U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-25-2010, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
2,332 posts, read 2,853,047 times
Reputation: 3893

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RenaudFR View Post
These states don't have a strong growth, so it's not enough.
Minnesota doesn't have strong population growth because of it's climate, but it's economic growth is healthy. The Twin Cities have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, I believe 6.5% beats any major metro in Texas.

If goverment uses it's money wisely then taxes end up paying for things that make society better, like infrastructure, health care and education.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-25-2010, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 6,235,495 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewcifer View Post
Minnesota doesn't have strong population growth because of it's climate, but it's economic growth is healthy. The Twin Cities have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, I believe 6.5% beats any major metro in Texas.

If goverment uses it's money wisely then taxes end up paying for things that make society better, like infrastructure, health care and education.
These taxes mustn't hit businesses, never, then it's ok.
And yeah the unemployment rate is low in Minnesota/Minneapolis, u=it's a good thing (and Austin has about the same unemployment rate).
But you must understand it's easier to have a low unemployment rate when your city has a weak population growth.
Austin has a very strong population growth but a low unemployment rate, so it's more impressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2010, 12:31 PM
 
13,997 posts, read 21,825,587 times
Reputation: 4065
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenaudFR View Post
These states don't have a strong growth, so it's not enough.
I said SMART growth. There's a difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2010, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 7,849,109 times
Reputation: 4194
Sorry, I sometimes misinterpret typed content. I think it's a stretch to assume that increased investment doesn't result in better quality. Although I'm sure it's happened, I don't think that's the norm. Neither is using California or Texas as examples of general Sunbelt states....they are exceptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2010, 12:33 PM
 
13,997 posts, read 21,825,587 times
Reputation: 4065
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY View Post
Take a look at almost every single one of those states. Their premier metropolitan areas are amongst the smartest in the nation.

Minneapolis-Saint Paul & Seattle switch back and forth every year for the most literate cities in the country. Boston along with Bay Area & Washington DC-Baltimore are the most educated metropolitan areas in the country.

Los Angeles, which makes up just about 49% of California's population (nearly half) is towards to other end of those lists. It's marginally less educated than those other cities.

And look at the industries for those states, heavy reliance on medical services, educational services, and government services. Much of California outside of the Bay Area cannot speak on volumes for that. It's the attraction of brain power and the Northern half of California does an outstandingly better job than the Southern half of California which does quite poorly in this regard.

That is also why Bay Area's unemployment rates are close to stabilizing where as Los Angeles is exceptionally high in the 11.5's area.

There is a difference between being overpriced, over taxed, overly unaffordable but maintaining a massive talent pool through an educated workforce and high quality economic sectors versus being overpriced, over taxed, and not much brain power to feed into it all.
Indeed. I agree. It's all about brain power. High Or Low Taxes doesn't automatically equate to good and evil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2010, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 7,849,109 times
Reputation: 4194
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenaudFR View Post
These taxes mustn't hit businesses, never, then it's ok.
And yeah the unemployment rate is low in Minnesota/Minneapolis, u=it's a good thing (and Austin has about the same unemployment rate).
But you must understand it's easier to have a low unemployment rate when your city has a weak population growth.
Austin has a very strong population growth but a low unemployment rate, so it's more impressive.
No, the OPPOSITE is true. Strong population growth is usually fueled by strong job growth and low unemployment. The only times this isn't true is if the population growth is driven primarily by retirees who don't work. This is why Cleveland, Detroit and Pittsburgh don't have low unemployment rates. It's more impressive that the Twin Cities sustains a low unemployment rate despite the fact that 90% of the U.S. population is afraid of the snow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2010, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 6,235,495 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
I said SMART growth. There's a difference.
You have slow growth, no growth and strong growth.
Smart growth is a liberal concept, that doesn't exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2010, 12:37 PM
 
13,997 posts, read 21,825,587 times
Reputation: 4065
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenaudFR View Post
You have slow growth, no growth and strong growth.
Smart growth is a liberal concept, that doesn't exist.
C'mon don't give me the "Liberal Is Evil" stuff. Both Liberal and Conservative ideals have done good and bad for us. I thought you were a middle of the road kinda guy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2010, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 6,235,495 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
C'mon don't give me the "Liberal Is Evil" stuff. Both Liberal and Conservative ideals have done good and bad for us. I thought you were a middle of the road kinda guy.
Sorry but you're wrong about me.Yeah I'm fiscally conservative that's right, but I'm socially liberal (gay mariage, immigration, heath care..etc..).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2011, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Carrboro and Concord, NC
964 posts, read 1,954,560 times
Reputation: 1229
1 - Salt Lake City, Austin and Raleigh are obvious. They've done relatively well through the recession, their economies are eclectic, varied and future-oriented in very deep ways, and I don't see them running out of gas anytime soon. If anything, when the recession finally begins to wane, they are well-positioned to really catch fire.

2 - Fargo and Sioux Falls - They're small, remote, in the least trendy part of the country, and the winters are evil. In spite of this, they've done so well over the recession (and had done well, if modestly so, for quite some time before) that it will be very interesting to see what becomes of them. They're in a resource-rich area, so the usual boom-and-bust economic cycles - as such their success or lack thereof is largely dependent upon VERY smart management/governance during the boom times when they get lots of press.

3 - Billings and Omaha: Larger versions of #2, with slightly less hype, though Omaha definitely has a building buzz.

4 - In the Southeast, four cities in the Carolinas to keep an eye on:
Greenville and Charleston SC, Greenville and Wilmington NC.

Greenville SC is a small but definitely booming city midway between Charlotte and Atlanta, and it has fed off both. Charleston is a bit iffier, though it has grown considerably during recent decades - apart from shipping, medicine and tourism (with tourism dominating) I don't know what else is there. Charleston is increasingly on the radar as a solid international tourism destination, and they seem to be all about running with that for all it might be worth.

Greenville NC and Wilmington are the fastest-growing NC cities, aside from Raleigh, Cary and Charlotte. Wilmington has an unusually diverse economy for a city of 105,000, with a very large film industry presence, a major port, tourism, and it's 2nd to the NC Triangle in venture-capital $, so it's got a fast-rising tech sector, even though it isn't famous for it, not yet at least. Greenville NC meanwhile has a growth rate approaching that of Charlotte, even though it's a city of only 80,000. It has doubled in size in 20 years, and will hit 100,000 in less than a decade. It's a pass-through to some tourist destinations, and there is also a large research university there, and the university has local business spin-offs/start-ups as an explicit part of its' mission, so that probably explains its' growth, in an otherwise severely underdeveloped part of the state.

5 - I keep hearing about NW Arkansas, and most of what I hear is good, though I don't know the area at all. Obviously, Wal-Mart's HQ is there, and the University of Arkansas, and they do seem to be powering a lot of growth. The completion of I-49 (which won't happen soon) will likely be a game changer.

6 - Huntsville: Probably the only deep-South contender. NASA and the vast amount of r&d going on there gives it an advantage, and it's had one of the strongest economies in Alabama for quite some time. It's small-ish, and not especially well-known, but growth there is solid.

Of all the places I mentioned, having an international airport definitely boosts your chances of being some sort of future boom town; likewise if you have a major research university. If you have both (Raleigh, SLC, Austin) you really have a leg up on a lot of the competition.

Twin Cities, Madison, Columbus, Nashville, Grand Rapids all might be others to keep an eye on - at the very least they seem a lot more dynamic than their in-state competitors, and all of them have gotten varying degrees of good press.

The Southwest seems like it's in very serious structural-economic trouble, as bad in it's own way as some of what we see in much of the rust belt. That noted, the rust belt has a few cities that are positive exceptions to the overall rule, and so likely will the Southwest: Albuquerque? Tuscon? Las Cruces? I don't know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top