Tomorrow's Stars

[ue]

Isn't Flickr based in the Bay Area now with its parent Yahoo? In terms of national importance, I'd put BC's economy 3rd or 4th, behind Ontario and Alberta, and maybe Quebec. Still very good, but definitely not top spot.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by ue

Isn't Flickr based in the Bay Area now with its parent Yahoo? In terms of national importance, I'd put BC's economy 3rd or 4th, behind Ontario and Alberta, and maybe Quebec. Still very good, but definitely not top spot.

Ya BCs is certainly 4th, no question about that, but its population is also 3rd, so no real surprise there.

All im saying is that it's not the joke it's often made out to be.

Flickr was a Vancouver firm that got bought out by Yahoo, not sure where the bulk of their employment is now, but certainly a success story.

[ue]

Oh, definitely. And I certainly wasn't making BC's economy out to be a joke, so I'm sorry if it came across as such.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Companies like SAP, Microsoft, Amazon etc... employ tens of thousands in the province, not to mention EA whose largest office is in Vancouver, and other local success stories like hootsuite, flickr, indochino etc...

Don't forget SSP.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Major industries in BC, as I noted before, are:

• Tech - it's no silicon valley, but it's a massive provider of high paying jobs in BC
• Finance - less so investment banking but lots of investment/fund management and mining equity
• Tourism - Provides tons of direct jobs and contributes indirectly to many small and medium business owners
• Film and television - huge employer, not just in traditional filming but massive amounts of CGI work and post production occur in Vancouver
• The ports - Provides a lot of very high paying jobs directly and tons of spinoff industries such as transportation and importing/exporting
• Resource extraction - provides tons of great paying jobs outside of the city, and of course tons of great paying jobs in the offices in Vancouver
• Real Estate - Provides tons of construction jobs as well as a lot of high paying administration jobs for the development/investment firms

Don't forget marijuana.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

And what I meant by playing second fiddle was that texas has been booming for the last couple decades in a way that seems to be catching all the attention. I understand California does have a massive economy.

If you didn't mean Texas' economy exceeded California's, which it certainly does not, then you used that phrase incorrectly. Within the US, Texas' economy plays second fiddle to California's. Within Canada, British Columbia's economy plays fourth fiddle.

I don't know how I could have been more clear:
"while BC certainly lacks California's economy, both have a similar economic/social make up"

Both economies are made up primarily of shipping, entertainment, tourism, real estate, and tech with smaller focuses in finance, manufacturing (california) and resources (BC).

You could be more clear by providing supporting evidence for your characterization of both economies. I'm not going to take your word on this, especially when Wikipedia describes BC's economy as "resource dominated," which simply cannot be said about California's economy.

I'm not trying to compare the two as equals or anything like that, but I am certainly drawing a comparison to their place within each other's country.

Right, and it is that comparison you are so desperate to draw that is at issue. You are deliberately ignoring the critical reasons why your analogy is inapt.

It is not obviously true California and British Columbia occupy similar places within their respective nations. California is its nation's most populous subdivision--like Ontario is for Canada. BC is only third. California has several big metropolitan engines, two of which exceed BC itself in population, while BC has only Vancouver. CA is its nation's biggest economy--again, like Ontario--but BC is only Canada's fourth. CA's economy is incredibly diverse, housing world-leading clusters of global industries like Silicon Valley and Hollywood while simultaneously being the world's fifth-largest supplier of food and agriculture commodities. Is BC's economy really as diverse as California's? Really?

[GlassCity]

If you're gonna bring up "resource oriented" as a negative then you really can't put Alberta ahead of BC.

[ue]

It is diverse. Whether or not it's more diverse than California's, I don't know. I do agree with the Ontario/California analogy, at least in terms of national economic clout.

In terms of the top 4 for each country, it would go like this

1. Ontario/California
2. Alberta/Texas
3. Quebec/New York
4. British Columbia/Florida

That's not to say the BC economy isn't important...Vancouver still has the port and a smaller tech industry, the Okanagan is a major food producing region in Canada, and the BC Peace Region is like an extension of Alberta, not to mention the entire province being a major tourist hotspot. But it isn't the California of Canada in terms of economics; Florida and New York are still plenty important in the United States, after all.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by ue

It is diverse. Whether or not it's more diverse than California's, I don't know. I do agree with the Ontario/California analogy, at least in terms of national economic clout.

In terms of the top 4 for each country, it would go like this

1. Ontario/California
2. Alberta/Texas
3. Quebec/New York
4. British Columbia/Florida

That's not to say the BC economy isn't important...Vancouver still has the port and a smaller tech industry, the Okanagan is a major food producing region in Canada, and the BC Peace Region is like an extension of Alberta, not to mention the entire province being a major tourist hotspot. But it isn't the California of Canada in terms of economics; Florida and New York are still plenty important in the United States, after all.

Share of Canadian GDP, 2012:
Ontario - 39.12%
Quebec - 19.80%
Alberta - 16.00%
British Columbia - 12.35%

Accordingly, the ranking should be

1. California/Ontario
2. Texas/Quebec
3. New York/Alberta
4. Florida/British Columbia

BC's economy may be important to Canada, but it simply does *not* play the same role within Canada that California plays within the US.

[ue]

Yes, I know, I wasn't arguing with you...

[fflint]

Right, I was just relaying the result of my own research--Quebec beats Alberta economically, which is not what I expected given the forum chatter.

When it comes to Canada, the forum chatter is less reliably true nowadays than it was a decade ago. More and more I find I need a more reliable source for information about Canada than Canadian forumers. It wasn't like that before.

[ue]

I think it's because the impression on the streets is that Alberta is the #2 province in terms of economics after Ontario. For roughly half the population of Quebec, Alberta doesn't do too bad with a few percentages away from surpassing Quebec, which seems likely to happen eventually with the high growth in Alberta (not a slight against Quebec, it's just what seems most likely).

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by fflint

Right, and it is that comparison you are so desperate to draw that is at issue. You are deliberately ignoring the critical reasons why your analogy is inapt.

It is not obviously true California and British Columbia occupy similar places within their respective nations. California is its nation's most populous subdivision--like Ontario is for Canada. BC is only third. California has several big metropolitan engines, two of which exceed BC itself in population, while BC has only Vancouver. CA is its nation's biggest economy--again, like Ontario--but BC is only Canada's fourth. CA's economy is incredibly diverse, housing world-leading clusters of global industries like Silicon Valley and Hollywood while simultaneously being the world's fifth-largest supplier of food and agriculture commodities. Is BC's economy really as diverse as California's? Really?

All I said is BC is the California of Canada:

BCs population as a percentage of Canada: 12.6%
Cals population as a percentage of the USA: 11.9%

BCs economy as a percentage of Canada: 12.1%
Cals economy as a percentage of the USA: 11.6%

And that's just in economy and size, let alone the fact that both are the country's west coast hubs, have a reputation for having a laid back lifestyle, similar asian influence, liberal attitudes etc etc...

Is BC the largest province in the country? No, but the US doesn't have one mega state on the east coast which ontario represents. Really what is happening is that BC is the California of Canada but there is no US equivalent of Ontario.

I don't know why you are fighting this so much either? They are both fantastic places to live that do a lot of things right, I certainly didn't mean it as an insult to California to compare it with BC.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by fflint

You could be more clear by providing supporting evidence for your characterization of both economies. I'm not going to take your word on this, especially when Wikipedia describes BC's economy as "resource dominated," which simply cannot be said about California's economy.

Well I think we all know how reliable wikipedia is...

Here's the government's breakdown of GDP components:
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/F&Ereview13.pdf

As you can see on page 4, resources account for only 7.1% of BCs GDP, and the pie chart is quite evenly distributed around most major economic sectors.

[dc_denizen]

It might be fun to compare total economic value added above the raw material/primary product level by different jurisdictions to measure their economic importance and status as economically 'developed' countries/states/provinces.

Brunei and Qatar measure enormously highly on GDP per capita and likely on median income, but their value add in the world economy is negligible if you subtract out what they take out of the ground (oil and gas).

Quebec, the home of Bombardier, SNC Lavelin, Hydro-Quebec, etc has a lot more value add than BC, which is more tourism, real estate, and resource focused.

Similarly, South Dakota, with a strong GDP per capita, would suffer compared to California or New Jersey on this metric. I bet California would also come out far ahead of BC as well despite similar median incomes.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

It might be fun to compare total economic value added above the raw material/primary product level by different jurisdictions to measure their economic importance and status as economically 'developed' countries/states/provinces.

Brunei and Qatar measure enormously highly on GDP per capita and likely on median income, but their value add in the world economy is negligible if you subtract out what they take out of the ground (oil and gas).

Quebec, the home of Bombardier, SNC Lavelin, Hydro-Quebec, etc has a lot more value add than BC, which is more tourism, real estate, and resource focused.

Similarly, South Dakota, with a strong GDP per capita, would suffer compared to California or New Jersey on this metric. I bet California would also come out far ahead of BC as well despite similar median incomes.

Quebec also has La Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.

The Caisse's large holdings make it a formidable player in investment markets. It is the second largest pension fund in Canada, with the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) in first place. As of February 2014, the Caisse’s total assets under management amounted to CA$200 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caisse_...du_Qu%C3%A9bec

PSP Investments
PSP Investments is one of Canada’s largest pension investment managers, with $86 billion of assets under management as at December 1st 2013. http://www.investpsp.ca/en/index.html

Power Corporation, Desjardins, CGI, Metro, Jean Coutu, Rona, Quebecor, Couche-tard, etc...

Quebec Inc.

[dc_denizen]

^ exactly, although Quebec benefits from cheap hydro (dams) and resource extraction as well, just comparatively less than Alberta or S. Dakota.

Here's my view, fleshed out a bit.

Known (as in proven reserves) oil in the ground might be worth $100, and require a $70 investment in pipelines and refineries to extract and process it. These technologies are around 140 years old, and require only a few incremental updates in the form of new inventions. The $30 can be spread out to the economy, through state ownership of the profits or extraction, or shareholder capital gains/income, or higher worker pay. Risk in the investment is extremely low and expected return is very high, since the demand for energy will more or less always be there. GDP growth numbers are high, because continuous investment in new pipelines/extraction is a no-brainer.

Or take foreign 'hot money' into places like Miami or Vancouver. Here you have a source of exogenous investment driving activity in the construction sector. Floridians don't need to save to amass any capital, and benefit from price appreciation and ancillary jobs as a result. So the GDP numbers are inflated by construction activity that is funded by sources outside the system.

Meanwhile, to build a new jet, Bombardier of Montreal must make big investments with it's own capital (unlike Miami) and without a guaranteed return (unlike Alberta). Also thirdly, the amount of intellectual human capital and overall value add needed is very large, as are things like patents, and in general the overall complexity of the undertaking is high relative to construction or most resource extraction. GDP growth may not occur if Bombardier fails to sell their plane due to fierce competition with Boeing, Airbus, Embraer etc.

Similar thing for making a movie, or designing a smart phone, or a luxury car, or an advanced weapons system.

I want a GDP metric that measures this third type of activity, and excludes the first two.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

All I said is BC is the California of Canada:

And that is an inapt analogy for all the critical reasons stated above. Alberta would be the Florida of Canada--minus about 15 million people and a couple large metropolitan areas, of course.

[JustSomeGuyWho]

Looks like this has turned into the great Canada debate

I'm trying to think of the cities in the US that just came out of nowhere and if there are any cities capable of that now. The two that come to mind immediately over the last 50 years or so are Phoenix and Las Vegas. I really can't think of any that might happen now but then again, those two just made themselves happen so you never know. San Jose also falls into that category but that is part of the Bay area so it didn't exactly come out of nowhere.

I can think a few mid-sized cities that are perceived positively on the national scale that continue to grow. Charlotte and Austin come to mind immediately. Portland, Raleigh, Salt Lake may fall into that category. If San Diego isn't one, it certainly used to be. I think cost of living detracts a bit from its "luster".

Forbes has a list of the top growing US cities. The ranking clearly includes the metropolitan area surrounding it.

1) Austin
2) Raleigh
3) Phoenix
4) Dallas
5) Salt Lake City
6) Denver
7) Ogden
8) Charlotte
9) Orlando
10) Houston
11) Seattle
12) Atlanta
13) Provo
14) Cape Coral
15) Palm Bay
16) Boise
17) Minneapolis
18) North Port, FL
19) San Jose
20) San Antonio

No surprises in my mind on that list. I don't see any of them as 'World Class' cities at this point although the ones that are closest are Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix and Seattle in no particular order. Of those, Dallas and Houston have ... by far ... the largest metropolitan areas with Dallas having about a half a million more people than Houston. At their current growth rate, Dallas and Houston could both potentially pass Chicago on the list of largest metros within the next 25 years. Even then ... I wouldn't consider them global 'world class' cities.

Clearly we need to think in terms of metropolitan areas in the US and how they connect. Notice the 3 areas in Utah on that list ... all relatively close to each other - Salt Lake City - Ogden - Provo. There is Austin-San Antonio. San Francisco - San Jose - Oakland. You can see it happening in North Carolina with Raleigh-Cary, Durham, Greensboro - Winston Salem all experiencing significant growth and all relatively close to each other with Charlotte not that far away. Dallas itself has 1.2 million people ... but combined with Forth Worth, Arlington and 10 other cities right next to each other that have over 100K people, it is enormous. Fort Worth all by itself is the 16th largest city (proper) in the US and grew by 38% between 2000 and 2010. Of the cities (proper) with more than 400K people, only Raleigh and Charlotte grew faster. These areas are stars of the future in the US.

I'd be interested to see a list of cities ranked by perception both nationally and globally. For the young, mobile and educated in the US, which cities are on their radar? Which cities are on the global radar that are not named New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami.

Latin America is investing heavily in Miami right now because it is a safe place to put their money. No city in the US or even the Americas is going to topple New York City off its perch anytime soon. Globally, it is considered an extremely safe place to invest and money continues to pour into the city. Can it continue? Investors seem to think so but it won't be long before the multi-millionaires are priced out of Manhattan. It will remain THE alpha++ world city from the Americas for many decades to come.

[mhays]

DC and San Francisco would also be on the global radar. Boston too.

I'd add Austin to that "came from nowhere" category. I used to know it only as a state capital.