Atlanta vs. Miami

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Atlanta vs. Miami. Which city is more important to the economy of the United States?

[Mr.Marc]

Atlanta vs. Miami. Which city is more important to the economy of the United States?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess it would depend on which sector of economy you are speaking of (ie. banking, business, research, energy, etc. etc.)

[bic]

Yes, and after you determine which sectors you're comparing, it still doesn't matter.

[Mr.Marc]

Yes, and after you determine which sectors you're comparing, it still doesn't matter. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess you're correct

[Aporkalypse]

Miami, no doubt

Atlanta's industries would be elsewhere if the city never existed. If Miami wasn't there and even if maybe Castro had never taken over, we wouldn't have this Latin city in the U.S. that acts as the financial and entertainment center for Latin America. Dallas, Houston, or Tampa couldn't (and probably wouldn't) serve the same purpose.

[RiversideGator]

I would say Atlanta wins hands down, and this is not a slight against Miami. I bet the MSA GDP is greatly in Atlanta's favor. ATL also has many more Fortune 500 companies. Miami has a numerical advantage in its MSA, but the per capita income in Atlanta is much higher. Anyone want to do some actual research to back up my memory??

[ironchapman]

Atlanta's industries would be elsewhere if the city never existed.  If Miami wasn't there and even if maybe Castro had never taken over, we wouldn't have this Latin city in the U.S. that acts as the financial and entertainment center for Latin America.  Dallas, Houston, or Tampa couldn't (and probably wouldn't) serve the same purpose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That seems obvious. Of course the industries would be elsewhere if Atlanta was never around. The same thing goes for the industries and entertainment in Miami if it never existed. The center of entertainment and industry for Latin America would probably shift to say, Panama city or Mexico City if Miami never existed.

It seems to me that the cities are almost egual in importance in most standings. there are some areas in which one city obviously excels. Miami, for example, is obviously a bigger tourist magnet than Atlanta.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Atlanta is very high up on the tourism list in terms of visitors and money spent (probably due to the Airport). Miami is not as high on the economic power list as Atlanta is on the tourism list. I saw such a list somewhere in this forum...

[Aporkalypse]

Atlanta is very high up on the tourism list in terms of visitors and money spent (probably due to the Airport). Miami is not as high on the economic power list as Atlanta is on the tourism list. I saw such a list somewhere in this forum...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In any case, the question was "Which city is more important to the economy of the United States?".

My answer was justifiable largely because Miami brings in a lot of industry that would otherwise be located in Latin America. Not to mention it being the second most popular spot for international tourism to the U.S., which also brings in an economic impact the U.S. would not other wise have if it were merely a sandbar.

[Lady Celeste]

Miami, no doubt

Atlanta's industries would be elsewhere if the city never existed.  If Miami wasn't there and even if maybe Castro had never taken over, we wouldn't have this Latin city in the U.S. that acts as the financial and entertainment center for Latin America.  Dallas, Houston, or Tampa couldn't (and probably wouldn't) serve the same purpose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand what you mean by this post.

nevermind that I'm from Atlanta. I love both cities so I won't even entertain who is better being that they are both so different. I just wnt to know what are you saying? I'm not trying to be funny. I seriously would like to know what you are saying in regards to the respective cities.

[Lady Celeste]

Nevermind........I just read your other post. I'm still confused because could it also be apt to say that if Miami didn't exist, Jacksonville or Naples or West Palm Beach could also handle the role Miami does?

Also, you place tourist dollars over corporate dollars? Home Depot International, Coca~Cola, UPS and Delta collectively had less impact to the US economy than tourism in Miami? I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm just trying to gauge your take on the matter.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Also, you place tourist dollars over corporate dollars? Home Depot International, Coca~Cola, UPS and Delta collectively had less impact to the US economy than tourism in Miami? I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm just trying to gauge your take on the matter.

Yea, I was thinking about that when people were classifing cities into tiers. I just didn't know how to word it.

[Aporkalypse]

Nevermind........I just read your other post. I'm still confused because could it also be apt to say that if Miami didn't exist, Jacksonville or Naples or West Palm Beach could also handle the role Miami does?

Also, you place tourist dollars over corporate dollars? Home Depot International, Coca~Cola, UPS and Delta collectively had less impact to the US economy than tourism in Miami? I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm just trying to gauge your take on the matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I live in Dallas which in many ways is similar to Atlanta, where my brother lives. These cities have more corporate HQs and probably contribute a significantly larger chunk to the GNP than Miami does. However, this is NOT what the question stated the way I read it. If Dallas didn't exist then Houston, St Louis, Austin, etc would have served the same role. Likewise Atlanta plays a role as a convenient location for corporate HQs but this is not the role Miami serves.

"Which city is more important to the economy of the United States?".

I took this to mean, what city adds something to the economy of the U.S. it would otherwise lack. Those of you that haven't spent much time in Miami seem to think it's just one big beach. It's not a tourist city with little corporate presence the way New Orleans is. In one stretch along Brickell Ave, the majority of Latin America's banks have established their HQs in high rises to keep them anchored in a safe country. Virtually all Latin American companies have their U.S offices in Miami and Latin music, television, software, etc largely originates there. There are some domestic Fortune 500 companies there such as Autonation (97), Office Depot (157), Lennar Corp (230), Ryder (350) and other large companies such as Carnival, Celebrity, Royal Caribbean, Motorola, etc but the REAL contribution is that Miami acts much like a Hong Kong to the relatively unstable Latin world, a place where there is stability and a pool of bilingual well-educated employees to run these businesses. This couldn't occur in Dallas, Houston, Tampa, or elsewhere - it required a large group of well-educated upwardly mobile Latinos. This group existed simply because Castro threw all of these people out decades ago and their children grew up in mixed cultures. Now Miami is majority Latino and it is largely a Spanish-speaking city, allowing it to serve this rare niche. I don't think most people realize how much the economy and culture of all of Latin America is originates from Miami. I didn't until I spent some time there. Counting Fortune 500 companies won't give you a number you can use to demonstrate how much this contribution matters, but we're taking lots of foreign money and injecting it into our economy.

The tourism, as I left it, is simply an afterthought, just another way South Florida generates revenue. It is significant but not of primary importance as an economic engine.

[Lady Celeste]

Okay, bare with my while I try to totally understand where you are coming from.

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just trying to fully understand your premise.

Okay, you said:

If Dallas didn't exist then Houston, St Louis, Austin, etc would have served the same role. Likewise Atlanta plays a role as a convenient location for corporate HQs but this is not the role Miami serves.

You keep saying that if Atlanta or Dallas didn't exist then another city could possible take over their role. Well the same could be said of Miami. If Miami didn't exist then some other city could possibly be the other "Miami." I said this earlier. Let's not think in terms of hypotheticals because there are so may scenarios.

Miami does in fact have a large tourism industry. Atlanta has a burgeoning tourism industry and is in fact quite large when comparing to most cities. Atlanta has a very large convention industry although tourism bodes directly towards the city itself rather than the country as a whole. Let's just say....since we are thinking hypothetically here....that Miami was not here. How would that affect the US industry? Do you seriously believe that if Miami wasn't in existence that Latin America countries would not locate their US headquarters or branches in another city?

You said:

There are some domestic Fortune 500 companies there such as Autonation (97), Office Depot (157), Lennar Corp (230), Ryder (350) and other large companies such as Carnival, Celebrity, Royal Caribbean, Motorola, etc but the REAL contribution is that Miami acts much like a Hong Kong to the relatively unstable Latin world, a place where there is stability and a pool of bilingual well-educated employees to run these businesses.

So Atlanta and Dallas could be replaced but Miami can't? Every city is vulnerable with a few exceptions.

I'm not taking anything from Miami. I'm just trying to understand how you are assessing your theory. There are alot of Latin Americans in the greater Miami area. This is will not dispute but I'm curious to know how this effects the national economy. I think you are confusing local economy to national. If you are basing your national economic power based on people then it is fair to mention that both Miami's and Atlanta's CSA are almost identical.

You said:

...but the REAL contribution is that Miami acts much like a Hong Kong to the relatively unstable Latin world, a place where there is stability and a pool of bilingual well-educated employees to run these businesses.

This is not true. Miami is not to Latin America as Hong Kong is to China. The largest Latin American companies are based in Latin America. The largest Latin owned cable company, grocery store chain and home improvement chain are not headquartered in Miami. They are headquartered in latin countries. The companies you reference are probably more important to the growing latin market in the US. Telemundo comes to mind. It was headquartered in metro Miami but it has since been bought by NBC.....but Telemundo is no where near the size of television networks in Central and South America.

Tell Brasil, Venezula, Argentina and Mexico that Miami contributes the majority of their employees and I can only imagine the correction they will give you.

You said:

Now Miami is majority Latino and it is largely a Spanish-speaking city, allowing it to serve this rare niche. I don't think most people realize how much the economy and culture of all of Latin America is originates from Miami.

Now can you relate this to the national economy?

BTW, my husband does alot of business in the greater Miami area. That's why we have been looking for a second home in the area. I love the area which is why I feel they are so different and very hard to compare. I can see a Dallas to Atlanta comparison but I can't see a Miami to Atlanta comparison. I didn't make the thread, I can only try to figure out what was meant by economic contribution.

If we are speaking nationally then just because a diverse population will not contribute the most to a national economy.

Let me finish up since it's way past my bedtime.....

You said:

Counting Fortune 500 companies won't give you a number you can use to demonstrate how much this contribution matters, but we're taking lots of foreign money and injecting it into our economy.

I can't see how national companies can't be an indication of national GDP. International companies are great for providing local jobs. What foreign dollars are being dumped into the national economy? Tourism provides local jobs, foreign investment in real estate is a local economic impact. If we are basing this on federal income contributions, again, both cities CSA's are very similar in population count. I'm just trying to understand what you are basing Miami's national economic impact on...other than tourism which is localized.

I'm off to bed though before I get into trouble.

[Aporkalypse]

Fine, let me sum it up:

It makes the economic center of Latin America, which probably SHOULD be in Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo, Mexico City, or Buenos Aires physically in the United States, meaning the U.S. benefits in terms of jobs, tax revenue, etc we really SHOULDN'T have. Kind of like the UK collecting on Hong Kong for so long. Not every major Latin company is based in South Florida, mind you, but a genuinely disproportionate amount are. And virtually all Latin companies' US HQs are there as well.

Why can't Miami be replaced? I discussed that already. It's the presence of a massive bilingual educated middle class that other heavily Latino cities like LA, Dallas, and Houston can't reproduce. This is why Miami is the prime vacation/second home location for most superwealthy Latin Americans. If Miami didn't exist a city like Buenos Aires or Mexico City likely would fill its role.

Comparing Fortune 500 companies doesn't have anything to do with FOREIGN investment as these companies aren't included in the analysis. Based on this I guess you could say that Dallas and Houston are more important than Atlanta economically but that's kind of a silly assertion. The problem is that cutoff stops at 500. What percentage of GNP is derived from the Fortune 500 alone?

If you're looking for a place in South Florida I'd buy now. Wait a year and you'll end up paying 30% more the way prices are shooting up.

[bobdreamz]

I live in Dallas which in many ways is similar to Atlanta, where my brother lives.  These cities have more corporate HQs and probably contribute a significantly larger chunk to the GNP than Miami does.  However, this is NOT what the question stated the way I read it.  If Dallas didn't exist then Houston, St Louis, Austin, etc would have served the same role.  Likewise Atlanta plays a role as a convenient location for corporate HQs but this is not the role Miami serves.

"Which city is more important to the economy of the United States?".

I took this to mean, what city adds something to the economy of the U.S. it would otherwise lack.  Those of you that haven't spent much time in Miami seem to think it's just one big beach.  It's not a tourist city with little corporate presence the way New Orleans is. In one stretch along Brickell Ave, the majority of Latin America's banks have established their HQs in high rises to keep them anchored in a  safe country.  Virtually all Latin American companies have their U.S offices in Miami and Latin music, television, software, etc largely originates there.  There are some domestic Fortune 500 companies there such as Autonation (97), Office Depot (157), Lennar Corp (230), Ryder (350) and other large companies such as Carnival, Celebrity, Royal Caribbean, Motorola, etc but the REAL contribution is that Miami acts much like a Hong Kong to the relatively unstable Latin world, a place where there is stability and a pool of bilingual well-educated employees to run these businesses.  This couldn't occur in Dallas, Houston, Tampa, or elsewhere - it required a large group of well-educated upwardly mobile Latinos.  This group existed simply because Castro threw all of these people out decades ago and their children grew up in mixed cultures.  Now Miami is majority Latino and it is largely a Spanish-speaking city, allowing it to serve this rare niche.  I don't think most people realize how much the economy and culture of all of Latin America is originates  from Miami. I didn't until I spent some time there.  Counting Fortune 500 companies won't give you a number you can use to demonstrate how much this contribution matters, but we're taking lots of foreign money and injecting it into our economy.

The tourism, as I left it, is simply an afterthought, just another way South Florida generates revenue.  It is significant but not of primary importance as an economic engine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to hand it to you sir....that is one of the best descriptive analysis about Miami that I have read in a long time.

[up+down=midtown]

very true

[ironchapman]

Why can't Miami be replaced? I discussed that already. It's the presence of a massive bilingual educated middle class that other heavily Latino cities like LA, Dallas, and Houston can't reproduce. This is why Miami is the prime vacation/second home location for most superwealthy Latin Americans. If Miami didn't exist a city like Buenos Aires or Mexico City likely would fill its role.

That seems contradictory. You say it couldn't be replaced, yet then you claim that Buenos Aries or Mexico City could fill Miami's role in Latin America. What about Tampa-St. Pete? Couldn't they fill that role too? They are large US cities near Latinn America, too.

The real center of Latin American life, it seems to me, is either Rio de Janiero or Sao Paulo. They are certainly cultural capitals of South America.

Of course, it would be nice if we could get some of our few Latin and South American forumers here to comment on this.

[Aporkalypse]

Why can't Miami be replaced? I discussed that already. It's the presence of a massive bilingual educated middle class that other heavily Latino cities like LA, Dallas, and Houston can't reproduce. This is why Miami is the prime vacation/second home location for most superwealthy Latin Americans. If Miami didn't exist a city like Buenos Aires or Mexico City likely would fill its role.

That seems contradictory. You say it couldn't be replaced, yet then you claim that Buenos Aries or Mexico City could fill Miami's role in Latin America. What about Tampa-St. Pete? Couldn't they fill that role too? They are large US cities near Latinn America, too.

The real center of Latin American life, it seems to me, is either Rio de Janiero or Sao Paulo. They are certainly cultural capitals of South America.

Of course, it would be nice if we could get some of our few Latin and South American forumers here to comment on this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I explained why Tampa wouldn't work. It's a largely Anglo city just as Dallas or Houston are. In these cities the immigrants largely are the lower tier. If you're in Miami people speak to you in Spanish first THEN English, even in many nice parts of town. The population of the county, not just the city, is 60% Hispanic and half are foreign-born. More importantly, there's a large well-educated bilingual middle class (and upper class) lacking in every other American city, even those with lots of Latinos. There are lots of Latin entrepreneurs like Wayne Huizenga that don't seem to be coming from Texas and California.

As for Rio and Sao Paulo, have you read the news lately?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/08/...reut/index.html

Brazil has a more legitimate government than most of Latin America yet there's a huge scandal involving bribery of multiple legislators and possibly invalidating the presidential election? That doesn't make for a stable business environment. Many major Venezuelan Cos HQ in Miami because of the fear Chavez will finally fully Castro-cize their country.

In addition, the official language of Brazil is Portuguese. Sure you can still communicate, but there's a barrier that makes Brazil a little different than the rest of Latin America.

Anyway, enough hijacking of the thread. I'm off of it.

[ironchapman]

I explained why Tampa wouldn't work. It's a largely Anglo city just as Dallas or Houston are.

Indeed, but it might have been different if Miami never existed. I do have to agree with your bit about the immigrants being lower tier there, though. It probably can be traced back to when Ybor was still a cigar district.

Let's just stop talking about hypootheticals, because we can't alter what's already happened.

Here's my view on the importance on the two cities:

Atlanta is more important to the South(excluding all of Florida south of JAX/the Panhandle) while Miami is more important to the Caribbean, the northern coast of South America, and many parts of Central America (excluding the areas around Mexico and Panama Cities). I doubt its influence carries as far down as, say, Rio and Buenos Aries.

[Aessotariq]

Excellent presentation, Aporkalypse... You could call Miami the offshore center for Latin America, with the advantages of having a workforce that speaks your language, is familiar with your country and its needs, resides in a country with a stable government, rock-solid financial system, rule of law, etc. If FTAA is ratified, Miami is by far the best suited place in the U.S. for its headquarters.

The Beacon Council (the official economic development agency of Miami-Dade County) reports that over 1250 multinational companies have operations here. Oracle, Kraft Foods, American Express, HP, IBM, FedEx, UPS, Visa International, MTV Networks, Sony Music, ExxonMobil, et al., all house their Latin American offices here.

On top of that, Miami International Airport ranks first among U.S. airports and 8th in the world in international freight.

Miami is also home to one of the world's Network Access Points (NAP), which makes Miami a major world hub for Internet traffic.

[ironchapman]

On top of that, Miami International Airport ranks first among U.S. airports and 8th in the world in international freight.

What's it's ranking in passenger traffic (for passing through and destination)?

Excellent presentation, Aporkalypse... You could call Miami the offshore center for Latin America, with the advantages of having a workforce that speaks your language, is familiar with your country and its needs, resides in a country with a stable government, rock-solid financial system, rule of law, etc.

I suppose you can't argue that when looking at the turmoil in many Latin American Countries

[Aessotariq]

^ Yes, and on top of that, Latin American and Caribbean companies establish roots here in Miami because it is the easiest way for them to do business with the United States yet it's still a place that provides a sense of familiarity to them. American companies often set up here to establish a "bridge" between the corporate office and the regional offices for the American firm in each Latin American country.

Example: Telef

[RiversideGator]

There are lots of Latin entrepreneurs like Wayne Huizenga that don't seem to be coming from Texas and California.

Wayne Huizenga is Hispanic?? I remember reading an article about him that said he was from up North and of Dutch descent. I dont think Wayne is a common Hispanic first name.

[RiversideGator]

In reply to Aporkalypse's main point that Miami brings in business which America otherwise would not have and therefore is more valuable economically than Atlanta, I would say that, even if this is true, the value of all the business conducted in Atlanta is more and therefore Atlanta is more valuable in total to the US economy. Obviously it is good to have both, but in terms of total numbers, I would give the edge to Atlanta.