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.
This is like saying that Seattle is on par with Toronto, Rome, or Bercelona because of population alone. Which we all know it isn't. LA is rather pathetic for its size, do tell why a place only 4 million smaller than NYC is HALF the GDP? Or how is it that a metro half the size of LA (Chicago) is only $240 billion smaller in GDP?
Scenery and weather are great but I think of those as resort features. I would pick an urban city, a city that looks like a city over 75 degrees and mountains anyday and so would most people including Angelenos since majority of them live in the flat as a pancake LA basin and hot as burning hell SF valley, the I.E. LA has much I admire of it but between NYC and Chicago, it's definitely in Chicagos league. I do happen to think LA is slightly more important but it doesn't run away with it in the sense your making it out to be.
It isn't, your numbers are off.
Per 2011's 2009 gdp/pop revision.
LA is 792 billion @ 12.762m pop given a rate of 62.05k per capita
Chicago is 574 billion @ 9.204 ...given a rate of 62.36k per capita
Remarkably similar...
The rest of LA's pop/gdp were not taken into account, LA and Chicago have a pretty similar blue collar/white collar demographics, both large manufacturing hubs, etc. But again, LA is significantly larger... so when two metros are similar, the only way to gauge beyond that is by size.
NYC of course does have a stronger economy which comes out to about a 75k rate per capita, I believe SF/SJ metro and DC are right behind it in terms of per capita wealth. But, LA and Chicago are quite similar. In theory, if LA were NYC size on GDP it would have a 1212billion GDP. Chicago, given it has the same rate... quite the same. In actuality, if given extension and assuming a similar rate of wealth, it would be around the 1100b GDP mark, and probably is when you consider the CSA size. Of course, it is behind NYC... that's a given, but so is Chicago...
So if LA is pathetic, Chicago must by extension, also be pathetic, considering both metros have an eerily similar earnings per capita.
Of course, I already knew this in my head... but there are the numbers which backs up my original arguments in terms of LA being above Chicago, and yes, mostly B/C of size as they are similar in other metrics, size then becomes an evaluator b/c both cities are in the same economic system gauged on the dollar.
Other countries are also based on PPP when doing comparisons.
If we want to see truly poor countries, which are obviously poor we can just do a quick comparison.
For example, Rio, BR has a ppp gdp of 201b with a 12.1million population, given the per capita earnings rate at just 16k dollars a year for the average person there. It would look even in more despair once we look at the wider earnings gap there.
LA is 792 billion @ 12.762m pop given a rate of 62.05k per capita
Chicago is 574 billion @ 9.204 ...given a rate of 62.36k per capita
Remarkably similar...
The rest of LA's pop/gdp were not taken into account, LA and Chicago have a pretty similar blue collar/white collar demographics, both large manufacturing hubs, etc. But again, LA is significantly larger... so when two metros are similar, the only way to gauge beyond that is by size.
NYC of course does have a stronger economy which comes out to about a 75k rate per capita, I believe SF/SJ metro and DC are right behind it in terms of per capita wealth. But, LA and Chicago are quite similar. In theory, if LA were NYC size on GDP it would have a 1212billion GDP. Chicago, given it has the same rate... quite the same. In actuality, if given extension and assuming a similar rate of wealth, it would be around the 1100b GDP mark, and probably is when you consider the CSA size. Of course, it is behind NYC... that's a given, but so is Chicago...
So if LA is pathetic, Chicago must by extension, also be pathetic, considering both metros have an eerily similar earnings per capita.
Of course, I already knew this in my head... but there are the numbers which backs up my original arguments in terms of LA being above Chicago, and yes, mostly B/C of size as they are similar in other metrics, size then becomes an evaluator b/c both cities are in the same economic system gauged on the dollar.
Other countries are also based on PPP when doing comparisons.
Anywho.
Ok so I was wrong on the actual GDP numbers and per capitas. MSA to MSA they are mirror images of each other in productivity and then we look at the per capitas of their CSAs and Chicago pulls ahead because the I.E. is as counter productive as it is hellishly undesirable. Do you agree or disagree? Check the per capitas on their CSAs and it's true, Chicago is ahead of LA.
In this country 2-5 are practically in the same tier, behind NYC and ahead of Boston.
Ok so I was wrong on the actual GDP numbers and per capitas. MSA to MSA they are mirror images of each other in productivity and then we look at the per capitas of their CSAs and Chicago pulls ahead because the I.E. is as counter productive as it is hellishly undesirable. Do you agree or disagree? Check the per capitas on their CSAs and it's true, Chicago is ahead of LA.
In this country 2-5 are practically in the same tier, behind NYC.
I agree on those accounts. No worries. I wasn't trying to say that LA blows away Chicago by any means, but I think it definitely has moved passed Chicago for a few decades as the #2 U.S. Metro by enough of a gap to call it, in the 80s... you probably couldn't call it. That being said, FYI, I much prefer Chicago.
When I have to ask what is the 2nd most important or significant metro in the U.S., it isn't something I really have to debate. It's L.A.
I agree on those accounts. No worries. I wasn't trying to say that LA blows away Chicago by any means, but I think it definitely has moved passed Chicago for a few decades as the #2 U.S. Metro by enough of a gap to call it, in the 80s... you probably couldn't call it. That being said, FYI, I much prefer Chicago.
I agree that it's 2nd after NYC but to me I feel that it's much closer to Chicago than to NYC by a long shot. I don't understand where some forumers like 18montclair get off thinking it ties NYC.
I agree that it's 2nd after NYC but to me I feel that it's much closer to Chicago than to NYC by a long shot. I don't understand where some forumers like 18montclair get off thinking it ties NYC.
No it definitely isn't parity to NYC. Somewhere in the middle of NYC and Chicago... but yeah, probably closer to Chicago's power/influence than it is to the power that NYC exerts through media/finance/geopolitics/economics. In those regards, LA can only compete in *some* facets of media, mostly entertainment, specifically movies/television/music, but it will get clobbered in others such as book and magazine publishing/global media-journalism, news outlets etc...
I agree on those accounts. No worries. I wasn't trying to say that LA blows away Chicago by any means, but I think it definitely has moved passed Chicago for a few decades as the #2 U.S. Metro by enough of a gap to call it, in the 80s... you probably couldn't call it. That being said, FYI, I much prefer Chicago. When I have to ask what is the 2nd most important or significant metro in the U.S., it isn't something I really have to debate. It's L.A.
In terms of importance I think of them as more or less equal with a slight edge to LA due to size. But Chicago is a much more significant financial center (which is huge) and transportation hub (also huge) and more impressive from the urban standpoint. LA has its own strengths of course. So it's close. I would still put LA as #2 but I think of them as being in the same tier.
I don't want to hijack this thread into LA vs. Chicago, but I think a lot of people will disagree with your statement. I actually think it's the other way around. Chicago and LA are fairly close to each other on various metrics -- Chicago is ahead on some and LA ahead on others -- while Toronto is behind both. And if you look at most of the global surveys they back it up. Foreign Policy ranks LA 6, Chicago 7 (swapping places from prior edition) and Toronto 16. That sounds about right to me.
I definitely disagree with that statement. Chicago is firmly in the No. 2 spot after NYC. Great theater. Great art. Great restaurants. Great vibrant and walkable neighborhoods. Great architecture. And it's an important global business center.
I definitely disagree with that statement. Chicago is firmly in the No. 2 spot after NYC. Great theater. Great art. Great restaurants. Great vibrant and walkable neighborhoods. Great architecture. And it's an important global business center.
And that's the thing... Oy's statement was "Chicago isn't on par with LA". To me that sort of implies that LA dominates Chicago almost across the board. But that's not the case. In some things LA is ahead, in others Chicago is ahead and in some they are peers.
And visual impression is important as well. I wonder if anyone who has ever spent a few days in LA and Chicago came away with the feeling that Chicago is not on par with LA. I doubt it.
I definitely disagree with that statement. Chicago is firmly in the No. 2 spot after NYC. Great theater. Great art. Great restaurants. Great vibrant and walkable neighborhoods. Great architecture. And it's an important global business center.
Actually LA has a better theater scene (more theaters, more actors, more award winning productions, more writers) AND art scene (many more artists, including more galleries and museums, not that close actually). Chicago has some nice feature theaters in it's downtown, and the Art Institute and MCA are nice... but, yeah... no.
Chicago banned street vendors and food carts years ago for sanitation reasons. It's kind of a double edged sword because it definitely takes away some of the urban character of cities that have them (like NYC). However, any visitor of Chicago has UNANIMOUSLY been shocked how pristine the city is, and many supporters of the ban claim this is the reason (cuts down on littering, less attraction for rats, etc...). That doesn't mean that you won't have illegal ones in the neighborhoods, but you won't find them downtown...
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.
