DALLAS vs. AUSTIN??? (Houston, Garland, Denton: purchasing, live in, restaurants)

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by Visitor2007

Why make you think Houston = more 20 year olds and Dallas = more 30 year olds?

I'll have to agree with the question. I'd think that Houston would have similar age demographics as Dallas.

Austin, on the other hand, would definitely be biased in favor of 20ish post-adolescents.

[artsyguy]

That what they said. Austin 20s. Dallas and Houston 30s.

Originally Posted by aceplace

I'll have to agree with the question. I'd think that Houston would have similar age demographics as Dallas.

Austin, on the other hand, would definitely be biased in favor of 20ish post-adolescents.

[padcrasher]

Per census figures the average age of an Austin resident is 29.5 in Dallas 30.5. Whoooo!

There isn't a criteria the thread starter mentioned that Austin does have more of and as good as Dallas.

Save dining places. Dallas has more place to eat due to it's size.

[Lakewooder]

Austin - 29.5 year old is a slacker
Dallas - 30.5 year old is working 60 hour weeks to get ahead.

[padcrasher]

Originally Posted by Lakewooder

Austin - 29.5 year old is a slacker
Dallas - 30.5 year old is working 60 hour weeks to get ahead.

I told my wife when she turns 40, I'm trading her in for two 20's. I guess I might have to head down to Austin.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by padcrasher

Per census figures the average age of an Austin resident is 29.5 in Dallas 30.5. Whoooo!

Meaningless. You need to compare the ratio of 20s in Austin to the 30s in Austin, and the same for Dallas/Houston. Averaging in an enormous number of children, the middle aged and the elderly renders your average as useless, and hides the information about the 20-30 split.

If your use of statistics is an effort to be devious and misleading, what about the other things you claim?

There isn't a criteria the thread starter mentioned that Austin does have more of and as good as Dallas.

Dallas can offer a far greater quantity and diversity of concerts, museum shows, art films, career choices, types of people, national groups, shopping opportunities, New Urbanism neighborhoods, sporting events, etc., etc., ... Whatever he forgot to mention, he'll do better with it in DFW.

Save dining places. Dallas has more place to eat due to it's size.

DFW has more of everything due to its size, and a better diversity of it, due to its size.

[padcrasher]

"Dallas can offer a far greater diversity of concerts, museum shows, art films, career choices, types of people, national groups, shopping opportunities, New Urbanism neighborhoods, sporting events, etc., etc., ..."


As I said thread starter, didn't mention anything about this. She said she was an outdoor's type person.

So the census figures don't matter? We're just going on anecdotal stories??? Fine, having lived in the Dallas for decades and having been in Austin for 20 or 30 different times. I'd say I'd much rather be 30 ish in Austin having the time of my life.

You can go see your "art film's" and walk down McKinney hoping not to get jacked.

[zatires]

Originally Posted by aceplace

Meaningless. You need to compare the ratio of 20s in Austin to the 30s in Austin, and the same for Dallas/Houston. Averaging in an enormous number of children, the middle aged and the elderly renders your average as useless, and hides the information about the 20-30 split.

If your use of statistics is an effort to be devious and misleading, what about the other things you claim?

I wish people were just not lazy, and did some research before talking as if they are know it all.

Austin stats:
In the city the population was spread out with 22.5% under the age of 18, 16.6% from 18 to 24, 37.1% from 25 to 44, 17.1% from 45 to 64, and 6.7% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 30 years. For every 100 females there were 105.8 males.


Dallas stats:
In the city the population was spread out with 26.6% under the age of 18, 11.8% from 18 to 24, 35.3% from 25 to 44, 17.7% from 45 to 64, and 8.6% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 30 years. For every 100 females there were 101.6 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 100.5 males.


So here you have it.
Before talking as if you are a know-it-all, saying this is misleading that is misleading blah blah blah blah, DO SOME RESEARCH, and PUT UP THE FACTS!

From the stats above, one intelligent person can see as far as demographics there is not much of a difference between Dallas and Austin.

[zatires]

Originally Posted by Lakewooder

Austin - 29.5 year old is a slacker
Dallas - 30.5 year old is working 60 hour weeks to get ahead.

Stats for Austin and Dallas (income)

Dallas:
The median income for a household in the city was $37,628, and the median income for a family was $40,921. Males had a median income of $31,149 versus $28,235 for females. The per capita income for the city was $22,183. About 14.9% of families and 17.8% of the population were below the poverty line, including 25.1% of those under age 18 and 13.1% of those aged 65 or over.


Austin:
The median income for a household in the city was $42,689, and the median income for a family was $54,091. Males had a median income of $35,545 vs. $30,046 for females. The per capita income for the city was $24,163. About 9.1% of families and 14.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 16.5% of those under age 18 and 8.7% of those age 65 or over. From the year 2000 to 2005, the median house price in Austin grew 34 percent.


Seems like slackers make more money than the 60hr workers.
(Data taken out of wikipedia)

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by zatires

I wish people were just not lazy, and did some research before talking as if they are know it all.
So here you have it.
Before talking as if you are a know-it-all, saying this is misleading that is misleading blah blah blah blah, DO SOME RESEARCH, and PUT UP THE FACTS!

From the stats above, one intelligent person can see as far as demographics there is not much of a difference between Dallas and Austin.

The flaw in your numbers is, of course, that you are not comparing people in their 20s to people in their 30s. You don't have the numbers for that.

Now if you had a number for 20-29, and 30-39, we could talk,