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.
In other words, given the current crises which had already resulted in en mass unemployment in America of over 14% - what will be the result if a 7+ earthquake hits somewhere around San Francisco/LA? Drawing parallels with Japan is interesting:
In 1995 when the Kobe earthquake hit Japan was already suffering from the beginning of its downturn after decades of "Japanese miracle" and the earthquake had an immediate financial impact also arguably bringing and unaccounted for psychological impact and causing the so called "ushinawareta junen"(lost decade)that period still lasting till 2020 when Japan is a shadow of its past glory and can't return to its great 80s.
No. California has strict building codes (partially why housing is so expensive).
In 1994, the Northride earthquake hit Los Angeles as a 6.7. Killed 57 but the city was back to normal in a few weeks.
California had a 7.1 last July which killed 1.
The San Diego area had a 7.2 in 2010 which killed 2 people in Mexico.
The 1906 San Francisco earthquake was unique. It was a 7.9 but the epicenter was literally within city limits. 90% of the destruction, however, was the city having poor fire coverage. So the city couldn't respond to the small fires that then consumed neighborhoods.
Buildings today are far more fire resistant and San Francisco as a wealthy metropolis has very good fire coverage.
Also, put 1906 in context: it killed 3,000 people out of 926,000 in the Bay Area. It was a tragedy but California made up the population in 11 days of population growth.
Salesforce Tower, with foundations in bedrock 300' below ground, can reportedly survive a 9+. The big concern in an earthquake is steel-frame buildings and the old wood-framed residentials. A major earthquake could destroy some historic districts.
But economically speaking, the city would survive and rebuild fairly quickly. Which isn't to say deaths wouldn't number in the thousands. Just saying that like Sendai, the city would recover.
Los Angeles is in better shape, mostly because it boomed in the post-war when building codes were starting to be enforced.
And Japan's lost decade began in 1990 because of a liquidity trap. Not sure how an earthquake in 1995 can cause a massive economic contraction that began 5 years earlier.
You missed this part of your Wiki:
"The sheer size of the earthquake caused a major decline in Japanese stock markets, with the Nikkei 225 index plunging by 1,025 points on the day following the quake. This financial damage was the immediate cause for the collapse of Barings Bank due to the actions of Nick Leeson, who had speculated vast amounts of money on Japanese and Singaporean derivatives. Discussions of Japan's "Lost Decade" tend towards purely economic analysis, and neglect the impact of the earthquake on the Japanese economy which at the time was already suffering from recession.
Despite this devastation in a big production center, the local economy recovered very quickly. Even though less than half the port facilities had been rebuilt by that stage, within a year import volumes through the port had recovered fully and export volumes were nearly back to where they would have been without the disaster.[16] Less than 15 months after the earthquake, in March 1996, manufacturing activity in greater Kobe was at 98% of its projected pre-quake level."
No. California has strict building codes (partially why housing is so expensive).
In 1994, the Northride earthquake hit Los Angeles as a 6.7. Killed 57 but the city was back to normal in a few weeks.
California had a 7.1 last July which killed 1.
The San Diego area had a 7.2 in 2010 which killed 2 people in Mexico.
The 1906 San Francisco earthquake was unique. It was a 7.9 but the epicenter was literally within city limits. 90% of the destruction, however, was the city having poor fire coverage. So the city couldn't respond to the small fires that then consumed neighborhoods.
Buildings today are far more fire resistant and San Francisco as a wealthy metropolis has very good fire coverage.
Also, put 1906 in context: it killed 3,000 people out of 926,000 in the Bay Area. It was a tragedy but California made up the population in 11 days of population growth.
Salesforce Tower, with foundations in bedrock 300' below ground, can reportedly survive a 9+. The big concern in an earthquake is steel-frame buildings and the old wood-framed residentials. A major earthquake could destroy some historic districts.
But economically speaking, the city would survive and rebuild fairly quickly. Which isn't to say deaths wouldn't number in the thousands. Just saying that like Sendai, the city would recover.
Los Angeles is in better shape, mostly because it boomed in the post-war when building codes were starting to be enforced.
And Japan's lost decade began in 1990 because of a liquidity trap. Not sure how an earthquake in 1995 can cause a massive economic contraction that began 5 years earlier.
You missed this part of your Wiki:
"The sheer size of the earthquake caused a major decline in Japanese stock markets, with the Nikkei 225 index plunging by 1,025 points on the day following the quake. This financial damage was the immediate cause for the collapse of Barings Bank due to the actions of Nick Leeson, who had speculated vast amounts of money on Japanese and Singaporean derivatives. Discussions of Japan's "Lost Decade" tend towards purely economic analysis, and neglect the impact of the earthquake on the Japanese economy which at the time was already suffering from recession.
Despite this devastation in a big production center, the local economy recovered very quickly. Even though less than half the port facilities had been rebuilt by that stage, within a year import volumes through the port had recovered fully and export volumes were nearly back to where they would have been without the disaster.[16] Less than 15 months after the earthquake, in March 1996, manufacturing activity in greater Kobe was at 98% of its projected pre-quake level."
That earthquake was not actually here in San Diego. It was about 130 miles away in Northern Baja near the Gulf of California.
Even though California is significant, 85% of the U.S. economy (GDP) is outside of California. So, you can't take down the U.S. economy by destroying one state or region.
The U.S. is an economic powerhouse largely because it has such a high concentration of the world's intellectual capital.
That earthquake was not actually here in San Diego. It was about 130 miles away in Northern Baja near the Gulf of California.
Yup. But it was felt very strongly here. No structural damage that I’m aware of probably due to building codes. It was strong enough to set off car alarms. I was sitting outside on a concrete park bench and could feel the ground undulating.
You phrase it as if those intellectuals can never die in an earthquake...only California's youtube servers can be damaged.
Silicon Valley is very low-density and all of those Global 500 HQs are bunkers - not just in terms of safety but IP security. If there's an earthquake in California, I'd love to be in Apple HQ when it happens.
Most damage in California will be pre-war residentials, of which San Mateo County and San Jose are devoid of. I'd be worried about San Francisco losing some beautiful Queen Anne neighborhoods. Not so much about economic collapse.
Only China, Japan and Germany can compete with California on GDP. California beats France, UK, Spain, South Korea, Italy, Russia, India, Brazil. Canada and California have nearly equal populations yet Canada's GDP is $1.7 trillion while California is at $3.2 trillion.
Cali's truly a juggernaut. Even worse, COVID-19 has done the unthinkable and made the Bay Area even more powerful. The death of Main Street is making kings of Cali's tech firms. Apple, Facebook, Google, and big tech have actually gone HIGHER in market cap as COVID-19 has dragged on.
No. California has strict building codes (partially why housing is so expensive).
Right, but Texas (the second largest economy state in the US) would be a different story. Of course just in theory - we don't get earthquakes here.
Another Harvey hurricane in Gulf area plus a massive tornado in Dallas could devastate Texas, though...
Over NOAA's 40 years of analysis, the Lone Star State has experienced more than 100 separate $1 billion disasters, from the Houston floods and hurricanes of 2017 to flooding and even winter storms. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/bill...r-prepare.html
Right, but Texas (the second largest economy state in the US) would be a different story. Of course just in theory - we don't get earthquakes here.
Another Harvey hurricane in Gulf area plus a massive tornado in Dallas could devastate Texas, though...
Yes, thankfully Texas doesn't get many earthquakes so has no reason to have such strict codes.
And a Cat 5 won't damage Dallas, Austin or San Antonio.
It would do serious damage to Houston, but won't bring about the financial collapse of America. Miami gets hit by a Cat 5 every generation and they rebuild and move on. A major hurricane hitting Houston or Miami is baked into insurance premiums.
I grew up in Oklahoma. Tornadoes don't cause much damage since they aren't very wide. The chances of an F5 hitting Downtown Dallas and every other major economic center in the DFW are 1 in 1 million unlikely.
Texas has a bright future and even less to worry about than California imo.
We've had hurricanes hit New York City and have rebuilt.
Toppling the U.S. is akin to destroying a continent. No natural disaster can destroy fortress America.
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.
