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.
1) GDP per capita means nothing. I'm pretty sure most Angelinos don't benefit from the wealth of LA's ports.
2) Depends on the person.
3) Comes with the size of the city, but saying that all of NYC is dirty and smelly is an exaggeration. Example, Forest Hills Garden in NYC is probably a lot cleaner then most of SF.
4) NYC is more crowded then SF, so? Many people, myself included, love that density.
5) So? SF is not far behind. In fact, only Manhattan and Brooklyn are more expensive. The other 3 boroughs have a lower cost of living than SF.
6) I agree with SF being more scenic. The surroundings are amazing.
7) It's a bigger city, so it's obvious going to have more douches, but the west coast, especially SF and LA probably has a higher percentage of obnoxious and vain douches.
8) Tech is one of the biggest industries in SF, but tourism is SF's biggest industry. Besides, technology is not any safer than finance, a new and better technology, based somewhere else, can pop up at any time. And NYC's economy doesn't have one single dominant industry. Finance, Insurance, Health-care and real-estate are all dominant.
That being said, NONE of this matters. SF is a great place to live, but it depends on the person. For some, NYC is a better place to live, for others it will be SF. Not everyone has the same values and ideals.
1. The fact that SF avg household incomes are ~10-15k higher is meaningless? (Especially when you also account for lower cost of living?) Pray tell, what figures do matter for economic health?
2. I think at least 80% of ppl would prefer SF weather over NYC weather. 60-75 and sunny almost everyday beats cold winters and scorching humid summers.
3. Much of NYC is smelly and dirty, certainly more so than SF
4. Density is a good thing, but parts of NYC and also the public transit systems are overcrowded; packed like sardines and slowed down by large crowds
5. The outer regions of SF are also cheaper. You compare any comparable areas of SF v NYC, SF is cheaper
6. (you concede the point)
7. dunno, NYC has a reputation (confirmed by just about anyone who lives there) as having meaner ppl on average. Of course, most ppl are fine and I'm sure even the "mean" ppl aren't bad ppl, but it's not regarded as a "friendly" place. No one talks about how "laidback" NYCers are (as they do about ppl in SF) or "NYC hospitality" (as they do about Chicago and parts of the South)
8. My point re tech v finance isn't stability, as much as public perception. Both are fairly volatile, but which industry is better thought of by the 90%+ of Americans who aren't part of these industries? There are never any "marches against tech companies" and the tech industry isnt constantly facing government investigations for fraud and other white collar crimes like Wall Street
Pound for pound means simply the best (or the strongest in this case.) It's a boxing phrase, meaning the best fighter REGARDLESS of their weight class. What is the STRONGEST city economy in the US, REGARDLESS of its population? That would be NYC.
Now if you want to to talk about what US city has the highest GDP per capita, that would be San Jose. With Boston in second. SF is either 3 or 4th when it comes to GDP per capita.
Though, I'm not sure why GDP per capita is important. A city's GDP is independent of it's population.
I dont know where you got your stats from but according to the latest data from the US commerce department, which is the govt source for gdp data, among large metro areas, its San Jose then San Francisco then everyone else. That was as of last month.
And as far as combined metros, the Bay Area is way in front of second place Houston and third place DC.
As far as pound for pound, the Bay Area has the 3rd largest private industry economy behind NY and LA despite being 6th in population. That is punching well above its weight, since we're using boxing terms.
If the entire country were as productive as the Bay Area our national gdp would be close to $25 trillion dollars, about $10 trillion dollars bigger than it is now.
Please dont let the cuteness fool you, the Bay Area is an economic beast with vast global reach and influence.
I dont know where you got your stats from but according to the latest data from the US commerce department, which is the govt source for gdp data, among large metro areas, its San Jose then San Francisco then everyone else. That was as of last month.
And as far as combined metros, the Bay Area is way in front of second place Houston and third place DC.
As far as pound for pound, the Bay Area has the 3rd largest private industry economy behind NY and LA despite being 6th in population. That is punching well above its weight, since we're using boxing terms.
If the entire country were as the Bay Area our national gdp would be close to $25 trillion dollars, about $10 trillion dollars bigger than it is now.
But that's WITH SJ, right?
SJ is a suburban office district one hour and fifteen minutes from SF. So, why its included is beyond me.
SF is such a different than SJ it's equal to a Mormon being gay. Bay Area, Bay Area, Bay Area!
And so we go back to my point. The Bay Area is not just a pretty place with lots of hills and water views and unbelievably great weather and countless recreational opportunities literally at your doorstep. No, on top of that the region is an economic titan whose economic largesse shames many of the other places often named as economic titans. Hong Kong's economy is half the size of the bay's gdp and we have surpassed and are pulling away from Chicagoland.
1. The fact that SF avg household incomes are ~10-15k higher is meaningless? (Especially when you also account for lower cost of living?) Pray tell, what figures do matter for economic health?
2. I think at least 80% of ppl would prefer SF weather over NYC weather. 60-75 and sunny almost everyday beats cold winters and scorching humid summers.
3. Much of NYC is smelly and dirty, certainly more so than SF
4. Density is a good thing, but parts of NYC and also the public transit systems are overcrowded; packed like sardines and slowed down by large crowds
5. The outer regions of SF are also cheaper. You compare any comparable areas of SF v NYC, SF is cheaper
6. (you concede the point)
7. dunno, NYC has a reputation (confirmed by just about anyone who lives there) as having meaner ppl on average. Of course, most ppl are fine and I'm sure even the "mean" ppl aren't bad ppl, but it's not regarded as a "friendly" place. No one talks about how "laidback" NYCers are (as they do about ppl in SF) or "NYC hospitality" (as they do about Chicago and parts of the South)
8. My point re tech v finance isn't stability, as much as public perception. Both are fairly volatile, but which industry is better thought of by the 90%+ of Americans who aren't part of these industries? There are never any "marches against tech companies" and the tech industry isnt constantly facing government investigations for fraud and other white collar crimes like Wall Street
1. Thats different from GDP per capita, though. NYC is a much more ethnically and socially diverse city than SF thanks to the city's large immigrant population, huge welfare system. That obviously going to bring down the average household income by a lot.
2. Thats just an assumption, there's really no hard evidence for what the majority of people prefer. If warm weather year round, was really that big of a deal, the west coast should have overtaken the northeast by now in terms of population.
3. You don't hear people complaining about the smell on 5th ave. Or about how dirty lower manhattan is. Yes, NYC as a whole, is probably not as clean as SF is as a whole, but that comes with being a bigger and denser city.
4. Been taking the NYC subway for over 20 years, and the only line that is unbearably crowded is the local Lexington Line during rush hours (the city has 26 subway lines.) NYC's public transport is the country's most useful mass transit. Only Times SQ and Herald's Sq (and maybe parts of Chinatown) get so jam packed that you can say "packed like sardines." Other than that, NYC simply has more people on the streets than SF, but it's not unbearable. Many people love the density.
5. Queens and the Bronx are not the outer regions of NYC. Queens is NYC's largest borough, and right across the river from midtown. The Bronx, is directly to the north of Manhattan, and extremely easy to commute to midtown. Both have a lower cost of living than SF. Staten Island is a little farther away from Manhattan (20 minute ferry ride,) but it's still a part of NYC, it's not an outer region.
6.
7. Born and raised in NYC, and I can tell you NYC is not "meaner" than average. We get that rep because most NYer's don't have time for small talk, and they don't do nonsense. If most NYer's have a problem with you, they'll say it to your face, rather than smile and talk behind your back (southern hospitality.) It's not mean, its honest. NYer's don't project a friendly atmosphere, but if a tourist asks for help, they'll get it.
8. Yes, the tech industry is better perceived, but how does that make SF a better city to live?
What matters is what's important to an individual, not any of this. Are open spaces and nature the most important factor for you? Then SF is the city for you. You want the most diverse urban life posible? NYC is the city for you. The list of questions goes on and on, but you get the point. Yes, SF is urban but the reality is NYC and SF attract different people.
We can talk about what ranking SF is in the nation or how nice it comes out per capita, but at the end of the day, it is still minuscule in clout and influence compared to NYC. It (SF or the Bay Area) could jump to second place right now in relative rankings in the US and it would still have an enormous gap between it and NYC on top. SF/The Bay Area simply isn't close in almost every metric.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-09-2013 at 08:38 PM..
Why is this still going on? We can talk about what ranking SF is in the nation or how nice it comes out per capita, but at the end of the day, it is still minuscule in clout and influence compared to NYC.
Not anymore.
The Bay Area directly touches hundreds of millions if not BILLIONS of people around the world everyday through technology, social media and the internet.
Bay Area companies account for trillions of dollars of investment. The only US region that supplants the Bay Area in this regard is NY, but its not by the margin it should be considering the tristate area has 3 times as many people as the bay.
And keep n mind Oy, Im not saying the Bay Area is more economically important than NY cause we're NOT.
But our economy is massive relative to our size, and so are the opportunities for those who come and work here, hence the Bay Area ranks 4th in the world as far as individuals worth $30 million or more, behind NY, London and Tokyo, and 3rd in the world as far as billionaires, behind NY.and Moscow.
I dont know where you got your stats from but according to the latest data from the US commerce department, which is the govt source for gdp data, among large metro areas, its San Jose then San Francisco then everyone else. That was as of last month.
And as far as combined metros, the Bay Area is way in front of second place Houston and third place DC.
As far as pound for pound, the Bay Area has the 3rd largest private industry economy behind NY and LA despite being 6th in population. That is punching well above its weight, since we're using boxing terms.
If the entire country were as productive as the Bay Area our national gdp would be close to $25 trillion dollars, about $10 trillion dollars bigger than it is now.
Please dont let the cuteness fool you, the Bay Area is an economic beast with vast global reach and influence.
If we use those stats, it's still 3rd. The Bridgeport metro area is not much smaller than the San Jose metro, and it's ahead of SF. Which brings me back to the point, in terms of GDP per capita, SF is still not number once.
Are you talking about the Bay area's CSA? Wow, you have to rely on the per capita GDP of a statistically made up area based on commute patterns, just to tout being number one in something? Thats just sad.
Okay? The bay area is still not the 3rd largest economic center in the nation. It's 8th.
Absurd statement. Cities are not independent, isolated areas, they rely on other cities and states to survive. What's SF biggest industry? Tourism. If SF wasn't where it is, it's economy would collapse. How can the midwest ever hope to compete and be as "productive" as SF is with tourism? It can't, but it can grow crops, and provide food for the nation as well as export to other countries. You think SF grows most of it's food? No, it doesn't. Some other place has to do it, and that other place can't be as "productive" as SF because of it.
I've never denied that SF was an economic powerhouse, it is. But it's nowhere near as being on the same level as NY, not even LA.
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.
