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.
I'm not from SFB so I can only say a little about it. But Boston is known as the "Silicon Valley of the East" for the biotech/life sciences/industrial buisnesses located in the region. The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston is the second largest single museum in the nation (behind only the Met). Obviously the 100's of colleges, and 100,000's of students that study here, many of whom stay after they graduate. It has been considered onw of the best cities to live and work in. It has (very often) one of the highest standards (and costs) of living in the world. The Boston CSA (5th after NYC, LA, Chi, DC) is quite larger than SFB, but nonetheless are comparable, considering, SF, Oakland, and SJ are huge cities, in their own right. Then it's just Boston, Providence, and Worcester.
The Bay Area CSA was behind by less than 200,000 people in 2008 while its trends showed higher growth rates. It doesn't seem quite right to Boston's is much larger. Also, Silicon Valley of the East is quite a bit smaller than Silicon Valley.
I voted Boston, because obviously DC shouldn't even be in there. It's the most important city in our country, not 2nd, not 3rd, etc. I disagree with most of the yahoos up there, but it is our nation's capital. So, out of the three remaining, I voted Boston.
Why would Houston go down this year? And it didn't just spike in 2008.
The same reason Detroits GDP has stalled regressed on occassion during economic recessions.
The flow of economic output is going to fluctuate considerable in regions which are heavily dependent on one industry or natural resource.Back in the 80's-90's when oil prices were $15 per barrel Houstons economy was pedestrian.Flash forward 30 years when oil is $145 a barrell- Houstons economic throttle is wide open. At $60 a barrell Houston is decelerating.Oil use plummets,oil companies capital falls, infrastructure and expansion ceases, workers get layed off, mortgages go into foreclosure, GDP stalls and in some cases falls.
Of course I overdramatized Houston GDP's falling but the point was to show the insular nature that Oil has on Houstons economy.
The same reason Detroits GDP has stalled regressed on occassion during economic recessions.
The flow of economic output is going to fluctuate considerable in regions which are heavily dependent on one industry or natural resource. When oil is $145 a barrell Houstons economic throttle is wide open. At $60 a barrell Houston is in neutral.Oil use plummets,oil companies capital falls, infrastructure and expansion ceases, workers get layed off, mortgages go into foreclosure, GDP stalls and in some cases falls.
Of course I overdramatized Houston GDP's falling but the point was to show the insular nature that Oil has on Houstons economy.
But you're 100% wrong on Houston. Houston is not a Detroit. I don't think you know much about our economy, and I'll just leave at that for now. Don't forget how low oil got this decade (per barrel). Then note how Houston's economy still boomed. The numbers speak for themselves and disprove your claim.
But you're 100% wrong on Houston. Houston is not a Detroit. I don't think you know much about our economy, and I'll just leave at that for now. The numbers speak for themselves.
Youre confused. I didnt say Houston was a Detroit, I alluded to the fact that Houstons economy is similar to Detroit in that it is heavily dependent on one particular industry.
As far as the numbers speaking for themselves remember that Houstons GDP catchment area is a sprawling 3x the size of Detroits and 2x the size of Philly. Eliminate the imaginary county lines that the census bureau uses for metro boundary designation and Philly/Delaware Valley GDP is $453 B.
Youre confused. I didnt say Houston was a Detroit, I alluded to the fact that Houstons economy is similar to Detroit in that it is heavily dependent on one particular industry.
As far as the numbers speaking for themselves remember that Houstons GDP catchment area is a sprawling 3x the size of Detroits and 2x the size of Philly. Eliminate the imaginary county lines that the census bureau uses for metro boundary designation and Philly/Delaware Valley GDP is $453 B.
But Houston ISN'T heavily dependent on one industry. This isn't the 80s. Also, what does land size have to do with it? Didn't someone already disprove your claim on that one earlier? Look at urban areas, and Houston isn't much different than Philly. Hell, Houston actually takes up less land and is denser: USA Urbanized Areas: 2000 Ranked by Population(465 Areas)
When the new numbers come out, it'll probably an even wider gap.
Don't forget how low oil got this decade (per barrel). Then note how Houston's economy still boomed. The numbers speak for themselves and disprove your claim.
So its no coincidence that Houstons historically crawling economy has shot through the roof this decade as oil has gone from a steady $25 per barrel to upwards of $145 per barrel?
10 years ago a barrel of oil cost $25 per barrell. Between 2000-2001 Houstons GDP increased only $3B dollars while oil was dirt cheap.
As the stock market began to toy with energy prices and the price of oil began to rise Houstons GDP went from an increase of $3 B dollars per year to $30 B dollars per year.
So its no coincidence that Houstons historically crawling economy has shot through the roof this decade as oil has gone from a steady $25 per barrel to upwards of $145 per barrel?
10 years ago a barrel of oil cost $25 per barrell. Between 2000-2001 Houstons GDP increased only $3B dollars while oil was dirt cheap.
As the stock market began to toy with energy prices and the price of oil began to rise Houstons GDP went from an increase of $3 B dollars per year to $30 B dollars per year.
Most economies saw modest growth during this time. The big gains didn't happen until after. But, you act like oil was at that price the whole time. Oil was going up and down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock
50% of Houstons economy is still based on energy. Thats a load.
Houston is not at 50% anymore. That was a while ago.
Most economies saw modest growth during this time. The big gains didn't happen until after. But, you act like oil was at that price the whole time. Oil was going up and down.
The avg inflation adjusted historical price of a barrel of oil since 1946 is $20 per barrel. From 1946 to 2002 Houstons economy was run of the mill, chugging along like everyone else. Since 2002 the inflation adjusted price of a barrel of oil has been about $65 per barrel and Houstons economy has gone beserk.
If you are telling me thats all a coincidence I have some real estate on the dark side of Pluto I would be interested in showing you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface
Houston is not at 50% anymore. That was a while ago.
"Three things affect Houston's economy," says Patrick Jankowski, vice president of research at the Greater Houston Partnership. "The price of energy, the value of the dollar, and the strength of the U.S. economy at large." As Meatloaf said, two out of three ain't bad.
"We're really diversified," says Mike Ballases, chairman of the Houston region for JPMorgan Chase, tongue partially in cheek. "We're only 50 percent dependent on energy."
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.
