuela: $438.284 Billion
- Greater Philadelphia: $429.838 Billion
28. Austria: $415.844 Billion
29. Thailand: $ 387.252 Billion
30. United Arab Emirates: $383.799 Billion
31. Colombia: $378.148 Billion
32. Iran: $368.904 Billion
33. South Africa: $350.630 Billion
34. Denmark: $330.814 Billion
- Greater Atlanta: $314.579 Billion
35. Malaysia: $312.435 Billion
- Greater Seattle: $309.577 Billion
36. Singapore: $297.941 Billion
- Greater Miami: $297.071 Billion
37. Israel: $291.375 Billion
38. Chile: $277.199 Billion
39. Hong Kong: $274.013 Billion
40. Philippines: $272,017 Billion
41. Egypt: $271.973 Billion
- Greater Detroit: $262.166 Billion
42. Finland: $256.842 Billion
43. Greece: $241.721 Billion
44. Pakistan: $236.625 Billion
45. Kazakhstan: $224.415 Billion
46. Iraq: $222.879 Billion
47. Portugal: $219.962 Billion
48. Ireland: $217.816 Billion
49. Algeria: $210.183 Billion
- Greater Denver: $209.648 Billion
- Greater Phoenix: $209.523 Billion

50. Qatar: $202.450 Billion
51. Peru: $202.296 Billion
52. Czech Republic: $198.450 Billion
- Greater San Diego: $197.886 Billion
53. Romania: $189.638 Billion
- Greater Portland: $189.268 Billion
54. Kuwait: $183.219 Billion
55. New Zealand: $182.594 Billion
56. Ukraine: $177.431 Billion
57. Vietnam: $171.392 Billion
- Greater Cleveland: $170.063 Billion

Keep in mind, Gross Domestic Product is the accumulation of all goods and services in an area. That means your tech industry, your healthcare industry, your educational institutions (and their broader economic impact), among the like are all factored into GDP.

Gross Domestic Product is used by the United Nations to delineate the status for the world's nations, first world/developed world and third world/developing world. So the GDP figures have remarkable influence/impact when measuring productivity.

Measuring productivity.

The only intangible aspect that would dwarf productivity would be geopolitics and that is where Washington goes ahead of Chicago and San Francisco, while still having similar sized economy to each.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalAtheist View Post
I think the roll both SF & DC have been on of late when compared to Chicago has more to do with Chicago's [perceived] fall from grace than any actual (or significant) decline on Chicago's part.
No, Chicago has not declined. It's value is higher now than at any other point in the city's history. It's just that Chicago when it tailed off from it's last boom only built up a marginal lead on the smaller cities, to begin with. It's relative lack of performance the last 7 years has diminished quite a lot of that gap and now it's up in the air.

Los Angeles on the other hand has built up quite a huge lead that is a long way off from even conceivably being challenged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalAtheist View Post
Or has this hot streak merely clouded judgement?
Cities boom, they peak, and then they tail off.

For the last 30 years the world has been talking about the rise of China and it's cities, the growth and rapid ascension has finally tailed off, just as it has for everywhere else in the world's history. From ancient Babylon, to ancient Corinth, to London, to Paris, to New York, and at some point San Francisco. Washington has already tailed off from it's boom. Now it's moderating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 09:42 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
1,316 posts, read 1,266,087 times
Reputation: 743
I always look at DC as being the location where all other states pool in money to assist in keeping that region's location relevant with other major locales.

The various agencies of the Federal Government employ over 140,000 professionals in the Washington D.C. area. A sizable number in the Washington D.C. area work for defense and civilian contracting companies that conduct business directly with the Federal Government (many of these firms are referred to as 'Beltway Bandits' under the local vernacular). As a result, the Federal Government provides the underlying basis of the economy in the region.

However, the Washington D.C. area is increasingly home to a diverse segment of businesses not directly related to the Federal Government. It's becoming less dependent on Govt. But our taxes we pay to the Feds is still a substantial percentage that's reinvested in the area. Unlike other metros that depend more on private investment.

That's why I look at DC a bit differently and look at them more of a welfare recipient. If the Feds decide to aggressively cut spending DC is the first to feel the pinch.


IMO, you could have DC or SF at #3 or #4. They look to be close to even to me. Very close in GDP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 10:15 PM
 
1,024 posts, read 1,136,602 times
Reputation: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastphilly View Post
I always look at DC as being the location where all other states pool in money to assist in keeping that region's location relevant with other major locales.

The various agencies of the Federal Government employ over 140,000 professionals in the Washington D.C. area. A sizable number in the Washington D.C. area work for defense and civilian contracting companies that conduct business directly with the Federal Government (many of these firms are referred to as 'Beltway Bandits' under the local vernacular). As a result, the Federal Government provides the underlying basis of the economy in the region.

However, the Washington D.C. area is increasingly home to a diverse segment of businesses not directly related to the Federal Government. It's becoming less dependent on Govt. But our taxes we pay to the Feds is still a substantial percentage that's reinvested in the area. Unlike other metros that depend more on private investment.

That's why I look at DC a bit differently and look at them more of a welfare recipient. If the Feds decide to aggressively cut spending DC is the first to feel the pinch.


IMO, you could have DC or SF at #3 or #4. They look to be close to even to me. Very close in GDP.
DC is definitely very unique. But the government will never aggressively cut back, the federal government has never shrunk in the history of the US, it has only ever grown. This is why DC is such a safe market for people, because there is no bubble that could pop like there is in NYC or SF. But like you said, the region is becoming more diverse, including having the headquarters for Hilton, Marriott, Lockheed Martin, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Northrop Grumman, Gannet, Booz Allen, Host Hotels, & Discovery. It really is amazing how many huge corporations are located in the DC region that no one knows about
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2015, 10:53 PM
 
172 posts, read 202,179 times
Reputation: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyBrGr View Post
DC is definitely very unique. But the government will never aggressively cut back, the federal government has never shrunk in the history of the US, it has only ever grown.
That is completely and totally false. What are you basing this nonsensical statement on?
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top