Pound for pound, does Austin outcompete other sunbelt cities in terms of wealth? (cost, better)
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.
When people say pound for pound, this usually means some kind of adjustment for size in terms of some denominator. I think in the case of GDP, it'd probably be something like GDP *per capita* rather than total raw GDP. That'd be something like this or this where Austin does do pretty well compared to the other cities the OP mentioned.
The OP mentioned Seattle, which Austin is nowhere close to in any economic measure.
I get that per capita wealth was the likely intent, I just don't see how its logical to make a west coast comparison. Its close to Portland, but I think we can agree that Portland is not really "an expensive west coast city" in the popular sense.
If OKC builds another skyscraper, I suppose it would be technically true to say they are "starting to become more like New York City", but why skip over so many other places that a more realistic analogy could be made with?
"Pound for pound" wealth puts Austin in a peer group with Indianapolis, Portland, Nashville, SLC.
The OP mentioned Seattle, which Austin is nowhere close to in any economic measure.
I get that per capita wealth was the likely intent, I just don't see how its logical to make a west coast comparison. Its close to Portland, but I think we can agree that Portland is not really "an expensive west coast city" in the popular sense.
If OKC builds another skyscraper, I suppose it would be technically true to say they are "starting to become more like New York City", but why skip over so many other places that a more realistic analogy could be made with?
"Pound for pound" wealth puts Austin in a peer group with Indianapolis, Portland, Nashville, SLC.
That still isn't saying very much. Austin is a laid back very liberal tech-centric city with a fairly high CoL so it is reasonable to state it does mimic the West Coast in style. Also most of the cities you mention punch above their league and have per-capita GDP's greater than their larger peers.
That still isn't saying very much. Austin is a laid back very liberal tech-centric city with a fairly high CoL so it is reasonable to state it does mimic the West Coast in style. Also most of the cities you mention punch above their league and have per-capita GDP's greater than their larger peers.
Austin is competing fairly well against much larger peers surpassing quite a good number of them.
Its not natural to construct an analogy with a city 2000 miles away using such vague and ubiquitous attributes, while skipping over much more logical candidates right there in the same region.
The OP mentioned Seattle, which Austin is nowhere close to in any economic measure.
I get that per capita wealth was the likely intent, I just don't see how its logical to make a west coast comparison. Its close to Portland, but I think we can agree that Portland is not really "an expensive west coast city" in the popular sense.
If OKC builds another skyscraper, I suppose it would be technically true to say they are "starting to become more like New York City", but why skip over so many other places that a more realistic analogy could be made with?
"Pound for pound" wealth puts Austin in a peer group with Indianapolis, Portland, Nashville, SLC.
I don’t think you understand what pound for pound means or you’re being willfully ignorant as it’s already been stated here. Austin doesn’t compare to Dallas in income or gdp. But if you consider it’s population, it actually looks favorably. It’s why the best pound for pound boxer is rarely a heavyweight. But I understand your stance on Austin even though you live 2k miles away and have never been there.
The OP mentioned Seattle, which Austin is nowhere close to in any economic measure.
I get that per capita wealth was the likely intent, I just don't see how its logical to make a west coast comparison. Its close to Portland, but I think we can agree that Portland is not really "an expensive west coast city" in the popular sense.
If OKC builds another skyscraper, I suppose it would be technically true to say they are "starting to become more like New York City", but why skip over so many other places that a more realistic analogy could be made with?
"Pound for pound" wealth puts Austin in a peer group with Indianapolis, Portland, Nashville, SLC.
Reading comprehension is getting wobbly on this thread, maybe because both the terms "sunbelt" and "pound for pound wealth" are not clearly defined by the OP. I cannot imagine any definition of the sunbelt that would include Indianapolis, Portland or SLC, and Nashville is borderline, and income is not the only measure of wealth and per-capita is not the only measure of pound for pound.
Of the MSAs in the poll, Austin has the highest per capita income of all them, and while not mentioned in the poll, large swathes of California are usually included in the sunbelt and often definitively so? If we count the California MSAs, and I think both the Bay Area and Sacramento are not quite sunbelt, but LA and San Diego definitely are, Austin would come in second to the Bay Area in terms of per capita income . . .
How does one measure pound for pound wealth, beyond per capita income, is a trickier question.
GDP per capita is another one of those sneaky stats that we abuse on here.
For example a classroom consisting of 30 students with 5 of them being 'A' students has a lower per capita 'A' student ratio than a classroom with 10 students with 2 A students. Does the classroom with the higher average necessarily mean the students are better? Not necessarily.
The thing we continually ignore on here is that per capita is only relevant when you are comparing similar sized things.
In the example above the stats are not relevant because the size difference of the classes have verifiable variables that we can't ignore.
Classroom size has been shown to be directly correlated to performance, so who is to say that if that class of 10 was extended to 30, will it still have a higher average than the one already at 30?
Everyone is making a big deal of a smaller city's per capita income being comparable to bigger city incomes when the relevance is negligible at best.
Any small city within a boom cycle will have a high per capita income. It's just common sense. Let's see if Austin can maintain enough high paying jobs to keep its per capita income on Houston's level when/if it gets to be as big as Houston.
Austin should be compared with metros it's size to showcase how is doing. And in its size bracket it is doing extremely well. But we can't put Austin on 7M plus level metros yet. And the OP is premature in implying that Seattle was already in that level.
Austin has 5M less people than the cities is being compared to. Seattle has 3M less. High paying tech Jobs alone is not going to get either to 7M plus people. When you get that big, the Tech talent is going to be puny in comparison. So it is VERY doubtful that either would as high on per capita lists if their population was 7M plus.
New York is our Great Dame City because despite the size it still kicks butt on per capita lists. San Francisco Bay is good example. The CSA is bigger than the Southern metros and yet it's per capita income is higher so you can legitimately draw the conclusion that they are making more money up there.
Austin is a middle sized fish in a small pond. It stands out.
Put it in a big pond with big fish and you will barely notice it.
Reading comprehension is getting wobbly on this thread, maybe because both the terms "sunbelt" and "pound for pound wealth" are not clearly defined by the OP. I cannot imagine any definition of the sunbelt that would include Indianapolis, Portland or SLC, and Nashville is borderline, and income is not the only measure of wealth and per-capita is not the only measure of pound for pound.
Of the MSAs in the poll, Austin has the highest per capita income of all them, and while not mentioned in the poll, large swathes of California are usually included in the sunbelt and often definitively so? If we count the California MSAs, and I think both the Bay Area and Sacramento are not quite sunbelt, but LA and San Diego definitely are, Austin would come in second to the Bay Area in terms of per capita income . . .
How does one measure pound for pound wealth, beyond per capita income, is a trickier question.
Losfrisco has this running thing where he gets oddly worked up by Austin being described as similar to California in any way. In his eyes it's actually much more alike Indianapolis or Columbus, Ohio. Mind you that he has never set foot in Austin in his life; that fact doesn't make him any less certain of this take.
Of the MSAs in the poll, Austin has the highest per capita income of all them, and while not mentioned in the poll, large swathes of California are usually included in the sunbelt and often definitively so? If we count the California MSAs, and I think both the Bay Area and Sacramento are not quite sunbelt, but LA and San Diego definitely are, Austin would come in second to the Bay Area in terms of per capita income . . .
LA and SD both have higher per capita incomes than Austin, at least according to the latest available BEA.GOV data.
MSA Per Capita Income, 2020
San Jose $121,619
San Francisco $111,050
Los Angeles $69,805
San Diego $66,266
Austin $64,913
Miami $64,190
Nashville $62,076
Sacramento $61,852
Dallas $61,749
Raleigh $60,844
Houston $59,893
Atlanta $58,773
Tulsa $58,071
New Orleans $57,891
Charlotte $56,682
Jacksonville $55,125
Oklahoma City $52,688
Tampa $52,291
Phoenix $51,851
Las Vegas $51,244
Memphis $51,155
San Antonio $50,022
Tucson $48,373
Orlando $48,223
Albuquerque $47,442
Riverside $45,365
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,550,878 times
Reputation: 6685
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx
Reading comprehension is getting wobbly on this thread, maybe because both the terms "sunbelt" and "pound for pound wealth" are not clearly defined by the OP. I cannot imagine any definition of the sunbelt that would include Indianapolis, Portland or SLC, and Nashville is borderline, and income is not the only measure of wealth and per-capita is not the only measure of pound for pound.
Of the MSAs in the poll, Austin has the highest per capita income of all them, and while not mentioned in the poll, large swathes of California are usually included in the sunbelt and often definitively so? If we count the California MSAs, and I think both the Bay Area and Sacramento are not quite sunbelt, but LA and San Diego definitely are, Austin would come in second to the Bay Area in terms of per capita income . . .
How does one measure pound for pound wealth, beyond per capita income, is a trickier question.
I’ve been arguing that for years on here….some cities have a much higher percentage of self employed small or medium sized businesses than corporate W-2 wage earners that do not report all their income (not just waiters, business owners). How do you measure the wealth of people taking money out of their countries and parking it in multimillion dollar real estate properties in the US?…how do you account for sunbelt retirees who are no longer earning incomes but are spending their previously accumulated wealth? Many on CD seem fixated solely on reported income to the exclusion of other factors.
The OP mentioned Seattle, which Austin is nowhere close to in any economic measure.
I get that per capita wealth was the likely intent, I just don't see how its logical to make a west coast comparison. Its close to Portland, but I think we can agree that Portland is not really "an expensive west coast city" in the popular sense.
If OKC builds another skyscraper, I suppose it would be technically true to say they are "starting to become more like New York City", but why skip over so many other places that a more realistic analogy could be made with?
"Pound for pound" wealth puts Austin in a peer group with Indianapolis, Portland, Nashville, SLC.
Yea, he did mention it and he said it in the context of becoming another Seattle not that it was Seattle or that it was close in any economic sense. Moreover, your response was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
Its GDP is smaller than all of the poll options except one, and also smaller than Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Portland, to name a few.
With regards to housing prices, the big difference is that the west coast metros have proven that they can sustain their prices, while is almost universally agreed that Austin is one of the nation's most overvalued markets.
That's not about Seattle, right? I responded to that post stating that you may have missed the pound for pound part or perhaps you are unfamiliar with that expression. Did you have a different idea of what pound for pound means?
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.
