Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wikipedia is the last place anybody should be looking for factual data. I just went and I could have clicked "Edit page" and completely changed everything and then clicked "save" and it posts what I changed.
ha ha ha ha
no I wouldnt do that. Theres no point in me doing that.
Then again, Im not the only one on the internet and Los Angeles is not the only city which you can change data to.
Who do you think you are fooling, downtown1? Where's the data from this 2006 U.S. Census you claim exits? Historical population data was not the topic of this discussion. And don't try to change the subject with this crap about metro areas from Wikipedia. The topic of my original post was median income, poverty rates, and median housing price between Chicago and Los Angeles.
I stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion
The median income in Los Angeles rose in 2005 compared to 2000. Also, median income and poverty rates in Los Angeles and Chicago are roughly the same:
Median Income 2005
$42,667 Los Angeles
$41,015 Chicago
Poverty Rate 2005
20.1% Los Angeles
21.3% Chicago
What separates the two is the number of middle/upper middle class residents. LA has a larger and growing population of them. Chicago has less as its population is in decline therefore there’s less demand and competition to purchase a home there. This is supported by property value data:
Median Home Price 2005/2000
Los Angeles
$513,800 2005
$221,600 2000
Chicago
$245,000 2005
$132,400 2000
Also, the number of millionaire households in LA County has soared to the most in the nation at a whopping 262,800. And, the value of one’s home is excluded from the calculation, so you can’t claim this is a result California’s high value real estate.
So the idea that LA's growth is being driven by this growing class of poor, illerate, illegal immigrants is more myth and hysteria than fact.
And even though my post was in response to someone esle, you butted in with the following statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1
Hey...at least get the facts straight.
"The median income for a household was $36,687, and for a family was $39,942. Males had a median income of $31,880, females $30,197. The per capita income was $20,671. 22.1% of the population and 18.3% of families were below the poverty line. 30.3% of those under the age of 18 and 12.6% of those aged 65 or older were below the poverty line."
The median income for a household in the city was $38,625, and the median income for a family was $46,748. Males had a median income of $35,907 versus $30,536 for females. The per capita income for the city was $20,175. Below the poverty line are 19.6% of the population and 16.6% of the families. Of the total population, 28.1% of those under the age of 18 and 15.5% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line.
I asked you to provide the source to compare but you did not do that when I posted the link to Wiki site that has the data published in the historical populations section (2006 update). Like I said, if I made a mistake by mentioning 2006 Census data, which I did.. I am willing to acknowledge it. Its better than to fabricate the data like you did before. If the stats were published in 2000, then just put the original source to compare. Its that simple.
Any dispute on these info ? The last update was on August 2007
11. Chicago--Gary--Kenosha, IL--IN--WI $51,046
43. Los Angeles--Riverside--Orange County, CA $45,903
[quote=TheRealAngelion;1555851]Who do you think you are fooling, downtown1? Where's the data from this 2006 U.S. Census you claim exits? Historical population data was not the topic of this discussion. And don't try to change the subject with this crap about metro areas from Wikipedia. The topic of my original post was median income, poverty rates, and median housing price between Chicago and Los Angeles.
I stated:
And even though my post was in response to someone esle, you butted in with the following statement:
You further claimed:
Quote:
So once agaon, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT THE NUMBERS YOU REFERENCE IN THE ABOVE QUOTE ARE FROM THIS "2006 US CENSUS BUREAU"?
YOU WON'T FIND IT BECAUSE THE LAST UPDATE WAS IN 2005 AS MY NUMBERS FROM CITY DATA SUPPORT.
You are such a liar downtown1. When you first asked me what my source was, I politely told you as follows:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion
I used City Data stats which are updated with 2005 Census estimates. You are using old data from Wikipedia. I also made no reference to median income for the metro area in my post. I strictly compared Chicago to Los Angeles stats for median income, median housing price, and poverty rate.
You then proceeded to advance your false claim that there was a 2006 Census update. Which is absurd. Census data would not be updated in 2005 and then again in 2006 for median income and poverty rates.
You have been caught in a very big LIE. And, now you are trying to wiggle your way out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1
I asked you to provide the source to compare but you did not do that when I posted the link to Wiki site that has the data published in the historical populations section (2006 update). Like I said, if I made a mistake by mentioning 2006 Census data, which I did.. I am willing to acknowledge it. Its better than to fabricate the data like you did before. If the stats were published in 2000, then just put the original source to compare. Its that simple.
I asked you to put a link to your original source to compare the data you claimed because I thought Wiki had been updated with 2006 data (US Census) in the same section that describes about historical populations. You had a reputation for manipulating data that's why I forced you to post the original source. It was based on past occurrences. If I did lie like you said, I would not post the links to those sites, get it?
Gee..Liar? How many times have you been caught for fabricating data and giving flattery claims?. Just DENY it and I will prepare a list for you pretty soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion
You are such a liar downtown1. When you asked me what my source was, I politely told you as follows:
You then proceeded to advance your false claim that there was a 2006 Census update. Which is absurd. Census data would not be updated in 2005 and then again in 2006 for median income and poverty rates.
You have been caught in a very big LIE. And, now you are trying to wiggle your way out of it.
Last edited by downtown1; 09-22-2007 at 03:54 PM..
I asked you to put a link to your original source to compare the data you claimed because I thought Wiki had been updated with 2006 data (US Census) in the same section that describes about historical populations. You had a reputation for manipulating data that's why I forced you to post the original source. It was based on past occurrences. If I did lie like you said, I would not post the links to those sites, get it?
Gee..Liar? How many times have you been caught for fabricating data and giving flattery claims?. Just DENY it and I will prepare a list for you pretty soon.
I have a reputation for manipulating data? Gee, nobody else has ever made such a claim besides you. And that's becauase I'm calling you out for what you are: A LIAR and FRAUD
Let's run through this again. It's so scandalous it's worth repeating. I posted the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion
The median income in Los Angeles rose in 2005 compared to 2000. Also, median income and poverty rates in Los Angeles and Chicago are roughly the same:
Median Income 2005
$42,667 Los Angeles
$41,015 Chicago
Poverty Rate 2005
20.1% Los Angeles
21.3% Chicago
What separates the two is the number of middle/upper middle class residents. LA has a larger and growing population of them. Chicago has less as its population is in decline therefore there’s less demand and competition to purchase a home there. This is supported by property value data:
Median Home Price 2005/2000
Los Angeles
$513,800 2005
$221,600 2000
Chicago
$245,000 2005
$132,400 2000
Also, the number of millionaire households in LA County has soared to the most in the nation at a whopping 262,800. And, the value of one’s home is excluded from the calculation, so you can’t claim this is a result California’s high value real estate.
So the idea that LA's growth is being driven by this growing class of poor, illerate, illegal immigrants is more myth and hysteria than fact.
You responded to my post, with the following statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1
Hey...at least get the facts straight.
"The median income for a household was $36,687, and for a family was $39,942. Males had a median income of $31,880, females $30,197. The per capita income was $20,671. 22.1% of the population and 18.3% of families were below the poverty line. 30.3% of those under the age of 18 and 12.6% of those aged 65 or older were below the poverty line."
The median income for a household in the city was $38,625, and the median income for a family was $46,748. Males had a median income of $35,907 versus $30,536 for females. The per capita income for the city was $20,175. Below the poverty line are 19.6% of the population and 16.6% of the families. Of the total population, 28.1% of those under the age of 18 and 15.5% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line.
Upon your request for the source my data, I told you that the source of my data was City-Data.com which included updated information from the 2005 Census estimates. I also pointed out to you that your data was from the 2000 Census as is clearly stated in Wikipedia. Here's what I told you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion
I used City Data stats which are updated with 2005 Census estimates. You are using old data from Wikipedia. I also made no reference to median income for the metro area in my post. I strictly compared Chicago to Los Angeles stats for median income, median housing price, and poverty rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion
Nope. Your stats are from the 2000 Census, which are outdated.
Despite my pointing this out in the two separate posts above, you then proceeded down a reckless path of promoting what was clearly a false statement and lie:
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1
Dude, the stats I posted are the latest from the 2006 US Census Bureau
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1
The stats were updated in 2006.
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1
Wiki obtained data from US Census Bureau and it shows the 2006 data (historical populations).
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1
The stats were updated in 2006. Check the website. I was asking you if you had data for 2006 to compare with, get it?
Yes, I get it. There was no 2006 Census update for median income and poverty rates. You are a FRAUD!
Last edited by TheRealAngelion; 09-22-2007 at 04:46 PM..
Haha...its an honor that you have a courage to call me a liar . I already explained in my post above and there's no need for me to repeat.Yes, you have a reputation for manipulating , fabricating, and giving flattery claims . Everyone knows it. Here are some of the INFAMOUS claims from your book.
1. LA has 40 Fortune 500 companies (out of 52 in the whole state of California). You even told me I did not know how to count. .
2. Compton is a separated city and not part of LA. (Compton is part of LA just like other communities and incorporated cities outside of the city limits)
3. DKS&A is an obscure, no name company (Truth is both the state of California and the city of Los Angeles are clients of DKS&A).
4. LA leads Chicago in hi tech output and production (Truth is... according to the research launched by the University of Minnesota & UC Berkeley in 2004. It cites Chicago, New York, SF, Boston, DC, Seattle and Austin as the leading hi-tech metros with Chicago having the largest hi-tech employment of all US cities. LA is not even viewed as the hi-tech region according to this study).
Are those good enough to be called the BIGGEST FRAUDS?
Hey.. the poll (LA: 17 , Chicago: 36) does not lie
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion
I have a reputation for manipulating data? Gee, nobody else has ever made such a claim besides you. And that's becauase I'm calling you out for what you are: A LIAR and FRAUD
Let's run through this again. It's so scandalous it's worth repeating. I posted the following:
You responded to my post, with the following statement:
Upon your request for the source my data, I told you that the source of my data was City-Data.com which included updated information from the 2005 Census estimates. I also pointed out to you that your data was from the 2000 Census as is clearly stated in Wikipedia. Here's what I told you:
Despite my pointing this out in the two separate posts above, you then proceeded down a reckless path of promoting what was clearly a false statement and lie:
Yes, I get it. There was no 2006 Census update for median income and poverty rates. You are a FRAUD!
Haha...its an honor that you have a courage to call me a liar . I already explained in my post above and there's no need for me to repeat.Yes, you have a reputation for manipulating , fabricating, and giving flattery claims . Everyone knows it. Here are some of the INFAMOUS claims from your book.
1. LA has 40 Fortune 500 companies (out of 52 for the whole state of California). You even told me I did not know how to count. .
2. Compton is a separated city and not part of LA. (Compton is part of LA just like other communities and incorporated cities outside of the city limits)
3. DKS&A is an obscure, no name company (Truth is both the state of California and the city of Los Angeles are clients of DKS&A).
4. LA leads Chicago in hi tech output and production (Truth is... according to the research launched by the University of Minnesota & UC Berkeley in 2004. It cites Chicago, New York, SF, Boston, DC, Seattle and Austin as the leading hi-tech metros with Chicago having the largest hi-tech employment of all US cities. LA is not even viewed as the hi-tech region according to this study).
Is this the best you can do? You make up this sorry little list and this is supposed to represent me and what I said?
Nope, sorry. That's your list and your writing, not mine. At least I am directly quoting you within the context and topic of discussion in which your statements were made. And your very own quotes unmistakably prove that you are a LIAR and FRUAD.
Last edited by TheRealAngelion; 09-22-2007 at 05:49 PM..
Wah, wah, wah, wah. Someone needs a diaper change.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I already explained in my post above and there's no need for me to repeat.Yes, you have a reputation for manipulating , fabricating, and giving flattery claims . Everyone knows it. Here are some of the INFAMOUS claims from your book.