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.
SFO is just another American city full of stereotypical hipsters and obnoxious people who cannot shut up about being vegan, feminists, liberals etc. etc.
NYC on the other hand is cosmopolitan and worldly which SFO is not!
SFO is just another American city full of stereotypical hipsters and obnoxious people who cannot shut up about being vegan, feminists, liberals etc. etc.
NYC on the other hand is cosmopolitan and worldly which SFO is not!
Plus infinity.
Dumb liberal windbags, the lot of 'em.
Another subtopic:
Is the implied point: More people with grad/college degrees close by= better?
I would almost think for those with those degrees it would be worse, because the jobs that require them would be more competitive and have lower salaries and benefits.
Nothing changes when I compare NYC to the Bay Area CSA(Pop 8.469 Million) or the SF-Oakland Urban Area(3.411 Million)
And the SF Urban Area is not a bad boroughized version of SF for comparative purposes to NYC because it excludes Marin County and the outer East Bay. It's just The City, San Mateo County bayshore and 510 area code.
Population and Area, 2013
New York City, NY.................................8,405,837...... ...304 sq miles
San Francisco-Oakland Urban Area....3,411,664.........523 sq miles
Racial Breakdown, New York City, 2013
White 32.6%
Hispanic 28.9%
Black 22.4%
Asian 13.4%
Two or More Races 1.6%
Racial Breakdown, San Francisco-Oakland Urban Area, 2013
White 37.0%
Asian 27.0%
Hispanic 22.4%
Black 8.3%
Two or More Races 3.7%
Adults with a Bachelor Degree or Higher, 2013
San Francisco-Oakland Urban Area 45.5%
New York City 35.7%
Median Family Income, 2013
San Francisco-Oakland Urban Area $91,802
New York City $58,012
That says a lot. I imagine the total numbers for the CSA which is close to NYC population would be worse for NYC ?
That says a lot. I imagine the total numbers for the CSA which is close to NYC population would be worse for NYC ?
For CSA, I would guess the numbers are slightly higher, because the wealthiest MSA in the country is in the NYC CSA (whatever they call the Fairfield County MSA).
City, MSA, or CSA, NYC has far greater wealth than SF, and SF should probably compare itself to the closest U.S. cities, which would be Boston, Philly, DC, and maybe Chicago. Comparing wealth in SF to wealth in NYC is downright silly.
That says a lot. I imagine the total numbers for the CSA which is close to NYC population would be worse for NYC ?
Well yeah. They are talking about equivalent populations, but unfortunately for them the Bay Area CSA has 8.469 Million people and that is slightly larger than NYC-and socio-economically speaking, the Bay takes NYC out back to the woodshed. lol
They are totally deluded about the state of things in 2014.
But as I stated earlier, imo. the SF-Oakland Urban Area is a pretty good comparison to NYC.
Well yeah. They are talking about equivalent populations, but unfortunately for them the Bay Area CSA has 8.469 Million people and that is slightly larger than NYC-and socio-economically speaking, the Bay takes NYC out back to the woodshed. lol
Of course, the opposite is true. NYC has more wealth than any metro area on the planet. It has a higher proportion of wealthy households than SF, and many, many times greater numbers. SF isn't even close to LA in aggregate wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
But as I stated earlier, imo. the SF-Oakland Urban Area is a pretty good comparison to NYC.
And obviously this makes zero sense, and is a horrible comparison. You are comparing a 90% suburban area to a 100% urban area, and then concluding the suburban area is "better" because it has more suburban attributes. Most of Northern NJ is "better" than SF using your standards.
Most middle class suburbs anywhere in sprawling exurban America have higher median income, higher educational attainment, and lower poverty than San Francisco. This is even true in suburban places in states like Alabama and Indiana.
The reason, of course, is that suburbs tend to be weighted towards homeowners, usually with two incomes, at the peak of their earning power. They don't have subsidized housing, immigrant neighborhoods, rentals, dormitories, tiny living units, nontraditional living units, elderly, 20-somethings, and all the messy housing stock that's correlated with urbanity.
So your whole argument is that because SF is more suburban in nature than NYC, and since you value suburban things more, then it's better than NYC, which you're free to argue, but then basically means that SF is worse than most of the suburban U.S., which obviously out-suburbanizes SF.
Your argument basically says "SF is better than NYC because it's somewhat closer to the ideal of suburban America than NYC", which is true, but since the NYC area has more of everything than SF, if your ideal really is high-income sprawl, NYC kills SF in that too in aggregate. Suburban NYC is much richer, better educated, and less poor than SF.
Of course, the opposite is true. NYC has more wealth than any metro area on the planet. It has a higher proportion of wealthy households than SF, and many, many times greater numbers. SF isn't even close to LA in aggregate wealth.
How are you measuring that? By proportion, that doesn't sound right.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
1.4 Million poor people and 3.7 Million uneducated adults in 304 sq miles is not my cup 'a tea. Thanks but no thanks.
You do understand that a lot of the wealth is outside city limits? Also, since when is not having a bachelor's degree=uneducated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuddedLeather
I'm not sure if he understands this is a prime example where his stat/percentages are useless and raw numbers still prove more people in NY has a bachelor degree or higher.
35% of 8 Million is still WAY MORE than 53% of 800,000. He's a mess.
This is the point that he is deliberately avoiding. NYC has a much higher quantity of people with bachelor's degrees. And comparing the Bay Area CSA, at 10,000 square miles, to NYC, at 304 square miles, just to come up with an accurate population comparison? LOL, does not compute
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
haha nice try.
Adults Age 25+ who do NOT have a Bachelor Degree or Higher, 2013
New York, NY 3,722,125
Philadelphia, PA 765,892
San Francisco, CA 309,441
Oakland, CA 175,289
Adults age 25+ who DO have a Bachelor Degree or Higher, 2012 (show me the 2013 stats, if it bothers you)
New York, NY 1,893,163
Philadelphia, PA 227,829
San Francisco, CA 324,885
Oakland, CA 102,863
NYC has nearly six times as many bachelor's and up degrees as San Francisco.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Well yeah. They are talking about equivalent populations, but unfortunately for them the Bay Area CSA has 8.469 Million people and that is slightly larger than NYC-and socio-economically speaking, the Bay takes NYC out back to the woodshed. lol
They are totally deluded about the state of things in 2014.
But as I stated earlier, imo. the SF-Oakland Urban Area is a pretty good comparison to NYC.
Lol at deluded. Even your boy anonelitist bailed on you.
The SF-Oakland Urban Area and/or CSA are terrible comparisons to NYC. They're far larger in area, so therefore, it's not an apples to apples comparison. But you know this. Because if you take equivalent areas, NYC demolishes SF out back at that woodshed
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Of course, the opposite is true. NYC has more wealth than any metro area on the planet. It has a higher proportion of wealthy households than SF, and many, many times greater numbers. SF isn't even close to LA in aggregate wealth.
And obviously this makes zero sense, and is a horrible comparison. You are comparing a 90% suburban area to a 100% urban area, and then concluding the suburban area is "better" because it has more suburban attributes. Most of Northern NJ is "better" than SF using your standards.
Most middle class suburbs anywhere in sprawling exurban America have higher median income, higher educational attainment, and lower poverty than San Francisco. This is even true in suburban places in states like Alabama and Indiana.
The reason, of course, is that suburbs tend to be weighted towards homeowners, usually with two incomes, at the peak of their earning power. They don't have subsidized housing, immigrant neighborhoods, rentals, dormitories, tiny living units, nontraditional living units, elderly, 20-somethings, and all the messy housing stock that's correlated with urbanity.
So your whole argument is that because SF is more suburban in nature than NYC, and since you value suburban things more, then it's better than NYC, which you're free to argue, but then basically means that SF is worse than most of the suburban U.S., which obviously out-suburbanizes SF.
Your argument basically says "SF is better than NYC because it's somewhat closer to the ideal of suburban America than NYC", which is true, but since the NYC area has more of everything than SF, if your ideal really is high-income sprawl, NYC kills SF in that too in aggregate. Suburban NYC is much richer, better educated, and less poor than SF.
Glad you caught this. He can't compare NYC to SF evenly, so he pits a massive 10,000 sq mile, largely suburban CSA against a highly urban city proper. Because he knows if he pits suburb against suburb, CSA vs CSA, NYC will dominate again in sheer numbers.
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.
