Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Biggest surprises to me where the high ranking of the Sarasota/Bradenton FL on the CSA list, and the very low ranking of Provo/Orem, UT on the MSA list...
Interesting to see a place like Des Moines well within the top 20% of CSA's concidering it has a very low cost of living, and some very cheap housing prices. I would imagine the standard of living there is quite high.
Not to mention it's got a pretty tight little skyline for a city in Iowa!!
That can't really accuratley show true wealth of a metro. $100,000 a year in San Francisco is completely different than the same income in Des Moines.
Also, could someone inform me of the difference between CSA and MSA?
I'm surprised to see Idaho Falls-Blackfoot ranked on the CSA list, yet Boise is no where on there, yet the top earners in the state live in Boise, as the cost of living is highest here. Maybe if I figure out what all this means I will better understand what the hell is going on in that mass of metros.
A CSA is a "Consolidated Statistical Area", whereas an MSA is a "Metropolitan Statistical Area".
MSA's are usually smaller, and more connected urban areas that function more or less as one unit. CSA's are larger in scope (hence larger in population), and will be a combinated of multiple MSA's or Micropolitan areas that are close together, and tend to function as one large region.
A Micropolitan area is just like an MSA, but smaller. I believe an urban area between 10,000 and 50,000 is called a "Micropolitan Area" and anything 50,000 and above is a "Metropolitan Area" (MSA).
For instance the Des Moines MSA contains the Des Moines Metropolitan Area of 550,000, but the CSA also contains the Newton, Iowa Micropolitan area. The CSA is just larger and combines multiple urban areas that overall tend to function together as a larger conglomeration of around 610,000 people.
Just like for LA there are multiple MSA's, like the Los Angeles MSA, the Riverside MSA, the Santa Barbara MSA that tend to function as their own little worlds. Put all those urban areas together into the grand scheme of things, and you get the Los Angeles (because it's the biggest MSA in the CSA) CSA.
Make sense, haha.
Boise only exists on the MSA list because there is no CSA for Boise. Only the ONE urban area exists, so there's nothing to really combine it with to create a CSA. You'd need multiple MSA's or Micropolitan areas close together that you could combine to form a CSA.
That can't really accuratley show true wealth of a metro. $100,000 a year in San Francisco is completely different than the same income in Des Moines.
Also, could someone inform me of the difference between CSA and MSA?
I'm surprised to see Idaho Falls-Blackfoot ranked on the CSA list, yet Boise is no where on there, yet the top earners in the state live in Boise, as the cost of living is highest here. Maybe if I figure out what all this means I will better understand what the hell is going on in that mass of metros.
It has nothing to do with wealth. It's a measure of economic activity (GDP = consumption + investment + government spending = wages + profits + salaries), divided by population. It also has no direct relation to cost of living (i.e. these are not cost of living adjusted figures).
There's places in America like Palm Beach (proper, not metro) for example which are extremely wealthy, but which may not rank highly in terms of GDP/capita, because there's just a lot of idle rich that live there, and the local hotels tend to have low paying jobs. So the overall amount of economic output isn't much, even though there's a lot of static wealth there.
What's interesting is that Columbus is lower on this chart than Cleveland and Cincinnati metros. In Ohio, Columbus is usually thought to be more prosperous, with better paying new economy jobs. But this doesn't seem to be reflected in the GDP/capita figures.
It has nothing to do with wealth. It's a measure of economic activity (GDP = consumption + investment + government spending = wages + profits + salaries), divided by population. It also has no direct relation to cost of living (i.e. these are not cost of living adjusted figures).
There's places in America like Palm Beach (proper, not metro) for example which are extremely wealthy, but which may not rank highly in terms of GDP/capita, because there's just a lot of idle rich that live there, and the local hotels tend to have low paying jobs. So the overall amount of economic output isn't much, even though there's a lot of static wealth there.
What's interesting is that Columbus is lower on this chart than Cleveland and Cincinnati metros. In Ohio, Columbus is usually thought to be more prosperous, with better paying new economy jobs. But this doesn't seem to be reflected in the GDP/capita figures.
If that's true shouldn't NYC #1 seeing that their GDP just crushes everywhere in the United States? Followed by LA?
I was under the assumption this list was just the average salary for the residents of the metropolitan area?
NYC GDP: 156 Trillion
LA GDP: 886 Billion
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
