Houston's gross metropolitan product up in 2009 (Dallas, San Antonio: credit, houses, unemployment rate)

[Wonderful Jellal]

The Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown metropolitan area saw a 2.4 percent increase in gross metropolitan product between 2008 and 2009, according to a comprehensive report issued Wednesday by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Houston ranks fifth in economic power with a GMP of $344.7 billion, up from $336.7 billion in 2008.
The recession reduced the economic output of 80 of the top 100 markets in 2009, as reflected in newly released GMP data.




Houston's gross metropolitan product up in 2009 | Houston Business Journal

[SouthernBoy205]

YAY! I'm going to add this to my research paper!

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

I would read this before you do:

//www.city-data.com/forum/city-...s-product.html

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by justme02

I would read this before you do:

//www.city-data.com/forum/city-...s-product.html

Yes. Haha, Houston saw a good slump in 2009 as gas prices came to an all time 5 year low by rates, which exceedingly rose beyond expectations in 2010 & 2011.

And in 2010 it will be up and in 2011 also, and probably overtake Boston given the fact that Oil prices are reaching unbearably high levels, just good news for Houston altogether. 35% of Houston's GDP is inflation regardless of organic or not (Dallas/Fort Worth to a lessor extent see's the same thing, which is why both were hurt as oil prices were down in 2009 to record lows in a 5 year period).

Houston's economy is still large for it's size though, 6th largest MSA having the 5th largest GDP is good enough (pulling above its weight). 7th largest CSA having the 7th largest GDP is good enough. It's not a large MSA or CSA pulling in below its weight. Look at San Francisco/Oakland for a MSA of 4.4 Million people it has a larger GDP than Philadelphia which is an MSA of 6 Million people. You'll see the stark differences between those two areas and their respective economies in per capita income, which is the division of the economy size (GDP) by population.

Originally Posted by justme02

Some Houston posters like to be high and mighty about their economy relative to DFW. But they are pretty much on the same page and the same size now.

No.

Saying an economy that is larger while being a smaller MSA or CSA is not the same thing at all. Implications of one either pulling its weight and outperforming for its size and the other one being a laggard for its size despite having a larger advantage of workforce. With Dallas/Fort Worth, it's not because its a laggard but again it doesn't have a niche like all the other cities to inflate it's GDP at all. Gross Domestic Product is directly correlated to having a large population, Los Angeles would fall back behind Chicago, Bay Area, & DMV if its population (at CSA) level wasn't double of Chicago's.

The Metroplex rightfully should always have been the larger economy between the two because its the larger MSA & CSA. Saying their at the same playing ground is absolutely not accurate at all and the shares in the GDP even for 2009 will show that to be the case. Here are the shares amongst the GDP, by per capita basis on division of population and economic output.

Per Capita Gross Domestic Product by MSA $50,000+, 2009:
- San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa clara, CA $79,604
- Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT $78,650
- San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA $72,259
- Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV $67,344
- Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA $61,282
- Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA $59,375
- Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH $58,754
- Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX $57,338
- New York-Northern NJ-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA $55,957
- Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO $55,612
- Madison, WI $54,307
- Boulder, CO $53,835
- New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA $52,974
- Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL $52,896
- Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI $52,733
- Salt Lake City, UT $52,158
- Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA $52,100
- Dallas-Ft Worth-Arlington, TX $51,035
- San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA $50,889
- Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD $50,863
- Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA $50,769
- Cheyenne, WY $50,471

And Houston's per capita income is now officially higher than New York also. Houston's not a laggard at all for beating out MSA's & CSA's larger than it by 600,000-900,000 people really puts things into perspective.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by DANNYY

No.

Saying an economy that is larger while being a smaller MSA or CSA is not the same thing at all. Implications of one either pulling its weight and outperforming for its size and the other one being a laggard for its size despite having a larger advantage of workforce. Gross Domestic Product is directly correlated to having a large population, Los Angeles would fall back behind Chicago, Bay Area, & DMV if its population (at CSA) level wasn't double of Chicago's.

The Metroplex rightfully should always have been the larger economy between the two because its the larger MSA & CSA. Saying their at the same playing ground is absolutely not accurate at all and the shares in the GDP even for 2009 will show that to be the case. Here are the shares amongst the GDP, by per capita basis on division of population and economic output.

And Houston's per capita income is now officially higher than New York also. Houston's not a laggard at all for beating out MSA's & CSA's larger than it by 600,000-900,000 people really puts things into perspective.

The Metroplex is less than 400k people larger and the difference between the size of Houston's vs. DFW's economy according to the latest figures are very close.

For economic size and power, Houston has the edge, but dont be dramatic.

DFW's economy took a dive too so at least they are in it together.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by justme02

The Metroplex is less than 400k people larger and the difference between the size of Houston's vs. DFW's economy according to the latest figures are very close.

Absolutely disagreed on this 110%.

In 2009 BEA and all other agencies went with estimates from the US Census Bureau, in which the Metroplex was not only just 400,000 larger than Houston. It was a good 630,000 or so larger at MSA. At CSA level it was 900,000 people larger.

That it not a slightly larger output at all. I'm not trying to be rude, but really I'm not letting Houston slip from the credit that it does deserve here. Especially in the Houston forum.

Originally Posted by justme02

For economic size and power, Houston has the edge, but dont be dramatic.

It's not being dramatic at all, in my opinion. If you take a look at their per capita incomes from 2009 which were released along with the GDP figures and you'll see that there is more than just an edge difference between the two and that's all I'm saying.

Dude, I think you're taking this personally when you shouldn't though, nothing can take away from The Metroplex's great performance in 2010 & 2011. It's just the same thing and different story, it goes with the fact that Houston has a niche to inflate and deflate its economy while Dallas/Fort Worth doesn't, which is why Dallas/Fort Worth has a more stable and dependable economy for any given time period and that's where Dallas/Fort Worth has its moment to shine in too. They're just different places, saying they're anywhere the same is not even a reality.

This is what Houston beats Dallas in by a good margin, look at the per capita income generated by the difference from economic output to the correlated population and you'll see the difference between the two in their performance.

Originally Posted by justme02

DFW's economy took a dive too so at least they are in it together.

The entire country is in it together though for 2009. Have you seen the numbers correlated to the same dollar figures for 2008? Only Washington DC & Philadelphia had a larger economy than they did in 2008.

EDIT: I have nothing against you or Dallas, I find you to be a respectable poster (one of my favorite posters) and I love Dallas, but I don't let anyone walk on Houston either, if they want to criticize it, they can so long as its something Houston deserves it in. Not here on economy though. Honestly though, this debate is kind of worthless, in real life no one really gives it much thought but if its online, I'm just looking out for my city though. I'm kind of tired of everyone criticizing it for everything and even taking away the things it is good at. It's just not fair.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

^^^Its not so much about that. The initial comment I made about certain posters being "high and mighty" had nothing to do with you. Youre easily one of the most objective posters on here. But Im not sure we agree on this. Houston definately has the edge, but Im not sure that its a dramatic edge.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by justme02

^^^Its not so much about that. The initial comment I made about certain posters being "high and mighty" had nothing to do with you. Youre easily one of the most objective posters on here. But Im not sure we agree on this. Houston definately has the edge, but Im not sure that its a dramatic edge.

Oh at first in that thread I thought you meant me, because I insisted that the Intra-State rivalry continue, haha and had my one sentence of bias there. I do want the rivalry to exist, believe it or not, Texas attracts more F500 companies because Houston & Dallas compete, and to put an end to that rivalry would be bogus!

Both are just totally different their economies have a different layout, for better or worse its what makes Texas's economy overall way more dynamic and I can agree with that for sure. Dallas/Worth Metroplex, in my opinion had a strong show in 2010 too. Still I would rather bet my money on both the Metroplex & Houston than anywhere else in the country for performing large and well in the recession (besides Washington DC & Omaha).

Also I found something here. Turns out 2009 was just an incredibly awful year for Houston & Texas though, our unemployment rates skyrocketed like nuts, job losses left and right, & of course this. By 2010, everything simmered down to recovery, so we're all doing a lot better in this state at least.

Excerpt:

Houston’s spectacular job growth in 2008 was shattered by a job loss of 92,500 in 2009 (this number may be higher once the annual March revisions are published); making it the worst labor market performance since the 1980’s.

The December unemployment rate in the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown MSA rose to 8.3%--up from 5.6% in December, 2008.

Employment Job Losses through December 2009
- Construction - 25,500 (12.5% - one in 8 jobs)
- Manufacturing - 19,100 (approx 8%)
- Architect/Engineering Services - 5,600 (8.3%)

- Job Growth did occur in: Health Care & Social Assistance, Educational Services, and Government Services

The Texas unemployment rate rose to 8% in December 2009 (vs. 5.7% in 2008), after 23,900 nonagricultural jobs were lost during the
month.

The U.S. unemployment rate was unchanged in December 2009 at 9.7%.

Source: http://www.kileyadvisors.com/publica...t_Forecast.pdf

Basically when the recession started in 2007, it was everywhere in the country besides Texas & DMV. By 2009, Texas entered the recession itself and all the good times came to an end, however Texas still remained relatively very healthy from the national average in 2009.

Another thing to note is, while 2010 was the year of recovery, it led way to both the Metroplex & Houston being poised to surpass Boston CSA's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). We're seeing an extremely strong show right now, and this recession in general is nearly officially over in Texas (sans the Budget Deficit though).

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

^^^On that I agree. I do hate the rivalry though. I work one week a month in Houston and I live in Dallas and everytime I see it drives me nuts. In California, you had the San Francisco snobs, but for the most part, the cities dont compete that much and the rivalry isnt what it is here.

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by justme02

^^^On that I agree. I do hate the rivalry though. I work one week a month in Houston and I live in Dallas and everytime I see it drives me nuts. In California, you had the San Francisco snobs, but for the most part, the cities dont compete that much and the rivalry isnt what it is here.

Because the distance and comparison between LA and SF are more different. Houston and Dallas influence within the Texas Triangle collide with one another. Houston and Dallas to be two powerhouses are relatively close compared to LA and SF. As well as Austin and San Antonio. The power and wealth is much more concentrated in Texas than California.

I think the point Danny is trying to make is not to downplay the importance of Dallas or to say Houston is extremely more important, but that Houston punches in well above its weight; much more than Dallas might I say. Houston's importance nationally and internationally exceeds Dallas.