Cities you think are overated/underated. (live, better, places, people)

[Rachael84]

Originally Posted by machiavelli1

Owned again

No, I'll look up stats from a more credible site once I have more energy and not falling asleep behind the keyboard. You know, some of us work for a living.

[TANaples]

Originally Posted by machiavelli1

Owned again

even add up TWO (NE and Midwest) and they BEAT you in the South.

Again, the MAJORITY of people in the ENTIRE country are not in the South, unless you subscribe to fuzzy math.

[Lancer78]

Originally Posted by sav858

Was it really too much trouble to scroll back a few pages and see where I posted this information already?

U.S. Population by Region, 1990–2006 — Infoplease.com


This source includes some states that should not be in the south. So if you take out DE, VA, MD, and DC that is about 15 million people that should be subtracted from the South and added to the Northeast. Even when you do that, the South still far surpasses any other region.

It bears mentioning, however, that the area encompassed by the Southern United States is at least a few times larger than that of the itty-bitty Northeast, meaning that although more people live in the south, far more people per square mile live in the northeast (even including the relatively low density states of Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire).

According to your link, population seems to be increasing at faster rates in the south -- Good.. Hopefully, in a few more decades, the south will become considerably denser and fast-paced -- sorta like the northeast.
Which means that we win in the end.

[Fairlady Z]

Originally Posted by TANaples

even add up TWO (NE and Midwest) and they BEAT you in the South.

Again, the MAJORITY of people in the ENTIRE country are not in the South, unless you subscribe to fuzzy math.

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Unless I missed it somewhere, Sav858 said he used a wrong choice of words when he was describing the population of the south. I thought it was pretty obvious that Sav meant the south is the most populous region in the US not that a majority of the country lives in the south. I'm pretty sure Sav has already clarified that himself in one of his previous posts. Your making a mountain out of a molehill at this point.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by sav858

Actually the majority of the country is in the SOUTH as it's most populated part of the country of the four major regions in the US. The Northeast is where our country began though but it's not where the majority settled to live. In fact the Northeast is the LEAST populated of the four regions in the US. And even if what you said was true, which it is not, then that would indicate an inherent northern bias on this site, so either way you're wrong.

U.S. Population by Region, 1990–2006 — Infoplease.com

Anyone else think this is silly? Regions are arbitrary. One could easily divide the country into five 'major' regions, or three 'major' regions, or two 'major 'regions. Depending on where you drew the boundaries, you'd get different rankings.

[Osito57]

There are no official regions, you weirdos!

It's wherever you draw the boundary!

NYC can be Southern! For Maine, sure!

Savannah can be Northern! For Mobile, sure!

It's just your perspective.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Lancer78

It bears mentioning, however, that the area encompassed by the Southern United States is at least a few times larger than that of the itty-bitty Northeast, meaning that although more people live in the south, far more people per square mile live in the northeast (even including the relatively low density states of Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire).

You're stating the obvious and it doesn't really need to mentioned accept to people that don't like the fact the South has a lot more people.

Which means that we win in the end.

And sadly some of you see this as some competition for god knows what reason

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Ben Around

Anyone else think this is silly? Regions are arbitrary. One could easily divide the country into five 'major' regions, or three 'major' regions, or two 'major 'regions. Depending on where you drew the boundaries, you'd get different rankings.

Originally Posted by Osito57

There are no official regions, you weirdos!

It's wherever you draw the boundary!

NYC can be Southern! For Maine, sure!

Savannah can be Northern! For Mobile, sure!

It's just your perspective.

HAHA, are you guys seriously that insecure homers that it bothers you that much the South has a lot of people that you know need to claim there are no regions? Yes, technically there are no "official" regions that have official political boundaries but this country is divided up into regions all the time for analysis. News organizations, think tanks, reports, etc.. will divide the US up into different regions.

I swear some of you will argue to no end just b/c you don't like what the stats say and it's usually people from the Northeast on this site that do that too, just look at the Philly vs SF thread as a classic example of that BS. Just b/c a region has more people doesn't mean it's "better" or whatever, it is what it is whether or not some of you can accept that.

[Lancer78]

You're stating the obvious and it doesn't really need to mentioned accept to people that don't like the fact the South has a lot more people.

I am just saying that if you want to make a fair comparison then I advise taking two representative areas of equal land area (one from the northeast and the second from the south) and determine which has more people. I think that's fair and makes the most sense, don't you?

Otherwise, of course the entire south should have more people than the northeast -- the northeast is only a fraction of the south in land area, rendering your point ultimately meaningless because it lacks proper context.

And sadly some of you see this as some competition for god knows what reason

Moi? Hey... You were the one bragging that the south has more people than the northeast. So who see this as a competition again?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Lancer78

I am just saying that if you want to make a fair comparison than I advise taking two representative areas of equal size (one from the northeast and the second from the south) and determine which has more people. I think that's fair and makes the most sense, don't you?

Otherwise, of course it's obvious the entire south should have more people than the northeast -- the northeast composes only a fraction of the south's land area, rendering your point ultimately meaningless because it lacks proper context.

If this was actually some sort of competition, which for me it is not, then yes your scenario would make it more fair. But this isn't a competition, it's just a simple fact that the South has more people than the Northeast and it means NOTHING besides that. What does it actually matter if the South has more people b/c it's bigger? Doesn't mean it's better, it's just a bigger more populated region compared to the Northeast and that's all. Some people on here seem to be taking this as some sort of insult towards the northeast or something and it's not.

Originally Posted by Lancer78

Moi? Hey... You were the one celebrating the fact that the south has more people than the northeast. So who see this as a competition again?

"bragging, celebrating"?????
Did I say something like "I win, the South Wins, the NE sucks" or anything like that? All I did was point out a simple fact and some of you read way too much into it. I can't believe how immature some people are about stupid little statistics like this. So no this is not a competition and I personally like the Northeast a lot, maybe even more so overall than the South if that makes you feel better. I'm not even from the South or have any sort of connection there, so why would I "brag" about them having more people?