Battle of "number two" US cities: LA, Chicago, SF, DC, Houston or Boston? (better, largest)
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.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,058,371 times
Reputation: 4047
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by skys the limit2
Brookings Institution does NOT say that Metro Dallas has a larger economy than Metro Chicago. Far from it. That is a ridiculous statement to make.
Why would you say such a thing????
It's a little thing called sarcasm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skys the limit2
ranked by their share of national GDP:
NYC ............ 8.5% LA .............. 5.2% Chicago ...... 3.5% D.C. ............ 2.5% Dallas ......... 2.4% Boston ........ 2.1% Phildelphia ... 2.1% Houston ....... 2.1% San Fran ...... 1.9% Atlanta ........ 1.8%
These are the 10 most powerful and richest metropolitan areas in the nation as of 2010 ranked in order of their importance to the national GDP output.
No quite frankly its not. And now you're just being silly.
You are comparing percentages and refuting my claims with it which was this.
Economic Output by MSA 2010:
01. New York City: $1.259 Trillion
02. Los Angeles: $708.9 Billion
03. Chicago: $514.1 Billion
04. Houston: $407.8 Billion
05. Washington DC: $396.1 Billion
06. Dallas-Fort Worth: $384.8 Billion
07. Philadelphia: $329.5 Billion
08. San Francisco-Oakland: $306.1 Billion
09. Boston: $297.0 Billion
10. Atlanta: $262.7 Billion
What are the numbers then? I don't care what Brookings has to say, they claim something but don't have the numbers to show for it. And we're not talking about 2010 here, because when the reports come out next month for 2010, it will again show Houston on top and Dallas-Fort Worth behind Houston.
Oh but wait, skys the limit2, wants to source Brookings which states that in 2010 Dallas-Fort Worth has a larger economy than Houston, which anyone with a brain knows is impossible as Houston hasn't seen a population decline, is healthy economically (compared to national average), and again 2010 is NOT over yet.
The revenue in retails for this coming weekend will be added in with 2010's figures. How the hell is the economical fiscal year over for them to report any Q4 reports without the completion of the year? It's damn near impossible.
But that's okay, you're content with thinking that Brookings has more credibility than the US Government. You're okay with thinking that everyone should be a sap and acknowledge a source that doesn't even figuratively give the numerical figures for a GDP. You're okay with all that.
I guess Brookings is right, when they listed Cleveland, OH as one of the brightest economies in the country this year for recovery. I'll tell you what, I'm going to send in my application to a law firm, and according to Brookings, I should get a job offer in Cleveland within minutes!
Yay Brookings! Thanks for guiding us to the prosperous realm of reality! Yay!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by skys the limit2
Also, here is a very recent ranking by Inc. for the top 10 metro areas for business in 2010:
In the article, it states in 2010 that Metro Dallas pulled ahead of Metro Houston.
Inc. ranked Houston 10th in 2010 ... and in 2010 Inc. ranked Dallas 7th .... this is for 2010 and 2010 is not over yet.
The point of the Inc. article is to show that 2010 doesn't have to be completely over yet for a highly reputable institution to be issuing a 2010 report with 2010 rankings based on 2010 data they have to the point that the article is written.
Oh cool. I have one of those articles too, this one just came out yesterday.
Houston came in 13th and Dallas came in 20th. We can keep doing this all day long but it serves no purpose. Houston has a larger economic output than Dallas-Fort Worth by any metric. Period. Total Personal Income, GDP for MSA, GDP for CSA, etc...
Sorry and until you get the figures for 2010's GDP from Brookings or whatever besides using percentages (LOL) I wont be believing anything. But that's impossible! You cant get the numbers for 2010 because for the 800th time now, 2010 IS NOT OVER YET!
Quote:
Originally Posted by skys the limit2
But the really important fact here is that the data is for 2010 .... not 2009, or 2008 or 2007 like had been pointed to in your original post.
More than likely, unless something is really screwed up, the Federal Census numbers for 2010, once they finally come out in April 2011, will more than likely also show the same results as the highly reputable Brookings Institution measurements that are being released now that are based on 2010 data to date.
Doesn't that make sense??
No quite frankly it doesn't.
First of all, the numbers come out next month in January 2011 from US Mayoral. The numbers from BEA will come out in 2011 as they only do 3 year intervals when they release it. Last time was 2008 and the time before was 2005.
Second of all, no we're not talking about 2007 or 2010. 2007 is way to dated for relevancy, and 2010 isn't over yet. You have to be psychologically insane to think 2010 figures are out. But oh wait Brookings says they are!! So they must be!! Brookings is the worlds greatest source, even more reliable than the US Government agencies!!!!! But no really all jokes aside, 2009 was the last figurative year for GDP calculations.
Want to make a bet on it when the numbers come out I promise you Houston will come out on top. Want to bet on that? I'm confident and I don't need Brookings "mid year analysis for 2010 (an incomplete year)" to tell me otherwise.
Which is the second most important city in the US based on its cultural and economical contribution to the nation?
Please vote....
The struggle to break racial stereotypes, get along with other races, and overcome your poor/ghetto-ridden roots ... are very much values that most of the country is rooting for. Chicago is the face of hard work. The media supports this especially for blacks, and for other races as well (look at the last winner on American Idol). Chicago is also the economic capital of the midwest; it's a HUGE area among others.
Los Angeles does not portray this culture. Los Angeles' culture consists of illegal Mexican immigration and materialism. The reason this culture is less significant than Chicago's is: 1) No one outside of the southwest experiences this specific illegal Mexican immigrant issue and all that entails first hand, (unlike the black-underdog-issue of Chicago which is relatable all over the north and south) 2) Everywhere has always had materialistic areas, most with no LA-influence.
Oh, and the "illegals" world is completely different in Chicago than LA; both have many illegals of every type but the emphasis and "culture" pertaining to them is different; if you have to question me about it, you have obviously never been to either city--and should leave.
This isn't a bash against LA, I'm just answering the topic.
Oh but wait, skys the limit2, wants to source Brookings which states that in 2010 Dallas-Fort Worth has a larger economy than Houston-Sugarland, which anyone with a brain knows is impossible as Houston hasn't seen a population decline, is healthy economically (compared to national average), and again 2010 is NOT over yet.
You mention that "Houston hasn't seen a population decline, is healthy economically (compared to national average) ...."
The truth is, Houston has suffered some serious setbacks in its economy that are essentially being swept under the rug that are having a dramatic effect on Houston MSA's GDP standing relative to other national GDP powerhouses, including the Dallas MSA.
We all know that one of the key components that feeds GDP is employment.
Without jobs, and importantly growth in new jobs, GDP is very adversely affected.
Houston MSA had negative job growth for two straight years, from August of 2008 until August 2010.
September 2010 was the first positive jobs growth that Houston has seen in two full years.
Dallas MSA, on the other hand, only had one year of negative job growth due to the recession and resumed positive job growth in the fourth quarter of 2009.
It also had positive job growth in the first two quarters of 2010, although the third quarter of 2010 showed a small drop which was also a national occurrence as jobs dipped in the 3rd quarter of 2010 nationwide.
Overall, Dallas MSA is leading the nation in job growth with it tied with Boston in 2nd place at 25,000 new jobs over the last 12 months.
Only Washingon D.C. at 44,000 new jobs over the last 12 months has a stronger new jobs figure.
Besides job growth, the total number of jobs in an MSA also plays a very important role to the computation of GDP.
Accordingly, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics most recently released nonfarm payrolls data that are valid through October, 31, 2010 the Dallas MSA holds 354,100 more jobs than does the Houston MSA.
That is a significant advantage that the Dallas MSA now holds over Houston MSA in the all-important nonfarm jobs component of GDP.
While Houston MSA has not lost population over the last few years, it did lose substantial numbers of jobs and has been unable to resume a positive jobs growth for two full years until September 2010's 4,800 net new jobs for Houston MSA.
Dallas MSA is generating new jobs at a significantly faster pace than the Houston MSA with Dallas leading the nation in 2nd place over the last 12 months from October 2009 to October 2010 with 25,000 new jobs created while Houston MSA had been losing jobs for two straight years until just very recently.
The Brookings Institution report from December 2010 shows the Dallas MSA at 2.4% share of national GDP versus Houston MSA's 2.1% share is taking into account these sorts of data points that old "pre-Great Recession" data from 2008 do not reflect.
A second critical data point that feeds computation of GDP is population.
On that front, the Dallas MSA is the fastest growing MSA in the nation and added over 1.3 million new people for the past decade.
Further, the rate of population growth for Dallas and the Dallas MSA actually accelerated in 2010.
This is yet another major positive factor for the Dallas MSA that places it at an advantage over the Houston MSA in the latest GDP rankings.
The booming Dallas-Ft. Worth metropolitan area added more residents during the past decade than any other city in the United States.
According to the latest Census Bureau figures, the population of the sprawling Texas metro area grew by about 1.3 million people, or 25%, between April 1, 2000 and July 1, 2009, from CNN Money:
In spite of the staggering population growth that the Dallas MSA enjoyed over the last decade, Dallas actually had its strongest population growth in the last year of the decade as analysis of preliminary census bureau data shows, by Brookings Institution, 06-25-10:
The richest and most powerful metropolitan areas ranked by their GDP contribution as reported in Brookings Insitution December 2010 assessment is a valid reflection of the current national rankings after the negative effects of the "Great Recession" have been factored into the GDP equation:
NYC .............. 8.5% LA ................ 5.2% Chicago ....... 3.5% D.C. .............. 2.5% Dallas ........... 2.4% Boston .......... 2.1% Phildelphia ... 2.1% Houston ......... 2.1% San Fran ....... 1.9% Atlanta .......... 1.8%
It is clear the Dallas MSA has leapfrogged over the Houston MSA in 2010 GDP.
Further, the Brookings Institution report states the following as its basis for conducting their national assessment of 2010 GDP rankings, paraphrased immediately below in italics.
Here is the full Brookings Institution report link for you to peruse at your leisure:
"The global financial crisis of the late 2000s precipitated an economic downturn of such magnitude and reach that many now refer to the period as the “Great Recession.” According to the International Monetary Fund, global economic output, which had grown at an annual rate of 3.3 percent from 1993 to 2007, actually shrank by 2 percent from 2008 to 2009.
A precarious economic recovery is now underway.
For all their economic might, almost none of the 50 top U.S. metros completely escaped the effects of the global financial crisis and ensuing economic downturn in the late 2000s.
The 50 U.S. metropolitan areas represent the largest regional economies in the U.S., as measured by gross metropolitan product (GMP) in 2008 (the most recent year for which public data are available). In the United States, metro areas are defined by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to include one or more large urban cores plus outlying areas that have social and economic linkages to the urban core(s). The 50 U.S. metro areas in this report vary in size from just more than 900,000 residents in the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk,CT metropolitan area to more than 19 million residents in the New York-Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NY-NJ-PA metropolitan area, and their average size is 3.4 million residents.
To assess the economic performance of 150 metropolitan areas (50 U.S. + 100 global), the Global MetroMonitor focuses on the following baseline data:
1) Gross Value Added (GVA),
2) employment,
3) and population (which then allows an assessment of GVA per capita) from 1993 to 2010.
In addition, GVA and employment are broken down by major industry sector.
There are two major technical considerations with respect to the data in this analysis. The first stems from this report’s focus on the recent impact of the recession and the resulting need to analyze data for 2008, 2009, and 2010 that are not yet available through most national statistical offices. Three data providers supplied these estimates: Moody’s Economy.com for the United States, Cambridge Econometrics for Europe, and Oxford Economics for the rest of the world.
For U.S. metropolitan areas, employment data come from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program. LAUS data are model-based, relying on data from the Current Population Survey (CPS, the source for our U.S. level employment estimates) as the primary input. Employment is measured as of July in each year. Population data come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program, which are modelbased estimates that rely on decennial census data as primary inputs; the Census Bureau measures population as of July 1st of each year. Moody’s Economy.com supplies the GVA data, which are derived from the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ (BEA) gross domestic product by state estimates. They parcel out state-level GDP data to counties on an industry-by-industry basis according to each county’s share of state employment and sum the resulting county totals to arrive at a metropolitan total. The last year of available data from BEA was 2008 and so data for 2009 and 2010 have been forecasted. Moody’s Economy.com also provides GVA by industry data, classified according to the North American Industry Classification Standard (NAICS)."
The Brookings Insititution report is in fact based on the latest government data as its baseline with inputs from leading, world-respected entities to produce their 2010 national GDP assessment.
You may not like that Houston has slipped over the last few years because of the more negative effects the "Great Recession" had on Houston's employment and jobs data coupled with the fact that the Dallas MSA is growing faster than Houston and is the fastest growing metro in the nation. But the Brookngs report cannot be naysayed and attacked for its data sources or methodologies used to arrive at their figures.
Here are additional links to support the above statistics:
1) Bureau of Labor Statistics, Metropolitan Area Employment & Unemployment Summary, released Dec. 7, 2010:
In October, 182 metropolitan areas reported over-the-year increases in nonfarm payroll employment, 178 reported decreases, and 12 had no change. The largest over-the-year employment increases occurred in:
Houston's sinking streak has so far lasted two years. The city lost 112,900 private-sector jobs from August 2008 to August 2010, when the total was 2,155,600. Houston saw a peak in 2008 when it had 2,268,500 private-sector jobs.
4) Dallas MSA gaining private sector jobs, fourth best in nation, "classified as rebounding", 09-29-10:
5) Where the jobs are: Dallas has 2nd best MSA employment gains in the nation over last 12 months, 25,000 new jobs added, The Economist, 12-7-10 (the underlying data is from the Bureau of Labor Statitics valid through 10-31-10):
6) Dallas MSA recovery 4th best in the U.S. and 39th best in the world out of 150 cities; Dallas Business Journal, 12-01-10 (underlying data is from Brookings Institution):
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,058,371 times
Reputation: 4047
Here you keep going again. You keep dodging my question.
So where does it say that Dallas-Fort Worth numerically has a larger GDP than Houston? Why don't you cite the actual numbers for me and then prove what you're saying. Chicago & Los Angeles lost a lot of private sector jobs, did that shrink their economy?
You're taking one thing about GDP and trying to twist it with things you cant manipulate. I'm sorry but I am done here, there is no use talking to someone who cant even fight fire with fire, I listed what the GDP was with what the US Government provided. And your come back is Brookings with percentages for a year that isn't even done yet.
I'm sorry, I don't have time to waste in this conversation anymore. You never answered my question and I am done responding here. Keep thinking Dallas-Fort Worth has a larger economy, you probably think they'll surpass Bay Area & Chicagoland one day too. Peace out.
I'm sorry but I am done debating like a lunatic, you don't get it. If Dallas-Fort Worth's economy is larger than what is its numerical GDP figure RIGHT NOW at the present moment. What is it? Why don't you answer me? Why do you refute what the US Government has to say?
Enjoy debating with yourself, keep linking me to Brookings. Keep avoiding that one simple question. Keep doing what you do. I am done, and I seriously don't care, I am not crazy to sit here and debate about something that you clearly cant show forth the proof. What is Dallas-Fort Worth's GDP right now if it isn't $389 Billion? What is it? If Houston's GDP isn't $403 Billion and Dallas's isn't $389 Billion, then what are they? Huh? WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER THAT?
You're really getting hung up on something that is quite silly. It really doesn't matter what the actual number is .... what is important is the metro area's relative worth and contribution to the nation. That is a bit more of an academic and cerebral way of thinking about things and whether it equals $1.00 or $400,000,000 is irrelevant ... what the report shows is the relative economic strength and vibrancy of each major metro in 2010 through their GDP contribution to the nation's GDP.
And you do not acknowledge the fact that two of the three most critical factors to determine GDP are 1) population and 2) employment data.
Can you at least acknowledge those two data points as being among the most critical to determine GDP?
On those two fronts, Dallas MSA has clearly overtaken Houston MSA in population growth for the last decade and in jobs growth for the last two years; Houston only recently has begun a very small recovery in jobs.
In October, 182 metropolitan areas reported over-the-year increases in nonfarm payroll employment, 178 reported decreases, and 12 had no change. The largest over-the-year employment increases occurred in:
Houston's sinking streak has so far lasted two years. The city lost 112,900 private-sector jobs from August 2008 to August 2010, when the total was 2,155,600. Houston saw a peak in 2008 when it had 2,268,500 private-sector jobs.
5) Dallas MSA gaining private sector jobs, fourth best in nation, "classified as rebounding", 09-29-10:
6) Where the jobs are: Dallas has 2nd best MSA employment gains in the nation over last 12 months, 25,000 new jobs added, The Economist, 12-7-10 (the underlying data is from the Bureau of Labor Statitics valid through 10-31-10):
7) Dallas recovery 4th best in the U.S. and 39th best in the world out of 150 cities; Dallas Business Journal, 12-01-10 (underlying data is from Brookings Institution):
Dallas employment has grown 1.7 percent between 2009 and this year, while income has escalated about 2.7 percent.
The richest and most powerful metropolitan areas ranked by their GDP contribution as reported in Brookings Insitution December 2010 assessment is a valid reflection of the current national rankings after the negative effects of the "Great Recession" have been factored into the GDP equation:
NYC .............. 8.5% LA ................ 5.2% Chicago ....... 3.5% D.C. .............. 2.5% Dallas ........... 2.4% Boston .......... 2.1% Phildelphia ... 2.1% Houston ......... 2.1% San Fran ....... 1.9% Atlanta .......... 1.8%
You're really getting hung up on something that is quite silly. It really doesn't matter what the actual number is .... what is important is the metro area's relative worth and contribution to the nation. That is a bit more of an academic and cerebral way of thinking about things and whether it equals $1.00 or $400,000,000 is irrelevant ... what the report shows is the relative economic strength and vibrancy of each major metro in 2010 through their GDP contribution to the nation's GDP.
And you do not acknowledge the fact that two of the three most critical factors to determine GDP are 1) population and 2) employment data.
Can you at least acknowledge those two data points as being among the most critical to determine GDP?
On those two fronts, Dallas MSA has clearly overtaken Houston MSA in population growth for the last decade and in jobs growth for the last two years; Houston only recently has begun a very small recovery in jobs.
In October, 182 metropolitan areas reported over-the-year increases in nonfarm payroll employment, 178 reported decreases, and 12 had no change. The largest over-the-year employment increases occurred in:
Houston's sinking streak has so far lasted two years. The city lost 112,900 private-sector jobs from August 2008 to August 2010, when the total was 2,155,600. Houston saw a peak in 2008 when it had 2,268,500 private-sector jobs.
5) Dallas MSA gaining private sector jobs, fourth best in nation, "classified as rebounding", 09-29-10:
6) Where the jobs are: Dallas has 2nd best MSA employment gains in the nation over last 12 months, 25,000 new jobs added, The Economist, 12-7-10 (the underlying data is from the Bureau of Labor Statitics valid through 10-31-10):
7) Dallas recovery 4th best in the U.S. and 39th best in the world out of 150 cities; Dallas Business Journal, 12-01-10 (underlying data is from Brookings Institution):
Dallas employment has grown 1.7 percent between 2009 and this year, while income has escalated about 2.7 percent.
The richest and most powerful metropolitan areas ranked by their GDP contribution as reported in Brookings Insitution December 2010 assessment is a valid reflection of the current national rankings after the negative effects of the "Great Recession" have been factored into the GDP equation:
NYC .............. 8.5% LA ................ 5.2% Chicago ....... 3.5% D.C. .............. 2.5% Dallas ........... 2.4% Boston .......... 2.1% Phildelphia ... 2.1% Houston ......... 2.1% San Fran ....... 1.9% Atlanta .......... 1.8%
The Washington D.C. Metro area has close to 800,000-1 million more jobs than other metro's its size. It also has more jobs than all metro that are bigger except metros with about 4 million or more residents. That's amazing! Another interesting note is that the D.C metro trails Chicago in jobs by only 1.2 million jobs yet Chicago metro has a population of over 9.5 million and D.C. has a population of a little under 5.5 million.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 12-26-2010 at 11:35 PM..
The struggle to break racial stereotypes, get along with other races, and overcome your poor/ghetto-ridden roots ... are very much values that most of the country is rooting for. Chicago is the face of hard work. The media supports this especially for blacks, and for other races as well (look at the last winner on American Idol). Chicago is also the economic capital of the midwest; it's a HUGE area among others.
Los Angeles does not portray this culture. Los Angeles' culture consists of illegal Mexican immigration and materialism. The reason this culture is less significant than Chicago's is: 1) No one outside of the southwest experiences this specific illegal Mexican immigrant issue and all that entails first hand, (unlike the black-underdog-issue of Chicago which is relatable all over the north and south) 2) Everywhere has always had materialistic areas, most with no LA-influence.
Oh, and the "illegals" world is completely different in Chicago than LA; both have many illegals of every type but the emphasis and "culture" pertaining to them is different; if you have to question me about it, you have obviously never been to either city--and should leave.
This isn't a bash against LA, I'm just answering the topic.
LA is great. For a tan.
of course this is a bash against LA; to suggest otherwise is extremely disingenuous.
your post is a massive fail, as it's based on stereotypes, sweeping generalizations, and personal biases rather than substance.
[font=Arial]You're really getting hung up on something that is quite silly. It really doesn't matter what the actual number is ....
you probably would have gotten somewhere if you had posted something with meat, but when you lead off with Dallas is the fastest growing city in the US you fail with your first point.
From the big 5, Dallas is last.
FW, Austin, SA and Houston are all growing quicker than Dallas.
don't try to make DFW growth into Dallas is the fastest growing city.
and even then, are you forgetting who is second fastest? houston metro is right there in second place
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.
Chicago
