Lifting all barriers to urban growth in US could grow GDP

[JDRCRASH]

Lifting ALL barriers (at least man-made)?

My god, the resulting real estate development in the NYC, LA, and SF areas ALONE would probably encompass like half of the total urban development in the US in terms of value...

We could sure use it. It's getting so unbearably expensive to live out here; in fact apparently almost half of one's average income goes to paying rent... which is just downright CRAZY:

http://zillow.mediaroom.com/2015-03-...-Affordability

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

He is saying that "productivity" in this case is based on how much someone earns, not how much work or value that an employer gets for the price.

Yes, of course, and I was saying that that metric is flawed, because the extra that's earned by one is not saved by another, so it's not a net gain at all. You can't consider only the extra money showing up in San Francisco while ignoring the money that's now missing in Austin.

That person in our example is ~10% more productive but that's nullified by the exact same absolute amount being missing from the coffers of that company had it paid an Austin worker instead for the same job -- and that amount would've been reinvested by the company or would've ended up as dividends to the shareholders.

[jpdivola]

I'm not sure why people are contesting the basic link between productivity and industrial clustering. It is a pretty widely accepted principal that people in "knowledge clusters" will be more productive. The bigger the cluster, the more productive the person.

The Avg. Tech Worker in SV > Avg. tech worker in Austin > Avg. tech worker in Cleveland.
http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/12/...oductive/4049/

A person doing to same job in Austin maybe just a productive as they would be in SF. But, when you scale it out and look at the aggregate employer/employee matching effects, the benefits to clustering become clearer.

If you are stating a tech company, Silicon Valley is going to have a much bigger talent pool to draw from. Conversely, when it comes times for the tech worker to look for a new job, they are going to have a lot more potential options in Silicon Valley than in Austin. The same holds with attracting investors, suppliers, and distributers. Plus, a lot of knowledge spill over happens through formal and informal personal interactions. You will obviously get some of that in Austin, but you would get even more in SF/Silicon Valley.

This also holds for other specialized industries as well. If you work in derivatives, try fining a financial derivatives networking group outside of Chicago or NY (or journalism outside NYC or DC). Some hedge funds in suburban Connecticut have been trying to locate back Manhattan because 1) it is easier to attract workers from across the NYC MSA and 2) it is easier to court big clients (it is easier to visit a midtown office building than a suburban office park). Sure you can network online, but you miss a lot of the benefits that come from personal interaction.

Sure the argument can be oversold. In theory, Philly should be more productive than Seattle. High COL places tend to price out low productivity activity (very little mfg or call centers in Manhattan) and "vibrant cities" tend to attract "higher skilled" people. But, it does seem at the end of the day, all things being equal, dense knowledge clusters will lead to greater productivity than the same employer or employee in other areas.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by lio45

If the person who'd make $90k a year in Austin is paid $100k a year for the same output in San Francisco, that person will have an extra $10k a year to play with, but his/her American employer will have $10k less a year to play with.

I'm not sure it makes much of a big difference in the big picture whether that extra $10k a year ends up in a San Franciscan's personal bank account or in a Austin-based employer's bank account.

One thing is sure, it's far from being a net extra yearly $10k magically popping out of nowhere in the first case... that's my point...

I know this isn't the point of the article but 10K could make a fairly noticeable difference when you consider cost of living. I hear people complain about how expensive it's getting in Austin and it is true, cost of living has gone up, but when you consider the cost of living in San Francisco compared to Austin, we are still doing pretty good though that could change in the future.

[chris08876]

I think we have for the most part reached the limit that we will sprawl. As its happening, our metros will only get denser, with much of this growth happening in the suburbs. Also in the core, but mostly a densification of the current sprawl that we have.

Just look what has happened in the last 20 years to many of our cities and suburbs/proxy satellites. Transformations from small municipalities to large. This will only continue. So in essence, they will have more of an urban feel and look to them as the years progress, and intermingle better with the large core cities.

The U.S. population at the current rate of growth is estimated to be 363 million by 2030, so much of this growth will be in the key metros. Most of it occurring in the South. Its inevitable that we will see large transformations.

Currently, the population is 320 million.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I think we have for the most part reached the limit that we will sprawl. As its happening, our metros will only get denser, with much of this growth happening in the suburbs. Also in the core, but mostly a densification of the current sprawl that we have.

Just look what has happened in the last 20 years to many of our cities and suburbs/proxy satellites. Transformations from small municipalities to large. This will only continue. So in essence, they will have more of an urban feel and look to them as the years progress, and intermingle better with the large core cities.

The U.S. population at the current rate of growth is estimated to be 363 million by 2030, so much of this growth will be in the key metros. Most of it occurring in the South. Its inevitable that we will see large transformations.

Currently, the population is 320 million.

I'm not so sure. I think sprawl will continue and thrive in certain regions, such as, the Front Range, the Wasatch Range, Phx-Tucson, DFW, Houston, Chicagoland. Fringe municipalities will sprawl outwards, creating job centers, shopping and housing.

Socal, Bay Area, Miami, PacNW, BosWash will be limited in sprawl as they've run out of land that is physically available to develop.

[mhays]

We've also chosen to protect a lot of developable land.

[Jasonhouse]

I edited thread title to say something which makes sense.

Sorry the title was too long to fit.

[chris08876]

What could really spur our GDP is if we invested more in infrastructure, science and tech, and education. Essentially, if we invested more in people in the U.S., and stayed out of countries that don't want us there in the first place. Also if we had a healthier population and one that doesn't require pills to numb or get through the day.


Credit: Chpp
Updated March 11, 2015

5% for transportation and education combined is abysmal.

The biggest slowdown to the GDP is on the federal level. Our taxes are being used very very badly or at least in a manner that doesn't benefit the people.