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.
Actually, it isn't fine, but, unsurprisingly, this isn't a topic that most people have any compassion towards, so we'll leave it at that...
In a city like Miami with a large Black Caribbean immigrant population, the declining share of its Black population could be indicative of their integration into the mainstream of cultural and economic life. Ethnic enclaves aren't as necessary for the children of immigrants who grow up as citizens and are able to climb the socioeconomic ladder a bit and live just about wherever they want to, which is why in most cities, they eventually either become a shell of their former selves or evolve into tourist attractions. Of course; this process would be accelerated today with urban living being popular again compared to 30 or so years ago.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,545,347 times
Reputation: 6682
I’m not saying they shouldn’t, but there are other factors in play as well—including QOL, which itself has a few factors, that can be hard to quantify. For instance, you are likely not going to convince a person from San Diego to move to Philadelphia or DC because they have a higher GDP...but, clearly, top GDP producing cities/MSA’s offer quite a bit to be in the positions where they are...with exception of Boston/Dallas/Houston, looks like CD rankings are identical to GDP rankings (unless I missed another).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakeesha
GDP rankings should definitely be considered. Some cities do not perform despite having a larger population.
Last edited by elchevere; 04-26-2020 at 10:08 AM..
I’m not saying they shouldn’t, but there are other factors in play as well—including QOL, which itself has a few factors, that can be hard to quantify. For instance, you are likely not going to convince a person from San Diego to move to Philadelphia or DC because they have a higher GDP.
No but I get what she's saying. To you're point, QOL can be a loaded bag, because what one values for their QOL can differ from person to person...
Economic indicators can at least be mostly objective, as are rates of crime, educational attainment, etc. But if I'm looking for specific factors that enhance my QOL, they may not apply to everyone----->example, feeling there is a comfortable level of black citizens (what's "comfortable" for me may not be comfortable for anyone else), and the resulting black cultural amenities derived from that; a city with a robust arts and creative culture (I may judge one city harsher than another); availability and spread of rail transit; a city that isn't oppressively conservative, etc...
There are objective QOL markers but on a personal level QOL gets very subjective...
I’m not saying they shouldn’t, but there are other factors in play as well—including QOL, which itself has a few factors, that can be hard to quantify. For instance, you are likely not going to convince a person from San Diego to move to Philadelphia or DC because they have a higher GDP...but, clearly, top GDP producing cities/MSA’s offer quite a bit to be in the positions where they are.
Yeah. A comprehensive view often includes factors that cannot be measured. To your previous point, I don't put so much weight on the size of the GDP but rather the percentage growth.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t, but there are other factors in play as well—including QOL, which itself has a few factors, that can be hard to quantify. For instance, you are likely not going to convince a person from San Diego to move to Philadelphia or DC because they have a higher GDP...but, clearly, top GDP producing cities/MSA’s offer quite a bit to be in the positions where they are...with exception of Boston/Dallas/Houston, looks like CD rankings are identical to GDP rankings (unless I missed another).
I think the exceptions you named shed light on the other factors that should be considered other than GDP. For Boston, there seems to be a recognition that its MSA, and thus GDP, somewhat underrepresent its importance and significance, its history plays a role that can't exactly be quantified, and its status as a de facto regional capital gives it another level of importance. With Houston, its overreliance on one particular commodity that is subject to booms and busts makes it an outlier. And Dallas seems to have the opposite issue with a very diverse economy but not obviously dominating any particular sector. Also with Dallas and Houston being relatively close to each other means that their regional influence and dominance has some overlap which detracts a bit from the importance of both.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,545,347 times
Reputation: 6682
All 3 cities are included on, both, the CD and GDP rankings—just a slight variance in the hierarchy of rankings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
I think the exceptions you named shed light on the other factors that should be considered other than GDP. For Boston, there seems to be a recognition that its MSA, and thus GDP, somewhat underrepresent its importance and significance, its history plays a role that can't exactly be quantified, and its status as a de facto regional capital gives it another level of importance. With Houston, its overreliance on one particular commodity that is subject to booms and busts makes it an outlier. And Dallas seems to have the opposite issue with a very diverse economy but not obviously dominating any particular sector. Also with Dallas and Houston being relatively close to each other means that their regional influence and dominance has some overlap which detracts a bit from the importance of both.
its status as a de facto regional capital gives it another level of importance.
Much as I hate arguing against my home city: I’ve said before on this forum and I’ll say again that it’s silly to compare New England to other “regions” of the country. New England has a comparable land area, population, and GDP to nearby New York State and Pennsylvania. “DelMarVa” might be similar, but “the Midwest” sure isn’t.
Much as I hate arguing against my home city: I’ve said before on this forum and I’ll say again that it’s silly to compare New England to other “regions” of the country. New England has a comparable land area, population, and GDP to nearby New York State and Pennsylvania. “DelMarVa” might be similar, but “the Midwest” sure isn’t.
I get that, but we're still talking about several states and Boston is comparable to Atlanta (smaller MSA, larger GDP) which is a de facto regional capital of a larger geographic region.
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.
