U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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 12-22-2010, 09:13 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC NoVA
1,105 posts, read 1,951,398 times
Reputation: 775

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by a75206 View Post
CGP is conflating Republican political party with southernness, or something like that. But he/she doesn't seem to get that northern Republicans are generally of a different variety than the southern, bible-thumping, social conservatives. There's a huge difference between a Arny Schwaz. of California and Rick Perry of Texas, though both have got "R" affiliation to them.

Be that as it may.

My first and main point is this: states as economic drives aren't the best analysis tools. Metro areas and city clusters are what drive today's economy and tomorrow's gains. Southern metros, especially the ones in Texas, have been gain a lot of population in the past 20 years. Also lot of jobs and lot of corporate HQs. Good for them. But this growth isn't a zero sum game with metros in other parts of the country, and secondly, all this growth does come with costs and isn't infinite--and more to the point, future growth will likely happen only if the metros ante up their public goods...which cost money and thus taxes.


In population shifts, most people tend to move within a metro or close to it. If NY state is losing its middle class, most of them are moving from NY to PA or NJ or CT or in the same mid-Atlantic or Northeastern vicinity, and not to Alabama or Louisiana... NYC's metro now extends to the far reaches of CT and even PA, and if high speed rail is built, even more areas will be connected to the high powered Manhattan core.

People love to point out Texas as the new economic powerhouse, and sure, it is. But it's not like living in Texas is all hunky-dory. RenaudFR brings up Austin...the blueberry in tomato sauce of Texas bowl! lol And even there, the headaches of population growth have meant government spending on highways and other essentials. In Dallas area, a lot of Californians and others who moved in to far off suburbs on huge lots with huge-ass houses got surprised by Texas when the state gave up on trying to maintain the freeway (121)...cost too much money...so turned it into a toll road so now that you are a captive audience in your sprawled out subdivision and your job is a half-hour commute by road that can go to 1 hour if you don't pay to use the "new" toll road, you cough up the money, or have agonizing commutes.

Texas is cheap that way, but cost of population growth is such that you end up paying for it, one way or another. Texas' public universities lag those in California and other states, and that's something even The Economist magazine covered in its huge issue comparing Texas and California. So now Texas is going to spend more on its universities... and that money will have to be made up somehow, somewhere. It's not a free ride.

People moving to "cheap" South are probably the ones that took advantage of good public universities elsewhere on east or west coasts, got fine jobs, and now don't want to pay for a public good. Sooner or later, things even out, however. Either Texas and southern states ante up on their services game, or they continue to be the low-rent el-cheapo places that they're known to be and will gladly take the back-office and other jobs from East and West coasts. The corporate HQs will move in name just as so many billionaires have a "domicile" in Texas but do most of their living elsewhere...people game the system because there are so many ways to game it.

But eventually, if places like Dallas want to compete nationally and globally for the "creative" class, Dallas' sales pitch will eventually have to move beyond "come move here, our taxes are cheap" and into something more...things like the Trinity River project, which costs billions of dollars (a lot of it coming from Federal govt for now) and which will increase local real estate values such that it won't always be $150k for a median house in Dallas...in fact, if my numbers are correct, it no longer is that low.
texas can use more oil revenue. get some casinos in galveston or something. capitalism can pay taxes and in the end the people could get more money back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2010, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
34,722 posts, read 33,760,132 times
Reputation: 51993
And when you come to our red states, remember WHY they are cheaper than the place you fled when you go to vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 09:26 PM
 
8 posts, read 6,734 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by brentwoodgirl View Post
OKay- since you said counties, let's look at the richest counties list:
States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's see:
#17- Williamson County, TN
#18- first CA county to make the list- Marin County, CA

#20- Forsyth Couty, GA

3 NJ counties made the list, 3 NY counties

8 Virginia Counties, 4 Maryland, 1 Utah, 1 PA, 1 CO

Hmm, what do you know- lots of southern counties on the list. Even if you throw out Virginia and Maryland as Mid Atlantic, you still have 2 true Southern counties- one in GA and one in TN. And the one in TN ranks higher than the first CA county listed.
Like I said, by far the greatest share of the wealth in the US is in "unaffordable" and "dying" states/regions.

High earners aren't going anywhere.

1. New York City – 667,200, +18.7%
2. Los Angeles – 235,800, +13.3%
3. Chicago – 198,100, +15.1%
4. Washington, D.C. – 152,400 +19.3%
5. San Francisco – 138,300 +14.5%
6. Philadelphia – 104,100, +20.1%
7. Boston – 102,300, + 14.4%
8. Detroit – 89,100, +12.1%
9. Houston –- 88,200, +28.9%
10. San Jose — 86,500, +24.5%

New York City Has the Most Millionaires - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Percentage wise, high tax/high cost NYC is #1. The promised land Houston, TX is dead last.

Metropolitan Areas with Percentage of Adults who are High Net Worth Individuals:

01. New York City 3.6%
02. San Francisco 3.4%
03. Boston 2.9%
04 Washington DC 2.9%
05. Chicago 2.2%
06. Detroit 2.2%
07. Los Angeles/OC 2.0%
08. Philadelphia 1.8%
09. Houston 1.5%


Only one southern metro made the list. What does this tell us? High incomes/wealth still remain in the same high tax regions (because let's face it, these places are more desirable if you can afford it), but yes, many middle class people are leaving. The high paying jobs are in "unaffordable" regions and will most likely always remain that way, fact. They're not in Tennessee. Not in Georgia. Not in South Carolina...but in highly desirable, superior (but unaffordable) NYC/NJ/CT/CA/MA.

Another measure.

Released April 2009 by the Department of Commerce

Per Capita Income per county

1 Teton, Wyoming $132,728
2 New York, New York $120,790
3 Loving, Texas $99,593
4 Pitkin, Colorado $93,465
5 Marin, California $91,483
6 Fairfield, Connecticut $81,576
7 Westchester, New York $74,878
8 San Mateo, California $71,753
9 Morris, New Jersey $71,713
10 San Francisco, California $71,342

11 Somerset, New Jersey $70,949
12 Alexandria City, Virginia $70,632
13 Arlington, Virginia $68,270
14 Fairfax, Virginia $67,909
15 Montgomery, Maryland $67,525
16 Bergen, New Jersey $67,125
17 Hunterdon, New Jersey $66,449

18 Sully, North Dakota $64,352
19 Blaine, Idaho $64,207
20 Nassau, New York $62,981

The only truly Southern city Loving, TX...which is pretty much microscip[ic in terms of population. VA is southern but its incomes comes from DC.

Last edited by CA790; 12-22-2010 at 09:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
1,954 posts, read 4,512,693 times
Reputation: 1817
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPerone201 View Post
I don't think you understand anything of what I'm saying.

The South will be expensive just like the north east in 20-30 years. It makes no sense to belittle the north east for not growing (ANYMORE) when its time of growth and prosperity was when ATL wasn't even a city. Besides, the North east has NYC, Boston, Philly, etc. The North was also the manufacturing mecca of this nation (before it moved to Asia)

It's the South's turn. It doesn't make the north east any more or less significant, it's just how a country works. You can't contnue to grow and grow and grow in a place like NJ when it's already the densest state in the middle of NYC/Philly. I'd say NJ isn't falling a part by any means, it's just stabilizing itself.

You do realize NJ is the 11th most populated state, but it's GDP ranking is #7, right?
These are good points. The south's recent growth has a lot to do with new opportunity. Eventually that opportunity will spring up elsewhere. Back in the 1920s I'm sure people were having these same conversations, only back then places like Cleveland and Pittsburgh were the up and comers to the established east coast. 50 years from now we may be talking about how Tulsa or Sioux Falls are becoming major players.

Another thing that is going to happen is that as the south grows and continuous to get older it will incur the higher infrastructure and legacy costs that affects the older northern cities. Once this becomes more of a factor the south will have a tougher time keeping those lower taxes down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 09:49 PM
 
521 posts, read 1,148,350 times
Reputation: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
And when you come to our red states, remember WHY they are cheaper than the place you fled when you go to vote.
which brings up another point: The red states that are growing in population (and not all of them are growing by leaps and bounds, mind you) are doing so in their bluest parts... the cities! Places in Texas that most Texans seem to be so proud of are also the ones that are the bluest... Austin, Dallas, Houston, etc. Dallas County now votes pretty much Democratic, same as Austin. Suburbs are a different matter, but give it time and those will turn purple...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 09:56 PM
 
521 posts, read 1,148,350 times
Reputation: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5Lakes View Post
These are good points. The south's recent growth has a lot to do with new opportunity. Eventually that opportunity will spring up elsewhere. Back in the 1920s I'm sure people were having these same conversations, only back then places like Cleveland and Pittsburgh were the up and comers to the established east coast. 50 years from now we may be talking about how Tulsa or Sioux Falls are becoming major players.

Another thing that is going to happen is that as the south grows and continuous to get older it will incur the higher infrastructure and legacy costs that affects the older northern cities. Once this becomes more of a factor the south will have a tougher time keeping those lower taxes down.
Both are good points. And re: legacy and infrastructure costs... indeed so true! Dallas and Atlanta and other metros out West and in the South have shiny new light rail lines, that while do cost a pretty penny to put up and the feds give a good share of funding, they will be a huge burden to maintain once they're not new and shiny any more, say in about 20 years. Texas is already busy privatizing or "toll-yfying" freeways because it doesn't have the cash to maintain all those freeways. What'll it do with all the mass transit systems maintenance, operations, and repair costs that it's conjuring up right now?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 10:01 PM
 
521 posts, read 1,148,350 times
Reputation: 323
a bit dated article, but the basic facts haven't changed:

Ezra Klein - Should We Envy Texas?

One more, from august of this year:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...an-tall-tales/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 10:27 PM
 
5,015 posts, read 4,729,769 times
Reputation: 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA790 View Post

Released April 2009 by the Department of Commerce

Per Capita Income per county

1 Teton, Wyoming $132,728
2 New York, New York $120,790
3 Loving, Texas $99,593
4 Pitkin, Colorado $93,465
5 Marin, California $91,483
6 Fairfield, Connecticut $81,576
7 Westchester, New York $74,878
8 San Mateo, California $71,753
9 Morris, New Jersey $71,713
10 San Francisco, California $71,342
11 Somerset, New Jersey $70,949
12 Alexandria City, Virginia $70,632
13 Arlington, Virginia $68,270
14 Fairfax, Virginia $67,909
15 Montgomery, Maryland $67,525
16 Bergen, New Jersey $67,125
17 Hunterdon, New Jersey $66,449
18 Sully, North Dakota $64,352
19 Blaine, Idaho $64,207
20 Nassau, New York $62,981
The list I posted was highest income counties, so it dealt with incomes. I understand you didn't like that, so you pulled up a per capita list that has a county in Wyoming as the highest per capita income county. But most sources site the list I posted. Google "wealthiest counties in US" and you will get the list I linked over and over.

Also, the high tax/high cost of living areas require a higher income to maintain a regular standard of living, so your income doesn't go very far.

When you account for the cost of living, Williamson County, TN becomes the wealthiest county in the nation:
http://www.coli.org/COLIAdjustedMHI.asp

Cost of Living Can Significantly Affect “Real” Median Household Income
Among 170 large counties, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties in Washington’s Northern Virginia suburbs have the highest median household income areas in 2006, according to the US Census Bureau. However, when factoring in the cost of living, Williamson County, Tennessee, in greater Nashville and Forsyth County, Georgia in the Atlanta metro area rank as the two counties with the highest “real” median household income among the counties studied, based on an analysis of the most recent ACCRA Cost of Living Index data.
Policy makers who are using the median household income data should pay more attention to the effects of cost of living adjustment. In areas with higher cost of living, the current median household income report overstates the buying power of household incomes. At the same time, households in areas with a lower cost of living frequently do better than their ranking might suggest. As the following table shows, the ranking of the nation’s wealthiest counties changes considerably when adjusted for the ACCRA Cost of Living Index

Last edited by brentwoodgirl; 12-22-2010 at 10:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 10:49 PM
 
8 posts, read 6,734 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by brentwoodgirl View Post
The list I posted was highest income counties, so it dealt with incomes. I understand you didn't like that, so you pulled up a per capita list that has a county in Wyoming as the highest per capita income county. But most sources site the list I posted. Google "wealthiest counties in US" and you will get the list I linked over and over.
Per capita income also deals with incomes. There is nothing you can do to dispute the fact that the vast majority of the nation's wealth lies in few areas, most of which are not in the south.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2010, 10:57 PM
 
5,015 posts, read 4,729,769 times
Reputation: 4641
I know per capita deals with income. I'm saying you're cherry picking surveys to try to find one you like.
Do you honestly believe the nation's wealth is in Teton, WY? Seriously? Or Sully, ND? Of course not. You found a survey that lists only one southern county and jumped on it to try and discredit the often used and widely published survey that I listed before.

Look back at the link I posted with done by the Council for Community and Economic Research. The counties with the highest incomes & lower cost of living are the true wealthiest because they have more control over their incomes.

Last edited by brentwoodgirl; 12-22-2010 at 11:10 PM..
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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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