Visual Capitalist: World's Largest Metropolitan Area GDPs

[Gordo]

I suspect that the methodology doesn't account for bi-directional flows, but I can't actually tell looking at the CB's site.

For example, San Mateo -> Santa Clara meets the 25% threshold (I checked). But San Mateo -> San Francisco also meets this threshold (and by a larger percentage). Same thing is true for Alameda -> Santa Clara and Alameda -> San Francisco.

So is it the case that they don't merge two MSAs when there are interim counties that meet the threshold in both directions but the center counties don't? We'll likely never see 25% met for Santa Clara <-> San Francisco (hope not at least).

[ssiguy]

The US is indeed wealthier than Canada and nearly every European country but that said, remember these numbers are in US dollars.

The Greenback is the world's reserve currency which makes those numbers very warped. A better figure would be to use International dollars which is a combination of the world's largest currencies in a basket.

Just because the US dollar goes up by 20% doesn't mean American GDP has soared by 20% nor conversely that everyone else's economy has shrank by 20%. Using International dollars helps get rid of these inequities and fluctuations and is a far better indicator of how these numbers are reflected in the real world.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The US is indeed wealthier than Canada and nearly every European country but that said, remember these numbers are in US dollars.

The Greenback is the world's reserve currency which makes those numbers very warped. A better figure would be to use International dollars which is a combination of the world's largest currencies in a basket.

Just because the US dollar goes up by 20% doesn't mean American GDP has soared by 20% nor conversely that everyone else's economy has shrank by 20%. Using International dollars helps get rid of these inequities and fluctuations and is a far better indicator of how these numbers are reflected in the real world.

There is no such thing as an "international dollar" that is a basket of currencies. Neither IMF nor the World Bank do such a thing for statistical purposes. You might be thinking of a currency basket like the IMF's Special Drawing Rights basket (42% USD, 31% Euro, 11% Yuan, 8% Yen, 8% British Pound), but that's used to determine reserve asset minimums, not as a statistical tool. And doing so introduces a lot of unnecessary complexity and other inequities (the Yuan isn't a free-floating currency, after all).

There is nominal, which uses the U.S. dollar's market value at face-value.

And there is PPP, which uses "international dollars" which are pegged in value to the U.S. dollar at 1:1 and revise every other country's purchasing power accordingly (since a $1 will buy you a can of Coke in the U.S., but could get you a nice meal in poorer countries).

This is why the U.S.'s GDP PPP in "international dollars" equals the U.S. GDP in nominal terms: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/...ntry&ds=.&br=1

[Manitopiaaa]

Also, Canada's GDP under nominal terms is actually where Canada performs best. Under PPP, Canada is even poorer since it has a higher cost of living than the U.S. and a lower corresponding purchasing power ($1 buys you more in the U.S. than Canada).

[Manitopiaaa]

And here are the GDPs (nominal and PPP) per capita for the Five Eyes:



As you can see, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand all do better under nominal than GDP, as they all have higher costs of living + more resource-based currencies, which put upward pressure on currency value.

Only the U.K. does better under PPP, due to its lower CoL.

Which is all to say, the numbers presented in this chart are actually the most generous to Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. They would fare worse under the other measure. The London numbers, meanwhile, are slightly lower than they'd be under PPP.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I hear it’s not like that. They ask local authorities if they want MSAs to merge. It seems Cleveland and Akron should be a single MSA too. Same for Bridgeport and New York.

No, they don't. The business rules are posted on the Census website. It's county-based commuter flows.

Silicon Valley is a separate MSA from SF bc it has a huge job base and housing affordability issues. Fairfield County is basically a less extreme version of the same issue. A geography with an imbalance between jobs and housing will be more likely to be a separate MSA.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Chisouthside

LA def feels exciting when youre driving in. Coming into the valley from ventura and then over the hills into LA is always super exciting.

And i think regarding the Bay, the Penninsula def feels different than the south bay but i feel like the penninsula feels sleepier. And obviously the Penninsula or the south bay cant compare to driving past the airport into proper SF.

Yea, I've noticed that too. The 101 traffic picks up around Woodland hills, and even though it's suburban, there is a cool feeling about it all the way towards downtown. It's pretty unique. The valley stretch is possibly better at night, when you fly by all the houses on the hills and see all the city lights around it.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Thebestofeverything

If commute patterns are what determines an MSA then SF-SJ and LA-Riverside are definitely in the same MSA. Anyone that has lived in the Bay Area over the past 20 yrs knows that the commutes between SF and SJ have become both ways. Same thing with LA and Riverside in which many in Riverside commute to LA or Orange Co for jobs and many in LA or Orange commute to Riverside for jobs.

Beyond commutes, if we are talking about GDP, each of the MSA in their respective regions are dependent upon each other economically speaking. The logistics/warehouse economy in Riverside only exists because of the huge ports at LA/Long Beach. The high tech economy is not just limited to SJ but has start ups and locations in the SF/Oakland areas.

Also, these so called separate MSAs share the same media and sports markets.

I don't see why the folks in Washington haven't updated the MSAs for LA & SF.

I remember for the longest, there was resistance to combining the LA-Long Bch and Orange Co MSAs. Finally sometime during the '70s they were magically added together. Its time for another update.

It's insane. You can take the metrolink between South OC and Riverside/San Bernardino. These areas are very connected.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, they don't. The business rules are posted on the Census website. It's county-based commuter flows.

Silicon Valley is a separate MSA from SF bc it has a huge job base and housing affordability issues. Fairfield County is basically a less extreme version of the same issue. A geography with an imbalance between jobs and housing will be more likely to be a separate MSA.

Some of it is. Contra Costa, San Mateo and Alameda counties are within SF's MSA. Santa Clara is the heart of Silicon Valley though and SJ's MSA.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by JManc

Some of it is. Contra Costa, San Mateo and Alameda counties are within SF's MSA. Santa Clara is the heart of Silicon Valley though and SJ's MSA.

One could definitely argue that SF itself is part of "Silicon Valley" too, if we're including Contra Costa, Alameda and all of San Mateo county. In this "context Silicon Valley" is being used to mean "Bay Area tech industry", rather than as a euphemism for "Santa Clara valley" (which has never really been accurate).

[nito]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And London doesn't look particularly good. It has half the economy of NYC. Doesn't London always like to compare itself with NYC?

The size of an economy can certainly be viewed as a measure of comparison, but it does have a few issues. For one you appear to be confused in assuming that these figures are for cities, when they are for metro areas and as you are undoubtedly now aware, metro areas are a measure of urban sprawl and little to do with quantifying economic weight or connectivity.

With that said, I don’t doubt that on a city v city or even a GDP per capita basis that NYC US will be ahead of London and many other international peers, but of course wealth inequality is far higher in the US, and as raised in the billionaire thread from a few weeks ago, more wealth/economic activity doesn’t necessitate a safer New York, provide a modern transport system, etc…

[twinpeaks]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, they don't. The business rules are posted on the Census website. It's county-based commuter flows.

Silicon Valley is a separate MSA from SF bc it has a huge job base and housing affordability issues. Fairfield County is basically a less extreme version of the same issue. A geography with an imbalance between jobs and housing will be more likely to be a separate MSA.

county-based is arbitrary separation.. They should really used urbanized connectivity patterns to come up metropolitan statistics.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by twinpeaks

county-based is arbitrary separation.. They should really used urbanized connectivity patterns to come up metropolitan statistics.

What does that even mean? "Urbanized connectivity patterns"? If there's a Wawa and Sam's Club every 5 miles, it's a metro? If not, it isn't? How is that less arbitrary than using a common national measurement with legal boundaries like counties?

And Census doesn't determine metro areas. They determine MSAs, CSAs and Urban Areas. None are officially metros, but people use the three options as proxies for metros.

[mhays]

We live in a country where a county can be 24 square miles or 20,000. They're far too blunt for this purpose.

[badrunner]

If it's on the same street grid, it's the same metro area. End of.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

We live in a country where a county can be 24 square miles or 20,000. They're far too blunt for this purpose.

correct.

the county mash-up game is dumb.