California Bashing ... Enough Already!

[sheri257]

Originally Posted by Bunky39

if you want good manners go to mississippi.
in mississippi the people are really really nice and the weather is lousy.
in california its just the opposite.

I was actually born in Mississippi and went to college there, mostly because my father insisted upon it at the time.

Good manners? Hmmmm ....

On the face of it, I suppose so ... the south does have its charms but ...

Mississippi's history of lynchings kind of gets in the way of that image.

All I know is that my father, who was born and raised in Mississippi ... was a horrible racist.

[SaintLaurent]

Originally Posted by Caliguy2007

Different Sources have Different Reports of which Cities are the Fastest Growing,but honestly you have got to be kidding if you think NYC is the Fastest Growing City in the Country.

The Sunbelt Cities and Cities in the West are the Fastest Growing.

Well, I don't know if I mean "Fastest growing." NYC is already completely grown and can't grow out anymore.

I meant NYC has the LARGEST population increase in the past 5 years compared to any city in the United States. Yes, that includes L.A., Phoenix and those other silly Sunbelt Cities.

You can't argue with Census.

[Caliguy2007]

The U.S Census isn't always accurate,but you can still continue to hold on to your beliefs that NYC is the Fastest Growing U.S City ( Numerically Speaking ).

But for arguements sake,I just wanted to post something more realistic.

First of all New York City's Population isn't composed of just Manhattan,but is made up of 5 Boroughs,which is the equivalent of combining 5 Counties as one,so to be fair,let's compare the population growth of New York City's 5 Borough Area to other U.S Counties.

Here is a comprehensive list of the top 10 U.S. Counties with the highest numerical growth from 2000 and 2006:

1. Maricopa, Arizona, with a population growth of 695,784
2. Harris, Texas, with a population growth of 485,653
3. Riverside, California, with a population growth of 481,416
4. Los Angeles, California, with a population growth of 428,751
5. Clark, Nevada, with a population growth of 401,801
6. San Bernardino, California, with a population growth of 289,898
7. Tarrant, Texas, with a population growth of 225,121
8. Collin, Texas, with a population growth of 207,076
9. Gwinnett, Georgia, with a population growth of 168,656
10. Will, Illinois, with a population growth of 165,950

New York City ( 5 Borough )
2000: 8,085,742

2006: 8,213,839
Population Growth of ( 128,097 )

Originally Posted by SaintLaurent

Well, I don't know if I mean "Fastest growing." NYC is already completely grown and can't grow out anymore.

I meant NYC has the LARGEST population increase in the past 5 years compared to any city in the United States. Yes, that includes L.A., Phoenix and those other silly Sunbelt Cities.

You can't argue with Census.

[shannon94]

Originally Posted by ladysrodgers

I don't know what city you live in now. I just moved from Sonoma County in northern CA, to Plano, TX.

Your husband must work in a highly technical field because the wage factor I've found, is completely the opposite of what you're describing.

Wages in Plano, and the entire Dallas metroplex are by far lower than what I was used to in CA. By that, I mean about half.

Housing is less expensive here, but all the rest of the household expenses are about the same, if not slightly higher. Property taxes are nearly double what they were even in Sonoma County, which is one of the most expensive counties in California. Groceries, clothing, etc. are the same here in most cases. Of course you don't get the "fresh" produce here like you do in CA.

My car insurance doubled after moving here. There is no income tax here, but the trade-off for other state fees as a result of no income tax, makes it equal.

As far as Texas having more money than CA, that's laughable.

My husband works in "finance". Never said Texas had MORE money. I'm not going to argue with you....I have more money here(to save and spend) than I did in SD ....not sure why it's not working out for everyone else who has moved here.(I have a hunch though) Heck we could live on one income easily here....but I'm shooting for early retirement...(I'll be 44-45 when we retire)
Funny my car insurance didn't go up here in Texas....but the registration fee is ALOT cheaper.
I get my produce at Whole Foods...........more expensive...but I can afford it.
I was in San Diego a couple times this summer to visit family and friends....nobody could afford to do anything.(except mom and dad lol)...however my friends out here seem to be better off. Go figure.

[sberdrow]

Originally Posted by shannon94

My husband works in "finance". Never said Texas had MORE money. I'm not going to argue with you....I have more money here(to save and spend) than I did in SD ....not sure why it's not working out for everyone else who has moved here.(I have a hunch though) Heck we could live on one income easily here....but I'm shooting for early retirement...(I'll be 44-45 when we retire)
Funny my car insurance didn't go up here in Texas....but the registration fee is ALOT cheaper.
I get my produce at Whole Foods...........more expensive...but I can afford it.
I was in San Diego a couple times this summer to visit family and friends....nobody could afford to do anything.(except mom and dad lol)...however my friends out here seem to be better off. Go figure.

What was your hunch why it does not work out for those who have moved here. Btw, I can see why you feel its a good place to retire as far as paying off your home, but what are you going to do about the outrageous prices in Property taxes, which rise every time your home builds any kind of equity based on the market. When you retire, you generally stop paying as much income taxes, but don't you think it would be better to retire in Arkansas, where homes are jsut as cheap as texas, and prop taxes are 1/5 has high....Your paying your taxes for the schools in texas, but you would have no kids in school I would think (maybe) by retirement. I would recommend looking there. If you can put up with the muggy heat of Texas, you should really look at Arkansas. Unless you hate mountains and like the wide open feeling of Texas. My wife and I think Texas should have been named
"Taxes" Just my input, Im not trying to put a damper on you, and it sounds like your happy with your current situration. Around retirement might be a completely different situation.

[SaintLaurent]

Originally Posted by Caliguy2007

The U.S Census isn't always accurate,but you can still continue to hold on to your beliefs that NYC is the Fastest Growing U.S City ( Numerically Speaking ).

But for arguements sake,I just wanted to post something more realistic.

First of all New York City's Population isn't composed of just Manhattan,but is made up of 5 Boroughs,which is the equivalent of combining 5 Counties as one,so to be fair,let's compare the population growth of New York City's 5 Borough Area to other U.S Counties.

Here is a comprehensive list of the top 10 U.S. Counties with the highest numerical growth from 2000 and 2006:

1. Maricopa, Arizona, with a population growth of 695,784
2. Harris, Texas, with a population growth of 485,653
3. Riverside, California, with a population growth of 481,416
4. Los Angeles, California, with a population growth of 428,751
5. Clark, Nevada, with a population growth of 401,801
6. San Bernardino, California, with a population growth of 289,898
7. Tarrant, Texas, with a population growth of 225,121
8. Collin, Texas, with a population growth of 207,076
9. Gwinnett, Georgia, with a population growth of 168,656
10. Will, Illinois, with a population growth of 165,950

New York City ( 5 Borough )
2000: 8,085,742

2006: 8,213,839
Population Growth of ( 128,097 )

That is totally wrong.

read this Big Apple, Southern cities tops in growth - USATODAY.com

USA'S LARGEST CITIES
City Population Change 2000-06
New York 8,214,426 205,750
Los Angeles 3,849,378 154,884
Chicago 2,833,321 -62,700
Houston 2,144,491 172,936
Phoenix 1,512,986 191,314
Philadelphia 1,448,394 -69,156
San Antonio 1,296,682 136,738
San Diego 1,256,951 33,535
Dallas 1,232,940 44,317
San Jose 929,936 34,619

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

[Caliguy2007]

Like I said in an earlier post...Different Sources have Different Reports and they aren't always accurate.

The numbers that I found are very much Realistic than your numbers...Fastest Growing Cities usually occur in Fastest Growing States(Sun Belt Areas and The West ) New York State is not a Fast Growing State.

The numbers below are Cities Alone,while New York City isn't just using Manhattan,but combining outer Boroughs(Counties) to boost up it's numbers.

We obviously both have different views on this issue,so let's not further discuss this.

Originally Posted by SaintLaurent

That is totally wrong.

read this Big Apple, Southern cities tops in growth - USATODAY.com

USA'S LARGEST CITIES
City Population Change 2000-06
New York 8,214,426 205,750
Los Angeles 3,849,378 154,884
Chicago 2,833,321 -62,700
Houston 2,144,491 172,936
Phoenix 1,512,986 191,314
Philadelphia 1,448,394 -69,156
San Antonio 1,296,682 136,738
San Diego 1,256,951 33,535
Dallas 1,232,940 44,317
San Jose 929,936 34,619

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

[SaintLaurent]

Originally Posted by Caliguy2007

Like I said in an earlier post...Different Sources have Different Reports and they aren't always accurate.

The numbers that I found are very much Realistic than your numbers...Fastest Growing Cities usually occur in Fastest Growing States(Sun Belt Areas and The West ) New York State is not a Fast Growing State.

The numbers below are Cities Alone,while New York City isn't just using Manhattan,but combining outer Boroughs(Counties) to boost up it's numbers.

We obviously both have different views on this issue,so let's not further discuss this.

LOL.

Different opinions? Realistic? WHY would there be an opinion??? It's all FACTS and I have given you facts. Read that link. Credible source. New York City is more attractive and more popular to most and they attract the most people looking for a large city. Period. Not everybody wants to move out to the boring sunbelt cities and would rather move to the center of everything; New York. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand. You just pull facts from the air which have no meaning. I am not biased either because I am a native Los Angeleno and could care less.

The sunbelt cities are more attractive to those, normally older people with children, who are tired of a large city are looking for warmer weather and a much cheaper cost of living.

On the other hand, the state of California grows faster than New York because let's face it, California is a much better state. Without NYC metro, New York State would be dead.

ps

Oh, and I see how you got your previous figures. You are comparing enormous Los Angeles county (made up of several cities which aren't even Los Angeles.) to little old New York City.

So if you want to play it unfair and measure the two by metropolitan areas.

Los Angeles County = Los Angeles metro (L.A. city + it's outside suburbs) = huge metropolitan area with a population of about 9 million.

New York metro (NYC + it's outside suburbs)= similar structure to Los Angeles county with a population of 22 million people. Largest and wealthiest metropolitan area in the United States. LA will NEVER grow to be as large as NYC.

End of story. I have spoken and your reply will make no difference because it will always be WRONG.

Ciao

[sberdrow]

Originally Posted by SaintLaurent

LOL.

Different opinions? Realistic? WHY would there be an opinion??? It's all FACTS and I have given you facts. Read that link. Credible source. New York City is more attractive and more popular to most and they attract the most people looking for a large city. Period. Not everybody wants to move out to the boring sunbelt cities and would rather move to the center of everything; New York. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand. You just pull facts from the air which have no meaning. I am not biased either because I am a native Los Angeleno and could care less.

The sunbelt cities are more attractive to those, normally older people with children, who are tired of a large city are looking for warmer weather and a much cheaper cost of living.

On the other hand, the state of California grows faster than New York because let's face it, California is a much better state. Without NYC metro, New York State would be dead.

ps

Oh, and I see how you got your previous figures. You are comparing enormous Los Angeles county (made up of several cities which aren't even Los Angeles.) to little old New York City.

So if you want to play it unfair and measure the two by metropolitan areas.

Los Angeles County = Los Angeles metro (L.A. city + it's outside suburbs) = huge metropolitan area with a population of about 9 million.

New York metro (NYC + it's outside suburbs)= similar structure to Los Angeles county with a population of 22 million people. Largest and wealthiest metropolitan area in the United States. LA will NEVER grow to be as large as NYC.

End of story. I have spoken and your reply will make no difference because it will always be WRONG.

Ciao

Wow, who cares

[sberdrow]

Originally Posted by Caliguy2007

Like I said in an earlier post...Different Sources have Different Reports and they aren't always accurate.

The numbers that I found are very much Realistic than your numbers...Fastest Growing Cities usually occur in Fastest Growing States(Sun Belt Areas and The West ) New York State is not a Fast Growing State.

The numbers below are Cities Alone,while New York City isn't just using Manhattan,but combining outer Boroughs(Counties) to boost up it's numbers.

We obviously both have different views on this issue,so let's not further discuss this.

wow, who really cares