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.
Neither Milwaukee nor Nashville metros are larger. They're smaller. They're population peers, but I'm not sure why you keep making claims that aren't true.
You are pretty thick headed. I'm comparing cities that are all larger than Indianapolis and asking why it's leading cities that are considerably larger than it! When it comes to GDP cities are usually in a somewhat similar order with respect to their population. Indianapolis is outperforming 9 cities that are larger. You would expect a city with a larger population to have a higher GDP, and Charlotte and Portland are both considerably larger than it, so it's really no surprise when a bigger city has a bigger GDP. What is surprising is when a smaller city has a higher GDP than bigger cities. That is the ONLY PREMISE OF THIS THREAD.
You are pretty thick headed. I'm comparing cities that are all larger than Indianapolis and asking why it's leading cities that are considerably larger than it! When it comes to GDP cities are usually in a somewhat similar order with respect to their population. Indianapolis is outperforming 9 cities that are larger. You would expect a city with a larger population to have a higher GDP, and Charlotte and Portland are both considerably larger than it, so it's really no surprise when a bigger city has a bigger GDP. What is surprising is when a smaller city has a higher GDP than bigger cities. That is the ONLY PREMISE OF THIS THREAD.
?? If you're comparing metros that are larger, not all of them are from your original list. If you're comparing cities, very few of them are larger. Which level are you actually comparing at? GDP is measured only at the metro level.
Indianapolis is the fastest growing midwestern region. They have avoided some of the problems Chicago, St Louis Cleveland and Detroit have had.
Actually, it isn't. Whether you are basing growth rates on all Midwestern cities or just the largest, it's still not the fastest growing, either by metro or within city limits. But you are right that it's not really a traditional Rust Belt city.
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.
Nashville and Milwaukee are both smaller than Indy by several hundred thousand people. Google shows Indy at just over 2 million and Nashville and Milwaukee both between 1.5-1.6 million.
So why would Indy's GDP be higher than them? I'll go out on a limb and guess 400,000+ more people.
Actually, it isn't. Whether you are basing growth rates on all Midwestern cities or just the largest, it's still not the fastest growing, either by metro or within city limits. But you are right that it's not really a traditional Rust Belt city.
Last decade Indy msa did grow faster than all of the other Midwest major metros and it was traditional rust belt. As far as growth, we will find out in 2020 after the next census.
It began transforming itself in the 70's. One of the largest differences between Indy and Detroit. One diversified its economy, the other didn't. Plenty of remnants on the east and west sides of the city. Come on man. You are grasping at straws at this point.
Nashville and Milwaukee are both smaller than Indy by several hundred thousand people. Google shows Indy at just over 2 million and Nashville and Milwaukee both between 1.5-1.6 million.
So why would Indy's GDP be higher than them? I'll go out on a limb and guess 400,000+ more people.
That's the whole point of the thread. Larger cities are supposed to have larger gdp's. Similar size metros should be in the same range, usually 1 or 2 swing in either direction. Once you are in the 5+ b range for similar size metros, something is amiss. Certain folks love some of these other cities and it gets under their skin when Indy out performs their love for whatever reason.
Million dollar question if someone can answer is the Bea basing off of projected population or census population? Generally govt bases off of census as it's the official count until the next census. It makes a difference because cities like cbus and Indy GDP would be bases off of smaller populations. 1.83 for Indy and what 1.86 for cbus or substitute said area of choice.
Nashville and Milwaukee are both smaller than Indy by several hundred thousand people. Google shows Indy at just over 2 million and Nashville and Milwaukee both between 1.5-1.6 million.
So why would Indy's GDP be higher than them? I'll go out on a limb and guess 400,000+ more people.
Talk to JBCHM, he is insistent that Milwaukee and Nashville are Indy's peer cities. I've since restructured my list so that I'm only comparing Indianapolis to larger cities that it still outperforms. I realize Nashville and Milwaukee are considerably smaller so I am not surprised their GDP is a lot less.
Just give it up man. You lost the debate. Trying to drag your feet over it is pointless.
Sure I did.
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.
Sure I did.
