San Francisco, Oakland Among America's Most Unequal Big Cities (Commerce: tax, professionals)

[ExeterMedia]

It wasn't deliberate, I tend to look at industries of local economies using the input–output model which takes into account interdependencies when gauging impact. I find it more useful than just looking at "total employment".

i.e - Firm A employs 100 employees with a total economic output of $10. Firm B employs 10 employees with a total economic output of $1000.

I'd consider Firm B to be the "bigger" firm with the bigger economic impact.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

Please let us know, how you would like to measure the industry size. what metric would you like to use? Taxes paid? Because many hospitals are non-profit. Money spent on them? People employed? Money spent by employees? Wages generated by the industry? Please be specific, as to what metric you would like addressed and what the rationale for choosing that metric is and I will try to accommodate.

Again I NEVER made that claim (it may very well be wrong), but I hate it when people attack posts, based on semantics and refuse to offer anything of value, other than snarky one liners. Here is an exercise

According to this, there are 85.7k people employed in Healthcare in San Francisco and 136.9k people employed in Hospitality and Leisure. http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/wp-con...ancisco_MD.pdf

According to BLS, the Median wage for Healthcare professionals is $741 per week. According to BLS, the median weekly wage for hospitality and Leisure is $492.

Industries at a Glance: Health Care and Social Assistance: NAICS 62
Industries at a Glance: Leisure and Hospitality

So 85.7k workers X $741 per week X 50 weeks= $3.2 bn of implied wages
136.9k workers X $492 per week X 50 Weeks= $3.4 bn of implied wages

So roughly equal.

So at this point, we have provided you with a report that says SF Hospital industry is the top industry in the city.

We have also engaged you in a reasonable exercise of implied total wages paid.

Would you please provide us with goalposts that neither I, nor ExeterMedia, nor you can move? I will repeat the question again.

Please let us know, how you would like to measure the industry size. what metric would you like to use? Taxes paid? Because many hospitals are non-profit. Money spent on them? People employed? Money spent by employees? Wages generated by the industry? Please be specific, as to what metric you would like addressed and what the rationale for choosing that metric is and I will try to accommodate.

Thanks!

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

Please let us know, how you would like to measure the industry size. what metric would you like to use? Taxes paid? Because many hospitals are non-profit. Money spent on them? People employed? Money spent by employees? Wages generated by the industry? Please be specific, as to what metric you would like addressed and what the rationale for choosing that metric is and I will try to accommodate.

Again I NEVER made that claim (it may very well be wrong), but I hate it when people attack posts, based on semantics and refuse to offer anything of value, other than snarky one liners. Here is an exercise

According to this, there are 85.7k people employed in Healthcare in San Francisco and 136.9k people employed in Hospitality and Leisure. http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/wp-con...ancisco_MD.pdf

According to BLS, the Median wage for Healthcare professionals is $741 per week. According to BLS, the median weekly wage for hospitality and Leisure is $492.

Industries at a Glance: Health Care and Social Assistance: NAICS 62
Industries at a Glance: Leisure and Hospitality

So 85.7k workers X $741 per week X 50 weeks= $3.2 bn of implied wages
136.9k workers X $492 per week X 50 Weeks= $3.4 bn of implied wages

So roughly equal.

So at this point, we have provided you with a report that says SF Hospital industry is the top industry in the city.

We have also engaged you in a reasonable exercise of implied total wages paid.

Would you please provide us with goalposts that neither I, nor ExeterMedia, nor you can move? I will repeat the question again.

Please let us know, how you would like to measure the industry size. what metric would you like to use? Taxes paid? Because many hospitals are non-profit. Money spent on them? People employed? Money spent by employees? Wages generated by the industry? Please be specific, as to what metric you would like addressed and what the rationale for choosing that metric is and I will try to accommodate.

Thanks!

It's pretty simple actually. By numbers, SF's tourism industry is the LARGEST INDUSTRY IN SAN FRANCISCO. It has been the largest industry for quite some time. The very article you posted says the same thing. I was shocked to hear that the hospital industry had overtaken hospitality/tourism, but then I realized the definition people were using had been changed to fit their own argument, and that claim IS NOT TRUE. There aren't more health care workers in SF than hospitality workers. If that were the case, SF would be in deep trouble and the hospitality industry would have dwindled substantially. It really bothers me when people try to distort facts just to make bold claims.

Here's another way of looking at it. Russia is BY FAR, THE LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. It doesn't mean most populous, it means largest by area. That would be like me saying India is going to overtake China and become the biggest country in the world. Which won't be true, even when India's population overtakes China in a few decades, because Russia is still the largest.

It's ironic that you accused me of trying to move the goal posts. Perhaps you don't know what that definition means either. It means to change terms to suit your argument, which is exactly what you both just did!

[ExeterMedia]

Okay now that we know you're talking total workers, and we're talking total economic impact, hopefully we can move on. I'm glad we clarified that.

Back on topic, Oakland and other cities in Alameda County are experiencing the same thing happening in S.F but on a smaller scale.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news...alameda-county

Along with Oakland's high crime, and high poverty rate, this also exacerbates the income inequality in the city.

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

It's pretty simple actually. By numbers, SF's tourism industry is the LARGEST INDUSTRY IN SAN FRANCISCO. It has been the largest industry for quite some time. The very article you posted says the same thing. I was shocked to hear that the hospital industry had overtaken hospitality/tourism, and then I realized the definition people were using had been changed to fit their own argument, so that claim IS NOT TRUE. There aren't more health care workers in SF than hospitality workers. If that were the case, SF would be in deep trouble and the hospitality industry would have dwindled. It really bothers me when people try to distort facts just to make bold claims.

Here's another way of looking at it. Russia is BY FAR, THE LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. It doesn't mean most populous, it means largest by area. That would be like me saying India is going to overtake China and become the biggest country in the world. Which won't be true, even when India's population overtakes China in a few decades, because Russia is still the largest.

What #s? Please be specific. You are th eonly one, so far, who hasn't posted a single link to back up any claim

So, the only numbers (based on what I am inferring from your post) you care about about are # of people employed. Then you are incorrect. Because, based on this http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/wp-con...ancisco_MD.pdf
Prof Sci & Tech at 149.5k workers is larger than hospitality & leisure at 136.9k. Government is the same as Hospitality & Leisure at 134.4k.

So, we have now established in 3 different ways that the hospitality & leisure industry is indeed NOT the largest in San Francisco.

By total contribution to economy, Hospitals are
By total wages paid, Hospital & Tourism are roughly equal
By # of people employed, Prof Sci & Tech are the largest and gov't and Tourism are equal.

So is that debate settled?

Thanks!

[04kL4nD]

Re-read my post again. If SF's tourism industry were overtaken by healthcare workers, SF would be in deep trouble. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Thanks.

[HappyinCali]

Here is exactly what has happened in this thread in past several pages.

1) ExeterMedia said - Hospitals have overtaken Leisure. He did not specify by what measure. Oakland is indeed correct in this.
2) EM later states by total economic output.
3) Oakland rejects that as moving goalposts
4) EM, HinCA ask Oakland what measure would he/she prefer?
5) Oakland makes a vague reference to "numbers support"
6) Three different sets of #s suggest that Tourism is not the largest industry in SF by 3 different metrics
7) We are now waiting what measure matters most to Oakland in measuring an industry size and what the rationale for picking that metric is.
8) We are also waiting for Oakland to provide a single stat that supports his/her claims, other than vague qualitative references

[04kL4nD]

I've already defined what largest means. It means the total number of workers. Claiming that SF's healthcare industry is the largest industry is incorrect.

I'm tired of quibbling with you about this. Learn how to state your claims without ambiguity in the future, if you wish you avoid it in the future. Thanks

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Ah, so this quote is wrong:

Not necessarily.

Indirect jobs is a hard thing to measure, and the article said "considered" but didn't say it was uncontested or without question. Jim Lazarus clarifies even more.

Maybe that's because for many decades we've said tourism is our No. 1 industry," said Jim Lazarus, vice president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. "Clearly tourism is an important part of the economy that brings in new dollars every day, but it's clear that our growth in the past decade has been in medicine."

It seems it's something people just assumed but the report challenges.

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I've already defined what largest means. It means the total number of workers. Claiming that SF's healthcare industry is the largest industry is incorrect.

I'm tired of quibbling with you about this. Learn how to state your claims without ambiguity in the future, if you wish you avoid it in the future. Thanks

You said

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

It's pretty simple actually. By numbers, SF's tourism industry is the LARGEST INDUSTRY IN SAN FRANCISCO. It has been the largest industry for quite some time. The very article you posted says the same thing. I was shocked to hear that the hospital industry had overtaken hospitality/tourism, but then I realized the definition people were using had been changed to fit their own argument, and that claim IS NOT TRUE. There aren't more health care workers in SF than hospitality workers. If that were the case, SF would be in deep trouble and the hospitality industry would have dwindled substantially. It really bothers me when people try to distort facts just to make bold claims.

Here's another way of looking at it. Russia is BY FAR, THE LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. It doesn't mean most populous, it means largest by area. That would be like me saying India is going to overtake China and become the biggest country in the world. Which won't be true, even when India's population overtakes China in a few decades, because Russia is still the largest.

It's ironic that you accused me of trying to move the goal posts. Perhaps you don't know what that definition means either. It means to change terms to suit your argument, which is exactly what you both just did!

That statement has been proven incorrect by pg. 3 of this document. http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/wp-con...ancisco_MD.pdf

I see you no longer what to debate. Have a good day!