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.
Out of reps. 100% agree. With that being said, here are my tiers:
1.NYC
2.LA
3.DC,SF,Chicago (sort of in that order)
4.Boston, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta
5. Seattle, Philly, Miami, Detroit, Phoenix,Denver, Minneapolis,
Meh. The previous lists are better.
DC at #3 is a stretch. It's Chicago...
Boston is a tier up, Atlanta is not in the Boston tier.
Seattle and Philadelphia belong in the #4 group. The differences between Houston, Dallas, Philly, Atlanta, Seattle are negligible, and I don't see an argument to put Philly or Seattle lower.
And in general a serious short change of Philly, Seattle and Miami if you think they belong with Detroit, Denver, Phoenix, and Minneapolis.
But I get it, as stated earlier, we all have preferences.
So, I was talking about Per Capita Personal Income, which is adjusted for cost of living. So, factually, what I said was not 100% untrue. Therefore, you saying what I said is 100% untrue is 100% untrue. Even if you have an issue with the way I used purchasing power synonymously with per capita income, that was only a small part (what percent? LOL) of my paragraph which you falsely claimed was 100% untrue.
If you instead were more specific about my wording, you could have made an argument about me using the term "purchasing power" towards the end of my paragraph. If one were to look at cost of living as a metric alone, sure, the Philadelphia MSA likely is more expensive than those sunbelt MSAs. However, looking at my paragraph, one can infer I was referencing Per Capita Personal Income which is adjusted for cost of living, which in fact is one standard of purchasing power for metro areas: the per capita income people make compared to the cost of living. The way I was deploying the term purchasing power was embedded in my paragraph, and it makes perfect sense.
How does numbeo calculate its purchasing power index, anyways?
It's not a matter of anyone not liking your use of PPP, it's a matter of your statement being untrue.
PPP and PCI are not the same thing, so even though you may have meant PCI the statement is still untrue as Philly does not have a higher PPP and what you said was PPP.
And you didn't just say higher, you said SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER. It's not higher at all.100% untrue.
And it's not just Numbeo, ichose Numbeo because they have a full list of cities big and small. All you have to do is Google PPP and you will see that there is not one list that has Philly ahead by PPP. Your statement may not have been intentional incorrect, as it seems you meant PCI instead of PPP, but it is incorrect nevertheless.
If Philly had a higher PPP than sunbelt cities people from the NE would go there instead of the sunbelt. Philly and Chicago are cheap for classical cities, but they're PPP is still not as high as you think. Philly has a higher PPP than Miami because Miami is not affordable and Philly is nearing Parity with Atlanta but Houston and DFW are still way ahead.
PPP is calculated per 1/4 BTW so you should be able to find at about 3 reports for 2022
Boston is a tier up, Atlanta is not in the Boston tier.
Seattle and Philadelphia belong in the #4 group. The differences between Houston, Dallas, Philly, Atlanta, Seattle are negligible, and I don't see an argument to put Philly or Seattle lower.
And in general a serious short change of Philly, Seattle and Miami if you think they belong with Detroit, Denver, Phoenix, and Minneapolis.
But I get it, as stated earlier, we all have preferences.
Yeah, kinda agree, although it's hard and somewhat subjective depending on how you are basing the rankings. NYC and LA are #1 and #2 no matter how you slice it.
Then it becomes a toss-up depending on how you are ranking, and whether you are using city proper or MSA definitions. For MSA, you are adding in 2 states to prop DC.
DC as #3 as a standalone city is definitely a stretch. I can see the argument for SF/Bay Area but not DC.
But again it depends on what criteria we're talking about. I would put Chicago of SF as #3 depending on the criteria.
Yeah, kinda agree, although it's hard and somewhat subjective depending on how you are basing the rankings. NYC and LA are #1 and #2 no matter how you slice it.
Then it becomes a toss-up depending on how you are ranking, and whether you are using city proper or MSA definitions. For MSA, you are adding in 2 states to prop DC.
DC as #3 as a standalone city is definitely a stretch. I can see the argument for SF/Bay Area but not DC.
But again it depends on what criteria we're talking about. I would put Chicago of SF as #3 depending on the criteria.
I wouldnt put DC as number 3 even by CSA standards. The CSA is too disjointed and has two separate spheres of influence not depending upon each other. Chicago is a tier above DC. SF may be 1st in the tier that DC is in.
I wouldnt put DC as number 3 even by CSA standards. The CSA is too disjointed and has two separate spheres of influence not depending upon each other. Chicago is a tier above DC. SF may be 1st in the tier that DC is in.
You don't think DC has broad influence, even with Baltimore?
You don't think DC has broad influence, even with Baltimore?
I don't think Baltimore adds anything to DC except bodies that makes DC appear larger on paper than it really is. DC has broad influence as it is the capitol of the US, which should put it at number 1 over all other cities including NYC. If that does not make DC number 1 then it should be a tier below Chicago.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,132 posts, read 7,572,838 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by yadigggski
Dallas and Houston should be about equal IMO. If anything DFW is a bit ahead of Houston economically.
I think Chicago is slightly below LA, but at the same time Chicago has more Fortune 500/1000 companies than LA by a long shot. It doesn't seem too far fetched in some regards.
I don't know that Dallas is "ahead" of Houston, just like idk that Chicago is uniformly ahead of DC in either influence etc., rather than simply raw numbers. Raw GDP isn't enough for me to just place a city in front of another, they have to dominate in multiple factors. Houston MSA, is more ethnically diverse, and has a dominant industry unlike Dallas. Same with DC vs Chicago although I say they are close and IMO same tier. It's easy to pull out raw totals instead of looking at why cities are what they are, and rank where they do.
Fortune 500's to me only go but so far, DC has more Fortune 500's by MSA than LA, as does Minneapolis and Atlanta. Does that mean any of these cities make a case for being higher than LA?
You don't think DC has broad influence, even with Baltimore?
DC seems to be the least influential in terms of sphere of influence of the top 6. Outside of the federal government DC doesn’t have a local niche or culture that is widely known or identifiable. It’s influence seems to end an hour North and an Hour/1.5 hours south.
The wealth, immigration, federal government, and defense that elevates it so high. It’s a very important city practically.
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.
