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 09-13-2019, 09:25 AM
 
11,219 posts, read 22,575,870 times
Reputation: 11006

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimidBlueBars View Post
Most of the time when I hear about someone leaving the Chicago area, it's because of the rapidly growing property tax burden. These taxes are, largely, a way of funding the state's pension liabilities dating back to the '70s and '80s, but they're getting higher because more people are moving out and thus not paying Illinois taxes anymore, so the remaining residents have to foot the bill.

The overall cost of living is still lower than in comparable large metros like Boston, the Bay Area, and Seattle, but those places don't have the massive working- and middle-class populations that Chicagoland does. In essence, Chicagoland's demographic makeup is being "corrected" to match its cost of living.
They're getting higher, but the population in Illinois is essentially flat, it's not falling by a degree that would see a vast exodus in tax dollars being paid by people.

The state has gained 598,000 jobs since the recession ended. Looking at average wages in Illinois that's around $32,200,000,000 in additional income earned by residents of Illinois.

Sales tax receipts are up 17% over the past five years and 6% over the past two years.

Property taxes are the big problem and are obviously rising.

Illinois' problem is not paying what it needed to pensions for DECADES and now the crap has hit the fan. A full 25% or so of Illinois' income goes towards pensions, something that was more like 5% just ten years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-13-2019, 09:33 AM
 
Location: Kennedy Heights, Ohio. USA
1,902 posts, read 1,557,799 times
Reputation: 1470
It is due to the inherent contradictory nature of Capitalism. In the unending quest for growth and profits, businesses look to cut costs and increase productivity to satisfy investors. The biggest cost for business is labor. Keeping wages down increases the profitability of businesses. That is why a lot of the US manufacturing went to places like Mexico, China, and now Vietnam and other low wage low costs South East Asian countries.

Mega cities in 1st world countries are usually highly desired places. Desirability and Affordability go hand and hand. It is in the best interests of the propertied class to keep asset values high. Shortage of housing keep housing values high. Working class people are getting priced out of Mega Cities due to affordability issues that comes when a place becomes highly desirable but housing supply is kept low.

Last edited by Coseau; 09-13-2019 at 10:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2019, 09:44 AM
 
9,801 posts, read 7,410,040 times
Reputation: 9947
To be fair, we have no idea if the premise is true. We won't know until the 2020 Census.

The annual sampled estimates have a very high margin of error, so all three could be growing or shrinking. It is possible they're shrinking slightly, though, because immigration has declined 30% in the last few years, and all three rely on immigration for growth. If they are shrinking, as soon as immigration goes back to "normal", they'll start growing again (unless you think Trumpism is the new normal, which I don't).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2019, 10:06 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
1,316 posts, read 564,411 times
Reputation: 1950
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
To be fair, we have no idea if the premise is true. We won't know until the 2020 Census.

The annual sampled estimates have a very high margin of error, so all three could be growing or shrinking.
It is possible they're shrinking slightly, though, because immigration has declined 30% in the last few years, and all three rely on immigration for growth. If they are shrinking, as soon as immigration goes back to "normal", they'll start growing again (unless you think Trumpism is the new normal, which I don't).
Exactly

Even the first sentence of the OP’s article tells you how they’re moving to other cities and suburbs

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...inking/597544/
Quote:
Is this the age of the great metropolitan exodus? In 2018, the New York City area lost more than 100,000 people to other cities and suburbs—that’s 277 people leaving every day. The Los Angeles and Chicago areas lost, respectively, 201 and 161 residents each day.
Please show me where Los Angeles is shrinking? If the city’s population is shrinking, the surrounding cities certainly aren’t. That doesn’t even take into account a completely different MSA in the Inland Empire which is one of the fastest growing in the country. Much of which, for all intents and purposes, is still greater Los Angeles.

I too will wait for the census figures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2019, 10:47 AM
 
3,926 posts, read 1,681,310 times
Reputation: 3325
Those metros are not shrinking. Their rates of increase are shrinking, but they are not losing population.

In terms of why they aren't growing as fast: Very high tax burden, a cost of living that prices its residence out of home ownership (Chicago is still relatively affordable still), abysmal Buying Power (NYC/LA), impersonal, ignored/politically exploited inner city social problems that ruin quality of life (this is especially true in LA right now), sanctuary cities, people get tired of living like sardines in a can, politics that have gone too far Left on many levels, and too many citizens that tolerate all of this decade after decade, yet also whine about said results decade after decade. Makes no sense.

As a metro, CHI fairs FAR better than LA and NYC. As a city, it fairs better, but as good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2019, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Center City
6,893 posts, read 7,921,305 times
Reputation: 9603
The premise of the OP is completely wrong. America's 3 biggest metros are not shrinking.

According to the article: "To understand any metro’s migration picture, you have to know that the census keeps track of two types of movers. First, there are “domestic migrants,” or people who move from one U.S. address to another. Second, there are “international” movers, which mostly means immigrants.

. . .

From 2010 to 2018, immigration accounted for more than 100 percent of population growth in the New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia metros, and more than 80 percent of population growth in the Los Angeles and Boston areas . . . "


^^^ These cities are continue to grow, as the article clearly points out. Why is it a problem if they are do so by attracting immigrants?

While immigrants tend to be feared where their numbers are oddly the fewest, US cities are fighting to attract them. NYC, Chicago and LA, which started a campaign to attract immigrants in 2014, are reaping some of the biggest results: https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/ame...act-immigrants.

Growth is growth. Unless only certain "more favored" demographics matter here?

Last edited by Pine to Vine; 09-13-2019 at 11:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2019, 05:24 AM
 
Location: Wonderland
46,073 posts, read 37,184,744 times
Reputation: 65528
Quote:
Originally Posted by elchevere View Post
High state (and, if applicable, city) taxes / SALT limits and housing. As telecommuting options increase people are fleeing NYC and Chicago for warmer weather climates. LA, along with many other West Coast cities, has become a haven for the homeless which does not appeal to the NIMBY crowd.
Just wondering if large homeless populations/tent cities appeal to ANY crowd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2019, 05:45 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
3,159 posts, read 2,881,071 times
Reputation: 2872
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbeauty202 View Post
I thought this was an interesting take....
The rich are leaving NYC. Socialism kills growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2019, 06:33 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
3,890 posts, read 3,410,417 times
Reputation: 2867
Diminishing returns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2019, 06:37 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
3,890 posts, read 3,410,417 times
Reputation: 2867
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecarebear View Post
The rich are leaving NYC. Socialism kills growth.

I’m not a socialist but that’s not why anyone is leaving any city... otherwise, people would be flocking to rural Alabama or Montana at a larger raw #. They’re moving to other “socialist” cities in lower cost areas (lower cost due to the areas being less populated).


Do you think it’s random the more populated an area, the more expensive it is and less populated areas are more cheap? You don’t see a correlation?

People want lower cost.
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

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