2015 Combined Statistical Area Gross Product, Released September 20, 2016 (living, rates, people)

[Mutiny77]

The Charlotte MSA is $152.447 billion and the St. Louis MSA is $155.077 billion, and both would rank behind Cleveland. There are no other MSAs in their CSAs.

[mjlo]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

The Charlotte MSA is $152.447 billion and the St. Louis MSA is $155.077 billion, and both would rank behind Cleveland. There are no other MSAs in their CSAs.

The Cleveland CSA includes the likes of Akron. It would seem unfair to compare it's CSA to other cities MSA when they don't have a midsize metro to tack on to them.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by mjlo

The Cleveland CSA includes the likes of Akron. It would seem unfair to compare it's CSA to other cities MSA when they don't have a midsize metro to tack on to them.

I'm just going by the list which includes CSAs as well as MSAs that don't have a CSA (and for all practical purposes, CSAs that don't include more than one MSA are the same).

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

The Charlotte MSA is $152.447 billion and the St. Louis MSA is $155.077 billion, and both would rank behind Cleveland. There are no other MSAs in their CSAs.

Thanks.

Largest CSAs/ MSAs Per Capita GDP, 2015
Population 3 Million+
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland $87,053
New York-Newark-Jersey City $77,074
Seattle-Tacoma $73,894
Houston-The Woodlands $73,422
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington $72,560
Boston-Worcester-Providence $67,570
San Diego-Carlsbad $66,860
Denver-Aurora $66,430
Chicago-Naperville $65,346
Dallas-Ft Worth $65,250
Los Angeles-Long Beach $64,065
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden $62,007
Minneapolis-St Paul $60,036
Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs$55,917
Portland-Vancouver-Salem $55,800
Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor $53,677
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Port St Lucie $50,377
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale $48,090
Cleveland-Akron-Canton $46,418
Orlando-Deltona-Daytona Beach $39,885

Metro Area Per Capita GDP, 2015
GDP $100 Billion+
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara $119,031
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk $106,946
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward $92,719
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue $84,021
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria $80,538
New York-Newark-Jersey City $79,412
Boston-Cambridge-Newton $78,874
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land $75,617
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim $69,776
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood $68,646
Dallas-Ft Worth-Arlington $68,386
Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson $67,445
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin $67,077
San Diego-Carlsbad $66,860
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington $65,436
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis $64,894
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson $64,861
Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington $63,482
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia $62,838
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro $62,235
Nashville-Murfreesboro-Franklin $62,120
Columbus $61,547
Kansas City $60,190
Austin-Round Rock $59,975
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell $59,405
Pittsburgh $59,019
Cincinnati $58,904
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn $57,091
Cleveland-Elyria $56,034
St Louis $55,167
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-West Palm Beach $52,876
Sacramento-Roseville-Arden Arcade $52,252
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise $48,885
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale $48,090
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford $45,758
San Antonio-New Braunfels$45,670
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario $31,329

[murksiderock]

@montclair keeps adding Stockton to inflate Bay Area statistics...

We all understand that The Bay is third in GDP. Stop stretching the definition...

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by murksiderock

@montclair keeps adding Stockton to inflate Bay Area statistics...

We all understand that The Bay is third in GDP. Stop stretching the definition...

This doesnt even warrant a response. Why dont you read up on the subject. Believe it or not, I had nothing to do with it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb...tistical_areas

lol

[murksiderock]

I stand corrected...

Herein lies the problem with CSA, though, aside from the obvious fact that BEA doesn't release comprehensive CSA GDP figures: Stockton, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz are not typically thought of as "Bay Area". You know it, I know it, most everyone knows it. To include those areas which are not commonly considered within the 8-county Bay is a false play on reality. How can we evenly compare areas when some are extremely inflated, and others have no CSA at all? The Bay Area is far from the only region with this misappropriation of definition...

I prefer to stick to the BEA released figures by MSA...

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by murksiderock

I stand corrected...

Herein lies the problem with CSA, though, aside from the obvious fact that BEA doesn't release comprehensive CSA GDP figures: Stockton, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz are not typically thought of as "Bay Area". You know it, I know it, most everyone knows it. To include those areas which are not commonly considered within the 8-county Bay is a false play on reality. How can we evenly compare areas when some are extremely inflated, and others have no CSA at all? The Bay Area is far from the only region with this misappropriation of definition...

I prefer to stick to the BEA released figures by MSA...

though al have flwas. if using MSA then combining the SF and SJ MSAs is a better reality


I also feel CSAs are to vast and MSAs sometimes to narrow - Bay example


either way the bay is an economic engine

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by murksiderock

I stand corrected...

Herein lies the problem with CSA, though, aside from the obvious fact that BEA doesn't release comprehensive CSA GDP figures: Stockton, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz are not typically thought of as "Bay Area". You know it, I know it, most everyone knows it. To include those areas which are not commonly considered within the 8-county Bay is a false play on reality. How can we evenly compare areas when some are extremely inflated, and others have no CSA at all? The Bay Area is far from the only region with this misappropriation of definition...

I prefer to stick to the BEA released figures by MSA...

Hey good for you. I didnt ask.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by murksiderock

I stand corrected...

Herein lies the problem with CSA, though, aside from the obvious fact that BEA doesn't release comprehensive CSA GDP figures: Stockton, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz are not typically thought of as "Bay Area". You know it, I know it, most everyone knows it. To include those areas which are not commonly considered within the 8-county Bay is a false play on reality. How can we evenly compare areas when some are extremely inflated, and others have no CSA at all? The Bay Area is far from the only region with this misappropriation of definition...

I prefer to stick to the BEA released figures by MSA...

Santa Rosa is more so than the other two. But if you look at traffic it's easy to understand why they are included. Traffic on Hwy 17 is full of commuters going to and from Silicon Valley and Santa Cruz.

For Stockton, traffic along 580 through the Altamont Pass is terrible and that area is one of the worst stretches of freeway in the region. Also there is commuter rail between Stockton and Silicon Valley so clearly there are enough commuters to warrant rail service. It's probably more commuters from Tracy and Manteca than Stockton but they are part of the same county.

Looking at and being familiar with commute patterns it's not hard to understand why they are included. Seeing as you've never lived in the Bay Area not sure why you're so adamant they shouldn't be included.