America's Best Cities For Singles...2009 (places, population, ranking, pros)

[EastSideMKE]

Originally Posted by fashionguy

As I said, there are certain things that per capita makes sense, the number of bars is not one of them. You can't apply one situation to the other, because they are different. You have one person who can visit one bar, great. But if you have 5 people who all can visit 3 bars, that is better night life because everyone has more options, despite that the per capita number is smaller.

You're completely contradicting yourself here. If Milwaukee has more bars per capita, then that means Milwaukee has more nightlife options per person than NYC. Not the other way around.

[fashionguy]

OMG, I wouldn't waste any time arguing with you any more. You just lack basic reasoning skills.

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

You're completely contradicting yourself here. If Milwaukee has more bars per capita, then that means Milwaukee has more nightlife options per person than NYC. Not the other way around.

[WeSoHood]

Cleveland's 14th, not bad! Any reason why the OP stopped at 12

Cleveland got 6th in Nightlife (which I can agree with)
And 14th in culture..

Two aspects of Cleveland that outsider's don't really know (and care to ignore lol)

[Hoarfrost]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

You're completely contradicting yourself here. If Milwaukee has more bars per capita, then that means Milwaukee has more nightlife options per person than NYC. Not the other way around.

Originally Posted by fashionguy

OMG, I wouldn't waste any time arguing with you any more. You just lack basic reasoning skills.

What jjacabeclark is saying is that it is better that there are more options for bars to visit, and what fashionguy is saying is that it is better that there are more options for meeting people.

[WeSoHood]

Culture: Our cultural index is determined by the number of museums, sports teams and live theater and concert venues per capita in each metro area. Data were provided by New York-based AOL City Guide and the U.S. Census Bureau.


Nightlife: Nightlife is based on the number of restaurants, bars and nightclubs per capita in each standard metropolitan area. Data provided by AOL City Guide.

People, this isn't based off opinion. It's based on quantitative data. Although, the "coolness" category is a bit ridiculous.

[fashionguy]

What I am saying is, suppose for a city of 5 people there are 3 bars, per capita it reads 0.6, less than 1 (which is the case for a city of 1 person and there is one bar in that city). However, in fact for each and every one of the 5 people you have 3 options, which is larger than 1, not 0.6, so per capita doesn't make sense here. On the other hand, for a city of one person with 1 bar, you can only go to that one bar although the per capita reads higher. The key idea is people share stuff like bars. You don't chop off the bars and then distribute it to each person.

Originally Posted by Hoarfrost

What jjacabeclark is saying is that it is better that there are more options for bars to visit, and what fashionguy is saying is that it is better that there are more options for meeting people.

[WeSoHood]

Originally Posted by fashionguy

These per capita things are just crap. The absolute total number and quality is what you experience in real life. There are lines for bars sometimes but it never became such a hassle that you have to think about per capita for such things, like if other people have it, then you have to worry that you don't get your share. In the end, people share stuff like bars, or museums, or theaters, etc, etc. Things make sense for per capita include square footage per capita for housing, number of cars per household, etc. Those are completely different stories.

Per capita is about equaling the sampling population. For instance, NYC averages 14 homicides per 100,000 people vs Milwaukee averaging 16 per 100,000 people. (those #s are made up).

It's a good way to evaluate what a city has or doesn't have.

If you don't understand that, then you are just VERY ignorant or not completely 'all there'.

[WeSoHood]

Originally Posted by fashionguy

What I am saying is, for a city of 5 people there are 3 bars, per capita it reads 0.6, less than 1 (which is the case for a city of 1 person and there is one bar). However, in fact for each of the 5 people you have 3 options instead of 1, or 0.6, so per capita doesn't make sense here. On the other hand, for a city of one person with 1 bar, you can only go to that one bar although the per capita reads higher.

More like:

City A: 100,000 people, 300 bars
City B: 50,000 person, 200 bars.

For every 10,000 people
City A's per capita would be: 30 bars per 10,000 people
City B's per capita would be: 40 bars per 10,000 people


Your example is pretty ridiculous. LOL Your rational is that using per capita implies that there are not enough people to visit each bar, since there are more... Which only makes sense with YOUR example. Of course the key idea is people share bars, etc. But only with ridiculous sample populations like yours would your theory hold true. It's not like Milwaukee has 600,000 bars.. LOL

As you can see from above. City B has more bars per capita... And I'm pretty certain, those bars can all be shared.. I don't think 10,000 people are going to each bar a night.

[fashionguy]

No. That depends on how the bars are scattered around the city, which you can't learn from the data. And that is why I said number of bars per square mile might make more sense. My example is just a theoretical one. Basically for most cities eveyone has access to all the bars in the city. So in your case it is 300 bars for everyone of city A and 200 bars for everyone of city B. Your dividing them seems to indicate that there are 10 separate clusters far from each other, so that one cluster can't access another, which is not necessarily the case and you can't get that information from the data.

Originally Posted by WeSoHood

More like:

City A: 100,000 people, 300 bars
City B: 50,000 person, 200 bars.

For every 10,000 people
City A's per capita would be: 30 bars per 10,000 people
City B's per capita would be: 40 bars per 10,000 people


Your example is pretty ridiculous. LOL

[adambos]

I can';t even believe we are talking about this. Have you guys been to New York City?!!?! Milwaukee doesnt even amount to a suburb.