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.
You are being incredibly simplistic in your measure of economics with measuring only consumer facing brands. That is not how the economy works.
It doesnt matter.
At every level of product development from design to incubation to financing to rollout and ultimately dominating the global economy, nowhere at this time even comes close to creating this much success.
That's why everywhere in the world is feverishly trying to replicate Silicon Valley's success.
Whether yall like the way I state facts or not doesnt negate the fact that I am factually accurate.
Quote:
Philadelphia and San Fran are neck and neck as the same GDP
You mean as far as MSA?
The Philly MSA has 1.3 million more people but an economy that is like $70B smaller than the SF MSA so no, they arent 'neck-and-neck' at all.
And Im not really talking about GDP, this is what I said for the 14th time: The Bay Area has the 3rd largest economy but as far as relevance and importance, the Bay Area economy is probably 1st at this time...
Ive provided 2 statistics that illustrate importance and relevance at this time.
Poor Enean keeps trying to change the subject. LOL
At every level of product development from design to incubation to financing to rollout and ultimately dominating the global economy, nowhere at this time even comes close to creating this much success.
That's why everywhere in the world is feverishly trying to replicate Silicon Valley's success.
Whether yall like the way I state facts or not doesnt negate the fact that I am factually accurate.
You mean as far as MSA?
The Philly MSA has 1.3 million more people but an economy that is like $70B smaller than the SF MSA so no, they arent 'neck-and-neck' at all.
And Im not really talking about GDP, this is what I said for the 14th time: The Bay Area has the 3rd largest economy but as far as relevance and importance, the Bay Area economy is probably 1st at this time...
Ive provided 2 statistics that illustrate importance and relevance at this time.
Poor Enean keeps trying to change the subject. LOL
This is where people from the Bay area make me roll my eyes. NYC is by far the #1 economy in the USA.
I am not saying SF is NOT one of the top. It surely is. But no. SF is still behind Chicago and NYC. And to be honest barely a few pegs above Philadelphia and Dallas.
The worst thing about Silicon Valley is its consumer facing tech blinders which honestly have not contributed to major societal innovation.
The biotech coming out of Philadelphia right now is FAR exceeding the Bay area and gaining major traction and VC money. And having MAJOR influence on societal changes.
You can brag all you want about your Facebook and Instagrams. But the economy is way more complex than these consumer companies.
SF is only about 15% larger economically than Philadelphia.
Philadelphia is no slouch when it comes to VC. Check out the Schuylkill Yards which is already under construction.
Day to day functionality? Haha that's $4.5 Trillion in 401ks, retirement accts, mutual funds etc. Millions of people around the world are directly tied to the success or failure of those stocks.
.....and millions upon millions of other people really on Agriculture, Trade, Manufacturing, Energy and the umpteen billion other industries that are just as large or larger than tech. Cyberspace is just the latest "thing" in the economic check box nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
The region has the largest concentration of the world's most recognized and valuable corporate brands...the very definition of relevance.
All you're is listing the biggest companies, their market value and how many are in each region.. thats not how economies work. Size is not subjective.... relevance & importance are
The burden of proof is on you to again explain to "us" (the supposed uniformed/biased/boosters) on exactly how Facebook/Twitter/Youtube/Instagram/etc... are more integral to the global economies stability, health and longevity than things like the NYSE, NASDAQ, UN Headquarters in NYC or the WBD, IMF, or Federal Government in DC..
Oh and in regards to how much the entire tech industry actually economically contributes to our economy....
By 2035, many things could affect the desirability of our cities positively and/or negatively such as booming industries, collapsing industries, population growth, hurricanes, earthquakes, sea level rise/flooding, skyline growth, certain industries shifting dominance to new cities from their traditional cities and possibly even political changes.
Since it could be said that the most popular/desireable cities are those which are not just very urban, but also very important and well known, what cities do you think will fit these criteria in 15 years? What cities will jump ahead of other cities and what cities will fall behind?
I'm asking primarily about United States cities.
Here's my opinion
1 New York City
2 Los Angeles
3 Chicago
4 Washington DC
5 Las Vegas
6 San Francisco
7 Boston
8 Philadelphia
9 Miami
10 Houston
11 Atlanta
12 Seattle
13 Detroit
14 Dallas
15 New Orleans
You may notice that I have some cities such as Miami, Houston, and New Orleans falling behind in desirability. This is due to future Hurricanes causing flooding to these low-lying cities. On the other hand, I do believe these cities will have better flood control in place by this time, but to preserve desirability, I believe it's important to protect these cities as soon as possible.
I also boosted a few cities such as Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia.
This is just my opinion and it will be interesting to see yours.
I can understand worry about gulf coast cities and climate change. But I can't agree with Miami about Houston, Dallas, Atlanta and Seattle. Vegas is a one industry town with lack of water. I'd have to place it at #14, ahead of New Orleans. Chicago, L.A. Boston, S.F. and NYC have this decade all experienced net OUT-migration so one has to ask what reverses that?
SF within the past 18 months has lost THREE Fortune 500 companies to Dallas/Fort Worth. California in general is experiencing an net domestic outflow of residents/companies, especially to Texas. D/FW is the size of SF/Oakland/San Jose now. I will place them in 15 years no worse than 4th as its the best/biggest and most diverse metro area in the southern tier of cities.
One city which should be added, maybe two, is Austin, and possibly Charlotte. Austin in the Tech center of the south. Charlotte is the biggest banking market in the southeast.
10 Most Valuable Companies in the World by Market Capitalization-25 Nov 2019:
*$1,174,310,506,850 Apple(United States)
$1,159,807,318,105 Microsoft(United States)
*$905,559,620,537 Google(United States)
$890,917,856,507 Amazon(United States)
*$567,412,007,273 Facebook(United States)
$535,572,090,664 Berkshire Hathaway(United States)
$506,915,272,337 Alibaba(China)
$412,980,969,943 JP Morgan Chase(United States)
$407,528,003,280 Tencent Holdings(China)
*$407,347,827,992 Visa(United States)
And yet Apple just broke ground its second campus ($1billion) in Austin. Google is building a 37 tower in Austin. Facebook has a third building under construction in Austin.
McKesson, Schwab and Coremark all Fortune 500 companies have recently or will be moving their HQs to Dallas/Fort Worth. I think SF has reached a tipping point on its importance. See this weeks S.F. Business Journal for more.
Again, this^ has absolutely nothing to do with what I said: The Bay Area has the 3rd largest economy but as far as relevance and importance, the Bay Area economy is probably 1st at this time...
Here are select areas by the number of companies HQed there among the 50 most valuable in the world as of 11/26/19
Bay Area: 12 of the Top 50 /$4.558 Trillion
$1174.3 Apple
$905.7 Google
$567.4 Facebook
$393.8 Visa
$260.9 Intel
$227.6 Wells Fargo
$222.7 Chevron
$192.2 Cisco
$185.5 Oracle
$149.0 Adobe
$142.5 Salesforce
$136.9 Netflix
New York: 9 of the Top 50:/ $2.231 Trillion
$413.0. JP Morgan Chase
$361.0 Johnson & Johnson
$288.6 Mastercard
$247.7 Verizon
$222.4 Merck
$211.9 Pfizer
$189.2 Pepsi
$164.7 Citigroup
$133.0 Bristol-Meyers Squibb
Chicago: 3 of the Top 50/ $507.4 Billion
$210.2 Boeing
$151.1 Abbott Laboratories
$146.1 McDonald's
Dallas: 2 of the Top 50/ $564.0 Billion
$290.8 Exxon Mobil
$273.2 AT&T
Los Angeles: 2 of the Top 50/ $412.6 Billion
$273.3 Walt Disney
$139.3 Amgen
This is a perfect example of what Im talking about. The Bay Area has a larger presence in market capitalization than anywhere else in the world. It's staggering for such a small area. Is this written in stone? No but I never said it is.
But that supports my statement.
Dallas needs to be updated to add McKesson. And in terms of Fortune 500 companies, DFW is 3rd in the country with 20 now due to McKesson and Charles Schwab having moved or announcing relocation to the area. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ties/38215229/
And yet Apple just broke ground its second campus ($1billion) in Austin. Google is building a 37 tower in Austin. Facebook has a third building under construction in Austin.
These companies have a presence in lots of places. I have been inside numerous Google and Facebook offices all over the world. You fancy yourself special?
Quote:
McKesson, Schwab and Coremark all Fortune 500 companies have recently or will be moving their HQs to Dallas/Fort Worth.
Peanuts. We lose and gain F500s all the time. The only loss that ever meant anything to me was Bank of America and that was through a merger.
Quote:
I think SF has reached a tipping point on its importance.
The same was said in the 1950s, the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, during the 2009 recession and now this popular narrative is here again.
What possesses so many people to hope for one area to fail so much?
LOL The Bay Area always suffers the most in every downturn-what else is new?
I really don’t care for the culture of the Bay Area, but it is certainly an important area. I’ll buy 3rd most important. Urbanity, well it’s a double edged sword. Certain posters love to use the CSA for things they like to promote, but when it comes to the Bay Area as a CSA, the urbanity is fairly diluted. SF does not anchor the Bay Area in the way Chicago or New York anchors its CSAs. In that regard it falls regrettably short. The Bay Area outside of SF and parts of the east bay is more like suburbs on steroids, and I don’t like anything about that.
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.
