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.
Population Growth Rate, 2014-2015
San Francisco MSA +1.32%...+60,151
Toronto CMA +1.25%...+76,500
Washington MSA +1.06%...+63,793
Chicago MSA -0.06%...-6,263
Population Growth Rate, 2012-2015
Toronto CMA 4.44%...+261,200
San Francisco MSA +4.34%...+193,707
Washington MSA +3.83%...+225,007
Chicago MSA +0.32%...+30,265
You actually think premier, world class Cities/MSAs like SF and DC can't compete with Chicago or Toronto?
What a laugh.
Cities Proper by Number of Households Earning $200,000+, 2015
1 New York, NY 268,855
2 Los Angeles, CA 102,826
3 San Francisco, CA 72,792
4 Chicago, IL 70,842
5 Houston, TX 58,649
6 San Jose, CA 52,623
7 San Diego, CA 45,113
8 Washington, DC 41,343
9 Seattle, WA 40,370
10 Dallas, TX 34,440
These cities and CSA's have millions of people living in them and your metric is the 0.xx% or so who make over $200k.
Okay.
You are also the same person who throws out livability rankings and GAWC rankings.
But yes let's see which CSA has 0.xx% of their population earning over $200k. A great metric for ranking cities. Maybe you want to throw in how many people visit the Golden Gate Bridge as well.
They're reasonably comparable at MSA level. Chicago MSA has a larger economy than DC and SF MSAs, but not by much. DC could have a larger economy by MSA in the fairly recent future.
Let's be honest- you prefer MSA because, for Chicago, MSA and CSA makes no difference, but for SF and DC, it makes a huge difference. MSA allows you to compare Chicago at its max size to SF and DC at a truncated size.
In 2015, Chicago's MSA GDP is around 640 billion, DC's MSA GDP around 491 billion, SF's MSA GDP around 432 billion.
CSAs can become greatly distorted and undeniably inflate numbers. We all understand there are criteria that must be met, but that doesn't mean much. Isn't there talk of changing the methodology used to arrive at these numbers?
Is Baltimore really a bigger "city" than Chicago? Sure, it's in a region that is comparable in size, but it's not the same. The spheres of influence and localized cultures are different. Drive 60 miles north, south, or west of Chicago and people will tell you they are from Chicago. Drive 50 miles south of SF and people will tell you they are from SJ. Drive 20 miles south of Baltimore and people say they're from DC. Chicago's MSA will continue to be significantly larger than the combined MSAs of DC+Baltimore and SF+SJ. The UA will continue to be much larger. There's a reason this isn't news...because it doesn't mean anything. I know some don't like to hear that Milwaukee and Chicago are going to merge into one CSA, but the same will apply then. People living north of Racine (or even Kenosha) aren't going to say they're from Chicago or the Chicago-Milwaukee CSA. They're going to continue to say they're from Milwaukee.
The market value of companies HQ'd in the Bay Area is nearly 5 trillion, most in the world for any metro. New York doesn't even match that. Moreover, its share of U.S. VC has increased from about 35% 15 years ago, to over 50% today. Economically, its far more important to the rest of the country and the world than DC, Chicago, or Toronto. More interesting question is economic significance of LA/Orange vs Bay Area.
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.
