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.
When it comes to how a CSA is defined it doesn't really matter what people's opinions are on the subject. I'm aware a lot of people wouldn't not consider Santa Cruz or San Joaquin County part of the Bay Area culturally but that doesn't change the fact that thousands of people commute from those areas into the core Bay Area for jobs.
Great, not sure why you think being born in Sacramento gives you so much credibility as you seem to mention it in every thread about CA. Doesn't seem like you grew up there are even lived there as a child.
Maybe go drive over the Altamont Pass going westbound at 6am and you might understand why the Stockton MSA is included in the SF Bay Area CSA. Or take the commuter train.
Except i didnt bring it up. Your snooty elitism elicited that response, as if I should be completely aloof to the fact that those areas aren't commonly considered the Bay Area by the general populous. So after all that back and forth, you finally admit that San Joaquin and Santa Cruz aren't really Bay Area?
I understand exactly "how" CSA is determined, but thanks for the tutoring anyway. The "how" was never the crux of my argument, and you know it wasn't. YOU chose to debate a point that wasn't debated in the first place...
@gladhands, exactly my point. People get really up in arms about that damn CSA, but it isn't a realistic interpretation of many metros in the country...
Last edited by murksiderock; 09-20-2016 at 03:07 PM..
@gladhands, exactly my point. People get really up in arms about that damn CSA, but it isn't a realistic interpretation of many metros in the country...
Actually youre the one whose up in arms. Your posts in this thread are all confrontational and quite angry and you talk about others being up in arms? That's rich.
And the reason why the government sets these uniform threasholds is so the same rules apply to everywhere.
15%-24.99% or more residents of one MSA working in another cause a CSA to be created.
25% or greater causes both MSAs to be merged into a single MSA.
What you claim to be popular opinion is totally irrelevant.
CSAs are the way to go if one wants to deterime an MSA or even a city's true size and scope as far as measurable interdepence. There is just nothing else as all encompassing and CSAs are the largest city-level statistical area used by government agencies. The proof that the concept is emerging as the most accurate measuring stick is that every major metro save 2 are now CSAs, all have hinterland areas that depend on them for jobs and livelihood.
Just realized that I've been compiling this for 8 years now.
Here is MSA data for the Big 21 (cities that anchor CSAs above 3,000,000) + Baltimore/San Jose (which are components of the Big 21 - San Francisco/San Jose and Washington/Baltimore, and are Top 20 in GDP in their own right)
City: July 1, 2015 Population (#2015 GDP Rank, #2015 Population Rank)
2013: Real GDP Nominal Data
% Change 2014-2015 (using chained 2009 dollars) Note: 2013/2014/2015 is 'Current-dollar'; % Change 2014-2015 is in chained 2009 dollars. If a village produces only 1 apple and that apple is worth $1 in 2013 and $1.50 in 2015, GDP went up 50% in nominal terms, assuming the currency was stable. If that apple was $0.75 in 2009, then the $0.75 is the chained price of that apple for 2013/2014/2015. Even if it's worth $1.50 in 2015, it only adds $0.75 using the chained model.
Atlanta: 5,710,795 (#10 in GDP, #9 in Population)
2013: $305.311bn
2014: $322.054bn
2015: $339.203bn
% Change 2014-2015: +2.9%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $59,397
Baltimore: 2,797,407 (#19 in GDP, #21 in Population)
2013: $167.457bn
2014: $174.437bn
2015: $181.419bn
% Change 2014-2015: +1.5%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $64,853
Boston: 4,774,321 (#9 in GDP, #10 in Population)
2013: $363.001bn
2014: $378.983bn
2015: $396.549bn
% Change 2014-2015: +2.2%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $83,059
Chicago: 9,551,031 (#3 in GDP, #3 in Population)
2013: $587.130bn
2014: $608.710bn
2015: $640.656bn
% Change 2014-2015: +3.1%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $67,077
Cleveland: 2,060,810 (#27 in GDP, #31 in Population)
2013: $119.959bn
2014: $125.602bn
2015: $128.448bn
% Change 2014-2015: +1.1%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $62,329
Dallas-Fort Worth: 7,102,796 (#6 in GDP, #4 in Population)
2013: $452.668bn
2014: $478.572bn
2015: $485.683bn
% Change 2014-2015: +3.6%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $68,379
Denver: 2,814,330 (#18 in GDP, #19 in Population)
2013: $177.134bn
2014: $188.174bn
2015: $193.172bn
% Change 2014-2015: +4.0%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $68,639
Detroit: 4,302,043 (#14 in GDP, #14 in Population)
2013: $224.786bn
2014: $233.201bn
2015: $245.607bn
% Change 2014-2015: +2.1%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $57,091
Houston: 6,656,947 (#4 in GDP, #5 in Population)
2013: $504.708bn
2014: $522.028bn
2015: $503.311bn
% Change 2014-2015: +4.6%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $75,607
Los Angeles: 13,340,068 (#2 in GDP, #2 in Population)
2013: $843.758bn
2014: $879.960bn
2015: $930.817bn
% Change 2014-2015: +3.9%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $69,776
Miami: 6,012,331 (#11 in GDP, #8 in Population)
2013: $285.149bn
2014: $300.027bn
2015: $317.986bn
% Change 2014-2015: +3.3%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $52,889
Minneapolis-Saint Paul: 3,524,583 (#13 in GDP, #16 in Population)
2013: $225.837bn
2014: $237.643bn
2015: $248.779bn
% Change 2014-2015: +2.7%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $70,584
New York: 20,182,305 (#1 in GDP, #1 in Population)
2013: $1,478.671bn
2014: $1,537.140bn
2015: $1,602.705bn
% Change 2014-2015: +1.7%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $79,411
Orlando: 2,387,138 (#31 in GDP, #24 in Population)
2013: $108.301bn
2014: $114.452bn
2015: $121.329bn
% Change 2014-2015: +3.5%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $50,826
Philadelphia: 6,069,875 (#8 in GDP, #7 in Population)
2013: $381.662bn
2014: $397.137bn
2015: $411.161bn
% Change 2014-2015: +1.5%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $67,738
Phoenix: 4,574,531 (#17 in GDP, #12 in Population)
2013: $202.642bn
2014: $211.137bn
2015: $219.968bn
% Change 2014-2015: +1.8%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $48,085
Portland: 2,389,228 (#20 in GDP, #23 in Population)
2013: $145.128bn
2014: $149.095bn
2015: $158.770bn
% Change 2014-2015: +4.6%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $66,452
San Diego: 3,299,521 (#16 in GDP, #17 in Population)
2013: $202.227bn
2014: $210.387bn
2015: $220.573bn
% Change 2014-2015: +2.5%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $66,850
San Francisco: 4,656,132 (#7 in GDP, #11 in Population)
2013: $384,375bn
2014: $408.067bn
2015: $431.704bn
% Change 2014-2015: +4.1%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $92,717
San Jose: 1,976,836 (#15 in GDP, #35 in Population)
2013: $195.906bn
2014: $213.014bn
2015: $235.222bn
% Change 2014-2015: +8.9%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $118,989
Seattle: 3,733,580 (#12 in GDP, #15 in Population)
2013: $281.977bn
2014: $298.084bn
2015: $313.654bn
% Change 2014-2015: +2.9%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $84,009
Tampa-Saint Petersburg: 2,975,225 (#26 in GDP, #18 in Population)
2013: $121.553bn
2014: $127.326bn
2015: $133.838bn
% Change 2014-2015: +2.7%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $44,984
Washington: 6,097,684 (#5 in GDP, #6 in Population)
2013: $460.375bn
2014: $474.375bn
2015: $491.042bn
% Change 2014-2015: +1.3%
GDP Nominal Per Capita: $80,529
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.
