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.
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
I say again: The census calculates GDP my MSA, not CSA. There are a couple MSA's that aren't part of CSAs, but have higher GDPs than cities on this list.
Charlotte, Indianapolis, St Louis and Pittsburgh all rank in the top-25 of MSA's by GDP, making them economically more important than Tampa, Orlando, Cleveland.
I say again: The census calculates GDP my MSA, not CSA. There are a couple MSA's that aren't part of CSAs, but have higher GDPs than cities on this list.
Charlotte, Indianapolis, St Louis and Pittsburgh all rank in the top-25 of MSA's by GDP, making them economically more important than Tampa, Orlando, Cleveland.
IMO, the whole conversation around MSAs and CSAs is situational. In some cases, MSAs are sufficient and appropriate to describe a metro and in others the CSA is more aligned with how the metro actually functions.
That said, I am not sure if your two comments are connected to each other because Charlotte, Indianapolis, St Louis and Pittsburgh all have CSAs.
IMO, the whole conversation around MSAs and CSAs is situational. In some cases, MSAs are sufficient and appropriate to describe a metro and in others the CSA is more aligned with how the metro actually functions.
For me, only two regions really qualify: the Triangle and the Bay Area.
Quote:
That said, I am not sure if your two comments are connected to each other because Charlotte, Indianapolis, St Louis and Pittsburgh all have CSAs.
As far as Charlote and St. Louis go, they are CSAs that only consist of one MSA and a few micropolitan areas. For GDP comparison purposes, they are like MSAs without CSAs. The other two do have at least one other MSA in their CSAs.
Incorrect. The census bureau doesnt calculate GDP.
The BEA doesnt release CSA data because they dont calculate micropolitan gdp, and many CSAs have micro areas included in them.
However, that doesnt mean we are not allowed to calculate CSAs on our own using available MSA data so we can get a sense of how large CSA gdps are.
I have yet to read a reason which doesnt reak of bitter homerism that adequately explains the tooth and nail opposition to CSA gdps.
Because GDP isn't calculated on the CSA level. You can get a rough idea of the GDP at the CSA level but it's not exact like it is for MSAs. That's enough of a valid reason IMO.
GDP by CSA is not calculated by the BEA simply because it is not a meaningful statistic. CSAs have no economic significance. No economist discusses GDP by CSA.
GDP by CSA is not calculated by the BEA simply because it is not a meaningful statistic. CSAs have no economic significance. No economist discusses GDP by CSA.
I wouldn't go that far. CSAs are based on the same thing MSAs are--commuting patterns--just at a lower threshold, but still significant. However I'd say micropolitan areas have little economic significance in the grand scheme of things.
I wouldn't go that far. CSAs are based on the same thing MSAs are--commuting patterns--just at a lower threshold, but still significant. However I'd say micropolitan areas have little economic significance in the grand scheme of things.
GDP by CSA is not calculated by the BEA simply because it is not a meaningful statistic.
Wrong. BEA doesnt release GDP by Micro Area so we cant fully calculate all CSAs.
Quote:
CSAs have no economic significance.
Again, the oft repeated lie you say over and over again hoping it will end the conversation. lol.
To say CSAs have no economic significance is to say that 15-25% of the people from one MSA who traverse MSA borders to their jobs in another MSA is coincidental and insignificant.
In some cases we're talking tens of billions of dollars transferred from one MSA to another and hundreds of thousands of cars clogging freeways in a neighboring MSA.
The level of disdain and uncalled for staunch opposition to CSAs is almost always rooted in ego-driven civic boosterism.
People think they can 'opppose' a statistical area designation.
Think about how ludicrous that sounds.
Quote:
No economist discusses GDP by CSA.
Haha oh yes they do, all the time when talking about megaregions, supercommuting, regional economies etc.
Sociologists, Statisticians, Political Scientists, etc always talk about CSAs and their effects, they just dont know it.
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.
