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.
All jobs are not created equal. It's harsh and may sound elitist, but New York is a city of bankers, lawyers and CEOs. They make a lot of money and drive economic output.
The country has changed radically in the last 50 years. Economic activity is no longer tied to population. Regional economies used to be based on a mega-employer, like GM, Boeing, IBM, etc., coupled with major local businesses. For the most part, major local businesses are gone.
I'm only 35, but I can remember a time when there were still local/regional banks, hotels, department stores, drug/grocery store, restaurants and small businesses of every variety. All of these businesses required a population of "professionals" (lawyers, accountants, bankers, advertising executives, managers with MBAs) to service them. Cities were economically diversified and profits were localized.
These businesses have merged into corporate chains that are headquartered in a handful of superstar cities. The high-end salaries from running these corporations and the profits are kept in those cities. It's more efficient from a corporate point of view, but one unintended consequence is that many cities have become denuded of upper-middle-class professionals. To use a Florida-specific example, Disney is a huge employer in the state, but the high paying jobs and profits are in LA and New York.
Nowadays, if you're a corporate lawyer or ad executive, you can only live in a handful of cities because that's where all the business is. There are no local banks of consequence. The vast majority of banking is controlled from New York, Charlotte, Minneapolis and San Francisco. There is effectively one mid-range department store for the entire country, i.e., Macy's, and two mass retailers, i.e., Wal-Mart and Target. Even a huge and wealthy city like Chicago doesn't have a locally-based major retailer (much to their consternation).
Another factor is technology. New York, Houston, DC, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Francisco and Boston are all major tech centers. For cities that "punch above their weight" (like DC or Seattle), it's the tech industry that makes the difference. Cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix and Miami will have a very hard time catching up because they don't have the decades of investment in education.
The real problem with this change is political and not economic. We could eventually have entire states full of executives and designers vs. entire states full of cocktail waitresses and home health aides. This would be very dangerous and unsustainable.
Wow, great post. I was partly thinking it had to do with a lack of industry, however, I think your viewpoint is more complete. Industry is not unlike corporate jobs, in that they usually pay pretty high wages (but many don't even require a college education). With a lack of industrial jobs in Miami, and a lack of high paying corporate jobs, I can see why the city lacks in GDP.
I also agree that it's dangerous and unsustainable to have such centralization. The US got so rich on its industrial base, which was all over the country (thus decentralizing the GDP). Now we've dismantled that base (in large) and we rely on centralized corporate jobs...feels bad to me.
I also agree that it's dangerous and unsustainable to have such centralization. The US got so rich on its industrial base, which was all over the country (thus decentralizing the GDP). Now we've dismantled that base (in large) and we rely on centralized corporate jobs...feels bad to me.
It's not dangerous and unsustainable, it's actually very effective, that's why the centralization happened in the first place. It does however create enormous disparity between states and localities.
Local politics is aimed at preserving status quo not changing it so nobody talks about spending tax dollars on education and upward social movement. Lack of good education system results in the lack of qualified workforce and big business staying away from Florida. The manufacturing jobs present in the north and some of the southern states are non-existent in Florida.
I hate to sound like a bully but Florida is poised to surpass New York (State) in population within the next 3 years or so but that makes no difference to the economical world.
NY State's population has been growing significantly faster than Florida's population for the last few years.
So, at current rates, Florida won't pass NY State ever. Much of Florida has actually been losing population in the last few years.
Now obviously things can change. If Florida returns to the early 2000's crazy growth, then yes, it will eventually surpass NY State.
But I think that's highly questionable. Was this period a crazy abberation, or is it indicative of the future? I tend to think the former, but who knows.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,073,423 times
Reputation: 4047
tpk-nyc: Great post. You really put it into a realistic perspective for me to visually grasp the concept. Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio248
NY State's population has been growing significantly faster than Florida's population for the last few years.
So, at current rates, Florida won't pass NY State ever. Much of Florida has actually been losing population in the last few years.
Now obviously things can change. If Florida returns to the early 2000's crazy growth, then yes, it will eventually surpass NY State.
But I think that's highly questionable. Was this period a crazy abberation, or is it indicative of the future? I tend to think the former, but who knows.
No what I meant when I said that "I hate to sound like a bully but Florida is poised to surpass New York (State)" was that Florida can very much surpass New York (State) in population but it's Economic Output would be miniature still compared to New York (State).
It's not dangerous and unsustainable, it's actually very effective, that's why the centralization happened in the first place. It does however create enormous disparity between states and localities.
Local politics is aimed at preserving status quo not changing it so nobody talks about spending tax dollars on education and upward social movement. Lack of good education system results in the lack of qualified workforce and big business staying away from Florida. The manufacturing jobs present in the north and some of the southern states are non-existent in Florida.
I view it as dangerous, because there isn't an even distribution of wealth across the country. Plus, when a single corporation owns 2,000 stores across the US and it fails, that collapse is severe. I also view it negatively from the consumer side. I hate that there aren't more choices, and I find it dangerous because the competition is just not there like it used to be (keeping costs low and service/products at high quality).
I try to avoid the corporate giants as much as I can and support something that will reinvest in where I live...not in NYC which is 8 hours away.
It's not dangerous and unsustainable, it's actually very effective, that's why the centralization happened in the first place. It does however create enormous disparity between states and localities.
Local politics is aimed at preserving status quo not changing it so nobody talks about spending tax dollars on education and upward social movement. Lack of good education system results in the lack of qualified workforce and big business staying away from Florida. The manufacturing jobs present in the north and some of the southern states are non-existent in Florida.
My point is that it's politically not economically dangerous. Much of the current political rancor is between the supposed elites in the superstar cities and everyone else. "Enormous disparity between states and localities" is a major political problem. It gives rise to all sorts of resentments and eventually conspiracy theories. It's a particularly serious in that the US Senate has the filibuster rule and is elected by state, not population.
All jobs are not created equal. It's harsh and may sound elitist, but New York is a city of bankers, lawyers and CEOs. They make a lot of money and drive economic output.
The country has changed radically in the last 50 years. Economic activity is no longer tied to population. Regional economies used to be based on a mega-employer, like GM, Boeing, IBM, etc., coupled with major local businesses. For the most part, major local businesses are gone.
I'm only 35, but I can remember a time when there were still local/regional banks, hotels, department stores, drug/grocery store, restaurants and small businesses of every variety. All of these businesses required a population of "professionals" (lawyers, accountants, bankers, advertising executives, managers with MBAs) to service them. Cities were economically diversified and profits were localized.
These businesses have merged into corporate chains that are headquartered in a handful of superstar cities. The high-end salaries from running these corporations and the profits are kept in those cities. It's more efficient from a corporate point of view, but one unintended consequence is that many cities have become denuded of upper-middle-class professionals. To use a Florida-specific example, Disney is a huge employer in the state, but the high paying jobs and profits are in LA and New York.
Nowadays, if you're a corporate lawyer or ad executive, you can only live in a handful of cities because that's where all the business is. There are no local banks of consequence. The vast majority of banking is controlled from New York, Charlotte, Minneapolis and San Francisco. There is effectively one mid-range department store for the entire country, i.e., Macy's, and two mass retailers, i.e., Wal-Mart and Target. Even a huge and wealthy city like Chicago doesn't have a locally-based major retailer (much to their consternation).
Another factor is technology. New York, Houston, DC, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Francisco and Boston are all major tech centers. For cities that "punch above their weight" (like DC or Seattle), it's the tech industry that makes the difference. Cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix and Miami will have a very hard time catching up because they don't have the decades of investment in education.
The real problem with this change is political and not economic. We could eventually have entire states full of executives and designers vs. entire states full of cocktail waitresses and home health aides. This would be very dangerous and unsustainable.
Another great and precise post. It is politics rather than just economics. We've created a migrating system of professionals that leave one place, for another because that place holds a certain weighted power and influence over the others. Some places just won't regain the brain drain that they lost.
I've never thought it through before responding to this thread, and it's a rather cynical analysis, but losing a large percentage of retirees might actually be good for a state. The people who remain are interested in future growth, not merely maintaining the value of a fixed-income.
Having lived in the Twin Cities for a few years, I know that the most influential political constituency in Minnesota is suburban families with children. They're the voters who really decide elections. Consequently education, social services, lifestyle amenities (things like parks and bike paths) and culture are very well funded. Also, the major corporations (like 3M, Target, Best Buy, US Bank, General Mills) are extremely generous patrons of the arts and education. They know that if they want to attract and keep top talent, the Twin Cities have to be attractive to well-educated professionals.
Seattle, San Francisco and Boston have a similar political dynamic.
I view it as dangerous, because there isn't an even distribution of wealth across the country. "
Why it should be even? Instead of worrying about the distirbution of wealth, which in my opinion is a secondary issue, we should be worrying about the disctribution of education. Education has been proven as a best vehicle for sustained social upward movement anywhere. Level the educational field and the distribution of wealth will follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
I try to avoid the corporate giants as much as I can and support something that will reinvest in where I live...not in NYC which is 8 hours away.
Same here. I support local business as much as I can. My neighborhood has an actual anti-big-chain policy.
Dude don't get me wrong, Florida is one of my Top 10 Favorite States. And it's a great place to visit for any time of the year.
But the city of Omaha, Nebraska has 5 companies that are Fortune 500 Companies. It's a Metropolitan Area of 730,000 people, that's half of Jacksonville's population (Florida's smallest main Metropolitan Area). Omaha is located in the middle of the American Heartland. the whole region around it is sparsely population, and along with Denver & Salt Lake City it might as well be one of the most isolated cities in America in terms of proximity to other places.
And Miami-Fort Lauderdale with 5.56 Million people has the same number with 5 Fortune 500 Companies. Jacksonville has 3, which is admirable for its size given its only 1.3 Million people.
Like I did learn a good bit from this thread, I got some very valid responses that explain what's up with Miami's situation and kidphilly even helped me out on this one too.
But the contents of its corporate base, its economic output, its median housing cost, its unemployment rate, the high poverty rate, & low wage situation, it SERIOUSLY makes me wonder how people in Miami-Fort Lauderdale are doing. How they're able to get by and afford a basic lifestyle.
Dude, Upstate New York, with a population of 7 Million has a economic output of $400 Billion. That is 10 Million people less than Florida, and 4/7th's of Florida's economic output. And that is considering the fact that New York City is not apart of Upstate New York either. Illinois has 12 Million people and its economic output is $633 Billion. It's 5 Million less than Florida and only $100 Billion less in economic output. I'm not trying to say Miami-Fort Lauderdale is bad or anything, but its just staggering how even in class we have to learn about how people get by there. That is not a good thing, in my opinion.
Don't worry, Florida has so much potential for the future, I'm confident about this state.Apparently a medical sector is in development, and a good film industry
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.
