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.
Everyone else < 5,000/yr current average for prior 10 years
Looks like my original statement stands that Boston is not nearly on the same level as Bay Area/DC/Chicago for immigration, though obviously at one point is was a top 3 center in this country. Still top 10, but the order of magnitude between it and SF/DC is like the order of magnitude between SF/DC and LA.
For all this talk that Philadelphia is this immensely international city, and for being roughly equivalent in size to the Bay Area, greater Boston, DC, etc, and for being on the coast with a port, international airport, etc, it's not a place where immigrants proportionately go. I would say that's an indicator of not being so international. An American treasure, yes. Former hub for Irish and Italian and other ethno-European immigrants, yes. Currently? Not so much. Boston kind of in the same camp. Houston/Dallas are taking over. The W Coast cities + NYC + South FL remain the largest dumping grounds of immigrants.
I think you meant Table 5 (for metro areas), though Table 2 is interesting.
No, I meant supplemental table number two. It is the third link from the bottom. You're looking at the tables, I will re-direct you to the supplemental tables, particularly number two.
To me, the "big" story about the top American cities in modern times is the rise of Washington DC. Not only is it now in the top 10 ranking as a global city, but it already has a higher concentration of wealth per capita in its metro area than Chicago or Los Angeles. It is arguably also the second most powerful city in the U.S. after New York City.
Since it is the capital of the world's only superpower, Washington DC has the potential to become even larger and more prominent. That is why this is the city we need to keep our eye on over the next few decades, in my view.
Not sure what you're talking about. Not in terms of employment:
Wrong. SF has a tiny fraction of LA's employment.
You are talking about rate of employment growth, which has nothing to do with the topic. The Bay Area has a tech-oriented boom-bust economy, and had the worst performance of any metro in the U.S. during the economic crisis, and now among the best performances of any metro in the U.S. during the tech boom.
Obviously you don't look at current economic performance to understand larger trends when you are dealing with a boom-bust cycle, just as you wouldn't look at the enormous job losses following the dot-com bust and the more recent financial meltdown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalacticDragonfly
Not in terms of GDP annual growth either:[/b]
Again, you don't seem to understand the different between "amount" and "rate", and you don't seem to understand the cyclical nature of economies. Using this same metric, one could have concluded that Silicon Valley had a worse economy than Detroit just a few years ago, because San Jose MSA had almost record breaking job contraction.
It's called an economic cycle, and it's idiotic to take point-in-time economic numbers to draw larger conclusions about long term tends. And the long term trend is that there's one population and economic colossus on the West Coast, and it isn't SF.
It is arguably also the second most powerful city in the U.S. after New York City.
I agree, one could make such an argument.
I personally would not, because DC's wealth and power is just because it's the capital of the richest and most powerful nation. If you moved the capital to Cheyenne, then Cheyenne would become a very important city. To me, there isn't enough besides the capital functions to make DC #2, though it's almost certainly Top 5 at this point.
If I had to rank Top 5 I would say-
1. NYC (no debate)
2. LA (no debate)
3. Chicago (debatable)
4. DC (debatable)
5. SF (debatable)
1. NYC (no debate)
2. LA (no debate)
3. Chicago (debatable)
4. DC (debatable)
5. SF (debatable)
I also agree with this ranking, as it is today.
However, the combined statistical area population of Washington DC already exceeds 9.4 million. That is only 500,000 less than the CSA of Chicago and half the size of the CSA of Los Angeles. Plus, Washington DC already has a higher GDP than that of Chicago.
I'm not usually in the business of predicting future trends, but who's to say that given the increasing national and global importance of Washington DC and its high growth rate that it won't rival Los Angeles in population 20-30 years from now? There really is nothing to stop it. I think it is possible, but we shall see.
You are talking about rate of employment growth, which has nothing to do with the topic. The Bay Area has a tech-oriented boom-bust economy, and had the worst performance of any metro in the U.S. during the economic crisis, and now among the best performances of any metro in the U.S. during the tech boom.
Obviously you don't look at current economic performance to understand larger trends when you are dealing with a boom-bust cycle, just as you wouldn't look at the enormous job losses following the dot-com bust and the more recent financial meltdown.
Again, you don't seem to understand the different between "amount" and "rate", and you don't seem to understand the cyclical nature of economies. Using this same metric, one could have concluded that Silicon Valley had a worse economy than Detroit just a few years ago, because San Jose MSA had almost record breaking job contraction.
It's called an economic cycle, and it's idiotic to take point-in-time economic numbers to draw larger conclusions about long term tends. And the long term trend is that there's one population and economic colossus on the West Coast, and it isn't SF.
As if I was insisting San Francisco as the economic colossus of California? I wasn't. I said quite clearly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalacticDragonfly
SF cannot rival LA in overall GDP because of population, yes,
You stated that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
and the annual growth tops that of SF or Bay Area, so, if anything, SF is falling further behind, at least in relative size.
That's what I had in bold, and that's obviously what I was referring to.
If you meant an "overall long term trend", why not just cite the overall GDP numbers? That's the point of the numbers; they tell you 'overall' who did better in growth. When you say "annual growth", by what section of time are you referring to besides the present and shortly before (as in a decade)? You stated quite clearly: "SF is falling further behind." (Present-tense term: falling, and statement the shows a downwards relative trend).
Which it's not, the GDP growth from 2001 to 2012 almost directly mirrors L.A., except SF got off to a slow start in the beginning of the decade and rebounded MUCH quicker than L.A. did in 2010. And we know that currently from 2010-2014, San Francisco is leading the state in growth, (whichever growth you're referring to, GDP or population, I cited both just in case in the last comment).
So, as I said before, I don't know what you're talking about, falling further behind. They are more or less, proportionally the same. You said: "At least in relative size", well if you make the size relative, that's GDP per-capita and again, San Francisco has the highest in the country.
So, again, I ask for elaboration on how San Francisco is falling to Los Angeles? (you said 'falling' which is a present-tense word). Unless you're saying overall (that would be fell). Which I'm not disputing, since the GDP of L.A. is twice as much as that of San Francisco (although it's a pointless statement to make, what happened 'overall.').
And as for the "there's only one economic colossus in California", that is clearly a stupid statement that I guess subsequently means: "Current trends indicate that the fastest growing mega-region in California is a 'not-economic colossus' of San Francisco." That's like saying: "New York is the only economic colossus in America."
The only reason why Los Angeles County will be higher than San Francisco Bay Area, is because of its population. That's fine, but it's not 'losing ground.'
EDIT: Mistake with the graphs. The data appears to be incorrect. The trends are the same, but the numbers are lower. I presume they must've not included CSA's.
Updated GDP numbers: The Bay Area with a GDP of $594 billion, and Los Angeles Basin had a GDP of $925 billion.
Last edited by GalacticDragonfly; 08-29-2014 at 03:18 PM..
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,129 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
I also agree with this ranking, as it is today.
However, the combined statistical area population of Washington DC already exceeds 9.4 million. That is only 500,000 less than the CSA of Chicago and half the size of the CSA of Los Angeles. Plus, Washington DC already has a higher GDP than that of Chicago.
I'm not usually in the business of predicting future trends, but who's to say that given the increasing national and global importance of Washington DC and its high growth rate that it won't rival Los Angeles in population 20-30 years from now? There really is nothing to stop it. I think it is possible, but we shall see.
Exactly! DC-Balt CSA could pass Chicago's by the next Census, and already has a stronger GDP. It's 3 spots behind Chicago on that GLOBAL list. Growth in the region is at an all time high. Prominence of the nation's capitol is not going down anytime soon. You think the past 15 years has been something? The next 15 years in DC will cement it across the globe as a world superpower and quite honestly it will increase it's lead amongst the cities behind it. It probably if not already will catch LA down the line, probably not in population or GDP, but almost every other factor. LA should have a $1 trillion economy with almost 20 million people, imagine that in DC.
Excellent post Mont, you've still got the magic numbers. Love the ranking too because thats how its going to look in 2030.
Thank you, the post you were responding to was removed so I will repost part of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John
Here is one ranking from this year
That's nice, here are four rankings from this year.
Most Influential Cities in the World, 2014
2 New York
10-tied Los Angeles
10-tied San Francisco
10-tied Toronto
14 Houston
16 Washington DC
20 Chicago
The World's Most Influential Cities - Forbes The World's Most Influential Cities - Forbes
World's Absolute Financial Centers, GAWC
April 25, 2014
1 New York
3 San Francisco
4 Chicago GaWC Research Bulletin 432
Exactly! DC-Balt CSA could pass Chicago's by the next Census, and already has a stronger GDP. It's 3 spots behind Chicago on that GLOBAL list. Growth in the region is at an all time high. Prominence of the nation's capitol is not going down anytime soon. You think the past 15 years has been something? The next 15 years in DC will cement it across the globe as a world superpower and quite honestly it will increase it's lead amongst the cities behind it. It probably if not already will catch LA down the line, probably not in population or GDP, but almost every other factor. LA should have a $1 trillion economy with almost 20 million people, imagine that in DC.
DC has already surpassed LA? I don't know about that. I don't know if it'll pass LA even in the next 50+ years. I could see DC overtaking LA, in a GDP per capita type contest, but outside of that, LA is too large, influential, and iconic. Geography also plays a big role. LA's proximity to the Pacific Rim, will/is helping LA grow even more as an business hub for those in Asia. Unless LA completely goes stagnant
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.
