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.
This is according to the number crunchers at Forbes. They arrived at the results by measuring the country's 52 largest metro areas by GDP growth, job growth, real median household income growth, current unemployment, population growth, birth rate, domestic migration and the change in educational attainment.
---
its - possession
it's - contraction of it is
your - possession
you're - contraction of you are
their - possession
they're - contraction of they are
there - referring to a place
loose - opposite of tight
lose - opposite of win
who's - contraction of who is
whose - possession
alot - NOT A WORD
Joel Kotkin must have been so upset to have to include San Jose in his ranking seeing as he loathes the Bay Area and New York and anywhere with a nice urban core--I remember few years ago he all but crowned the Inland Empire the future economic hotspot of California(LMFAO) while simultaneously predicting the death of Silicon Valley. His shtick is to downplay and even challenge urbanism while lauding suburban sprawl. It's all quite bizarre really. What's more bizarre is that some people still listen to what he has to say.
Anyway, I don't think that birth rate, domestic migration and population growth are really important as far as economic momentum.
Furthermore, there is no way to predict growth in the next year by looking at the last five years as five years is an ETERNITY as far as 'momentum'--perhaps he should have renamed this 'metro areas that are TRENDING up the fastest over a five year period"--because momentum speaks to the most recent occurrences in the economy. A city that may have been flying high in 2007 might not be so hot now.
For example, it's not really possible for Dallas or Houston or really any of those cities to have more economic 'momentum' than San Francisco right now when the last reported 12-month period for change in Joblessness and GDP growth rates are as follows:
This is according to the number crunchers at Forbes. They arrived at the results by measuring the country's 52 largest metro areas by GDP growth, job growth, real median household income growth, current unemployment, population growth, birth rate, domestic migration and the change in educational attainment.
This is according to the number crunchers at Forbes. They arrived at the results by measuring the country's 52 largest metro areas by GDP growth, job growth, real median household income growth, current unemployment, population growth, birth rate, domestic migration and the change in educational attainment.
The top 10:
Austin
San Antonio
Salt Lake City
Houston
Nashville
Dallas
Denver
Oklahoma City
Raleigh
San Jose
Ah yes. Forbes and their innovative research methods.
This is according to the number crunchers at Forbes. They arrived at the results by measuring the country's 52 largest metro areas by GDP growth, job growth, real median household income growth, current unemployment, population growth, birth rate, domestic migration and the change in educational attainment.
What is your problems with the criteria and what would your criteria be?
It has been said already, the guy who writes these just weights everything to always come out in favor of sprawling suburban cities. I guess I just have a hard time taking these constant little excerpts from Forbes seriously over the years. We will see though.
It has been said already, the guy who writes these just weights everything to always come out in favor of sprawling suburban cities. I guess I just have a hard time taking these constant little excerpts from Forbes seriously over the years. We will see though.
I think it just so happens that sprawling cities happen to match his criteria?
Still what it wrong with GDP growth, job growth, real median household income growth, unemployment, population growth, birthrate, domestic migration, and change in educational attainment?
Money, jobs and education seems nice to me... and these are actually some pretty nice cities.
Lol I also remember this guy said the Inland Empire was the future hotspot of California a few years back. Now the Inland Empire has the highest levels of poverty in the country. What a joke.
Those are cities with population booms. Why wouldn't you expect them to be sprawly? Don't most of them have urban infill developments if that is your preference?
Like it or not sprawl is the path of least resistance if a city needs new housing in a hurry.
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.
