Maybe Millennials Sort of Like Dallas After All (a more nuanced look) (Houston: crime rate, calculator)

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Redlionjr

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/08...nt-complaints/

Houston violent crime is declining while Dallas has seen a spike in numbers, especially homicide. Plus Houston is twice as big as Dallas so of course there’ll be more crime since it’s twice as many ppl. I don’t think you can say either city is better than the other when it comes to overall crime. They’re both over national average and you can become a victim of crime just as easy in both cities. So both cities are similar even in crime. Dallas is not Austin, lol.

You may not be able to say it but I will. The overall violent crime rate in Dallas (774 per 100K) is much lower than Houston (1095 per 100K). Just to be clear The FBI issues the numbers as rates ergo your Houston is bigger defense is out the window.


To be fair neither city has a particularly high violent crime rate. Places like Cleveland, Memphis, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Detroit and many others have significantly worse.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by EDS_

You may not be able to say it but I will. The overall violent crime rate in Dallas (774 per 100K) is much lower than Houston (1095 per 100K). Just to be clear The FBI issues the numbers as rates ergo your Houston is bigger defense is out the window.


To be fair neither city has a particularly high violent crime rate. Places like Cleveland, Memphis, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Detroit and many others have significantly worse.

This is a great examples of where your analysis isn't very helpful.

Yes, according to FBI stats specifically, Houston is more "Dangerous."

Crime stats are notoriously bad and have a wide margin of error. Cities report crimes differently and at different rates any given year.

The cities are both more dangerous than the national average but not super violent.

For all practical purposes you could say their crime rate is more or less the same if you are trying to be a helpful person who lives in the real world.

Again, you are technically right that according to the FBI stats Houston is more dangerous by a small amount in the clown world of crime stats. Congrats.

[Katana49]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

Yes, according to FBI stats specifically, Houston is more "Dangerous."

Again, you are technically right

That's really all you needed to say. The rest is conjecture and opinion on your part, backed up by nothing. EDS can back up what he says with actual data. Whether you want to agree with it or not is up to you, but in the absence of any data from YOU, we'll go with actual, measurable statistics.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by Katana49

That's really all you needed to say. The rest is conjecture and opinion on your part, backed up by nothing. EDS can back up what he says with actual data. Whether you want to agree with it or not is up to you, but in the absence of any data from YOU, we'll go with actual, measurable statistics.

Yeah but Technically right while missing the point. The cities have similar crime rates. The metros too.

Crime between two cities isn't apples to apples.

Between Dallas and Baltimore. Sure, Baltimore clearly has more crime. Between Dallas and Boise...Dallas is clearly the more violent city.

Dallas and Houston....At this point, it is really a toss-up.

There is a time when being incredibly detail-oriented is helpful but crime stats is more horseshoes and hand grenades than it is rocket surgery. EDS often misses the forest through the trees.

I just find it funny that he zeros in on this one specific detail of the conversation and makes it the hill he wants to die on when everyone says yeah, technically sure, but not in general.

[NoClueWho]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

This is a great examples of where your analysis isn't very helpful.

Yes, according to FBI stats specifically, Houston is more "Dangerous."

Crime stats are notoriously bad and have a wide margin of error. Cities report crimes differently and at different rates any given year.

The cities are both more dangerous than the national average but not super violent.

For all practical purposes you could say their crime rate is more or less the same if you are trying to be a helpful person who lives in the real world.

Again, you are technically right that according to the FBI stats Houston is more dangerous by a small amount in the clown world of crime stats. Congrats.

LOL, Welcome to City-Data...where some folks really put the DATA in City-Data.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by Katana49

What is it you do? TX has been at the forefront of the nation's job creation for the past several years, so it's hard to believe that there's a lack of opportunity unless you have an extremely specialized job.

I mean it might come as a shock to some people, but there are plenty of industries where Texas isn't the best place to be.

The Texas growth is incredible, no doubt, but contrary to the Texas narrative California isn't doing so terrible. More than anything it has become affordable as a victim of it's own success. Their biggest problem is they are too successful leading to high costs which has been a boom for us in Texas as well.

I work in tech in here in Texas and most of the best Jobs are still in California. Our tech scene is good, but theirs is great....I mean Uber is huge news for moving their 2nd office here, but that just solidify my point. California has a dozen "Ubers."

Austin for all the hype isn't even close to the same level as the Silicon Valley.

There are plenty of industries where a person might be much better off in NYC, LA, SF, Settle, Chicago, DC etc. etc. vs any of the Texas cities....Entertainment, Tech, anything to do with Finance, Wall-street, Futures exchanges etc.

Not a knock on Texas or the growth, but we aren't the be all have all even if Texas has a large diversified economy.

Originally Posted by KerrTown

What exodus? The Texas P.R. machine is still working well on the disinformation campaign among Texans.

San Francisco is unaffordable these days, that's why I have concentrated on L.A. The sun, relative flatness, and larger population is more attractive than the foggy bay. Chicago is my second choice.

Exactly. People just eat up the PR.

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

The Texas growth is incredible, no doubt, but contrary to the Texas narrative California isn't doing so terrible. More than anything it has become affordable as a victim of it's own success. Their biggest problem is they are too successful leading to high costs which has been a boom for us in Texas as well.

Eventually the high COL will creep into Texas as well. Texas is no longer as cheap as it was at the turn of the millennium. DFW is neck-and-neck to outpacing Austin in this regard.

Houston is relatively cheap for its size, largest salaries/wages, and economic clout (bizarre paradox; How has Austin long been the leader of high COL in Texas, despite a small population and laggard salaries/wages and economy?) and San Antonio is still the cheapest and a growing as an alternative to Austin due to its proximity.

[quote=Treasurevalley92;55984512]I mean it might come as a shock to some people, but there are plenty of industries where Texas isn't the best place to be.

The Texas growth is incredible, no doubt, but contrary to the Texas narrative California isn't doing so terrible. More than anything it has become affordable as a victim of it's own success. Their biggest problem is they are too successful leading to high costs which has been a boom for us in Texas as well.

I work in tech in here in Texas and most of the best Jobs are still in California. Our tech scene is good, but theirs is great....I mean Uber is huge news for moving their 2nd office here, but that just solidify my point. California has a dozen "Ubers."

Austin for all the hype isn't even close to the same level as the Silicon Valley.

There are plenty of industries where a person might be much better off in NYC, LA, SF, Settle, Chicago, DC etc. etc. vs any of the Texas cities....Entertainment, Tech, anything to do with Finance, Wall-street, Futures exchanges etc.

Not a knock on Texas or the growth, but we aren't the be all have all even if Texas has a large diversified economy.

Exactly. People just eat up the PR.

I also have to criticize the Austin PR machine into puffing Austin up to Californians as the big, desirable city and liberal oasis in the middle of Texas. Apparently it's an economic powerhouse equivalent or greater to DFW and Houston. (Huh!?! Alternative facts for $300, Alex.)

Californians suffer from ignorance about DFW (to a lesser extent), Houston, and San Antonio because they predominantly hear about Austin when Texas is marketed to them as a lower COL oasis.

I keep preaching to my cousins in SoCal and other Californians that I meet about Austin when I evangelize the truth about the real Texas. I always say that it's a typical state capital college town (dominated by UT) that just happens to have a high-tech industry in the northern suburbs. It also has hilly scenery that appeals to Texans, but can't hold a candle to the mountains and coastal scenery of California.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by EDS_

You may not be able to say it but I will. The overall violent crime rate in Dallas (774 per 100K) is much lower than Houston (1095 per 100K). Just to be clear The FBI issues the numbers as rates ergo your Houston is bigger defense is out the window.


To be fair neither city has a particularly high violent crime rate. Places like Cleveland, Memphis, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Detroit and many others have significantly worse.

The city of Dallas has a slightly higher violent crime rate than the city of Houston IIRC. But on a metro level DFW has a lower rate because the crime is more contained to places like Dallas, Ft. Worth, and Arlington while most of the rest of the cities in the metro have very low crime. In Houston, the crime is more widespread throughout the metro.

Agreed that neither is particularly dangerous though all things considered. Don't do dumb and/or criminal things and most people will be OK in either one.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

The city of Dallas has a slightly higher violent crime rate than the city of Houston IIRC. But on a metro level DFW has a lower rate because the crime is more contained to places like Dallas, Ft. Worth, and Arlington while most of the rest of the cities in the metro have very low crime. In Houston, the crime is more widespread throughout the metro.

Agreed that neither is particularly dangerous though all things considered. Don't do dumb and/or criminal things and most people will be OK in either one.

The numbers I listed above are straight from the FBI. According them Houston proper's violent crime rate is roughly 40% higher (774 vs. 1095 violent crimes per 100,000 population during 2017 - latest easily available) than the same in Dallas propper.

This wiki page shows the same info......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_crime_rate



As you noted there is no question active and passive avoidance techniques and solid life choices minimize a person's exposure risk significantly.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

This is a great examples of where your analysis isn't very helpful.

Yes, according to FBI stats specifically, Houston is more "Dangerous."

Crime stats are notoriously bad and have a wide margin of error. Cities report crimes differently and at different rates any given year.

The cities are both more dangerous than the national average but not super violent.

For all practical purposes you could say their crime rate is more or less the same if you are trying to be a helpful person who lives in the real world.

Again, you are technically right that according to the FBI stats Houston is more dangerous by a small amount in the clown world of crime stats. Congrats.

In the modern era violent crime rates are really difficult to fudge more than at the margins. Property crimes are a different matter.


The only clown world around here is one in which people pretend a ~40% difference is either trivial or explained via some set of accounting errors.