SkyscraperCity banner

21 - 40 of 78 Posts

·
less is more
Joined
·
978 Posts
London is a world leader in financial services but not necessary in GDP. Indeed, the GDP per capita is the most important factor of this research to determine how wealthy cities are...IMO

And it does not come as a surprise that San Francisco leads the pack of the world's richest cities.

I was wondering the same thing myself. Seems strange.
 

·
Lord of Legoland
Joined
·
10,895 Posts
The list is useless... some cities it cover the entire metro other just a single municipal...

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/richest-cities-2005.html

In Copenhagen's case it's just Copenhagen municipal ( pop 503.000 ) so 1.3mil people are unincluded in the figure :(


List like this should ALWAYS be done per capital, so we get the real number... or atleast one more fair for everybody!
 

·
muted
Joined
·
7,080 Posts
London is a world leader in financial services but not necessary in GDP. Indeed, the GDP per capita is the most important factor of this research to determine how wealthy cities are...IMO

And it does not come as a surprise that San Francisco leads the pack of the world's richest cities.
Yes, London is the financial capital of the world. New York is the business capital of the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
The vast majority of financial services are not counted as part of GDP, as GDP is defined as: consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports). Financial products, such as futures contracts, forex trades and mutual funds, are not part of the GDP calculation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
The vast majority of financial services are not counted as part of GDP, as GDP is defined as: consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports). Financial products, such as futures contracts, forex trades and mutual funds, are not part of the GDP calculation.
Well Shawn, it must be measuring somethin' like that. 'Cause Boston-Providence doesn't produce much of anything tangible. Unless you feel that Providence's stellar production of cosmetic jewelry can account for such a thriving economy. :lol:

Last time I looked, Boston's main economic engines were financial services/products, medical care/products, computer software, and education, none of which can even remotely be considered industrial operations.

BTW: I was quite surprised to see that Paris has greater economic clout than London. That's news to me, since it has a smaller metropolitan area and industrial activity isn't all that centralized in France around Paris.

Cheers! :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
Lots of US cities are missing on that list...was there a population cutoff?

Now I know that Hartford had more than 5 billion :wink2:
I'm sure there are. I can imagine that Duluth has a more thriving economy than Dar Es Salaam, too. But the Manchester Guardian's primary audience is probably more interested in the relative status of European and world cities in comparison to the major American cities, than the relative ranking of Knoxville, Tennessee versus Hartford or Springfield.

Sorry... :wink2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
'Investment' in GDP is meant very specifically as non-financial product purchases. Buying financial products is classed as 'saving' , as opposed to investment. Money converted into goods or services is by definition investment, whereas money spent on a bond or a share is considered a transfer payment and is excluded from the GDP sum. Although such purchases would be called investments in normal speech, from the macroeconomic point of view, this is simply swapping of deeds, and not part of the real economy or the GDP formula.

As for the Boston numbers, keep in mind that the Boston-Providence CSA has a population of a little under 7.5 million. 7.5 million people's worth of simple, everyday domestic consumption alone can explain a large portion of the area's high GDP. And while many of the region's largest and most profitable firms are financial services providers, let's not forget the large light industry base, which includes semiconductors/medical devices production (Raytheon, PerkinElmer, Boston Scientific, Varian Semiconductors, Gillette, EMC, Reebok, Cabot, Thermo Electron, etc) and services (BJ's Wholesale, TJX, Staples etc). You might be surprised to learn that companies without household name recognition, like TJX ($14.9 billion in 2005 revenue) and Talbot's ($1.6 billion in 2005 revenue), contribute significantly to the Boston-Providence economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
They completely messed up on projected sun belt cities' growth rate. They had NYC advancing at 2.2% annually while Atlanta at 2.6%. That is almost laughable. Atlanta is growing much closer to five % than 2.5%. Numbers readjusted accordingly for Houston and Dallas also, whose projected growth rate is actually about the same as population :)weird: :weird: )


Hell nevermind, DISCARD THE ENTIRE list because it is based on completely idiotic assumptions. Not just southern cities either. For example, Singapore, the one of the fastest growing developed economies in the world (>5% per year) is projected to grow only a bit more than NY (little to no population growth)? LOLOL soo stupid
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
883 Posts
Hell nevermind, DISCARD THE ENTIRE list because it is based on completely idiotic assumptions. Not just southern cities either. For example, Singapore, the one of the fastest growing developed economies in the world (>5% per year) is projected to grow only a bit more than NY (little to no population growth)? LOLOL soo stupid
I noticed that too. This list is ridiculous. Dallas and Washington (even without Bmore) are known to have larger and faster growing economies than Philly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
http://usmayors.org/metroeconomies/0107/GMPreport.pdf

A much more accurate report can be read there for 2005, the newest data available from the US Economic Census.

Using the CSA definition, which is the only realistic way to measure a metro's economic size (since CSAs are designated by commuter patterns - or economic activity - to begin with), here are the top economies in the US in terms of gross metropolitan product:

1. New York City CSA: $1.103 T
2. Los Angeles/Long Beach/Riverside CSA: $770.6 B
3. Washington/Baltimore CSA: $436 B
4. Chicago CSA: $429.6 B
5. Boston/Providence CSA: $364.6 B
6. San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose CSA: $357.8 B
7. Philadelphia/Reading CSA: $286.1 B
8. Dallas/Fort Worth CSA: $284.5 B
9. Houston/Beaumont CSA: $244.4 B
10. Atlanta/Sandy Springs/Marietta MSA: $212.4 B

I was a little suspect of Philadelphia's high ranking on the previous list....I knew it was up there but I was almost positive it was lower than DC, SF, and Boston.

It's cool how you can see the economic tiers on this list. New York is obviously on it's own up top, and LA is in it's own league aswell (I geuss you could say they're Tier 1A and Tier 1B). Then Washington/Baltimore and Chicago for tier 2, Boston/Providence and SF for Tier 3, and then the rest.

$1.754 Trillion between NYC-Boston-Philly makes for one powerful region...put in DC/BMore and you're looking at $2.19 trillion.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
883 Posts
http://usmayors.org/metroeconomies/0107/GMPreport.pdf

A much more accurate report can be read there for 2005, the newest data available from the US Economic Census.

Using the CSA definition, which is the only realistic way to measure a metro's economic size (since CSAs are designated by commuter patterns - or economic activity - to begin with), here are the top economies in the US in terms of gross metropolitan product:

1. New York City CSA: $1.103 T
2. Los Angeles/Long Beach/Riverside CSA: $770.6 B
3. Washington/Baltimore CSA: $436 B
4. Chicago CSA: $429.6 B
5. Boston/Providence CSA: $364.6 B
6. San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose CSA: $357.8 B
7. Philadelphia/Reading CSA: $286.1 B
8. Dallas/Fort Worth CSA: $284.5 B
9. Houston/Beaumont CSA: $244.4 B
10. Atlanta/Sandy Springs/Marietta MSA: $212.4 B
Actually, from the data I've seen, in 2005, Chicago was supposed to have a $436 billion economy in their CSA which would make them in a dead tie with Bal/Wash. Since then I assume we've passed them though.
I believe the data was provided by Global Insight, but I forget where I saw it online.
 

·
Live and Let Live
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
I read in a recent press release by a local think tank that The Bay Area's GDP $418 Billion in 2005...I'll try to find it, in any case, not bad for a region that's supposed to be on the ropes. LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
'Investment' in GDP is meant very specifically as non-financial product purchases. Buying financial products is classed as 'saving' , as opposed to investment. Money converted into goods or services is by definition investment, whereas money spent on a bond or a share is considered a transfer payment and is excluded from the GDP sum. Although such purchases would be called investments in normal speech, from the macroeconomic point of view, this is simply swapping of deeds, and not part of the real economy or the GDP formula.

As for the Boston numbers, keep in mind that the Boston-Providence CSA has a population of a little under 7.5 million. 7.5 million people's worth of simple, everyday domestic consumption alone can explain a large portion of the area's high GDP. And while many of the region's largest and most profitable firms are financial services providers, let's not forget the large light industry base, which includes semiconductors/medical devices production (Raytheon, PerkinElmer, Boston Scientific, Varian Semiconductors, Gillette, EMC, Reebok, Cabot, Thermo Electron, etc) and services (BJ's Wholesale, TJX, Staples etc). You might be surprised to learn that companies without household name recognition, like TJX ($14.9 billion in 2005 revenue) and Talbot's ($1.6 billion in 2005 revenue), contribute significantly to the Boston-Providence economy.
You make some interesting points; however, the population of greater Boston-Providence is 5.2 million, at best. You do make some interesting observations about retail and consumer/industrial products, but most of the companies you quote are national (or international) companies whose sales are distributed accordingly. I guess Staples sales, for instance, must be counted in total as part of the Boston economy, but that - to me - is very misleading, since most of the jobs generated by the company have nothing to do with MA or RI. The same could be said for CVS, etc.

Oh, and I think most of us know who TJ Maxx is :)

As always, I appreciate your thoughtful responses.
 

·
Downtown San Jose
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
:banana: Go on Bay Area witcha bad self.

The 11 richest by per capita income are all in the US. Foreigners call us fat and lazy but apparently we are a nation of hard ass workers.
Then again...

Europe's 61 richest cities GDP (€) per capita in 2001
Rank
City
€ per capita

1. Frankfurt
74,465

2. Karlsruhe
70,097

3. Paris
67,200

4. Munich
61,360

5. Düsseldorf
54,053

6. Stuttgart
53,570

7. Brussels
51,106

8. Copenhagen
50,775

9. Hanover
47,223

10. Hamburg
43,098

http://www.citymayors.com/business/eurocities_gdp.html

It's a bit dated but with the relative stregth of the Euro in recent years I bet it still holds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
What happened to that other thread with the city GMP per capita list?

Not only was it locked, it was deleted.

Me thinks some baby didn't like where their city was on that list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Not only that, but the creator was banned too. Methinks someone felt a bit threatened by certain truths.
 

·
America
Joined
·
80 Posts
Yeah wtf. That was a perfectly viable topic based on factual data. A couple people were apparently pissed off that their city's too poor to be on there apparently.
 

·
Live and Let Live
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
Then again...

Europe's 61 richest cities GDP (€) per capita in 2001
Rank
City
€ per capita

1. Frankfurt
74,465

2. Karlsruhe
70,097

3. Paris
67,200

4. Munich
61,360

5. Düsseldorf
54,053

6. Stuttgart
53,570

7. Brussels
51,106

8. Copenhagen
50,775

9. Hanover
47,223

10. Hamburg
43,098

http://www.citymayors.com/business/eurocities_gdp.html

It's a bit dated but with the relative stregth of the Euro in recent years I bet it still holds.
This is city only-not metro. Around the time of this release, San Francisco City had a Per Capita GDP of $120,000..insane but true, money was oozing out of the sewers at the turn of the century, receptionists making 30 thousand a month and crazy shit like that, but then the sky fell on us when the dot com thing crashed and burned-- Im much happier now.
 
21 - 40 of 78 Posts
Top