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.
Or maybe he just looked at the Indianapolis GDP and noticed some cities below it and thought, "hmm, why is Indianapolis higher than these cities? I would not have expected that."
I supposed I could do the same for a lot of cities. Not because I want to make one city look good on city data (lol), but because maybe I want to gain some intellectual insights.
Bingo, we have a winner. I don't even live in Indianapolis, so I have nothing to gain from being a homer or going to bat for the city, I was just surprised to see its GDP higher than several cities that are considerably larger than it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
Again, you never really answered what you mean by "following it". Do you mean those metros with a lower GDP? If so, are those actual peers, or did you just look at a descending order of GDP? From the list you gave, not all of them are actual population peers, and you left out peers with large GDPs, so it wasn't a complete list to begin with, and I think that was intentional. You also failed to address GDP growth or per-capita, which in the near-longer term, is every bit as important because the order can change pretty quickly. That $14-$20 billion can be covered in just a few years. So it's not what else do I have, but what else do you have? The entire purpose of this thread is either an incorrect assumption or based on a carefully manipulated list. Which is it?
Do you not know what follow means? It means the cities that come after it in a list. I guess the list I gave doesn't include population peers since every single one of the metros I listed is BIGGER than Indy. What else do you have?
It seems that you have a problem with Indianapolis being above those cities on the list. What's wrong with the reality of the fact he posted? He didn't make up the list. Also no one knows what may happen in the future with the cities (peer or no peer) but what actually counts is where Indianapolis ranks on the list right now compared to the other cities regardless. You can argue against that fact all day long but the list is what it is. The fact that Columbus ranks below Indianapolis right now in GDP shouldn't bother you. You can speculate all you want. However, opinions aren't facts.
Read the thread title. It's dishonest, whether intentionally or not. It's not a comparison of its peers, because it left out several. Why?
I gave the lists of where Indianapolis actually ranks within its peer population group *right now*, along with additional information on where it ranks with total growth and per-capita. All the homers ignored that. Now you guys are arguing that the point of the thread wasn't to suggest Indy was above all its peers and that the real problem is that I'm all bent out of shape because Columbus isn't on top. Right... whatever gets you through the day.
Do you not know what follow means? It means the cities that come after it in a list. I guess the list I gave doesn't include population peers since every single one of the metros I listed is BIGGER than Indy. What else do you have?
So then it's not actually a peer group that you used and instead simply listed them in order of their total GDP, disregarding anything above it. Thanks for finally admitting it.
Also, no, not all of the metros you listed are bigger than Indy.
So then it's not actually a peer group that you used and instead simply listed them in order of their total GDP, disregarding anything above it. Thanks for finally admitting it.
Also, no, not all of the metros you listed are bigger than Indy.
9 of the cities that follow Indianapolis, (that means come behind it) are larger than it in metro area population. That is the ONLY remark I was making. Several of those cities are considerably larger, a couple are almost the exact same size, but slightly larger.
There is not one metro area in the country that is SMALLER than Indianapolis in population while also having a larger GDP than it. Someone listed San Jose, but San Jose is several thousand people larger than Indianapolis by most recent estimates, probably more since it's growing so quickly.
Indy doesn't blow the competition out of the water. Cities ranked higher that we have established are peers or at least somewhat near peer level:
Portland
Kansas City
Orlando
Columbus
Milwaukee
Cincinnati
San Jose
Tampa
Charlotte
St. Louis
Raleigh
even San Juan, PR
In the same category as Indy:
Richmond
Pittsburgh
Austin
The only ones it beats:
Sacramento
Nashville
Las Vegas
So yeah, maybe GDP is higher. Nobody has answer as to why. But it's still much less significant of a city than you think.
Congratulations, maybe you want to start your own thread on Global Cities? I'm asking about GDP and GDP only. If you have nothing else to contribute then I kindly ask that you move along.
CI'm asking about GDP and GDP only. If you have nothing else to contribute then I kindly ask that you move along.
Except you aren't doing this. You're cherry-picking cities with the lowest GDP and then comparing to Indy.
If you were being honest you would compare Indy to all cities with the same rough population. But you won't do that, because then there is no point to this thread (because Indy isn't an outperformer).
Except you aren't doing this. You're cherry-picking cities with the lowest GDP and then comparing to Indy.
If you were being honest you would compare Indy to all cities with the same rough population. But you won't do that, because then there is no point to this thread (because Indy isn't an outperformer).
No, it simply outperforms exactly 9 cities with larger populations than it while not one single city has a higher GDP and lower population. Not sure how that's cherry picking since Indy is stacked up against LARGER cities.
Except you aren't doing this. You're cherry-picking cities with the lowest GDP and then comparing to Indy.
If you were being honest you would compare Indy to all cities with the same rough population. But you won't do that, because then there is no point to this thread (because Indy isn't an outperformer).
Instead of berating me and my thread for asking such a simple question, why don't you try to answer what makes the GDP of Indianapolis high for its population? What makes a city of just under 2 million outperform cities of well over 2 million?
Are there a lot of wealthy fortune 500 companies there?
Is it being the amateur sports capital of the country?
Is it the Indy 500?
Are their numbers skewed or fudged?
I don't understand why no one else wonders or questions what makes Indy's GDP significantly higher than a lot of cities that are larger than it. Getting upset and saying I'm "cherry picking" or not grouping it with all of its "peer" cities does nothing to answer my original question, which is the ONLY basis for this thread.
Umm...we've offered some theories and you say they're wrong haha
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.
