The point of this “analysis” was not to precisely determine what % of the Fortune 500 actually services the suburbs vs. urban and rural areas.

The point was to deliver a mocking “knee-jerk reaction” to Much Read?’s absurd statements … “excluding the fantasy wealth generating segments, the US economy fundamentally IS the creation and servicing of suburban sprawl” … “that’s what we make in the US today.” He never defined his terms, nor did he bring any evidence to prove his assertions.

If you or Read Much? or anyone else can point me to an in-depth study of the entire American economy that proves that a majority of the US economy exists to create and service suburban sprawl, I’ll read that study with vigor and gusto.

Until then, we all make knee-jerk reactions based on our assumptions and prejudices and biases and instincts and emotions. And depending on how we define the terms of the debate, we all come away with different answers.

You left a lot of companies off the list that should be on it, especially the finance sector guys who have essentially paid for the sprawl, all the strip-mall and mall-dependent retail outlets that anchor the sprawl (Dillards, Nordstoms), and even companies like CBS which has a huge billboard ad division and sells tons of car ads and whatnot. Also let’s get GE on that list. They fill the houses with appliances and light bulbs and sell the military tech to keep the oil pumping.

It’s actually quite stunning how much of the US economy is simply in the business of building, furnishing and keeping the lights on and wheels spinning out in suburbia. I never really looked at the 500 like that before. But I sort of see it.

I like this analysis. I wonder if Read Much? has ever read this much?