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.
Based on the article it looks like they only factored in sectors like "oil and gas" as factors that went into the total "at risk" jobs.
I don't have a Brookings password so can't see the research notes, but it appears they didn't factor the level of risk per sector at all. Even if they had, they published this five(!) weeks ago, which was an eternity ago in the current oil market.
Nor did they factor the effects of multiplied jobs vs. multiplier jobs. The first group pays for the other.
Even if they factored more than I think, I don't see that they said so. Fine for clickbait I suppose.
Based on the article it looks like they only factored in sectors like "oil and gas" as factors that went into the total "at risk" jobs.
I don't have a Brookings password so can't see the research notes, but it appears they didn't factor the level of risk per sector at all. Even if they had, they published this five(!) weeks ago, which was an eternity ago in the current oil market.
Nor did they factor the effects of multiplied jobs vs. multiplier jobs. The first group pays for the other.
Even if they factored more than I think, I don't see that they said so. Fine for clickbait I suppose.
Three things:
1) You said you cant see their research notes. That means youre making a lot of assumptions to make your point.
2) Considering that were talking about number of total jobs and all energy and tourism jobs were specifically mentioned as targets for layoffs, how much worse off oil and gas are today is irrelevant. Its not like any more oil and gas jobs were gained since the publication of this article so the number of jobs at stake is still similar.
3) Yes, they are not factoring in other jobs that will certainly decline as a result of jobs lost in certain sectors. But that is the case everywhere. Its not specific to one city.
1. Have you read their research notes? Are you not making the same leap?
2. The level of risk per type of job is extremely relevant. (PS, today US crude hit an all-time first...you have to pay someone to take it, because there's no storage capacity left.)
3. Of course.
You can take articles on faith all you want. From my perspective it's too generalized and too old to be worth much even from a fan-board perspective.
You know I just looked at a few global cities rankings such as the GaWC and Schroder and it's funny how Atlanta, Boston, Houston, Dallas and Miami ranks higher than Philly in every ranking. The only city that Philly ranked above was Seattle in the GaWC study. Let's hear how they seem to got it wrong though. I don't think anyone is overlooking Philly. The city and metro is just stagnant compared to the other metros. It also don't help that it's so close to other major metros.
But if you've been following GaWC (which is highly trade-focused) over time, you should note that Philadelphia has risen within its hierarchy of cities at a faster clip than its economy has grown over time.
In 2000, it was Gamma+, along with Brisbane, Denver, Minneapolis, Rio de Janeiro and St. Louis.
In 2018, it had risen to Beta along with all of the cities listed above save St. Louis, which slipped to Gamma.
In the same time period, Dallas rose from Beta- to Beta+ while Atlanta slipped from Alpha- to Beta+ — the same level as Boston, which was Beta in 2000.
I think that maybe based on this comparative-advantage derby, you could say Philadelphia is punching above its weight vis-à-vis the growth of the city and metropolitan economy. It does remain a notch below all of the cities in this comparison save Seattle, however. Seattle was Beta- in 2000 and remains there now.
NY is Alpha ++ as it should be but
Miami is Alpha along with Chicago and LA
Houston is Alpha - with SF, DC
Boston is ranked lower at Beta + along with Atlanta and DFW
While Philly is Beta with MSP
Just hard to go with that sort of ranking.
1. NY
2. Chicago
3. Los Angeles
4. Miami
5. San Francisco
6. Houston
7. Boston
8. Atlanta
9. Dallas
10. Philadelphia
11. Minneapolis
12. Seattle
13. San Jose
14. San Juan
15. Detroit
Edit: opps forgot DC
Last edited by atadytic19; 04-22-2020 at 04:57 PM..
NY is Alpha ++ as it should be but
Miami is Alpha along with Chicago and LA
Houston is Alpha - with SF, DC
Boston is ranked lower at Beta + along with Atlanta and DFW
While Philly is Beta with MSP
Just hard to go with that sort of ranking.
1. NY
2. Chicago
3. Los Angeles
4. Miami
5. San Francisco
6. Houston
7. Boston
8. Atlanta
9. Dallas
10. Philadelphia
11. Minneapolis
12. Seattle
13. San Jose
14. San Juan
15. Detroit
GAWC is the most misused source on the internet. They have an extremely narrow focus on certain businesses in certain industries. The people who quote it don't seem to get that...which is why they quote it.
GAWC is the most misused source on the internet. They have an extremely narrow focus on certain businesses in certain industries. The people who quote it don't seem to get that...which is why they quote it.
Agreed. The source itself is completely fine. Like any data you need to read its criteria and parameters, but people seem to neglect that and read "global city" only, interpreting the term how they want to. The effort behind it is no joke, especially in terms of simplifying economic integration in list form, but it can't be used as a main reference point
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.
