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.
Well he asked and I provided the population that lives between the two cities and showed the closest borders are 45 and change miles
I never liked math too much, those people are mostly blue collar and probably drive a Ford Taurus. You are now eaten up by New York in the UA like a traffic cop eating a cheese steak.
A better way would to be to take the median and/or mean from the last 10 years GDP from each of the cities. Not saying that is the "best" way to look at it, but it is certainly better than looking at it from a snapshot when most of the U.S. was in a recession. A better view might be a 20 year snapshot....Regardless, take 1999-2009 GDP data... Take mean/median performance. I can already hear some people crying about this, as that will make their cities look lower and for some reason take down their egos, then I can hear some people praising this, as this will make their cities higher, resulting in the same ego boost... It doesn't matter though, and I have no idea what the results are right now, nor do I plan on running the data set (I will leave that to someone else, if they want a better view of importance.)
I would actually argue that Income; even COL adjusted would be better but there is something to longer term trends. GDP inflates all areas relative to actual money that flows back into the area also excluded private funds and private co's (Example Vangaurd which is privately held yet handles 1.3 trillion in finance annually and never hits a GDP figure)
Not to nitpick but Houston is the most glaring Example; the GDP of Houston would suggest it's economy generates more than 60% more than income that actually flows into the area. Not to mention GDP can inflate and dampen actual margin. A 1 Billion dollar company with a 40% margin generates more income (though ancillary economic factors may mitigate my simplistic example) than a 3 Billion dollar company with a 10% margin.
And as stated earlier market factors inflate and deflate these figures i.e. the price of oil.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,055,953 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
Exactly...
Yeah, the thing with economic output (GDP) is that its got no boundary restrictions on what it can signify, its always an apples to oranges comparison because a place like Bay Area can technically be richer than Los Angeles but its GDP which is correlated through population and performance of its industries at the given time will show up smaller because of those handicaps.
With all that said, I'm not trying to take away from GDP or anything because it is the universally recognized method to measure the size of an economy (The most recognized method actually). But it's seasonal, it pertains mostly to the time period when one particular industry is hot and others are sluggish. All of Chicago's systems are and have been on fast recovery and on a go in 2010, its GDP will climb the charts. Houston's GDP will be immensely larger for 2010 than they were in 2009, and those figures will be unbelievable for 2011 more so than 2010 even.
There are way too many ways to quantify prominence, there's so many criterion to go through. I've gotten to the point where I no longer believe there is a #2 in the United States, or a #3, or #4, or #5 at all because of how close it is.
By the way, speaking of GDP here is the United States: 2000: $9.951 Trillion 2001: $10.28 Trillion
2002: $10.64 Trillion
2003: $11.14 Trillion
2004: $11.86 Trillion
2005: $12.63 Trillion
2006: $13.39 Trillion
2007: $14.07 Trillion
2008: $14.44 Trillion 2009: $14.11 Trillion 2010: $14.62 Trillion
The good news:
- This is the highest our economy has been all decade! (Highest its ever been actually)
- We surpassed our peak in 2010 after seeing a significant shortfall in 2008 as a country.
On People (Here are the counties that lie between the two)
Bucks County PA 621K
Camden County NJ 514K
Gloucester NJ 288K
Burlington County NJ 449K
Mercer County NJ 367K
Monmath NJ 630K
Somerset NJ 323K
Middlesex NJ 810K
Morris NJ 492K
Union NJ 537K
Essex NJ 784K
Ocean NJ 577K
Bergen NJ 905K
Hudson NJ 634K
Total = 7.9 Million and not one person counted from the 8+ million in NYC, Northern Burbs, far western burbs, CT, or Long Island for NY and not one of the city of Philly, Western Burbs, DE, MD, or Counties South of Philly in NJ
Once again, in the context of combining CSAs, there could 50 Million living in between them but if they arent connected via jobs or if there isnt regional concensus that they are a single place, then it really doesnt matter, does it?
Yes, they qualify as a Urban Area-congrats.
But as a CSA--not even a little close.
And I still wonder why your so eager to be swallowed whole by New York?
I never liked math too much, those people are mostly blue collar and probably drive a Ford Taurus. You are now eaten up by New York in the UA like a traffic cop eating a cheese steak.
Haha yes all those uneducated high income folks that live there; they are driving Chevys these days
I would actually argue that Income; even COL adjusted would be better but there is something to longer term trends. GDP inflates all areas relative to actual money that flows back into the area also excluded private funds and private co's (Example Vangaurd which is privately held yet handles 1.3 trillion in finance annually and never hits a GDP figure)
Not to nitpick but Houston is the most glaring Example; the GDP of Houston would suggest it's economy generates more than 60% more than income that actually flows into the area. Not to mention GDP can inflate and dampen actual margin. A 1 Billion dollar company with a 40% margin generates more income (though ancillary economic factors may mitigate my simplistic example) than a 3 Billion dollar company with a 10% margin.
And as stated earlier market factors inflate and deflate these figures i.e. the price of oil.
Sure that might be better, as I said, I wasn't claiming it was better... but you could be right on this. It makes more sense and would produce a less volatile measure and also let you know where the money is actually trickling down to. Another good measure would be the corporate tax base, I don't think SF is benefiting much from all the SV companies for instance, hence why many choose to be in some suburban office park. It is good to have some of the HQ's actually in SF, for SF at least as it is county/city consolidated... so if it can attract more of those companies to be a bit closer, maybe better situated towards the financial institutions... it could be better to make improvements and social services for the city.
As it is now, a lot of the tech companies, particularly the more hardware based ones still kind of cluster around Stanford.
Once again, in the context of combining CSAs, there could 50 Million living in between them but if they arent connected via jobs or if there isnt regional concensus that they are a single place, then it really doesnt matter, does it?
Yes, they qualify as a Urban Area-congrats.
But as a CSA--not even a little close.
And I still wonder why your so eager to be swallowed whole by New York?
Actually I am not
Two points, one this was a comparison in what actually lies between with; in terms of CSA there is a very real possibilty they will be connected this Census (widely documented on here)
Two the jobs and influence do overlap; people commute between and interact these census designated places with no regard to OMB designation (these lines dont exist in the real world) with little distance traversed; sometimes like 5 miles and and believe it or not little resistance (well sometimes the EZ Pass lanes malfunction)
You can join my fan page on Facebook or read my tweets
On your points of commuting; actually totally false
And on a regional consensus; nor are SJ and SF perfectly connect; are they intertwined; most definately; remember in the space between these two there exists as many jobs as in the whole Bay and most pay significantly well
I understand the hallowed ground of the Bay should not be disparaged; someone may actually find wizard behind the curtain.
Yeah, the thing with economic output (GDP) is that its got no boundary restrictions on what it can signify, its always an apples to oranges comparison because a place like Bay Area can technically be richer than Los Angeles but its GDP which is correlated through population and performance of its industries at the given time will show up smaller because of those handicaps.
With all that said, I'm not trying to take away from GDP or anything because it is the universally recognized method to measure the size of an economy (The most recognized method actually). But it's seasonal, it pertains mostly to the time period when one particular industry is hot and others are sluggish. All of Chicago's systems are and have been on fast recovery and on a go in 2010, its GDP will climb the charts. Houston's GDP will be immensely larger for 2010 than they were in 2009, and those figures will be unbelievable for 2011 more so than 2010 even.
There are way too many ways to quantify prominence, there's so many criterion to go through. I've gotten to the point where I no longer believe there is a #2 in the United States, or a #3, or #4, or #5 at all because of how close it is.
By the way, speaking of GDP here is the United States: 2000: $9.951 Trillion 2001: $10.28 Trillion 2002: $10.64 Trillion 2003: $11.14 Trillion 2004: $11.86 Trillion 2005: $12.63 Trillion 2006: $13.39 Trillion 2007: $14.07 Trillion 2008: $14.44 Trillion 2009: $14.11 Trillion 2010: $14.62 Trillion
The good news:
- This is the highest our economy has been all decade! (Highest its ever been actually)
- We surpassed our peak in 2010 after seeing a significant shortfall in 2008 as a country.
Yeah but look at the value of the Dollar over that same time period. I do not disagree though in that even with tough economic times the US is an economic monster
Its safe to say best argument SF can make at this point is fourth place behind NYC, Chicago, and LA. Right?
well to me DC/DMV is also ahead; if the bay goes by CSA than so does the DMV
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.
