gah

Thanx for input --- but to me "metro" is like a cat -- it has 9 lives and does not have to mean MSA. When I speak of "metro" Atlanta" -- in a vacuum and without any context -- I can mean one thing and the person to whom I am speaking can understand it in an entirely different way. of course the census site will use "metro" as shorthand for MSA --- AFTER it has ALREADY defined MSA. Using "metro" without a predicate, however, is ambiguous. At least to me. Sure MSA and CSA are different cats -- to continue the mixed metaphor. And certainly no need to have a lot of formal info comparing them -- since anyone can add the figures for the constituent MSA's together and then make any comparisons they want between any given CSA and any given SMA. My sole point is (and always has been) that == putting aside for the moment what the questioner may have meant by "metro" and regardless of whether the census compares MSAs and CSAs -- is it just possible (not mandtory) that, when comparing the "eeconomies" of second tier cities, we should consider the stats for closely alligned CSA's (Like Macon-WR -- which I believe was formerly 1 MSA -- and C-A-O -- which may be on the verge of becoming 1 MSA) and not automatically and slavishly assume that the comparisons be based on MSAs all round. Assume that (and I am NOT suggesting it will happen!) the Census Bureau decided that Augusta SMA should now be Augusta-Aiken CSA composed of Augusta SMA and Aiken SMA. Would an accurate reflection of the Augusta economy be the stats solely for Augusta SMA or should the stats for Aiken SMA be combined to get a true and accurate answer to the "metro Augusta economy" question? Having now tried to make that same point several times, I hope that I have now been successful?

if you are saying that "metro" (small "m") is pure speculation -- I have to agree. Since that has been precisely my point from the beginning. Small 'm' metro does NOT -- to me at any rate -- invariably mean MSA. (And neither do I think that CSA translates into "Greater" Atlanta (or "Greater" Columbus or Macon or or any other singular city) -- you probably do NOT want to call the Dallas-Ft Worth CSA "Greater Dallas" or "Dallas Metroplex" when you are in Ft. Worth. My additional point is that if "metro" does mean MSA in the question, then is MSA really the only accurate measure by which to make valid comparisons of "metro" economies? Not saying that is not, but questioning the assumption that it necessarily is.

Does "metro" necessarily mean "MSA"? Thought that MSA means Metropolitan Statstical Area -- a term of art. Metro -- to me -- is a looser term and could have several meanings -- MSA, CSA or even Trade Area. Guess what "metro" means can ge quite telling.

No need to be defensive. Think we all know (or should) know diference between MSA and CSA. Noone has disputed that Chart supplied did provide (at least partially) info sought regarding MSAs. However, the argument could be made that Macon/WR and Columbus/A/O CSA are a "better" reflection of local economy than simply Macon and Columbus MSAs. In other words, "problem" (for lack of better word) is not with chart (other than incomplete MSA's), but with premise that MSA (rather than "metro" defined broadly as Either MSA Or CSA) is the proper "goalpost" for comparing "economy."

Thanx again. If WR AF base totally in Houston, then, as you say, would not impact # for Macon MSA I assume FT Gordon is in Richmond (or a county in Augusta MSA)? Ft. Benning is in Muscogee/Chatthoochee so would impact Columsus MSA payroll # Like WR AF Base, Ft Stewart may fall outside Savannah MSA and into Hinesville. Not sure.

PJA -- Great job and thanx for the effort. BTW, do you know whether the last stats include govt payrolls or only private? Might make a difference (to some, at any rate) if the economic impact of Ft Benning, Ft. Gordon, Ft Stewart and WR AF Base were not included in the stats

There is no dispute that chart is accurate for what it is. My point is that unless it is clearly disclosed that chart reflects only in-state potion of MSA's (as was done when posted in Secession thread) then it might be misconstrued as a true comparison of MSA's. Certainly Augusta is # 2 in economics as would be expected since is # 2 in population (both in-state and entire MSA) and that would only be enhanced by addition of SC figures. But as you figured out, addition of Russell County in Al might change the rankings for Columbus -- I have no idea either, but the point is that it could. Even if rank did not change the difference between the raw figures and dollar #'s would sure be changed so that the magnitude of difference would be lessened or increased. The folks from Macon can urge -- legitimately -- that chart is not a true reflection of Macon economy, since WR figures should be combined. Ie, Macon-WR CSA is proper entity for judging economic clout. Likewise, Columbus could claim that addition of A-O (in its CSA) is a better reflection of its economy. That is of course an academic debate. To be truly objective, there should probably be several charts of comparative economic stats 1) Compare cities (within corporate limits) -- ie, ~ 500,000 for Atlanta, ~185,000 for Columbus, ~ 190,000 for Augusta etc 2) Compare counties (Fulton, Muscogee, Richmond, etc) 3) Compare in-Ga MSA --as this chart does 4) Compare MSA's in their entirety 5) Compare metro areas (MSA's and CSA's) Then we could pick and choose which ever chart we wanted to tout the economic strength of our own area!

Interesting BUT it seems that figures include only the portion of MSA's that are in GA. The population figures for Augusta, Chattanooga, Columbus are low -- which seems to indicate that SC, Tenn And Ala portions of respective MSA's not included. If so, table accurate for Ga portions of those MSA's, but not entire MSA's I just looked at the original chart on the Secession thread and indeed only in-state portions of those MSA's are in is tabulations -- thus Augusta, Chattanooga and Columbus MSA's all "shortchanged." Are comparing portions of those three MSA's to entire MSA's of remaining.

As a matter of fact, I was not complaining about the error on Wiki (as i said, I could not care less). I was merely citing an example as a challenge to your assertion that the editing on Wiki was such that it could be relied on as a reliable source of information. In the time it took you to post this comment, you, as a self-professed Wiki "editor" could have corrected it yourself and helped those, unlike me, who choose to rely on its info as a primary source. there is no "parochial argument" about the rank of GA cities. That is a matter of fact -- unless of course you look at Wiki for the info , in which case it can -- and often does -- become a matter of myth and fable.

of course not! I am not an editor nor do I care to police Wikipedia. I do not use it as a reference and, if I did, I would only be concerned that info regarding my own locale was accurate. What people say and chose to believe about Macon is of only marginal interest to me.

You have identified the "problem." MSA (and CSA) is a term of art with a very precise definition. "Metro" or "metropolitan area" can be defined in any number of ways. It is highly misleading to cite a reference to population estimate for for a "metro" or "metropolitan area" as a population estimate for a MSA (CSA). If we are going to use MSA (and CSA) then we need to use it correctly so that we are playing on an objective and level field of reference.

Lagrange is pretty much self-sufficient -- and will only become more so as KIA cranks up. Little need to commute to Columbus for jobs (tho my cousin's wife does). Most commuters are for shopping/entertainment which is sporatic commuting not consistent dependable traffic pattern. Unlike A-O which is adjoining Muscogee, Troup has Harris in between. Altho Harris is part of the MSA, there is little traffic into it from Troup since there are so few jobs in Harris. I suspect that there will be a tug-of-war between Atlanta and Columbus over which gets Troup in its CSA. But for the near term foreseeable future I would think that KIA will have the effect of keeping Lagrange in the independent MSA camp.

Where did these numbers come from? My info shows that estimated population of Macon-WR-FV CSA for 2006 is 381,801, almost 100,000 less. The distinction between a CSA and MSA is not as dramatic as one might think. Actually there are some who believe a CSA is more desirable in that it involves two (or more) connected MSA's instead of just one central UA surrounded by suburban communities dependent (for the most part) on the city for jobs and shopping. A CSA may be (tho not necessarily is) more diverse economically, socially and culturally. Suspect that we will see an Atlanta-Macon-Columbus CSA before we see Augusta and Columbia in a CSA.

Btw wikipedia and us census both give estimates. The us census doesn't use a special device or something that others sites don't use. They both are not exact just estimates

I have been worried that Columbus might someday in the distant future become no more than a far-flung suburb of Atlanta. Now I see that the much bigger and more imminent threat is that it will become a mere suburb of Macon. :-)

As a cynic, I have to wonder whether the scope of DOT work in the Macon area might have something to do with the fact that the Governor is from Houston County. Hmmmmmm

Probably a good idea to establish as a ground rule that Wikipedia is NEVER to be cited as authority for ANYTHING. Since it is unregulated, way too easy to plant entirely false, misleading information on it and then tout it as "fact." When dealing with population and other statistics, should limit citation to census and other reliable sources.

Columbus Tech does not get as much press as CSU, but it is very big community asset. the news this week that Dr. Wright -- a former councilman, businessman and generous benefactor -- will contribute $ 1 M towards the new health Science Building is great for the school and for the whole community. Although the state is kicking in $16 M, the fact that an additional $ 9 M (including Dr. Wrights $ 1 M) in private funds have been added to that to enhance the new facility shows that the Columbus community is very interested in keeping its young folks and stopping the "brain drain." Columbus Tech is a real asset which is under appreciated.

This new complex seems like it will be a great addition. Isnt that teh same area where a PUD was approved recently as well (somewhat south at VP/Williams, I think) Am confused about one thing. The zoning guy is quoted as negotiating for DOT to get widening project "back" to Turnberry. Why is that? Seems like would want to have road widened all the way to Cataula. In fact, I thought that the plans were already in the pipeline to widen well past Cataula halfway to Hamilton.

Noticed that lot for new proposed Y has been razed, so glad to hear that the project will start soon. Unfortunately, Columbus is prone to the "all sizzle, but no steak" syndrome. Flashy announcements followed by disappointing results -- ie, Phenxian (which may start next year), Phenix Rising (which may or may not be built and may or may not be as tall as announced), that gun manufacturing plant at Muscogee Tech Park that fizzled. So I am keeping my fingers crossed for this. On a related note, anyone know what exactly is planned for the old Y site? I know that it was bought by First Presbyterian. Are they going to raze the "new" building (a hideous brick eyesore) and build or use for parking? I assume (and hope) that the "old" building will be preserved (maybe used as an annex for Sunday school, rec hall, etc). It is a real beauty -- I believe that it is one of the few Y's built from marble and that it is one of the original ones funded in part or whole by Andrew Carnegie. Also any word on the remainder of that block of 1st Ave between 10th and 11th? I seem to recall that it was purchased by the Springer with an idea towards expanding its program. Not been by there in a while and not sure what -- if anything -- has been done on that block. There are some really nice buildings in that stretch and I hope that whatever happens there will maintain the existing "look."