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.
Ant is jealous of Houston. You know he lives in Atlanta. He needs to just give credit where credit is due and move on with life.
Yes, I'm very jealous of Houston....lmao. Why would I be jealous of Houston? I'm envious of cities like SF, NYC, DC, LA, and Chicago...not Houston luls.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,133,216 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazG
As a METRO Houston has the 4th largest GDP. People can say what they want but at the end of the day no one can take that away from Houston.
The area surpassed D.C. In 2012 and has been widening the gap.
It is what is.
...and what it is is manipulation of data to affect some bizarre need to assert "bragging rights," rather than a scholarly or even an honest assessment of the economic activity of a place.
So, are you telling me that it's a point of pride for Houston that Mt. San Bruno cuts off the southern part of San Francisco's connection with the Peninsula--statistically splitting a region that functions even better as a single entity than Houston does and has a larger economy and population--into two? What if that designation changes? Wouldn't that be a case of someone "taking that away from Houston?"
It's not a contest. If you care about an honest understanding and comparison of data, you won't cherry pick factors that positively affect only your agenda.
...and what it is is manipulation of data to affect some bizarre need to assert "bragging rights," rather than a scholarly or even an honest assessment of the economic activity of a place.
So, are you telling me that it's a point of pride for Houston that Mt. San Bruno cuts off the southern part of San Francisco's connection with the Peninsula--statistically splitting a region that functions even better as a single entity than Houston does and has a larger economy and population--into two? What if that designation changes? Wouldn't that be a case of someone "taking that away from Houston?"
It's not a contest. If you care about an honest understanding and comparison of data, you won't cherry pick factors that positively affect only your agenda.
It is not some guy from Houston who has split the San Francisco/San Jose area into two Metros, I believe that was the US Census that did that. Lets just say that for the purposes of this discussion that San Francisco and San Jose should be counted as one economy and that would put that economy above the Houston metro in rank, but Houston would still be above some very well known "world class" cities in rank as a whole, and even in per capita share. In fact on a per capita basis Houston is well above Los Angeles , and Chicago, and only slightly behind New York City. I have no idea how the combining of SF and SJ GMP's would affect the overall per-capita GMP, since San Jose is not in the top 16 metros in the country in that category according to the source I have used.
It's unfortunate how boosters (and you know who they are) attract the people that don't care about Houston to come in and bash the place. If there is one city that needs the MDAllstar treatment on this forum altogether, it's Houston. Even Dallas doesn't face this much criticism on here. Mostly because Dallasites don't come on the city vs city forum.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,133,216 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lance
It is not some guy from Houston who has split the San Francisco/San Jose area into two Metros, I believe that was the US Census that did that. Lets just say that for the purposes of this discussion that San Francisco and San Jose should be counted as one economy and that would put that economy above the Houston metro in rank, but Houston would still be above some very well known "world class" cities in rank as a whole, and even in per capita share. In fact on a per capita basis Houston is well above Los Angeles , and Chicago, and only slightly behind New York City. I have no idea how the combining of SF and SJ GMP's would affect the overall per-capita GMP, since San Jose is not in the top 16 metros in the country in that category according to the source I have used.
I was simply responding to two posters who, for some reason, could not grasp what the figures they were throwing around were intended to measure--which is economic output for an area that functions as a single entity for the purpose of comparison. They were trying to make it some kind of contest and it was clouding their judgment attempting to find a way to "win".
Your assessment of per capita output is a perfectly valid means of finding a way to win, so well done there, I suppose. But again, it's not a contest. If we were to measure the economic output of The city of Houston versus the city of Mountain View on a per capita basis, Houston would "lose" dramatically. See--it doesn't make sense to try to bring political boundaries of a subset of a region into play for honest comparison.
No one is suggesting that Houston is not a huge powerhouse of an economy. I was not attempting to make it a contest. I was illustrating a point. The data is intended to give an idea of the size of an economy relative to other areas of the country.
SF bay area has a higher GDP than Houston does...Also Houston will likely never beat SF or DC as far as cultural impact is concerned simply due to the history of those two cities and the establishment that they already have.
It's unfortunate how boosters (and you know who they are) attract the people that don't care about Houston to come in and bash the place. If there is one city that needs the MDAllstar treatment on this forum altogether, it's Houston. Even Dallas doesn't face this much criticism on here. Mostly because Dallasites don't come on the city vs city forum.
Maybe that is a smart strategy, out of sight, out of mind !
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalparadise
I was simply responding to two posters who, for some reason, could not grasp what the figures they were throwing around were intended to measure--which is economic output for an area that functions as a single entity for the purpose of comparison. They were trying to make it some kind of contest and it was clouding their judgment attempting to find a way to "win".
Your assessment of per capita output is a perfectly valid means of finding a way to win, so well done there, I suppose. But again, it's not a contest. If we were to measure the economic output of The city of Houston versus the city of Mountain View on a per capita basis, Houston would "lose" dramatically. See--it doesn't make sense to try to bring political boundaries of a subset of a region into play for honest comparison.
No one is suggesting that Houston is not a huge powerhouse of an economy. I was not attempting to make it a contest. I was illustrating a point. The data is intended to give an idea of the size of an economy relative to other areas of the country.
Actually it is a competition, (city vs city), it should be a more rational and cordial competition but the American economy is very competitive and that can't help but to be reflected in any comparative discussions.
I understand that you can cherry pick data to bolster just about any absurd point. For instance I'm sure the average income of the city of Beverly Hills will make Houston or any other large city look puny in comparison. But Metropolitan areas are about economics and cities in general attract people according to their economic gravity, so comparing the economies of the various metros does seem to make sense to me. But I do understand that it can get tedious believe me, I think we all understand that.
Remember you are not the only poster who can or will defend your hometown so when it starts getting tedious to the point where you feel frustrated maybe its time to take a break from the forum or at least find a more recreational thread lol ,That's my "free" advise
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,133,216 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lance
Maybe that is a smart strategy, out of sight, out of mind !
Actually it is a competition, (city vs city), it should be a more rational and cordial competition but the American economy is very competitive and that can't help but to be reflected in any comparative discussions.
I understand that you can cherry pick data to bolster just about any absurd point. For instance I'm sure the average income of the city of Beverly Hills will make Houston or any other large city look puny in comparison. But Metropolitan areas are about economics and cities in general attract people according to their economic gravity, so comparing the economies of the various metros does seem to make sense to me. But I do understand that it can get tedious believe me, I think we all understand that.
Remember you are not the only poster who can or will defend your hometown so when it starts getting tedious to the point where you feel frustrated maybe its time to take a break from the forum or at least find a more recreational thread lol ,That's my "free" advise
Of course, you are right about "city vs. city". And I'm not worked up or frustrated in the slightest, so your "advise" is not necessary...at least, not yet. I was merely trying to illustrate how a quirk of geography can invalidate a perceived notion, for the benefit of people making claims that, while bing technically correct, are, in fact, erroneous. I don't have any interest in "winning" or in putting Houston down. I have no hidden agenda.
I will offer you this to further explain what I was talking about:
If someone were to come to this relocation forum looking for info about the size of two places' economies, for the purpose of choosing one or the other, what info would matter to them more, the info for comparative areas, or picking pieces of one area against another that gave one or the other an advantage? I'd prefer the unbiased data that presented a real assessment of each condition without technicalities of arbitrary boundaries coming into play.
...and what it is is manipulation of data to affect some bizarre need to assert "bragging rights," rather than a scholarly or even an honest assessment of the economic activity of a place.
So, are you telling me that it's a point of pride for Houston that Mt. San Bruno cuts off the southern part of San Francisco's connection with the Peninsula--statistically splitting a region that functions even better as a single entity than Houston does and has a larger economy and population--into two? What if that designation changes? Wouldn't that be a case of someone "taking that away from Houston?"
It's not a contest. If you care about an honest understanding and comparison of data, you won't cherry pick factors that positively affect only your agenda.
Manipulation? What does the census say? Please tell me. If it changes than so be it. I'm not going to be offended. I'm not going to be bitter. I'm not going to be mad. I'm not going to cry, scream, etc... if the census changes San Fran to one metro..
As a CSA the Bay area is much bigger (I get that), but as a MSA Houston is bigger (did you know?)
I'm not bragging and nobody said it was about pride or a contest. If this offends anyone on here I'm sorry you feel that way.
I'm out...
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.
