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.
People with average IQs know GDP is just one factor. You should spend some time reading these studies below. I will help you to broaden your knowledge.
Do you know how many Fortune 500 companies have left L.A in the last 5 years? As I already said before, L.A economy, despite of its size, is still being controlled by the powerful corporations headquartered in Chicago, New York, Paris, London, The Bay Area ,etc.
Don't just look at GDP as the only indicator. Japan, England, Germany all have smaller GDP than China. Do those countries lose any sleep?
Yes. L.A is more popular on the world stage. But Chicago is simply more powerful and important than L.A on many levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darien_Rod
You can slice data however you like or toss in subjective lists, but I prefer to keep it "raw":
Metropolitan GDP (2010)
Los Angeles / Santa Ana /Riverside Metro: $866B Chicago metro: $546B
Chicago is one of the world's great cities. The LA metro is, by a net survey of economic output, third only to New York and Tokyo in the world (and 59% greater than Chicago). Both are world class cities, but your assertion that somehow Chicago is more "powerful and important" simply has not been true since the 1960s. People in Los Angeles don't obsess about being less "powerful" than New York - it is simply the order of things, and so it should be with Chicago and LA.
You are in a pack of truly great cities - who cares at the end of the day?
In what way is Tokyo "behind" these cities? Especially London?
And please don't bring up that GaWC study that everyone references, and which has nothing to do with anything besides business connectivity.
Well, London and New York are the top two centers of financial power on Earth. Tokyo is number three, IMO. They're all roughly on the same level except in terms of size where Tokyo blows them both away.
I read it and my post wasn't directed at you but at the sour butt hurt poster who can't except that L.A is more known on a global scale. So butt hurt that he's pulling up stats that aren't relavent to the subject of the OP.
People with average IQs know GDP is just one factor. You should spend some time reading these studies below. I will help you to broaden your knowledge.
Do you know how many Fortune 500 companies have left L.A in the last 5 years? As I already said before, L.A economy, despite of its size, is still being controlled by the powerful corporations headquartered in Chicago, New York, Paris, London, The Bay Area ,etc.
Don't just look at GDP as the only indicator. Japan, England, Germany all have smaller GDP than China. Do those countries lose any sleep?
Yes. L.A is more popular on the world stage. But Chicago is simply more powerful and important than L.A on many levels.
Thanks for the insight, Downtown. Great to see my old firm (McKinsey) on your list of weblinks and referencing a report I have read several times, both personally and professionally. Quite a bit of "IQ" went into that, I can assure you. You should try and contribute to one of these sometimes - you can actually earn high six-figure incomes by researching and presenting this kind of stuff to companies who pay for it (there is the whole Ivy League hurdle). But I digress........
It looks like you sent me a relatively broad and typically mosaic economist competitiveness insert that uses a bunch of qualitative metrics (like "institutional character"), then followed it with some pallid crap from Richard Florida (he of the creative class that all hipsters aspire to be part). Terrific. I'm not sure that bridges the gap of having 37% less economic output (and one less of the world's great ports).
Fortune 500 companies? When you are passed by Houston in raw count, will that make Houston a "more powerful city" than Chicago? I really do not think that dividing corporate revenue by the number of corporations that happen to do back-office work in a particular city limits is the definitive proxy for "power". I'm also not really sold that multi-national corporations consubstatiate "power" with cities because they happen to have board meetings there - but I am sure we have different perspectives borne of different experiences working for different types of companies and different board rooms.
Los Angeles has a terrible business climate. It has a dysfunctional government on both the municipal and the state level. It is also much larger and generates much more economic output than Chicago. We'll leave "importance" out of this - if you can perhaps better define "power" into your own original thought or something other than a few ace-in-the-hole opinion weblinks you like send to your online foes, I'd love to see it. Until then, I'm afraid we have raw stats, and they seem to favor Los Angeles.
Thanks for the insight, Downtown. Great to see my old firm (McKinsey) on your list of weblinks and referencing a report I have read several times, both personally and professionally. Quite a bit of "IQ" went into that, I can assure you. You should try and contribute to one of these sometimes - you can actually earn high six-figure incomes by researching and presenting this kind of stuff to companies who pay for it (there is the whole Ivy League hurdle). But I digress........
It looks like you sent me a relatively broad and typically mosaic economist competitiveness insert that uses a bunch of qualitative metrics (like "institutional character"), then followed it with some pallid crap from Richard Florida (he of the creative class that all hipsters aspire to be part). Terrific. I'm not sure that bridges the gap of having 37% less economic output (and one less of the world's great ports).
Fortune 500 companies? When you are passed by Houston in raw count, will that make Houston a "more powerful city" than Chicago? I really do not think that dividing corporate revenue by the number of corporations that happen to do back-office work in a particular city limits is the definitive proxy for "power". I'm also not really sold that multi-national corporations consubstatiate "power" with cities because they happen to have board meetings there - but I am sure we have different perspectives borne of different experiences working for different types of companies and different board rooms.
Los Angeles has a terrible business climate. It has a dysfunctional government on both the municipal and the state level. It is also much larger and generates much more economic output than Chicago. We'll leave "importance" out of this - if you can perhaps better define "power" into your own original thought or something other than a few ace-in-the-hole opinion weblinks you like send to your online foes, I'd love to see it. Until then, I'm afraid we have raw stats, and they seem to favor Los Angeles.
You don't really expect him to process all that, do you?
Thanks for the insight, Downtown. Great to see my old firm (McKinsey) on your list of weblinks and referencing a report I have read several times, both personally and professionally. Quite a bit of "IQ" went into that, I can assure you. You should try and contribute to one of these sometimes - you can actually earn high six-figure incomes by researching and presenting this kind of stuff to companies who pay for it (there is the whole Ivy League hurdle). But I digress........
It looks like you sent me a relatively broad and typically mosaic economist competitiveness insert that uses a bunch of qualitative metrics (like "institutional character"), then followed it with some pallid crap from Richard Florida (he of the creative class that all hipsters aspire to be part). Terrific. I'm not sure that bridges the gap of having 37% less economic output (and one less of the world's great ports).
Fortune 500 companies? When you are passed by Houston in raw count, will that make Houston a "more powerful city" than Chicago? I really do not think that dividing corporate revenue by the number of corporations that happen to do back-office work in a particular city limits is the definitive proxy for "power". I'm also not really sold that multi-national corporations consubstatiate "power" with cities because they happen to have board meetings there - but I am sure we have different perspectives borne of different experiences working for different types of companies and different board rooms.
Los Angeles has a terrible business climate. It has a dysfunctional government on both the municipal and the state level. It is also much larger and generates much more economic output than Chicago. We'll leave "importance" out of this - if you can perhaps better define "power" into your own original thought or something other than a few ace-in-the-hole opinion weblinks you like send to your online foes, I'd love to see it. Until then, I'm afraid we have raw stats, and they seem to favor Los Angeles.
Hopefully Garcetti can be more business friendly than his predecessors and take steps to re-vamp the municipal government to increase the desirability of Los Angeles as a place to do business. He seems willing but it will be interesting to see if he is able to do it.
Thanks for the insight, Downtown. Great to see my old firm (McKinsey) on your list of weblinks and referencing a report I have read several times, both personally and professionally. Quite a bit of "IQ" went into that, I can assure you. You should try and contribute to one of these sometimes - you can actually earn high six-figure incomes by researching and presenting this kind of stuff to companies who pay for it (there is the whole Ivy League hurdle). But I digress........
It looks like you sent me a relatively broad and typically mosaic economist competitiveness insert that uses a bunch of qualitative metrics (like "institutional character"), then followed it with some pallid crap from Richard Florida (he of the creative class that all hipsters aspire to be part). Terrific. I'm not sure that bridges the gap of having 37% less economic output (and one less of the world's great ports).
Fortune 500 companies? When you are passed by Houston in raw count, will that make Houston a "more powerful city" than Chicago? I really do not think that dividing corporate revenue by the number of corporations that happen to do back-office work in a particular city limits is the definitive proxy for "power". I'm also not really sold that multi-national corporations consubstatiate "power" with cities because they happen to have board meetings there - but I am sure we have different perspectives borne of different experiences working for different types of companies and different board rooms.
Los Angeles has a terrible business climate. It has a dysfunctional government on both the municipal and the state level. It is also much larger and generates much more economic output than Chicago. We'll leave "importance" out of this - if you can perhaps better define "power" into your own original thought or something other than a few ace-in-the-hole opinion weblinks you like send to your online foes, I'd love to see it. Until then, I'm afraid we have raw stats, and they seem to favor Los Angeles.
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.
