Is DFW really worth the "new prices"...and how sustainable is all of this multi-family housing? (Houston: for sale, 2015)

[hbdwihdh378y9]

Originally Posted by harrishawke

Actually nearly all of my co-workers feel the same way. They are from Texas, but lived in other states, and really don't like it much. If they weren't stuck in a mortgage or didn't work at energy company that pays them bookoo bucks, they'd be out of here. BTW the climate here sucks ass. It's aggressively hot and humid for 6 months (May to October), and then the weather is extreme as hell the rest of the year.

It's not humid in the summer. Sorry, you're imagining things. In an average year, about two or three weeks from May to October could be considered unpleasant.

[Aceraceae]

Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9

It's not humid in the summer. Sorry, you're imagining things. In an average year, about two or three weeks from May to October could be considered unpleasant.

I think July and August are unpleasant, and I'm a lifelong Southerner. Two months out of twelve is pretty good.

[TheOverdog]

Dallas by any statistical measure is an insanely humid city from March - October. The only places in the US more humid are all in the deep south. And I like the heat, but would still consider August and half of September unpleasant.

[iberanon]

Last year was insanely humid, the year before was bone dry. We'll see about this year.

[seerideeleven]

Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9

It's not humid in the summer. Sorry, you're imagining things. In an average year, about two or three weeks from May to October could be considered unpleasant.

Ha, you must have an extremely short memory. We have had quite of few summers in recent years that most sane people would consider "unpleasant". See summer 2011 for more information.

[Johnhw2]

Not all jobs are created equal. A Federal Reserve economist I know talks about base jobs and other jobs. His definition of base jobs is those such as manufacturing or any other job product exported out of the local economy, so the funds to pay the salary for this base job comes from outside the local economy. The multiplier effect of these type jobs is huge, something like 2 more new jobs in total come from an added base job. Jobs servicing the local population and paid by them are not base jobs and do not see the same multiplier at all.


The Toyota job adds are huge as base jobs new to the area. Liberty mutual and state farm may provide some jobs paid by money from out of DFW area but much less so than Toyota I believe. Chase's jobs are mostly already in DFW so its merely a move from other areas to Legacy west in Plano.


I rarely hear anyone but the economist making this distinction. Does it ring true to you CD economists too? If so not all local jobs are local in my view

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Johnhw2

Not all jobs are created equal. A Federal Reserve economist I know talks about base jobs and other jobs. His definition of base jobs is those such as manufacturing or any other job product exported out of the local economy, so the funds to pay the salary for this base job comes from outside the local economy. The multiplier effect of these type jobs is huge, something like 2 more new jobs in total come from an added base job. Jobs servicing the local population and paid by them are not base jobs and do not see the same multiplier at all.


The Toyota job adds are huge as base jobs new to the area. Liberty mutual and state farm may provide some jobs paid by money from out of DFW area but much less so than Toyota I believe. Chase's jobs are mostly already in DFW so its merely a move from other areas to Legacy west in Plano.


I rarely hear anyone but the economist making this distinction. Does it ring true to you CD economists too? If so not all local jobs are local in my view

Corporate, regional and sectional HQs definitely offer outsized numbers of base jobs.
Base, primary, driver, proto jobs etc. all legit terms and no question these jobs generally pay well, they are more recession resistant than the average job, monies for salaries and whatnot tend to come from elsewhere, and they drive significant ancillary job creation. Toyota is a driving a $7 billion near immediate economic impact on North Texas/Plano and that is just the beginning. It's brining several dozen small companies with it all which pay very well and will add to the whatever the intellectual aggregate is around here.

You aren't talking about Harvey Rosenblum are you? Harvey is kicking it over at SMU nowadays. Harvey ran the economic research team at The Dallas Fed. for a couple of decades.

[Katana49]

Originally Posted by Johnhw2

Not all jobs are created equal. A Federal Reserve economist I know talks about base jobs and other jobs. His definition of base jobs is those such as manufacturing or any other job product exported out of the local economy, so the funds to pay the salary for this base job comes from outside the local economy. The multiplier effect of these type jobs is huge, something like 2 more new jobs in total come from an added base job. Jobs servicing the local population and paid by them are not base jobs and do not see the same multiplier at all.

I rarely hear anyone but the economist making this distinction. Does it ring true to you CD economists too? If so not all local jobs are local in my view

Correct. But there is no standard multiplier for a base job. I've seen studies where oil/gas extraction jobs have a multiplier of ~7. Others, like some types of manufacturing, can be 3-5, depending on area and industry. As far as Toyota goes, my guess is that each job brought here will result in probably 6-7 more additional jobs in support. That will include business partners which work directly with Toyota, down to the construction workers hired to build new homes in the area to accommodate them and the additional police officers hired to ticket them as they all commute to work.

Service jobs typically have the lowest multiplier, regardless of area.

[bluescreen73]

Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9

It's not humid in the summer. Sorry, you're imagining things. In an average year, about two or three weeks from May to October could be considered unpleasant.

This is one of my favorite misleading statements told by DFW folks. DFW lies in a humid subtropical climate zone for crying out loud. It may not be as humid as Houston or New Orleans, but it is NOT dry, either. Dew points in DFW are in the "uncomfortable" zone from mid-May 'til late September. Here's the dew point graph for Dallas from WeatherSpark.com:



Contrast that with Denver:

[NP78]

Originally Posted by bluescreen73

This is one of my favorite misleading statements told by DFW folks. DFW lies in a humid subtropical climate zone for crying out loud. It may not be as humid as Houston or New Orleans, but it is NOT dry, either. Dew points in DFW are in the "uncomfortable" zone from mid-May 'til late September. Here's the dew point graph for Dallas from WeatherSpark.com:



Contrast that with Denver:

Denver is, by almost any measure, a very dry climate relative to most of the U.S.

I agree that Dallas is humid, but using Denver as an example is kind of misleading.

Weather is always subjective, personally I preferred the climate in Colorado when I lived there to TX, but my wife has the opposite preference.

No feedback to EDS regarding your inaccurate statements on DFW economic growth?