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.
You completely missed the point. Corporate HQs are still where many executives are based, and where the bulk of key decisions are made. Sure, jobs are being created in other markets, but a lot of them are the middle & lower paying back office type of positions. Phoenix being ranked 7th on the best performing cities list means zilch if we're competing with small metros like Boise, Idaho or Huntsville, Alabama. As big as Phoenix is, we seriously need to step up our game, be more fast paced, and put and end to all this small thinking. We'll never be like NYC or Chicago (which is fine), but it would be great to be on the same level as places like Dallas, Houston, Seattle, Boston, or Atlanta when it comes to national & global based business. Obviously, there are reasons why many high ranking firms are based in these metros instead of Phoenix. Good weather & plentiful hiking trails apparently mean very little in this regard!
Did you read the report? There's a separate list of big and small cities, we're not on the small city list, the other large cities just rank lower because of QOL variables. Scroll down past the top 10 large cities to the complete list and you'll see where your crown jewels of Dallas, Houston, Seattle, Boston and Atlanta all rank, they're lower than Phoenix.
Here's a few other points you're missing.
Higher paying jobs means zilch if the cost of living more than offsets it, case in point Seattle. They fall to 13th on this list despite a high tech presence and wages at because of QOL factors like home affordability offset this.
Tech jobs pay well, you don't need to be an executive at a tech company to make good money, nor do you need to be located at the HQs. The average tech salary in Phoenix is $95K. https://www.abc15.com/news/business/...on-report-says
Again, having a HQ means less now than ever before, look at the Intel presence in the valley, do you really think they don't have high paid executive management to support Fab 42? The company has 12,000 employees in the valley and roughly 7,000 at HQ in Santa Clara. Here are the types of jobs they have in Chandler: https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Intel/sal...FAZ%2FChandler
Phoenix should be at least Atlanta level in this regard but we are no where close.
Why is that?
Phoenix CSA is 5 million people versus Atlanta has nearly 6.9M
Phoenix 1881 Atlanta incorporated in 1847
Phoenix region 1950 population 374K, Atlanta 1 million
The Atlanta CSA is nearly is 1.4x the size of Phoenix, 1.9 million more people live in the region which is more than the entire population of the city of Phoenix itself. Atlanta is also a much older city and has been much bigger than Phoenix for a lot longer. Many of ATL's notable HQs were starting before Phoenix was basically still a small farming town.
But for sake of a weighted comparison:
Phoenix CSA: 1 Fortune 1000 HQ per 263K people (19 total fortune 1000s)
Atalnta CSA: 1 Fortune 1000 HQ per 230K people (30 total fortune 1000s)
Atlanta Notables:
Coca Cola: Started in 1886 in a hardware store in Atlanta
Delta: Started as a crop dusting company in 1925 in GA
Southern Company: SE utility started in the 1920s
Genuine Parts Company: Started in Atlanta in the 1920s
This is a list that includes places like Boise, Huntsville and Ogden. Sorry, but these lists mean nothing. According to this study, Phoenix ranked 47th in high-tech GDP concentration. That's really lame for a metro area with nearly 5 million residents. You would imagine being close to California, which probably has some of the highest concentration of high-tech GDP, and is slowly losing some major companies, would give Arizona an advantage, but nope. This metro area has lagged for a long time and always seems to get some "cheap" GDP growth during boom cycles from population increases and the construction boom that happens from that. Salt Lake City, has a much smaller population, and ranks higher overall and has a higher ranking in high-tech GDP concentration. Just based on anecdotal info, SLC seems to be doing much better in terms of the type of growth it's getting. Same for places like Denver and Austin. It's very sad that Phoenix never seems to outgrow its old ways. Go back to pre-2008 and I guarantee there were similar reports like this one. High population growth -> GDP growth, but still lagging most major American cities in burgeoning and important 21st century industries.
Did you read the report? There's a separate list of big and small cities, we're not on the small city list, the other large cities just rank lower because of QOL variables. Scroll down past the top 10 large cities to the complete list and you'll see where your crown jewels of Dallas, Houston, Seattle, Boston and Atlanta all rank, they're lower than Phoenix.
The real question is: did you read the report? Notice that among the list of "Tier 1 Large Cities" are small areas like Provo, Palm Bay, Huntsville, and Boise. Those places are NOT tier 1 metros by any means. Mid sized metros like Nashville & Salt Lake City are also classified as large cities on this report. Basically, Phoenix being ranked 7th on a list like this is rather meaningless & unimpressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by locolife
Higher paying jobs means zilch if the cost of living more than offsets it, case in point Seattle. They fall to 13th on this list despite a high tech presence and wages at because of QOL factors like home affordability offset this.
Tech jobs pay well, you don't need to be an executive at a tech company to make good money, nor do you need to be located at the HQs. The average tech salary in Phoenix is $95K. https://www.abc15.com/news/business/...on-report-says
Again, having a HQ means less now than ever before, look at the Intel presence in the valley, do you really think they don't have high paid executive management to support Fab 42? The company has 12,000 employees in the valley and roughly 7,000 at HQ in Santa Clara. Here are the types of jobs they have in Chandler: https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Intel/sal...FAZ%2FChandler
No, you're just finding ways to dance around the issue. Regardless if you believe having corporate HQs are less meaningful now, the fact remains that they still have importance. This is rooted in the fact that Phoenix is still barely a dot on the national map when it comes to the business sector, even despite our increasing tech presence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by locolife
Why is that?
Phoenix CSA is 5 million people versus Atlanta has nearly 6.9M
Phoenix 1881 Atlanta incorporated in 1847
Phoenix region 1950 population 374K, Atlanta 1 million
The Atlanta CSA is nearly is 1.4x the size of Phoenix, 1.9 million more people live in the region which is more than the entire population of the city of Phoenix itself. Atlanta is also a much older city and has been much bigger than Phoenix for a lot longer. Many of ATL's notable HQs were starting before Phoenix was basically still a small farming town.
But for sake of a weighted comparison:
Phoenix CSA: 1 Fortune 1000 HQ per 263K people (19 total fortune 1000s)
Atalnta CSA: 1 Fortune 1000 HQ per 230K people (30 total fortune 1000s)
Atlanta Notables:
Coca Cola: Started in 1886 in a hardware store in Atlanta
Delta: Started as a crop dusting company in 1925 in GA
Southern Company: SE utility started in the 1920s
Genuine Parts Company: Started in Atlanta in the 1920s
Man, you're really stretching it! The year of incorporation has absolutely no relevance in this. As far as population: yes, Atlanta's metro still is larger, but it was still a more significant player on the national & global scale even when it was Phoenix's size (which wasn't all that long ago). What it all boils down to is: the Phoenix area keeps adding population at a rapid pace, but we still keep a rather slow pace on many other things.
The real question is: did you read the report? Notice that among the list of "Tier 1 Large Cities" are small areas like Provo, Palm Bay, Huntsville, and Boise. Those places are NOT tier 1 metros by any means. Mid sized metros like Nashville & Salt Lake City are also classified as large cities on this report. Basically, Phoenix being ranked 7th on a list like this is rather meaningless & unimpressive.
No, you're just finding ways to dance around the issue. Regardless if you believe having corporate HQs are less meaningful now, the fact remains that they still have importance. This is rooted in the fact that Phoenix is still barely a dot on the national map when it comes to the business sector, even despite our increasing tech presence.
Man, you're really stretching it! The year of incorporation has absolutely no relevance in this. As far as population: yes, Atlanta's metro still is larger, but it was still a more significant player on the national & global scale even when it was Phoenix's size (which wasn't all that long ago). What it all boils down to is: the Phoenix area keeps adding population at a rapid pace, but we still keep a rather slow pace on many other things.
Okay VN. Your opinions make a far more compelling case than a fact based recurring research report from a 30-year old economic non-profit think-tank that has a mission to improve the lives and economic conditions of diverse populations in the United States and around the world by helping business and public policy leaders identify and implement innovative ideas for creating broad-based prosperity.
Please share your studies on such topics and site sources with facts that support your case that the difference between 30 and 19 Fortune 1000 HQ presence makes some major impact on day to day life for most of the population in a city. That after all is the difference between Atlanta and Phoenix and what you're stating I'm "stretching" on.
This is a list that includes places like Boise, Huntsville and Ogden. Sorry, but these lists mean nothing. According to this study, Phoenix ranked 47th in high-tech GDP concentration. That's really lame for a metro area with nearly 5 million residents. You would imagine being close to California, which probably has some of the highest concentration of high-tech GDP, and is slowly losing some major companies, would give Arizona an advantage, but nope. This metro area has lagged for a long time and always seems to get some "cheap" GDP growth during boom cycles from population increases and the construction boom that happens from that. Salt Lake City, has a much smaller population, and ranks higher overall and has a higher ranking in high-tech GDP concentration. Just based on anecdotal info, SLC seems to be doing much better in terms of the type of growth it's getting. Same for places like Denver and Austin. It's very sad that Phoenix never seems to outgrow its old ways. Go back to pre-2008 and I guarantee there were similar reports like this one. High population growth -> GDP growth, but still lagging most major American cities in burgeoning and important 21st century industries.
Yeah did you know Idaho has 2 Fortune 500 companies and Arizona has 4, despite being 4-5 times the size, that is just sad. I feel like AZ still very based on growth and if that stopped it would fall apart, just like history has shown.
Okay VN. Your opinions make a far more compelling case than a fact based recurring research report from a 30-year old economic non-profit think-tank that has a mission to improve the lives and economic conditions of diverse populations in the United States and around the world by helping business and public policy leaders identify and implement innovative ideas for creating broad-based prosperity.
Please share your studies on such topics and site sources with facts that support your case that the difference between 30 and 19 Fortune 1000 HQ presence makes some major impact on day to day life for most of the population in a city. That after all is the difference between Atlanta and Phoenix and what you're stating I'm "stretching" on.
The impacts are larger than you might think. Corporations are able to offer more competitive, higher salaried positions, and the room for advancement tends to be greater than in a satellite office. Some of the top 100 companies offer additional perks besides the standard insurance, 401K, and medical benefits ... such as paying 100% of health care benefits for full time employees. One California based company not only has tuition reimbursement, but offers a maximum of $30,000 for employees to pay down their existing student loan debts.
In addition, these corporate giants contribute to infrastructure improvements. AECOM played a key part in rebuilding the World Trade Center to a level that is even better than the original towers prior to the 9/11 attacks. When new corporate towers are constructed, the companies put a significant amount of money in streetscape upgrades. As I've mentioned many other times, when they build new highrises (and yes, office towers are still under construction in many cities), this enhances the skyline & gives a city more prestige. PLENTY of reasons why having corporate HQs are beneficial to a metro region. They're not just there to benefit the wealthy either. They help the poorer people with not only job creation, but with their generous contributions to charitable organizations (as noted in the article below).
Below is an interesting read about Fortune 500 companies: a number of them are headquartered in 6 major metro areas, including one that is smaller than Phoenix. Also interesting to note that there's certainly no debate about all these cities having more inclement weather than Phoenix ... proving again that a sunny climate & easy access to hiking trails aren't attracting the executives and the skilled talent we're looking for.
Yeah did you know Idaho has 2 Fortune 500 companies and Arizona has 4, despite being 4-5 times the size, that is just sad. I feel like AZ still very based on growth and if that stopped it would fall apart, just like history has shown.
This is no big deal for Locolife. Phoenix has only been incorporated for 140 years, and had a metro population of only 374,000 in 1950. According to him, these are among the reasons why we're currently the 5th largest city, but still not a large player in the business arena. It's really a shame when you think about it because Phoenix certainly has positive attributes, and a lot of potential to be more than what we are.
Last edited by Valley Native; 02-27-2021 at 11:15 PM..
Nice to see the local economy continue to grow more robust resulting in significant wage growth for the area.
Phoenix, Arizona, rises to No. 7 in this year’s Best-Performing Cities Index. The metro continues to grow at unprecedented rates, including top-tier one-year job (sixth) and wage growth (15th). Phoenix also improved five ranks in high-tech GDP concentration (47th), while its seven high-tech industries land it at 37th, highlighting a deepening high-tech economy.
Cheers from Tucson! We like things just the way they are here! Go ahead and grow, grow, grow, to the west that is, as we don't we don't want your suburbs stretching down this far!
Phoenix will never be Boston, Houston or Atlanta until it has a top 50 university like MIT, Rice or Emory. ASU is fine but public, the lack of education/research investment in Arizona compared to other major metros is key variable.
This is no big deal for Locolife. Phoenix has only been incorporated for 140 years, and had a metro population of only 374,000 in 1950. According to him, these are among the reasons why we're currently the 5th largest city, but still not a large player in the business arena. It's really a shame when you think about it because Phoenix certainly has positive attributes, and a lot of potential to be more than what we are.
Why is it so hard to point out anything positive about your home city? There's been a lot of good things happening here and your level of experience living elsewhere seems limited if not zero. For all its faults Phoenix puts together a pretty good package of lifestyle, opportunity, and livability for many, many people. There's a reason so many of us choose to relocate here, myself included 20 years ago. If you think anything different you're ignoring glaring facts such as our growth rate from 1950 to now.
I'm not saying we don't have room to grow and improve, I'm all for it and my voting along with my community engagement shows it. But acting like we're nothing today is simply not true and only a disservice to the very things you're wishing for.
1. We're the youngest big city in the country, this is a valid point. Places like New York probably has sewer covers older than Phoenix.
3. There are countless examples of great job opportunities from companies expanding here that are not locating their HQs here. The massive 35B dollar TSMC semiconductor plant in North Phoenix is just another, as the article states they will be hiring over 1000 engineers. And part of the reason for coming to Arizona is the ability to attract a talented workforce. And with the supplier companies from Asia that are also now planning to build here in support of the TSMC site we could finally land a coveted direct flight to Asia.
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.
