Where’s the money in America? This 3D map will show you

[fleonzo]

Where’s the money in America? This 3D map will show you

Link:http://www.marketwatch.com/story/whe...you-2015-11-05


The hardest working states and regions in America? Sorry flyover states, better luck next time. The kings of production remain in the most obvious spots: California, Texas and New York.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis and the U.S. Department of Commerce recently pushed out some statistics on gross domestic product in 2014 for the U.S. based on metropolitan areas. The folks at HowMuch.net took that data and turned it into a map that demonstrates just where the growth in the U.S. is coming from. As shown below, the higher the cone rising from the map, the bigger the GDP in that region:

HowMuch.net
“In analyzing the data, we found that the top 20 metropolitan areas represent over 52% of the total GDP in the U.S.,” said Raul Amoros, director of content development at HowMuch.net.

Spiking right out of the map, was the New York region, which includes Newark and Jersey City., with a whopping contribution of $1.56 trillion in GDP and growth of 2.4% in 2014. That region provided nearly 10% of the total GDP for the whole of the U.S.

Just behind it, the Greater Los Angeles area was second with $866 billion in GDP, with a 2.3% rise over 2013. Third and fourth, respectively, was the Chicago metro area, with $610 billion and growth of 1.8%, and the Houston metro area with $525 billion. Dallas stole the fifth spot with $504 billion.

Read: Behold, $15 trillion of world trade in one interactive chart

And there’s a reason why they call them flyover states.

HowMuch.net also broke down GDP by state, and found that the top five states contributed 40% of the overall GDP for the U.S.: California blew the rest of the U.S. away with a contribution of $2.11 trillion or over 13% of overall GDP. Not so close behind was Texas with $1.46 trillion, or 9.5% of overall GDP. New York, Florida and Illinois made up the rest of that top five.


http://howmuch.net

More from MarketWatch

[Steely Dan]

it's weird that the article makes several denigrating references to "fly over country" and then re-posts a map graphic showing the number 3, 4 and 5 MSAs in the country right smack dab in the middle of said "fly over country".

uhhhhhhh..............

[ozone]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it's weird that the article makes several denigrating references to "fly over country" and then re-posts a map graphic showing the number 3, 4 and 5 MSAs in the country right smack dab in the middle of said "fly over country".

uhhhhhhh..............

Don't worry about. This article is completely f'd up and measuring GDP is not an exact science. Statistics can basically be skewed to whatever outcome in on your agenda. For example, in their analysis Silicon Valley's economic power is notably downplayed.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it's weird that the article makes several denigrating references to "fly over country" and then re-posts a map graphic showing the number 3, 4 and 5 MSAs in the country right smack dab in the middle of said "fly over country".

uhhhhhhh..............

I noticed that too. Stupid author...

[TexasPlaya]

Texas is considered fly over country? I thought that was a more Great Plains and rural Mid West moniker.

[Boris2k7]

So let me get this straight... they wanted to figure out who produces the most GDP where... and they came up with a map that roughly corresponds to a map of U.S. population density.

"The largest metropolitan areas contributed the greatest amount of GDP for the country. According to our analysis, the top 20 metropolitan areas contributed over half of the United State’s GDP"

The largest 20 metropolitan areas add up to about 144-150 million people, so that's about half the population.

People produce things where people live. What an amazing revelation!

Am I missing something?

[10023]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Texas is considered fly over country? I thought that was a more Great Plains and rural Mid West moniker.

"Flyover country" is a term used by the kind of douchebags who call themselves "bi-coastal" because their media/entertainment jobs take them from LA to NY or vice versa.

From what I gather it actually started with the LA folks, because they have a natural tendency toward douchebaggery, and historically, a chip on their shoulder from being perceived (with some truth to it) as less culturally sophisticated than their East Coast counterparts. Calling the middle part of the U.S. "flyover country" was a way to associate themselves with East Coast sophisticates in a sort of "us vs. them" duality.

Now, whatever the background, it doesn't make any sense to refer to places like Chicago and Houston as flyover country. Especially since most people have changed planes at ORD at least once.

[dc_denizen]

States with more people have more money, who knew?

[mrnyc]

miami was a surprize, but otherwise no knowledge gains were had with that map.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Texas is considered fly over country? I thought that was a more Great Plains and rural Mid West moniker.

I mean, I've flown over New York a few times, I guess I can call that a "flyover" state as well.

[nei]

A GDP map is mostly a population map. More interesting is looking at GDP per capita.

https://twitter.com/michael_hendrix/...68299015806976

Los Angeles is surprisingly low [there's a link in the twitter discussion about its decline — it was #4 in the country in 1970], Chicago isn't even in the top 20. It's odd that Houston is on par with New York City; checking per capita and median household income it's quite a bit lower.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Truly relevant would be Per Capita GDP adjusted for cost of living. There would be some areas with a relatively low real Per Capita GDP that would have absurdly high cost of living adjusted GDP. Utopian small cities like Des Moines, Iowa or Madison, WI.

[brian_b]

This data is too granular to be of any use. The aim of GDP is to measure "value add" in the production process and is generally seen as input costs subtracted from output revenue. A software shop with 500 employees earning $100k per year will contribute to a much higher per capita GDP than a capital-intensive factory with 500 laborers earning $100k per year.

Are the developers richer than the factory workers? Is the city with the developers much more vibrant? Which is better? Well, you just can't say.

You could easily argue that Los Angeles has a much more diversified economy than San Jose (and you'd be right) and that all of the manufacturing in Los Angeles drags down the per capita GDP. In reality, Los Angeles is probably a far richer city than San Jose.

Comparing the per capita GDP of one nation against another seems to be a fairly valid use of the data, but city to city seems to really just be an indicator of which cities are dominated by "knowledge-based" industry and which are not (either by diversification or concentration - you just can't tell).

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by 10023

"Flyover country" is a term used by the kind of douchebags who call themselves "bi-coastal" because their media/entertainment jobs take them from LA to NY or vice versa.

From what I gather it actually started with the LA folks... Calling the middle part of the U.S. "flyover country" was a way to associate themselves with East Coast sophisticates in a sort of "us vs. them" duality.

Actually, most of the douchebags in LA are transplants, who feel like they have something to prove, and constantly compare/complain about how LA is not like the place they left; they also are the ones who have the most reasons to fly back to the East Coast, so, I can see how they might be the ones who came up with the term "flyover country." Immigrants don't count as transplants because they move to LA and accept it for what it is, and don't really complain about it; I guess they just assume that where they moved to will be different from where they came from, and roll with the punches. Everyone else who complains about LA are other Americans who came from somewhere else, and that includes people from other parts of California.

I've seen everything I want to see in the US, so, to me, all of the US is flyover country.

[Austinlee]

Does this wealth map take into account the huge amount of money that foreign nationals park in massive real estate in cities such as NY, Miami, San Francisco, LA and Vancouver? Because I think that is at least a significant portion of the billions of dollars inflating coastal property prices?

[Austinlee]

I am most struck by how certain wealthy metros including Miami, Atlanta, Seattle and Denver are mere speed bumps compared to California, the Bos-Wash corridor, Chicago and Dallas and Houston.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I am most struck by how certain wealthy metros including Miami, Atlanta, Seattle and Denver are mere speed bumps compared to California, the Bos-Wash corridor, Chicago and Dallas and Houston.

it's more surprising to me that houston/dallas actually have a gdp in the same vicinity as longer established and larger metros like washington and san francisco (places with a higher cost of living) and higher than philadelphia, a bigger metro.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by cabasse

it's more surprising to me that houston/dallas actually have a gdp in the same vicinity as longer established and larger metros like washington and san francisco (places with a higher cost of living) and higher than philadelphia, a bigger metro.

Energy money should not even surprise us anymore. Texas is our Saudi Arabia.

[bobdreamz]

Originally Posted by cabasse

it's more surprising to me that houston/dallas actually have a gdp in the same vicinity as longer established and larger metros like washington and san francisco (places with a higher cost of living) and higher than philadelphia, a bigger metro.

Well can you imagine the GDP's of Houston & Dallas if there wasn't any Oil wealth today?
Where would they rank now?

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by bobdreamz

Well can you imagine the GDP's of Houston & Dallas if there wasn't any Oil wealth today?
Where would they rank now?

in 1940...

dallas was about the size of memphis and houston was a bit larger and about the size of kansas city. i imagine that they still would have seen growth rates exceededing the other two cities but without that supercharger of oil.