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.
We’re forgetting that Houston went through a slump from 2014-2016 and Houston is now only starting to see increases now that oil prices are going back up, right?
Honestly I never assumed population gain was the only way a city could grow economically, but many of the cities that had the lowest gdp growth were also cities that lost population. That's what I was alluding to with Dallas, and Houston I still can't believe a 6% growth rate for Houston, it was the darling of the recession. LA was much more impressive than even I assumed adding $223 billion in five years at 27% that's crazy considering the size.
I was just speaking in general. A lot of people assume these things because they're frankly a little bit naive about how cities actually work - and especially big cities how there's tons of moving parts and tons of different things happening all over at the same time.
In the case of GDP for NYC and Chicago, they're each pretty big economies (Chicago) or really big economies (NYC) so technically harder to increase a larger percentage. The fact that LA is outperforming both in this aspect speaks volumes for LA in my opinion.
However, in Chicago's case it's still doing well contrary to what the headlines tell you which are quite insane if you understand what's happening there in numerous aspects. If you read the headlines, you'd think nothing good was happening there and it's all going downhill. Very untrue - the truth is that it's very granular and the city is very different depending on where you are physically within it. The core of the city has a very high population growth in everything from population to household income to jobs. The amount of new high rises being built in the core never really let up from the last boom in the mid 2000s and there's actually more under construction now than there was back then. And a good thing is that this high rise expansion has now expanded outside of the main core into some areas around it (i.e. River West, West Loop, and parts of Lincoln Park that didn't have high rises before).
On the other hand, the areas ravaged by gang violence (like Englewood, Greater Grand Crossing, etc) have big population loss. The areas close to the core in every direction are also doing well - but the areas like Englewood as far as population growth goes basically nullifies out the population gain of the core area if you just look at it from 1 city total number instead of in regions. On the other hand, the people who are fueling the growth in the areas in and around the core are raising the economic reality of the city up in line with many other cities that show at a higher level more growth in terms of things like population. A lot of the people who have left the areas that have big loss were not exactly making much money or college educated, on average. A lot of those people actually moved south whether to Atlanta area, Dallas area, Houston area, etc.
I was just speaking in general. A lot of people assume these things because they're frankly a little bit naive about how cities actually work - and especially big cities how there's tons of moving parts and tons of different things happening all over at the same time.
In the case of GDP for NYC and Chicago, they're each pretty big economies (Chicago) or really big economies (NYC) so technically harder to increase a larger percentage. The fact that LA is outperforming both in this aspect speaks volumes for LA in my opinion.
However, in Chicago's case it's still doing well contrary to what the headlines tell you which are quite insane if you understand what's happening there in numerous aspects. If you read the headlines, you'd think nothing good was happening there and it's all going downhill. Very untrue - the truth is that it's very granular and the city is very different depending on where you are physically within it. The core of the city has a very high population growth in everything from population to household income to jobs. The amount of new high rises being built in the core never really let up from the last boom in the mid 2000s and there's actually more under construction now than there was back then. And a good thing is that this high rise expansion has now expanded outside of the main core into some areas around it (i.e. River West, West Loop, and parts of Lincoln Park that didn't have high rises before).
On the other hand, the areas ravaged by gang violence (like Englewood, Greater Grand Crossing, etc) have big population loss. The areas close to the core in every direction are also doing well - but the areas like Englewood as far as population growth goes basically nullifies out the population gain of the core area if you just look at it from 1 city total number instead of in regions. On the other hand, the people who are fueling the growth in the areas in and around the core are raising the economic reality of the city up in line with many other cities that show at a higher level more growth in terms of things like population. A lot of the people who have left the areas that have big loss were not exactly making much money or college educated, on average. A lot of those people actually moved south whether to Atlanta area, Dallas area, Houston area, etc.
I am betting that those that lived in areas like Englewood actually stayed around in the Midwest or even the Chicago area than to turn around and move to the South. You still need money to relocate and you aren't just going to move from one ghetto in a region to another. These Southern areas aren't taking in all the economically challenged and are in fact taking in college educated people. Especially college educated Blacks who not only went to school in the South, but stayed there after graduating.
I am betting that those that lived in areas like Englewood actually stayed around in the Midwest or even the Chicago area than to turn around and move to the South. You still need money to relocate and you aren't just going to move from one ghetto in a region to another. These Southern areas aren't taking in all the economically challenged and are in fact taking in college educated people. Especially college educated Blacks who not only went to school in the South, but stayed there after graduating.
There are definitely some who stayed - the suburbs of Chicago have had an increase of Black population while the city decreased a lot. At the same time, many moved south too. If you study enough, you'll see that the black middle class left the city a lot between 2000 and 2004 - some just moved to other suburbs while others completely left the midwest. I guess it's not accurate to say that the ones who moved south were exactly not doing well - they were making good solid middle class money. However, when comparing - we are talking about say a family making $45K per year in Chatham moving away somewhere and then a family from elsewhere moving downtown who makes $250,000 per year. It's a big difference when you compare who has left versus who has come in. There is a reason why Chicago in both the city and MSA still outgained both Dallas and Houston in 6+ figure earning household increase even though the population growth of Dallas and Houston far, far, far outweighs Chicago overall. I have a co-worker who grew up in Chatham - her mother moved to Atlanta around the recession, and told me about how tons of people she grew up with had families who moved to areas like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc. These are, however as you indicate, people who had enough money to do a move - but far from who I'm talking about when I say "replaced by people making a lot more money." Not all highly educated but were still making good middle class money. What I said has a little more nuance to it and you're correct.
What are some things you guys are looking forward to seeing? For me, there are many things, but two of the closer trends I'm looking for is a)how much the economic gap has shrunken between Richmond and Hampton Roads in Virginia. Keep in mind, the HR metro is 33% larger; and 2)the neck-and-neck in economic growth between Richmond and Raleigh...
FYI: After this year, BEA.gov is discontinuing it's annual Metro Area GDP release.
Starting in 2019, they will release 'Local Area GDP' like they do for 'Local Area Personal Income'.
This means that they will release GDP data for the following geographic areas:
1. County
2 Metro Division
3. Metropolitan Statistical Area
4. Economic Area
5. Combined Statistical Area
So here's the last time I'll ever have to compile this myself...
Wow, the Bay area is an absolute beast destroyed DC, and Chicago with less people California style. Boston as well. One would figure lower cost of living would do something, but that's simply not the case. My guess is the gap is widening, maybe Amazon can bring one of them within $100 billion.
Last edited by sean1the1; 10-30-2018 at 05:35 PM..
Wow, the Bay area is an absolute beast destroyed DC, and Chicago with less people California style. Boston as well. One would figure lower cost of living would do something, but that's simply not the case. My guess is the gap is widening, maybe Amazon can bring one of them within $100 billion.
What is less people California style and a need to boast destroying? Sounds like a Disaster movie... but wouldn't be by earthquake for DC or Chicago in a movie .... No one doubts the Might of Silicon Valley in this kill apparently to you.
What is less people California style and a need to boast destroying? Sounds like a Disaster movie... but wouldn't be by earthquake for DC or Chicago in a movie .... No one doubts the Might of Silicon Valley in this kill apparently to you.
It's nonetheless insane considering they both have more people, and DC on the taxpayers nipple has historically been the wealthiest metro per capita in the us, but still is about $150 billion off. I wasn't aware of this, and I think it's fascinating. I would like to see the numbers 20 years ago that would be more interesting.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean1the1
It's nonetheless insane considering they both have more people, and DC on the taxpayers nipple has historically been the wealthiest metro per capita in the us, but still is about $150 billion off. I wasn't aware of this, and I think it's fascinating. I would like to see the numbers 20 years ago that would be more interesting.
The gap is about $150 billion due to the SF Bay Area adding 900k more people 85+90 miles away in 2018. If either DC or Baltimore added that distance away such as York, PA or as far down as Caroline County or heck Richmond, VA there wouldn't be a $150 billion difference, in fact it would be higher, Simple as that.
The "DC economy is at $529 billion", the "SF economy is at $500 billion".
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.
