The way the Amazon.com HQ2 fiasco turned out raised one question that leaders of lots of cities and states have to be thinking about, including in the clear loser of the first round of Amazon's process, the Twin Cities.
Are we big enough to compete?
Amazon concluded its national search for a "second headquarters," whatever that was supposed to be, by announcing two new campuses on the East Coast. One of the planned sites lies in suburban Virginia across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., and the other is in New York.
Neither place needed an economic shot in the arm. In fact, that's what made them attractive in the first place to Amazon, which will be looking to recruit from a deep and wide talent pool that already exists in those regions, made up of folks attracted by opportunity and lifestyle.
New York needs no introduction as a business hub, but Washington, D.C., has been coming up fast. Greater Washington now has more than 6.2 million people, an increase of about 10 percent since the 2000 census. And with median household income right at $100,000, greater Washington trails only the metropolitan areas of Northern California in affluence.
The Washington area had just a handful of Fortune 500 company headquarters in the mid-1970s, but in recent years it's often had as many companies on Fortune's famous list as the Twin Cities, although Washington's total recently slipped back a couple, to 15.
It also has the third-best market in North America for technology workers, according to the latest ranking by the real estate firm CBRE. The Twin Cities appeared well down this list, with a tech worker talent pool not much more than a third the size of Greater Washington's.
The Twin Cities isn't a minor league place, of course, now home to about 3.6 million people, including the part of the metro area that spills across the river into western Wisconsin, making it the 16th biggest metro area in the country.