America's $100 Billion Counties[2015]

[woodrow]

I find it interesting that Harris County, TX so heavily dominates Houston's GDP. None of the other counties have $20+ billion GDP's!

ed. - I just looked at Google satellite, as opposed to maps and realize how much Harris is so much of the Houston metro.

[Capsule F]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Yeah I didnt quite get that either. Being from The City, he was probably surprised to see the East Bay rank so highly seeing as how intensely they look down on Oakland. LOL.



Oakland is actually quite nice and Alameda County only recently surpassed Philadelphia in population. I reckon AC will probably extend it's lead from here on out.

Thank you Dimondpark for the sensible response, you disarmed my overreaction. I have nothing against Oakland, it reminds me of Philly in the sheer amount of unrealized potential.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by plinko

Maricopa...SMH...

I was honestly pleased that Maricopa is as high as it is. Yes, it under-performs as the 4th most populous county in the country. But it's pretty solidly in the 3rd "tier" made up of the 5-10 range--King, WA to San Diego, CA.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

I was honestly pleased that Maricopa is as high as it is. Yes, it under-performs as the 4th most populous county in the country. But it's pretty solidly in the 3rd "tier" made up of the 5-10 range--King, WA to San Diego, CA.

We Second tier soon ....son

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Another update
St Louis, MO $78.587 Billion
St Louis(City), MO $31.058 Billion

Add this to the list of reasons why St. Louis County thinks it shouldn't take St. Louis City back.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Capsule F

Thank you Dimondpark for the sensible response, you disarmed my overreaction. I have nothing against Oakland, it reminds me of Philly in the sheer amount of unrealized potential.

+1 yeah Ive long felt that Oakland should emulate Philly in many ways.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

ah, ok. that makes a billion times more sense.

i was just like "how in the fuck does 600 sq. miles of corn farms produce a GDP of $35B!?!"



so chicagoland's $20B+ counties look like this:

Cook, IL $382.626 Billion
DuPage, IL $87.146 Billion
Lake, IL $64.208 Billion
Will, IL $28.042 Billion
Kane, IL $24.344 Billion
Lake, IN $21.821 Billion

it really shows the northern bias of the metro area. lake (IL) and will counties have roughly the same population (~700,000) and are at the opposite polar ends of chicagoland, but lake county comes in with a GDP 2.3x higher.

Would you not include Kenosha County, WI to that list? I haven't been keeping track of how we're measuring "metro" areas lately so pardon my ignorance. . .

. . .

[Steely Dan]

^ kenosha county is included in chicago's MSA, but it apparently doesn't have a GDP of at least $20B to be included on diamond park's list.



chicago's MSA is now defined as the following counties:

Chicago-Aurora-Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division
Cook County
DeKalb County
DuPage County
Grundy County
Kane County
Kendall County
McHenry County
Will County

Gary, IN Metropolitan Division
Jasper County (IN)
Lake County (IN)
Newton County (IN)
Porter County (IN)

Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metropolitan Division
Lake County (IL)
Kenosha County (WI)




the CSA definition adds kankakee county in illinois and la porte county in indiana to those above.

[Tom In Chicago]

^I see. . . thanks. . . any idea what the GDP number for Kenosha County is? Any way of getting historical data on that? I'm interested to know what it might have been back in say the 1970s and 80s when the economy was dominated by automotive (AMC/Chrysler) and now since it's significantly more diversified. . . wondering how companies such as U-Line, Amazon, FoxConn will affect those numbers. . . if at all. . .

. . .

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

^I see. . . thanks. . . any idea what the GDP number for Kenosha County is? Any way of getting historical data on that? I'm interested to know what it might have been back in say the 1970s and 80s when the economy was dominated by automotive (AMC/Chrysler) and now since it's significantly more diversified. . . wondering how companies such as U-Line, Amazon, FoxConn will affect those numbers. . . if at all. . .

. . .

Kenoshi, WI $6.193 Billion

[Tom In Chicago]

^Thanks. . .

. . .

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Capsule F

Oakland is a joke compared to Phila. Not to mention Alameda county has 100k more people.

Precisely the stereotype shot down by the fact that the county in which Oakland sits (surrounded by a bunch of suburbs) has a larger GDP than Philadelphia.

Thanks for making my point (however angrily).

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Being from The City, he was probably surprised to see the East Bay rank so highly seeing as how intensely they look down on Oakland. LOL.

Oakland is actually quite nice and Alameda County only recently surpassed Philadelphia in population. I reckon AC will probably extend it's lead from here on out.

That too is rather my point. Most of the country "looks down on" Oakland as a land of gangstas, rappers, "road shows" and an edgy football team but not a whole lot of economic activity reflected in its GDP. That's the sterotype and very different from the image of Philadelphia (in another thread, one forum participant called that "New York's little sister" or some such).

Anyway, nice to see how much economic activity is indeed happening in Alameda.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by woodrow

I find it interesting that Harris County, TX so heavily dominates Houston's GDP. None of the other counties have $20+ billion GDP's!

ed. - I just looked at Google satellite, as opposed to maps and realize how much Harris is so much of the Houston metro.

Well, Harris County with 4.5 million residents is by far the largest component in the Houston metro. Almost all the major economic engines for the region are located in Harris County. The other Houston area counties(Montgomery County has gdp around $25B BTW) are mostly bedroom communities with far fewer economic drivers than Harris County. Harris is geographically almost twice a large as the other heavily populated Texas counties such as Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, or Travis.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

Add this to the list of reasons why St. Louis County thinks it shouldn't take St. Louis City back.

Rumor is a 2020 statewide vote will force merger and put St. Louis in the top 10 largest munis again.

https://www.mcphersonpublishing.com/bettertogether/

Also, I think people underestimate how much wealth is in the St. Louis region. Still a crapload of F500s and powerful institutions for a city it's size. Also a lot of old money. Pretty much squandered potential, because of inept and corrupt local governments playing mob games with each other. If St. Louis had fixed it's governmental issues decades ago, no doubt we would be looking at a metro at least double it's current size.

[Sun Belt]

^I think St. Louis has tremendous potential this century.

Once again, it goes back to the basics. Endless land and plentiful water along with a temperate climate. Yeah it's super hot in the summer and cold in the winter, but it's less cold than Chicago and less hot than Texas.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

ah, ok. that makes a billion times more sense.

i was just like "how in the fuck does 600 sq. miles of corn farms produce a GDP of $35B!?!"



so chicagoland's $20B+ counties look like this:

Cook, IL $382.626 Billion
DuPage, IL $87.146 Billion
Lake, IL $64.208 Billion
Will, IL $28.042 Billion
Kane, IL $24.344 Billion
Lake, IN $21.821 Billion

it really shows the northern bias of the metro area. lake (IL) and will counties have roughly the same population (~700,000) and are at the opposite polar ends of chicagoland, but lake county comes in with a GDP 2.3x higher.

What's McHenry counties numbers if you have them off hand. I can't figure out a link to these numbers.

When I was much younger Winnebago county was almost twice as populated as McHenry was in the early 80's McHenry is in the 310 K range and Winnebago [ Rockford area ] seems stuck in the 275K populations for quite a long time.

I have many relatives that live in the greater Rockford area and as a kid when we had 4 TV channels I was amazed that Rockford had their own news station and local news reporting.

It was nothing like growing up in the sphere of Chicagoland watching TV back then. It was like we were almost in a different state.

But times are changing. Rockford calls their airport Chicago/Rockford now. Google maps show continuous build up north Machesney Park, Roscoe, and south from Beloit, to south Beloit, all the way to Janesville and an eastern jog to ward and very small geographic Boon county IL that has Belvidere.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4963.../data=!3m1!1e3

[Rail Claimore]

The top 4 should not surprise anyone familiar with the geography of America's largest metro areas.

Originally Posted by Ric 0_0

I'm surprised Fulton was that high on the list. It is definitely the economic star of Atlanta.

It's surprising until you realize that Fulton contains all or part of 5 of the 6 largest office districts in the metro area: Downtown, Midtown, Buckhead, Perimeter, and Alpharetta. Cobb has Cumberland, which is why its GDP is greater than Gwinnett's even though it has fewer people. Cobb also has Dobbins ARB, which is the focal point of a research/manufacturing economy that has very high value compared to the distribution industries in Gwinnett.

[jtown,man]

I think we should all sit back and be in awe at the amount of wealth this country has. The Boston metro has about the same GDP as all of Iran!

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

+1 yeah Ive long felt that Oakland should emulate Philly in many ways.

But we should take the A's back.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Precisely the stereotype shot down by the fact that the county in which Oakland sits (surrounded by a bunch of suburbs) has a larger GDP than Philadelphia.

Thanks for making my point (however angrily).



That too is rather my point. Most of the country "looks down on" Oakland as a land of gangstas, rappers, "road shows" and an edgy football team but not a whole lot of economic activity reflected in its GDP. That's the sterotype and very different from the image of Philadelphia (in another thread, one forum participant called that "New York's little sister" or some such).

Anyway, nice to see how much economic activity is indeed happening in Alameda.

We shouldnt spend time trying to make people think differently, that's their problem. lol

Anyhow the Bay Area keeps growing. In 2015, 10 local counties had economies that were greater than $20B

Santa Clara, CA $262.053 Billion
San Francisco, CA $154.176 Billion
Alameda, CA $112.676 Billion
San Mateo, CA $99.019 Billion
Contra Costa $72.356 Billion
San Joaquin, CA $26.492 Billion
Sonoma, CA $25.323 Billion
Marin, CA $21.128 Billion
Solano, CA $21.213 Billion
Stansilaus, CA $20.104 Billion
Santa Cruz, CA $12.443 Billion
Napa, CA $8.923 Billion
Merced, CA $7.851 Billion
San Benito, CA $1.918 Billion

Bay Area CSA GDP 2015: $845.675 Billion

And this^ is why I now suspect the 2017 data is too low. The september metro area report pegged the region at $907B, but if we already stood at $845B 2 years earlier, the 2017 data should be closer to $1 Trillion even if we apply a modest 5% annual increase.

We'll see how the data looks next year but I am fairly certain the Bay Area has probably hit $1T this year-the economy doesnt feel like next year will be as rosy tho.