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.
Oh man, the city where I live (which shall remain unnamed) has had huge growth over the past five years. Everybody's got to move here. It's the hottest thing since sliced bread. Hype and a bogus image of the perfect life bring 'em in.
It's still a small town in "bigger town pants", and has never been good except for a few industries (retail, real estate, construction) And yet people continue to come, real estate continues to rise, and people battle over jobs or drive insane distances to larger towns. I've long since seen through the facade, and can't wait to leave.
Yes, growth and economics do not necessarily work together in logical or understandable ways.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 01-11-2019 at 11:48 AM..
Tampa Bay and San Antonio come to mind. Both are growing very fast but have pretty inefficient economies. Jobs growth is good but advanced industry growth is weak, maybe Las Vegas?
Theres so much that goes into determining whether an economy is "weak" or not, that it can tough to determine economic health. I think just having positive growth rates is one sign of economic health. Lack of professional employment relative to size could be a measure of a weak economy overall.
Elkhart, Indiana is an economy that is ruled by RV manufacturers. It is seeing positive growth and income rates right now. I wouldn't say it's economy is good overall. There is no fallback industry. I think if many coastal Florida economies saw a decrease in tourism, they would see a huge hit on their overall economic health. Probably a sign of a weak economy.
Florida's economy is wonderful compared to Oregon's, though.
No it’s not. Florida has five times the population of Oregon so of course it’s going to be a larger economy. But per capita GDP for Oregon in current dollars is about $58,000 while for Florida it’s $47,000. Not an insiginificant difference.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,547,418 times
Reputation: 6682
True, but the higher the sample size the more difficult it is to sustain a higher average (or per capita). Look at the number of MLB players batting .350 in April v August. Personally, I’ve never settled for average...if you are financially above average, where would you rather live (though I happen to like Portland very much I could never see living there based on my preference for warmer climates, among other criteria). Would Oregon per capita GDP remain as high if its population quintupled??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox
No it’s not. Florida has five times the population of Oregon so of course it’s going to be a larger economy. But per capita GDP for Oregon in current dollars is about $58,000 while for Florida it’s $47,000. Not an insiginificant difference.
Last edited by elchevere; 01-11-2019 at 03:36 PM..
True, but the higher the sample size the more difficult it is to sustain a higher average (or per capita). Look at the number of MLB players batting .350 in April v August. Personally, I’ve never settled for average...if you are financially above average, where would you rather live (though I happen to like Portland very much I could never see living there based on my preference for warmer climates, among other criteria). Would Oregon per capita GDP remain as high if its population quintupled??
As long as its economy also quintupled, I don't see why not .
You are right, I would say. Unless Oregon had 21+ million people, we wouldn't know for sure and it is difficult to compare the two. Florida still lags compared to its peers, IE, Texas (which sustains a higher GDP/capita despite having close to 7 million more people). Heck, it even lags against Ohio and Illinois .
Id definitely rather live in Portland than FL. But FL is an ok place to live .
No it’s not. Florida has five times the population of Oregon so of course it’s going to be a larger economy. But per capita GDP for Oregon in current dollars is about $58,000 while for Florida it’s $47,000. Not an insiginificant difference.
Look here, we're not talking about current per capita GDP. We're talking about economic growth and future potential. Oregon's economic growth is very stagnant, while Florida is still growing, with much potential.
It's low wage warehouses galore (I'm not even aware of any corporate offices / HQs there), but it's booming mainly with LA refugees who are seeking more affordable housing in exchange for longer commutes.
Look here, we're not talking about current per capita GDP. We're talking about economic growth and future potential. Oregon's economic growth is very stagnant, while Florida is still growing, with much potential.
Again, wrong.
Oregon was 4th for GDP growth/jobs. Florida was 8th. This study took into account population growth, GDP growth and job creation. Florida overall placed 2nd due to the population growth, but was 8th for GDP growth.
I think Oregon has much better future potential than Florida. You say a lot of people are moving to Oregon but it has only gained 8% in population since 2010, or about 300k people. Florida grew by 13% in that same time period and added 2.5 million. Yet in 2017, Oregon’s GDP grew by 2.5% while Florida’s grew by 2.2%.
Florida is already oversaturated with people, and trees don’t grow to the sky. While both are performing well at the moment, for that many people to move into Florida and to have just average economic growth means that they aren’t bringing high paying jobs with
Them. It’s clear which state is getting more prosperous, and it’s not Florida.
Growth is good I think. But growing too fast has consequences. It probably takes several Florida people to equal 1 Oregonian when it comes to economic efficiency. Just a guess.
Retirees probably effect this number.
Nashville and Orlando have similar GDPs, despite Orlando having something like 500,000 more people in is metro. And Orlando is probably not as weighed down in this metric by retirees as much as other Florida cities.
Low wage jobs definitely stagnate an economy. Also I think florida would see a massive hit if it even posted a few modest growth years. It has itself tied up to where it NEEDS to continue to pull in huge population numbers to make it's economies look good.
If not for the state government, it's economy would be Fresno on steroids
But population has exploded. 2 plus million in a metro that 250,000 in 1950
You guys need a different frame of reference. Sacramento doesn't have a booming economy, but it isn't awful, either, not close to it...
Sac's economy is middle of the road. Per BEA, when GDP growth from 2016 to 2017 compares Sacramento to the following cities (Austin, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Fort Worth, Nashville, Orlando, Kansas City, San Antonio, Las Vegas, and Milwaukee), Sacramento finishes 8th out of 15 cities in that group, cities with comparably sized economies. 8th of 15 is hardly horrible...
Additionally, if you view the same group of cities--essentially Sacramento's peer cities--for their 5-year, 2012-2017 GDP growth, Sacramento places 7th-fastest growing of the 15 cities in the last five years. Again, not at a boomtown or breakneck pace, but very obviously much better than you ignorantly lament...
So to those who don't know the agenda, MrJester and WizardOfRadical are transplanted Sacramentans who go out of their way to disparage the city of Sacramento, even if their allegations lack validity...
So again I ask you, what is your frame of reference to call Sacramento's economy, quote, "awful"? Compared to what, to whom?
There is other data we can analyze to blow your statement to smithereens, but I'll let you breathe right now. The fact of the matter is that while Sacramento isn't of the best economies, it is a long, long way from being amongst the worst. This ignorant ass site takes everything people like you two say at face value without fact checking you. I really hope life improves for you soon and you can find your way outta Sac, nobody should be so unhappy as to spend every day searching for reasons to hate where they live. You should probably leave California altogether, as clearly your frame of reference is narrow. There are a ton of cities, states, regions, that wish they had an economy and a city as strong as Sacramento, but it's so very clear you haven't traveled much...
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.
