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.
I know per capita deals with income. I'm saying your 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 a 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.
...if you consider "median income" very rich. Especially in very heavy finance areas like NYC, where options/bonuses ($140,000 on average for Wall Street), are not calculated into 'median incomes'.
Looking at these statistics, Warren Buffet is poorer than the average Hunterdon or Alexandria resident.
There's nothing you can do to deal with the fact that the vast majority of the nation's wealth lies in high tax areas.
Originally Posted by CA790 Ridiculously misleading statistics. Pick up any "richest areas" in the United States list, and you will not see a single southern county, just more "unaffordable" areas with NY/NJ/CT/CA leading the pack.
So I posted the wealthiest counties list and it showed several Southern counties on the list.
So you changed it to "per capita income" and posted a list with a WY county "leading the pack" as you say, not a Northeastern county. So I posted more info about wealthiest counties adjusted for cost of living and now your arguement is that bonuses are somehow not included and those prove the point with no facts to actually back that up.
And ironically, median incomes declined the sharpest in the south during the past few years, with 'high tax' Northeast and West doing the best. The south dramatically lags the United States in general as fare as incomes go. Most people who move to the south are welfare leaches who don't pay taxes. LOL.
Huge population increases aren't necessarily a good thing.
Interestingly, you used median incomes as your measure of wealth earlier in the thread. Funny that once the stats proved some southern counties as being in the top 20 wealthiest, you are now scoffing at the idea of using median incomes.
I knew there was something definitely wrong with that Dallas skyline that I couldn't quite put my eye on. The pic was taken in 1984 as evidenced by the construction of the BOA building. Silly me, great pic nonetheless.
Originally Posted by CA790 Ridiculously misleading statistics. Pick up any "richest areas" in the United States list, and you will not see a single southern county, just more "unaffordable" areas with NY/NJ/CT/CA leading the pack.
So I posted the wealthiest counties list and it showed several Southern counties on the list.
So you changed it to "per capita income" and posted a list with a WY county "leading the pack" as you say, not a Northeastern county. So I posted more info about wealthiest counties adjusted for cost of living and now your arguement is that bonuses are somehow not included and those prove the point with no facts to actually back that up.
Do
Well, it was a mistake. I must have switched per capita and "median income" around. And now I'm using per capita..deal with it.
Do you dispute my claim that the highest share of the nation's wealth is in high tax areas? Do you dispute that the highest wage earners, the highest tax payers are in high tax areas?
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.
places just don't spring up and then roll over for no reason. what has made the south grow and continue to grow is a pro business environment and as long as it remains that way it will stay that way. you people are overreacting a litte too much on the issue of money for public transport. look at la. big city, horrible transport, they survive their commute. you people are about these higher taxes for better services yet your states are preparing to roll over and die, so enjoy your fair hikes and service cuts.
Last edited by CelticGermanicPride; 12-23-2010 at 07:30 AM..
Well, it was a mistake. I must have switched per capita and "median income" around. And now I'm using per capita..deal with it.
Do you dispute my claim that the highest share of the nation's wealth is in high tax areas? Do you dispute that the highest wage earners, the highest tax payers are in high tax areas?
no we do not dispute it right now. but we also know that most of those people are republicans. they're there because cities like new york built a brand name for themselves under right wing capitalism. new york wouldn't be what it is today if it wasn't for capitalism. that city's golden age was under right wing capitalism. then it became liberal and halted. what they are today is no thanks to liberal policy, but capitalism. new york would look like hong kong right now if they kept it that way.
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?!
Well, those rail systems are probably not going to be the biggest culprits of increased infrastructure costs. Water, sewers, and roads will cost more to maintain and build.
Rail, like any form of transportation, does not operate without subsidy (well maybe in someplace like Japan it does). The best thing that can be done is use that new rail as a development tool to bring in more people and businesses around it, thus using it to create a larger tax base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride
places just don't spring up and then roll over for no reason. what has made the south grow and continue to grow is a pro business environment and as long as it remains that way it will stay that way. you people are overreacting a litte too much on the issue of money for public transport. look at la. big city, horrible transport, they survive their commute. you people are about these higher taxes for better services yet your states are preparing to roll over and die, so enjoy your fair hikes and service cuts.
LMFAO. I am hardly a liberal or "pro tax." I am for good public transit though, and realize that rail transit spending is unbalanced and a drop in the bucket compared to our highly subsidized roadway networks.
Look dude, the more people you have the more infrastructure that needs to be developed and paid for. This will be demanded by people as cities get larger. All that stuff gets old and needs to be maintained and replaced over time. Roads, sewers, transit, water systems...etc. Once upon a time all those "high tax" states up north you keep talking about had pretty low taxes.
And quit acting like the south is ordained to prosper while the north is going to die. If you really think that you are delusional. At worst there are states up north that are stagnant right now, which are usually places hit hard by losing manufacturing and not ready for it. Those states are in the process of becoming more competitive because of that.
And nobody is saying the south is going to roll over, but it will likely level off.
LMFAO. I am hardly a liberal or "pro tax." I am for good public transit though, and realize that rail transit spending is unbalanced and a drop in the bucket compared to our highly subsidized roadway networks.
give me a break. southern cities and states roads are fine. i've driven up north, friggin pothole haven. quit acting like your infrastructures are perfect because they suck. your subways are disgusting, your roads suck, your highways suck, everything about the north's infrastructure sucks except the subway lines which most were built under capitalism.
Quote:
Look dude, the more people you have the more infrastructure that needs to be developed and paid for. This will be demanded by people as cities get larger. All that stuff gets old and needs to be maintained and replaced over time. Roads, sewers, transit, water systems...etc. Once upon a time all those "high tax" states up north you keep talking about had pretty low taxes.
the north didn't change because people wanted transit, new york's subway system was built in the early 1900s. that city was booming under capitalism, now the state is in debt, services are being cut, and fair hikes are taking place. capitalism paid for that city.
Quote:
And quit acting like the south is ordained to prosper while the north is going to die. If you really think that you are delusional. At worst there are states up north that are stagnant right now, which are usually places hit hard by loosing manufacturing and not ready for it. Those states are in the process of becoming more competitive because of that.
why were they hit hard? because china offered a better business environment? oh yeah that's right.
Quote:
And nobody is saying the south is going to roll over, but it will likely level off.
it will level off if we do what the north did. if we do business like hong kong, we will build an economy that will dump on the whole north and california.
give me a break. southern cities and states roads are fine. i've driven up north, friggin pothole haven. quit acting like your infrastructures are perfect because they suck. your subways are disgusting, your roads suck, your highways suck, everything about the north's infrastructure sucks except the subway lines which most were built under capitalism.
I never said infrastructure was perfect. Frankly, You sound like you have a chip on your shoulder. Yeah, and those back county dirt roads and neighborhoods with no sidewalks found throughout the south are just wonderfull. See, it's pretty easy to play that game.
I agree that much infrastructure was built around capitalism, but guess what? It gets old and people need to come up with ways to fix it. And last I checked infrastructure in the south is not run by private companies.
Quote:
the north didn't change because people wanted transit, new york's subway system was built in the early 1900s. that city was booming under capitalism, now the state is in debt, services are being cut, and fair hikes are taking place. capitalism paid for that city.
NYC is still booming. It gained more people than any other city by raw numbers over the last decade. Yes, the state is in dept and I agree they have problems with that where streamlining of the government is needed.
Quote:
why were they hit hard? because china offered a better business environment? oh yeah that's right.
Dude, China has people who work for peanuts because they are dirt poor. No 1st world nation can compete with their unskilled manufacturing in a global market. How can someone who talks about capitalism like you do bring up communist China as an argueing point?
But to answer your question, the real reason they were hit hard is because they were not economically diversified. This however this is changing. You can take a look at Pittsburgh as an example.
Quote:
it will level off if we do what the north did. if we do business like hong kong, we will build an economy that will dump on the whole north and california.
Like Hong Kong? You're going to have to explain this to me. Do you realize Hong Kong has one of the highest costs of living in the world? Do you realize Hong Kong is an anomaly because it's a hyper dense city on a tiny island. When you have that many people in such a small place it changes the playing field. In the US you still have to deal with the federal government. Also, Hong Kong may cater to business but do you realize Hong Kong has insane property tax?
Last edited by 5Lakes; 12-23-2010 at 09:56 AM..
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.
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.
See, it's pretty easy to play that game.
