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.
Tampa-retirees
Orlando-Disney and retirees
Las Vegas-retirees and partiers
Cincinnati-rust belt
Sacramento-a lot of its metro commutes to the Bay Area
Cleveland-rust belt
Austin-newer city on the rise
Nashville-newer city on the rise
Riverside-giant suburb of LA with no real industry
Pittsburgh-rust belt
Indianapolis isn't "rust belt" in the way the other cities are. It's population isn't bolstered by a huge population of retirees who barely contribute to the economy. It's not a newer destination like Austin and Nashville. There's not a giant MSA and job center just an hour away like Sacramento.
Wrong, there is not one city smaller than Indianapolis that has a bigger GDP. We've already established this and you tried to use San Jose, the most recent estimates have San Jose leading Indy in population by several thousand. Anything else?
No, there are several such metros, and we've been through those. San Jose is one of many. Indy isn't an outlier in terms of income, as much as you try to cherry-pick. It's only #47 in terms of median household income by MSA.
No, there are several such metros, and we've been through those. San Jose is one of many. Indy isn't an outlier in terms of income, as much as you try to cherry-pick. It's only #47 in terms of median household income by MSA.
Anything else?
Name a metropolitan area in San Jose's peer group that has a similar GDP.
Tampa-retirees
Orlando-Disney and retirees
Las Vegas-retirees and partiers
Cincinnati-rust belt
Sacramento-a lot of its metro commutes to the Bay Area
Cleveland-rust belt
Austin-newer city on the rise
Nashville-newer city on the rise
Riverside-giant suburb of LA with no real industry
Pittsburgh-rust belt
Indianapolis isn't "rust belt" in the way the other cities are. It's population isn't bolstered by a huge population of retirees who barely contribute to the economy. It's not a newer destination like Austin and Nashville. There's not a giant MSA and job center just an hour away like Sacramento.
Indy is very much rust belt. Indy was at the same pace of Detroit in the 70's until it began diversifying its economy. Those manufacturing bones still very present and still a large part of its economy.
You do realize Louisville, dayton and cincy are all a little over an hour away. Chicago and Indy compete for direct talent beginning at Purdue which is an hour away from indy. The whole tampa retirement thing is just well bull. Now if you tried to include Sarasota, maybe but very large workforce down here, larger than Indy's.
Nashville and Austin are both older than indy. Nothing new about them.
Nashville and Austin are both older than indy. Nothing new about them.
That is true -- but Indy hit its growth spurt quite a bit earlier than those two. The last time Nashville was larger than Indianapolis was the 1850 Census. Perhaps "newer" in the urban sense would be more accurate.
Tampa-retirees
Orlando-Disney and retirees
Las Vegas-retirees and partiers
Cincinnati-rust belt
Sacramento-a lot of its metro commutes to the Bay Area
Cleveland-rust belt
Austin-newer city on the rise Nashville-newer city on the rise
Riverside-giant suburb of LA with no real industry
Pittsburgh-rust belt
Indianapolis isn't "rust belt" in the way the other cities are. It's population isn't bolstered by a huge population of retirees who barely contribute to the economy. It's not a newer destination like Austin and Nashville. There's not a giant MSA and job center just an hour away like Sacramento.
I don't know what you mean about newer city? Nashville is older than Indianapolis by decades. Nashville was settled in 1779, the earliest settles in Indianapolis were around 1820, some 40 years later. I think that Indy saw a bigger boom before Nashville, and I will admit that in the 2000's and 2010's especially Nashville has done a LOT of expanding, where Indy's boom started in the late 80's and early 90's, if that's what you're getting at?
Tampa's MSA is over 1 million people more than Indianapolis. You cannot convince me or even produce facts that show 1 million of Tampa's 2.9 million are all retired senior citizens making meager boosts to the GDP of the MSA, it's not possible. That may be ONE shortcoming of Tampa, but it is not the city's only shortcoming in having a significantly smaller GDP.
If I'm going to take a stab at answering my own question I think it's a list of things, and I do agree with some of your points.
- Convention capital
- Tax breaks and incentives
- Centrally located
- Sports presence (amateur and professional sports play a huge role)
- Economic diversification
I do have to disagree with Indianapolis not being a rust belt city. It wasn't as industrial focused as say Pittsburgh or Cleveland, but outside of Detroit back in the 50's and 60's Indianapolis was a major city for automobile manufacturing, this contributed to a slight downfall the city suffered in the later 60's and most of the 70's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
No, there are several such metros, and we've been through those. San Jose is one of many. Indy isn't an outlier in terms of income, as much as you try to cherry-pick. It's only #47 in terms of median household income by MSA.
Anything else?
You're missing my point, and I will reiterate it for you again. There is no MSA in the country that is smaller than Indianapolis MSA with a larger GDP. We've been over this, San Jose is slightly larger, although it is the closest in population. Since you seem to think there is one, please list it.
I don't care about median household income by MSA, that's not what this thread is about.
This thread is an example of an OP asking a loaded, false question and the inevitable, hilarious chaos that ensues. No one outside of Indy buys the premise.
Serious question: Why can't Indy's economy be good, or even better than many of its peers, without desperately needing to be placed at the top, especially when it really isn't? Isn't being better than many good enough? This all seems like an exercise in futility.
This thread is an example of an OP asking a loaded, false question and the inevitable, hilarious chaos that ensues. No one outside of Indy buys the premise.
Serious question: Why can't Indy's economy be good, or even better than many of its peers, without desperately needing to be placed at the top, especially when it really isn't? Isn't being better than many good enough? This all seems like an exercise in futility.
Actually several posters outside of Indy agree. It's you and maybe 2 or 3 other posters that have come up with a bunch of bogus reasons to disagree that have kept this thread going for over 20 pages now.
I'm just curious to know what makes a mid size metro in the mostly regressive state of Indiana have a higher GDP than several larger cities, and it's considerably larger than some. I like how a few Tennessee posters are desperate to claim Nashville is a peer city of Indy, which in population it is, however I intentionally didn't include Nashville because its GDP is nowhere close, it's a meager $100 billion in 2013.
Tampa-retirees
Orlando-Disney and retirees
Las Vegas-retirees and partiers
Cincinnati-rust belt
Sacramento-a lot of its metro commutes to the Bay Area
Cleveland-rust belt
Austin-newer city on the rise
Nashville-newer city on the rise
Riverside-giant suburb of LA with no real industry
Pittsburgh-rust belt
Indianapolis isn't "rust belt" in the way the other cities are. It's population isn't bolstered by a huge population of retirees who barely contribute to the economy. It's not a newer destination like Austin and Nashville. There's not a giant MSA and job center just an hour away like Sacramento.
Actually several posters outside of Indy agree. It's you and maybe 2 or 3 other posters that have come up with a bunch of bogus reasons to disagree that have kept this thread going for over 20 pages now.
I'm just curious to know what makes a mid size metro in the mostly regressive state of Indiana have a higher GDP than several larger cities, and it's considerably larger than some. I like how a few Tennessee posters are desperate to claim Nashville is a peer city of Indy, which in population it is, however I intentionally didn't include Nashville because its GDP is nowhere close, it's a meager $100 billion in 2013.
I didn't claim that Nashville was a peer city. I pointed out that your stats were erroneous. You were the one that got defensive and tried to belittle my city. Rather than own up to your mistake, you claimed that I should have updated my city's wikipedia page.
Nashville is not on the same level as Indy. We can agree on that.
But I wonder if you will be so smug a decade from now.
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.
