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.
Originally Posted by Ranking The World's Most Influential Cities 2015[/b
Not long ago Los Angeles, North America’s second-largest metro area, saw itself as a potential rival to New York and a legitimate world city. Hollywood is nearly synonymous with the American entertainment industry and is by far the world’s largest in terms of revenue and influence. Last year the industry enjoyed exports of almost $15 billion.
But L.A.’s share of entertainment employment is shrinking and its former second industry, aerospace, has declined significantly, losing over 90,000 jobs since the end of the Cold War. Several key companies have decamped from the metro area in recent years — Nissan, Occidental Petroleum, Toyota — for more business-friendly places.
The situation is arguably worse in Chicago, which ties for 20th. The Windy City first rose to world prominence after overcoming rival St. Louis in the late 19th century. It boasts one of the world’s most diverse economies, but has not developed strong dominance in any industry. Chicago is an also ran in media and technology and, outside of commodities, is no longer a major global financial center.
The big winner today is the Bay Area, which overwhelmingly dominates the list of technology leaders; not only is the metro area home to a glittering array of tech standouts, companies based elsewhere in the U.S., and in other countries, feel compelled to site operations there. Even a penny pinching retailer like Wal-Mart is growing its Silicon Valley presence.
And I will NOT be cyber shamed because I didnt write a single thing that even suggests bigotry. Not a single thing.
Unless of course, you and DistrictDirt are suggesting that the term 'Transvestite' is deragatory or that saying someone looks like a transvestite is somehow a put down? In the which case those are your your own personal demons.
Otherwise, what I said exactly what I meant and have no reason to apologize or back track.
This is really how I should compare LA to SF from this point forward.
Notice how even 500 square miles, SF crushes LA. It's a matter of standards people, or in LA's case, lack thereof.
What do you mean even at 500 square miles? If anything that hurts LA and helps SF.
For example...median household income in LA is higher than $100,000 in 35 neighborhoods. The Bay Area on the other hand has 12. LA also has 7 neighborhoods with a MHI higher than anything in the Bay Area.
What do you mean even at 500 square miles? If anything that hurts LA and helps SF.
For example...median household income in LA is higher than $100,000 in 35 neighborhoods. The Bay Area on the other hand has 12. LA also has 7 neighborhoods with a MHI higher than anything in the Bay Area.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that neighborhoods in SF in particular are significantly more mixed income than neighborhoods in LA. Pac Heights, for instance, the quintessential wealthy SF neighborhood that everyone knows with an entire movie made with its name, is not all that wealthy if you look at median household income. It's something like $135K, which is not anything spectacular. Yet it's home to something like a dozen billionaires and hundreds of households that likely make > $250K or even $500K a year. When I first moved to SF I looked at apartments in the neighborhood that were rent controlled, and there were even some "SROs" sharing blocks with $10-20M homes. And this in Pac Heights. The rest of the city is even more mixed-income. I could be wrong, but I just don't think LA is that way. This is in fact one area where progressives in San Francisco have had an impact, and continue to have an impact.
If you're talking Bay Area and can only find 12, something seems off with that number. A number of entire Bay Area municipalities top lists of wealthiest municipalities by income. Most of them are concentrated on the Peninsula (between SF and SJ), but there are a few in Marin and E Bay as well. Even parts of Oakland have neighborhoods that exceed $100K, so 12 as a number for the entire Bay Area seems very low. 35 even seems low for LA.
edit: the LA list includes neighborhoods, towns, hamlets, cities, basically any which division. For instance, Bel-Air, a neighborhood, tops the list, but there are towns and cities on the list, as well. Bel-Air has < 10K people.
The SF list only includes Census-designated places deemed to be "cities" and excludes towns and other CDPs, and does not include mere neighborhoods. Distinction between city and town is dubious, but some places are known as cities and some towns, and some CDPs, etc. So the SF list excludes Atherton (same population as Bel-Air with the highest median income of any place in the entire United States) and dozens of other places.
Last edited by anonelitist; 11-11-2015 at 03:34 PM..
What do you mean even at 500 square miles? If anything that hurts LA and helps SF.
For example...median household income in LA is higher than $100,000 in 35 neighborhoods. The Bay Area on the other hand has 12. LA also has 7 neighborhoods with a MHI higher than anything in the Bay Area.
Degrees don't mean much either. There's alot of stupid engineers out there.
You know who told me that?
Other engineers.
Look at Ben Carson. Supposedly "smart" but you wouldn't know it listening.
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.
