Agreed. If Tier 1 is “better” than Tier 2, 3, etc. than the examples given present a bicoastal view of the US that I thought passed out of fashion with the new millennium. Smells of the NYC hype machine in action. Or an attempt to deflect the “doom spiral” narrative for SF.
Classifying tiers by size alone seems too “metastatic” a measure. Instead of a Tier 1 city, should we instead classify NYC or LA (or SF) as a “Stage 4” city? (Their Econ development people may not appreciate that…suggests they should have DNR tattooed on their chest.). If you mean the largest or densest or fastest growing cities, then just say that and skip the “Tier” nonsense.
Defining tiers based on the Quality of Life experienced in the city seems a more meaningful metric. Tier 1 would have the highest QoL for average residents or new hires or whatever subgroup you want. Tier 2 a little lower, etc.. A single QoL metric should reflect cost of living, hassle factor, scenic beauty, economic opportunities, cultural elements, room-to-move, time tax, climate, etc.. Or perhaps treat as a multiple criteria problem and find the efficient/non-dominated cities under those several criteria and call them Tier 1. Thus acknowledging that one person’s Tier 1 may be another’s Tier 3 or 4 given how you value the individual criterion based on what stage of life you’re in, personal preference, etc..