Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-18-2010, 02:13 AM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,314 posts, read 9,202,157 times
Reputation: 2538

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FresnoFacts View Post
The Milken Institute just released its annual "Best Performing Cities" rankings for metro areas. They consider this a look at both where jobs are being created and where they are being retained.
http://www.milkeninstitute.org/pdf/b...cities2010.pdf

Milken's rankings compares metro areas using job growth/loss numbers over 5 years (this time 2004-2009) and 1 year (2008 to 2009); wage increase/decrease for 1 year (2007-2008) and 5 year (2003-2008); etc. They create an index from that information and rank order based on that index.

Like any, not a perfect ranking but the mix of time periods and inclusion of wage information shows a little more economic info then just recent unemployment.

Top MSAs with over 250,000 residents in the metro area (2009 ranking in parentheses) - 1. Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX MSA (2); 2. Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA (1); 3. Huntsville, AL MSA (8); 4. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA (4); 5. Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA MSA (in small areas in 2009); 6. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA (25); 7. Raleigh-Cary, NC MSA (10); 8. Anchorage, AK MSA (40); 9. El Paso, TX MSA (14); 10. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA (5)

Rankings of larger California MSAs out of 200 MSAs (number in parentheses is last year's rank):

27. Bakersfield MSA (#36 in last year's ranking)
70. Visalia-Porterville MSA (124)
76. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos MSA (83)
103. San Francisco-San Mateo (85)
114. San Luis Obispo MSA (130)
115. Vallejo-Fairfield MSA (173)
124. Fresno MSA (115)
128. Salinas-Monterey MSA (134)
132. San Jose-Santa Clara MSA (50)
138. Santa Barbara-Santa Maria MSA (43)
142. Sacramento-Arden Arcade-Roseville MSA (117)
146. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA (103)
158. Los Angeles-Long Beach MSA (139)
168. Merced MSA (184)
172. Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine MSA (122)
178. Oakland-Fremont-Hayward MSA (145)
180. Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura MSA (158)
185. Santa Cruz-Watsonville MSA (160)
186. Stockton MSA (166)
188. Santa Rosa-Petaluma MSA (165)
193. Modesto MSA (159)

Data for individual MSAs as well as rankings of smaller areas like Chico and Redding in a list of under 250,000 population MSAs are at the link.
San Francisco-San Mateo and Oakland-Fremont-Hayward aren't MSAs...they are metropolitan divisions, or two halves of the very same MSA (that would be the SF-Oakland-Fremont MSA of course). I don't know why Milken decided to compare partial MSAs with complete MSAs (how does it provide a meaningful comparison?), but that's what they did. They did the same metropolitan division split to the Detroit, Boston, Washington DC, and Baltimore MSAs as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2010, 08:52 AM
 
1,687 posts, read 6,050,370 times
Reputation: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
San Francisco-San Mateo and Oakland-Fremont-Hayward aren't MSAs...they are metropolitan divisions, or two halves of the very same MSA (that would be the SF-Oakland-Fremont MSA of course). I don't know why Milken decided to compare partial MSAs with complete MSAs (how does it provide a meaningful comparison?), but that's what they did. They did the same metropolitan division split to the Detroit, Boston, Washington DC, and Baltimore MSAs as well.
You are right and it was my typing mistake. I guess I got into typing MSA over and over again and slipped on a couple by typing MSA instead of typing MD.

Milken labeled them as metropolitan divisions in the report, along with the Los Angeles-Long Beach and Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine split.

Milken's explanation is on page 5 of the report. "If specific criteria are met, an MSA with a single nucleus and a population of 2.5 million or more is further divided into geographic areas called metropolitan divisions. There are currently 29 metropolitan divisions. For example, two metropolitan divisions (Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale and Santa Ana–Anaheim–Irvine) make up the Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana MSA. We include the smaller metropolitan divisions in the index to reflect more accurate geographic growth patterns."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 11:38 AM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,314 posts, read 9,202,157 times
Reputation: 2538
^lol i didnt even notice you had typed "MSA" after Oakland, so my whining was directed only at milken

That's interesting to see their criteria, but it still makes no sense to me. Why do they think we see "more accurate growth patterns" when splitting up the "smallest" MDs? Why not split ALL the MSAs that have MDs into their component MDs? ...they did it to the SF-Oakland MSA, for example, but not the LA MSA? Why? It's even more annoying because the Bay Area is already unfairly represented by MSA definitions, and then lists like this decide to split the Bay Area up even more.

Seems like it's comparing apples to oranges to me. It's like saying, "these are the best pairs of shoes" and then when you compare the pairs of shoes, for some reason you take a few pairs and split them up into individual shoes, all the while acting like each individual shoe is the same as the other, complete pairs of shoes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 12:55 PM
 
1,687 posts, read 6,050,370 times
Reputation: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
That's interesting to see their criteria, but it still makes no sense to me. Why do they think we see "more accurate growth patterns" when splitting up the "smallest" MDs? Why not split ALL the MSAs that have MDs into their component MDs? ...they did it to the SF-Oakland MSA, for example, but not the LA MSA?
But they did split up Los Angeles into the MDs. They have Los Angeles-Long Beach MD (Los Angeles County) and then the Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine MD (Orange County)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 02:20 PM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,314 posts, read 9,202,157 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by FresnoFacts View Post
But they did split up Los Angeles into the MDs. They have Los Angeles-Long Beach MD (Los Angeles County) and then the Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine MD (Orange County)
whoops, my bad. I still think it's kind of weird though to split things up like that. It's treating some MSAs as single entities, while its treating other MSAs as multiple entities, and then comparing them all together at the same time...which doesn't seem very scientific to me. I say compare MSAs to MSAs, and MDs to MDs, but not MDs to MSAs.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > California

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:05 AM.

© 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