Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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: Which city is the fith most important in the nation?
San Francisco 59 43.07%
Houston 32 23.36%
Boston 46 33.58%
Voters: 137. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-08-2015, 09:32 AM
 
6,840 posts, read 10,884,015 times
Reputation: 8388

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InternetUser2015 View Post
Are you seriously using CSA GDP figures (ie: Washington-Baltimore being more than Chicago, Boston being that high with Providence)
I am perfectly capable of doing Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) lists too. I don't discriminate against any of the population rankings, if you wanted MSA GDPs then you should have just asked.

MSA, 2013:
01. New York (MSA): $1.471 Trillion (20,092,883 people, 1st)
02. Los Angeles (MSA): $826.826 Billion (13,262,220 people, 2nd)
03. Chicago (MSA): $590.248 Billion (9,554,598 people, 3rd)
04. Houston (MSA): $517.367 Billion (6,490,180 people, 5th)
05. Washington D.C. (MSA): $463.925 Billion (6,033,737 people, 7th)
06. Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex (MSA): $447.574 Billion (6,051,170 people, 4th)
07. San Francisco/Oakland (MSA): $388.272 Billion (4,594,060 people, 11th)
08. Philadelphia (MSA): $383.401 Billion (6,051,170 people, 6th)
09. Boston (MSA): $370.769 Billion (4,732,161 people, 10th)

10. Atlanta (MSA): $307.233 Billion (5,614,323 people, 9th)
11. Seattle (MSA): $284.967 Billion (3,671,478 people, 15th)
12. Miami/Fort Lauderdale (MSA): $281.076 Billion (5,929,819 people, 8th)
13. Minneapolis/Saint Paul (MSA): $227.793 Billion (3,495,176 people, 16th)
14. Detroit (MSA): $224.726 Billion (4,296,611 people, 14th)
15. Phoenix (MSA): $209.523 Billion (4,489,109 people, 12th)
16. San Diego (MSA): $197.886 Billion (3,263,431 people, 17th)
17. San Jose (MSA): $196.829 Billion (1,952,872 people, 34th)
18. Denver (MSA): $178.860 Billion (2,754,258 people, 21st)


http://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional..._metro0914.pdf

I don't really get your gripes with CSA as it is when it comes to measures like GDP. I mean the only place ahead of Philadelphia's GDP by CSA that falls behind Philadelphia when we switch to MSA is Boston. So either your problem stems from Boston solely, in particular, being seen ahead of Philadelphia or you're seriously overreacting to things for no reason.

Philadelphia is the 6th largest MSA by population but the 8th largest by GDP. Conversely the situation is nearly identical as a CSA for Philadelphia, it is the 8th largest by population as a CSA but its GDP is 9th largest. If anything, Philadelphia CSA does a better job of coming closer to carrying its weight on GDP than Philadelphia MSA does. The CSA is 8th most populous but 9th in GDP, that's only 1 spot lower than its population ranking. As an MSA, Philadelphia is the 6th largest but falls 2 spots to 8th largest GDP. Those supposed "mid-major" cities of Washington DC and San Francisco, as rainrock put it, may be smaller in population but larger in economy.

Here's CSA (plus San Diego and Phoenix MSAs), so you can compare the two lists yourself.

CSA, 2013:
01. New York (CSA): $1.683 Trillion (23,632,722 people, 1st)
02. Los Angeles (CSA): $999.661 Billion (18,550,288 people, 2nd)
03. San Francisco Bay Area (CSA): $664.687 Billion (8,607,423 people, 5th)
04. Washington DC-Baltimore (CSA): $657.039 Billion (9,546,579 people, 4th)
05. Chicago (CSA): $597.805 Billion (9,928,312 people, 3rd)
06. Houston: $517.367 Billion (6,686,318 people, 9th)
07. Boston: $514.586 Billion (8,099,575 people, 6th)
08. Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex (CSA): $451.436 Billion (7,352,613 people, 7th)
09. Philadelphia (CSA): $429.838 Billion (7,164,790 people, 8th)
10. Atlanta (CSA): $322.079 Billion (6,258,875 people, 11th)
11. Seattle (CSA): $309.577 Billion (4,526,991 people, 13th)
12. Miami/Fort Lauderdale (CSA): $297.071 Billion (6,558,143 people, 10th)
13. Detroit (CSA): $262.166 Billion (5,315,251 people, 12th)
14. Minneapolis/Saint Paul (CSA): $236.389 Billion (3,835,050 people, 15th)
15. Denver (CSA): $209.648 Billion (3,345,261 people, 17th)
16. Phoenix (MSA): $209.523 Billion (4,489,109 people, 14th)
17. San Diego (MSA): $197.886 Billion (3,263,431 people, 18th)
18. Portland (CSA): $189.268 Billion (3,060,078 people, 19th)
19. Cleveland (CSA): $170.063 Billion (3,497,851 people, 16th)


Does going from MSA to CSA really look like such a massive difference to you in Philadelphia's placement? I personally don't think so, Boston MSA's GDP will likely take 8th largest by 2017 as it is. The 2014 GDP figures come out September 23rd, 2015 (in a few weeks) at 8:30 Eastern Time in the morning. Massachusetts state figures have already come out, it accelerated by $7 Billion from the year prior, whereas Pennsylvania accelerated by $400 million. Boston's MSA GDP is 98% of Massachusetts's total GDP growth, so all $18 Billion will be going into the Boston MSA more or less.

Here's more information on their release schedule: BEA 2015 News Release Schedule

Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 09-08-2015 at 09:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2015, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Villanova Pa.
4,927 posts, read 14,156,970 times
Reputation: 2714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John View Post

I don't really get your(Philadelphia) gripes with CSA as it is when it comes to measures like GDP.
Alot of the issue deals with urban areas like Trenton which is literally 300 feet across the delaware river from the heart of metro pHilly not being included in Phillys CMSA. In effect the Philly region gets shortchanged in the CMSA mainly due to its closeness to NYC.

Are Providence + Boston any closer related than Philadelphia + Trenton,Philadelphia + Allentown, Philadelphia + Dover,Philadelphia +Atlantic City,Philadelphia + lancaster . Not really .

In effect you could say Phillys CMSA GDP gets shortchanged approximately $150 B. Add the micro regions afforded to other CMSA's and Phillys CMSA GDP is $575 B. Philadlephia A solid 4th (CMSA) behind NYC,La,Chi which would jive perfectly with Market Size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2015, 12:34 PM
 
6,840 posts, read 10,884,015 times
Reputation: 8388
I will say this much, I don't have any biases in arguments for "most powerful city" discussions because if I did have a bias for anywhere it would inherently be a bias on behalf of Miami, but I'm not retarded and recognize that there are at least 9-10 places more important than Southeast Florida, at least.

That being said, when Bostonians make the argument that they are 6th in the United States after the mostly agreed upon Top 5 of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco Bay Area, and Washington DC-Baltimore -- Bostonians have to be talking about it in terms of CSA.

If they're talking about Boston in the context of MSA, it is NOT 6th, it is NOT 7th, but if it keeps it up, it has a real shot of becoming 8th in two years or so. Boston derives size and power off CSA, its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), population, and Total Personal Income (TPI) jump incrementally going from MSA to CSA. At CSA level, Boston THEN becomes the 6th largest population center in America, the 7th largest economy in America, and the 7th richest city in America when total personal wealth of every human being within the CSA boundaries is accounted for.

Without CSA, honestly, it is a laughable argument to suggest Boston is 6th. A smaller economy with less purchasing power, less rich region (in total sums, not per capita), and smaller population center -- all of which happen to Boston at MSA level, doesn't make you bypass bigger, more powerful, and richer (again in total sums, not per capita) areas with more purchasing power on an overall basis.

So CSA is a huge argument for Boston, in my opinion, it is the only measurement that makes Boston actually compete for 6th. I know it has key industries but if the industries really were world-beaters on a mass scale, they'd push its economy ahead of the competition (I.E. San Francisco Bay Area, Houston, Washington DC).

I view Boston as 6th-7th overall (along with Houston), based off its CSA placement in key categories. If we look at MSAs then I would have to slip it behind New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Washington D.C., Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, San Francisco/Oakland, and possibly Philadelphia -- in that exact same order.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2015, 12:48 PM
 
7,132 posts, read 9,074,475 times
Reputation: 6333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John View Post
I will say this much, I don't have any biases in arguments for "most powerful city" discussions because if I did have a bias for anywhere it would inherently be a bias on behalf of Miami, but I'm not retarded and recognize that there are at least 9-10 places more important than Southeast Florida, at least.

That being said, when Bostonians make the argument that they are 6th in the United States after the mostly agreed upon Top 5 of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco Bay Area, and Washington DC-Baltimore -- Bostonians have to be talking about it in terms of CSA.

If they're talking about Boston in the context of MSA, it is NOT 6th, it is NOT 7th, but if it keeps it up, it has a real shot of becoming 8th in two years or so. Boston derives size and power off CSA, its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), population, and Total Personal Income (TPI) jump incrementally going from MSA to CSA. At CSA level, Boston THEN becomes the 6th largest population center in America, the 7th largest economy in America, and the 7th richest city in America when total personal wealth of every human being within the CSA boundaries is accounted for.

Without CSA, honestly, it is a laughable argument to suggest Boston is 6th. A smaller economy with less purchasing power, less rich region (in total sums, not per capita), and smaller population center -- all of which happen to Boston at MSA level, doesn't make you bypass bigger, more powerful, and richer (again in total sums, not per capita) areas with more purchasing power on an overall basis.

So CSA is a huge argument for Boston, in my opinion, it is the only measurement that makes Boston actually compete for 6th. I know it has key industries but if the industries really were world-beaters on a mass scale, they'd push its economy ahead of the competition (I.E. San Francisco Bay Area, Houston, Washington DC).

I view Boston as 6th-7th overall (along with Houston), based off its CSA placement in key categories. If we look at MSAs then I would have to slip it behind New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Washington D.C., Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, San Francisco/Oakland, and possibly Philadelphia -- in that exact same order.
The problem is you base everything strictly off of GDP without recognizing things like the type of economy and the amount of high paying jobs, quality of life, cost of living, infrastructure, desirability, higher education. There's so much more to a city than GDP.

That's why Boston to me would be 6 and I always say that Boston is on the edge of being world class because it has everything from infrastructure to a good economy to a great higher education system. When Houston can build a transit system that just about every world class city has, then we can start talking about it being a top 5 American city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2015, 12:54 PM
 
6,840 posts, read 10,884,015 times
Reputation: 8388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
The problem is you base everything strictly off of GDP without recognizing things like the type of economy and the amount of high paying jobs, quality of life, cost of living, infrastructure, desirability, higher education. There's so much more to a city than GDP.

That's why Boston to me would be 6 and I always say that Boston is on the edge of being world class because it has everything from infrastructure to a good economy to a great higher education system.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the sum of all industries, of everything a region and its population produces. The band-aid you bought at CVS, that's included in GDP. The iPhone you bought at the store, that's included in GDP. If people sell it, buy it, trade it, produce it, treat it (if you're a doctor), consult it (if you're a lawyer), make it, or have it -- chances are its included in the area GDP of where it came from. To me, that is the bottom line. Unless people want to argue they go to work as volunteers without pay out of the goodness of their hearts, that store clerks give them things that for free out of the goodness of their hearts, or that corporations operate to benefit the world out of the goodness of their heart and NOT try to be profitable, so on. None of this is really logical.

If it is a lucrative industry then it is reflected in GDP, that is why some cities have a higher per capita than others, because their industries make them richer and more productive. So I do take all industries into account and what each one brings, hell I make threads all the time for specific industries -- see my education capital thread, see my fashion capitals thread, see my financial capitals thread, see my Technology Gnome Project thread, so on.

All of these industries you mention for Boston; the Bio-Tech, the Nano-Tech, the "education" facilities all contribute to Boston's GDP. Its the reason the CSA is headlined with a $514 BILLION dollar economy. These industries are lucrative and it shows in the regions per capita income, does it not?

Seattle has an economy that is larger than Miami's (GDP) wise. I would sound like a complete hick if I actually sat here and argued a poorer region with LESS PURCHASING POWER is more important than a richer region with more purchasing power. If people in Seattle got together and wanted to purchase all of Miami CSA, they have the sums to do so. If they did, people in Miami would work for Seattlittes interests.

Its not a world where less affluent regions are somehow more powerful than more affluent regions (at least American city versus American city comparisons) and I'm not talking about Billionaires, Millionaires, and things of that sort, I am talking about total aggregate value of an economy.

Also I don't think infrastructure, "quality of life", "cost of living", "desirability" makes a city important. What power does a place derive from "cost of living"? It makes it more world class, but importance and world class aren't nearly the same thing. Boston is the closest thing to world class outside the Top 5, most would agree.

I don't base everything off GDP either. I also use TPI and population. My logic is simple; if you're NOT BIGGER, and DON'T HAVE A LARGER (or more lucrative -- per capita) economy, AND if your population DOESN'T have more purchasing power and is NOT more wealthy (TPI) -- then you're not more important.

Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 09-08-2015 at 01:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2015, 01:42 PM
 
7,132 posts, read 9,074,475 times
Reputation: 6333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John View Post
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the sum of all industries, of everything a region and its population produces. The band-aid you bought at CVS, that's included in GDP. The iPhone you bought at the store, that's included in GDP. If people sell it, buy it, trade it, produce it, make it, or have it -- chances are its included in the area GDP of where it came from. To me, that is the bottom line. Unless people want to argue they go to work as volunteers without pay out of the goodness of their hearts, that store clerks give them things that for free out of the goodness of their hearts, or that corporations operate to benefit the world out of the goodness of their heart and NOT try to be profitable, so on. None of this is really logical.

If it is a lucrative industry then it is reflected in GDP, that is why some cities have a higher per capita than others, because their industries make them richer and more productive. So I do take all industries into account and what each one brings, hell I make threads all the time for specific industries -- see my education capital thread, see my fashion capitals thread, see my financial capitals thread, so on.

All of these industries you mention for Boston; the Bio-Tech, the Nano-Tech, the "education" facilities all contribute to Boston's GDP. Its the reason the CSA is headlined with a $514 BILLION dollar economy. These industries are lucrative and it shows in the regions per capita income, does it not?

Seattle has an economy that is larger than Miami's (GDP) wise. I would sound like a complete hick if I actually sat here and argued a poorer region with LESS PURCHASING POWER is more important than a richer region with more purchasing power. If people in Seattle got together and wanted to purchase all of Miami CSA, they have the sums to do so. If they did, people in Miami would work for Seattlittes interests.

I don't live in a world where less affluent regions are somehow more powerful than more affluent regions (at least American city versus American city comparisons) and I'm not talking about Billionaires, Millionaires, and things of that sort, I am talking about total aggregate value of an economy.

Also I don't think infrastructure, "quality of life", "cost of living", "desirability" makes a city important (what power does a place derive from "cost of living"? It makes it more world class, but importance and world class aren't nearly the same thing. Boston is the closest thing to world class outside the Top 5, most would agree.

Also I don't base everything off GDP. I also use TPI and population. My logic is simple; if you're NOT BIGGER, and DON'T HAVE A LARGER (or more lucrative -- per capita) economy, AND if your population DOESN'T have more purchasing power and is NOT more wealthy (TPI) then you take a seat -- you're not more important.

The people that hate GDP the most are the ones that come from places that don't really have remarkable GDPs (often poorer, less lucrative and less productive regions). Its quite hypocritical actually when they start saying things like "we have this industry" or "we have that industry" not knowing that these industries exist to serve as components within GDP.
Oh please. I'm not someone who cares for Boston all that much. Boston actually has a pretty high GDP per capita...it's not poor at all...it's actually pretty rich, hence why the rental market and home values are so high.

Home values are a great indicator of how rich the middle class of a region is. High GDP per capita can also rest in the hands of a few. So you can have an extremely wealthy upper class, but then have a middle class that's not as wealthy. I base cities off of their middle class, not their extremely wealthy upper class. That's not what is creating a higher quality of life. That's why European cities who don't have extremely high GDP per capitas or simply not as rich as the U.S. has higher quality of lives and in some cases, simply better cities.

Being world class is part of what makes a city a influential, powerful, and desirable. That's what makes NYC, London, Paris, and Tokyo what they are. Nobody is thinking of how lucrative their economies are when they think of these cities. They think of their sheer influence on this world today.

Houston has all that money, but yet can't build itself a decent public transportation system. Where is the money actually going? In the pockets of a few, not back towards the city itself(unless we're skyscrapers to house their employees).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2015, 03:03 PM
 
6,840 posts, read 10,884,015 times
Reputation: 8388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
Oh please. I'm not someone who cares for Boston all that much. Boston actually has a pretty high GDP per capita...it's not poor at all...it's actually pretty rich, hence why the rental market and home values are so high.
I never called Boston poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
Home values are a great indicator of how rich the middle class of a region is.
You'll have to clarify and explain this one, isn't making any sense as is right now.

Washington metropolitan area has very high housing prices, has a massive middle class.

Miami metropolitan area has very high housing prices, has a very small middle-class.

Atlanta has extremely low housing prices, has a large middle-class.

Orlando has extremely low housing prices, has a small middle-class.

Those are four different scenarios where housing prices and middle-class don't correlate to the same thing as the other 3 examples but all 4 examples exist, hell all of them co-exist in the same country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
Being world class is part of what makes a city a influential, powerful, and desirable.
Hong Kong is world class and desirable, but it is not powerful and influential. Rome is world class and desirable, but it is not powerful and influential. Barcelona is world class and desirable, but it is not powerful and influential. Amsterdam is world class and desirable, but it is not powerful. Saint Petersburg is world class and desirable, but it is not powerful and influential.

On the flip side, Moscow is powerful and influential, but it is not desirable. Beijing is powerful and influential, but it is not world class or desirable. Mexico City is powerful and influential, but it is not world class or desirable. Riyadh is powerful and influential (ask OPEC), but not desirable and world class. So on and so forth.

These things aren't related and scholars that actually rank cities on both importance and influence don't ever site nonsense like "desirability," "cost of living," "quality of life" when they do their rankings. Don't believe me? Find where Wendell Cox, Richard Florida, Joel Kotkin, Aaron M. Renn, among reputable others site those factors when they make their "importance" lists on behalf of their CitiGroup and JP Morgan Chase sponsors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
High GDP per capita can also rest in the hands of a few.
Yeah, its a good thing I've specified 3 times in this thread alone I look at GDP + TPI + Population. I've actually been posting the same thing saying that since last week.

Besides, Total Personal Income per capita income shows us the average amount of money each person in a metropolitan area actually does have "in their hands." Total Personal Income is the aggregate of every human being that exists in your areas money put together, so its a universally fair measurement because no industries, corporations, government is diluting those figures. Its simply the money your city's people have and then the per capita income that your city possesses.

Total Personal Income, 2013:
01. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA (Combined Statistical Area): $1.385 Trillion
02. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA (Combined Statistical Area): $822.975 Billion
03. Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA (Combined Statistical Area): $545.672 Billion
04. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA (Combined Statistical Area): $535.245 Billion
05. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI (Combined Statistical Area): $482.205 Billion
06. Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT (Combined Statistical Area): $452.210 Billion
07. Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD (Combined Statistical Area): $362.723 Billion
08. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK (Combined Statistical Area): $335.006 Billion
09. Houston-The Woodlands, TX (Combined Statistical Area): $334.914 Billion
10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL (Combined Statistical Area): $290.416 Billion
11. Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs, GA (Combined Statistical Area): $249.270 Billion
12. Seattle-Tacoma, WA (Combined Statistical Area): $235.584 Billion
13. Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI (Combined Statistical Area): $222.824 Billion
14. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI (Combined Statistical Area): $190.109 Billion
15. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (Metropolitan Statistical Area): $170.430 Billion
16. Denver-Aurora, CO (Combined Statistical Area): $166.174 Billion
17. San Diego-Carlsbad, CA (Metropolitan Statistical Area): $165.008 Billion
18. Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH (Combined Statistical Area): $151.688 Billion
19. Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA (Combined Statistical Area): $126.174 Billion

Per Capita Total Personal Income, 2013:
01. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA (Combined Statistical Area): $63,194
02. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA (Combined Statistical Area): $58,986
03. Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA (Combined Statistical Area): $57,785
04. Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT (Combined Statistical Area): $56,236
05. Seattle-Tacoma, WA (Combined Statistical Area): $52,825
06. Houston-The Woodlands, TX (Combined Statistical Area): $51,459
07. San Diego-Carlsbad, CA (Metropolitan Statistical Area): $51,384
08. Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD (Combined Statistical Area): $50,754
09. Denver-Aurora, CO (Combined Statistical Area): $50,705
10. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI (Combined Statistical Area): $50,057
11. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI (Combined Statistical Area): $48,645
12. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK (Combined Statistical Area): $46,489
13. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL (Combined Statistical Area): $45,043
14. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA (Combined Statistical Area): $44,844
15. Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH (Combined Statistical Area): $43,321
16. Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI (Combined Statistical Area): $41,930
17. Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA (Combined Statistical Area): $41,750
18. Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs, GA (Combined Statistical Area): $40,452
19. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (Metropolitan Statistical Area): $38,745

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm...029=20&7090=70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
I base cities off of their middle class, not their extremely wealthy upper class.
Yeah, I tend to do that too, and the only thing it changes is that Miami drops out and everywhere else that has both the superrich also ends up having the largest middle-class. That's exactly why none of my arguments are based around Billionaires, multi-millionaires, or millionaires in the first place, the cities that have those the most are also the same ways that have the largest middle-class populations in each income bracket.



The same cities that have the larger economy, the higher per capita income GDP, the higher total personal income, the higher total personal income per capita; the more lucrative economies and industries are the same ones that have the wealthiest middle-class, the same ones that are the most powerful too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
Houston has all that money, but yet can't build itself a decent public transportation system. Where is the money actually going? In the pockets of a few, not back towards the city itself(unless we're skyscrapers to house their employees).
As the information above would indicate, the money is going home with the people.

Your example doesn't make any sense in the first place. A regions wealth has nothing to do with a regions public transit, since people aren't using their personal money to fund transit projects as it is (unless they vote to do that -- which Houstonians probably have never done).

Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 09-08-2015 at 03:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2015, 03:09 PM
 
1,461 posts, read 2,094,064 times
Reputation: 1036
Is 'rich middle class' an oxymoron?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2015, 03:26 PM
 
6,840 posts, read 10,884,015 times
Reputation: 8388
I mean Chicago is essentially a crime-ridden warzone, with high levels of poverty, blight, corruption, an awful topography and climate compared to Barcelona. Which one is more important/powerful? Chicago. Which one is more world class? Barcelona.

Atlanta is essentially a crime-ridden warzone, with high levels of poverty, ghetto areas, low-density, inefficient infrastructure, lack of iconic traits compared to Rome. Which one is more important/powerful? Atlanta. Which one is more world class? Rome.

Washington DC is essentially a crime-ridden warzone, with high poverty, dysfunctional public schools, a problem with STDs compared to Amsterdam. Which one is more important/powerful? Washington. Which one is more world class? Amsterdam.

Miami is essentially a crime-ridden warzone, a bloothbath, with dysfunctional poverty stricken areas, inefficient infrastructure compared to Saint Petersburg. Which one is more important/powerful? Miami. Which one is more world class? Saint Petersburg.

Dubai is super well known, desirable to superrich investors, surging and becoming globally important, whereas Montreal is not as important but much more world class.

World class and powerful aren't the same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2015, 04:13 PM
 
7,132 posts, read 9,074,475 times
Reputation: 6333
I actually think Rome is more powerful than Atlanta, but I agree with your other examples.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top