Which metro area better deserves the title of "global city" - San Francisco or Los Angeles? (San Diego: unemployment, salaries)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

None of that is relevant if the conversation is about economic power.

Economic Power is not the only determining factor of what makes a city world class.

Yet even in the economic sense, LA does not overwhelm the Bay Area at all-in fact the case can be made that the Bay Area is the true business center of the west-despite being 11 Million people smaller.

If this is about tourist draw and some nebulous concept of "brand cachet" then Boston and NYC are both "global".

I'm of the inclination that they are both global cities as are both LA and SF.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

It's not just Asia. Cars from Europe (notably Volvo and BMW) make their entries into the western U.S. and Canada in large part via L.A.-area ports, who also facilitates commodities from Central and South America. The L.A. port also transits goods with start and end origins outside of the U.S. all together (i.e. components made in Asia destined for final assembly in Mexico). I forget how many millions of jobs the port creates state wide, but it's a hefty amount.

Another large sector of L.A.'s economy is manufacturing. It's often left out of discussions such as these, but it's still a big chunk of the equation.

Believe it or not, when it comes to containerized electronic components, LA actually handles a fair amount of the "Silicon Valley" inbound shipments from the Far East. They do not all come into Oakland. It's all about consolidation and due to the higher volume porting into LA / LB, it's sometimes cheaper to have stuff shipped there then trucked up here.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Well if LA gets to stretch clear to the state line then I don't think San Jose being part of the Bay Area should really bother anyone.

Speaking of which, I am surprised by the Inland Empire's economy.

It is actually almost the exact same size as the SF-Oakland MSA. However its economy is approx 3 times smaller.

Population 2008
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA 4,115,871
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MSA 4,274,531

Gross Product 2008
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA $113.0 Billion
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MSA $310.8 Billion



In fact, The IE has a smaller economy than San Jose, which has less than half the population of Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario.

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA
Gross Product $146.6 Billion.

The IE used to have a massive amount of smoke stack / rust belt type activity. The key operative being "used to!"

[Bunjee]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Speaking of which, I am surprised by the Inland Empire's economy.

It is actually almost the exact same size as the SF-Oakland MSA. However its economy is approx 3 times smaller.

Population 2008
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA 4,115,871
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MSA 4,274,531

Gross Product 2008
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA $113.0 Billion
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MSA $310.8 Billion



In fact, The IE has a smaller economy than San Jose, which has less than half the population of Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario.

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA
Gross Product $146.6 Billion.

And this is a surprise? However, consider that geographically 3 or 4 entire greater Bay Areas can fit inside the Inland Empire. It may have the same population but it's not as dense with people, therefore industry, so it's not a really good comparison. Silicon Valley vs. Inland Empire? LOL.

Maybe IE vs. Napa/Mendocino/Santa Rosa might be fairer. I'd say there'd be parity. There's the wine industry and Napa has other business interests like call centers, distribution centers and such, against IE's agriculture plus same.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

Technically, I guess I should have asked if San Jose is more of a global city rather than San Francisco. I don't think I'll ever get used to the fact that the Census Bureau designated San Jose as the primary Bay Area city a few years ago.

San Jose is not the primary city, merely the first listed by population. All those named are significant nodes.

[LASam]

Uh oh... recent study out of Japan ranks LA as the # 13 global power, while SF comes in at #24. I think this is evidence that both are global cities, but LA is the more prominent of the two.


World's top cities ranking

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Speaking of which, I am surprised by the Inland Empire's economy.

It is actually almost the exact same size as the SF-Oakland MSA. However its economy is approx 3 times smaller.

Primacy plays a huge role in this. L.A. sucks up so much of the energy in Southern California that it make it difficult for Riverside and San Diego to stand out on their own and attract corporate headquarters. If L.A. didn't exist, San Diego would probably be a much more "important" city.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

San Jose is not the primary city, merely the first listed by population. All those named are significant nodes.

Thanks for clarifying that. Still, I remember when the change was made, it made some in San Francisco a little agitated by the fact that San Jose was getting "top billing", even if it was based on something as trivial (relatively speaking) as population size.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by LASam

Uh oh... recent study out of Japan ranks LA as the # 13 global power, while SF comes in at #24. I think this is evidence that both are global cities, but LA is the more prominent of the two.

Interesting to me that Washington, DC isn't even on their list.

[Bunjee]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

Primacy plays a huge role in this. L.A. sucks up so much of the energy in Southern California that it make it difficult for Riverside and San Diego to stand out on their own and attract corporate headquarters. If L.A. didn't exist, San Diego would probably be a much more "important" city.

That's very true too. A company I worked with moved its operations from Ontario back to LA, despite what I thought was a pretty plush central location for distribution, not to mention cheaper rent. They reckoned differently though, I guess, and they're the ones making the big bucks...