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 07-05-2009, 10:31 PM
 
Location: Chicago
3,340 posts, read 8,721,315 times
Reputation: 1216

Advertisements

This was from 1980 to July 1st 2008 though, so the housing Crisis wasn't in complete effect, and the growth of 27 good years won't be over shadowed by one year of bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2009, 10:50 PM
 
2,414 posts, read 5,006,098 times
Reputation: 1192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael84 View Post
Because it's cheap.
Can you go on a single thread without trashing a place you have probably never been.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 10:52 PM
 
2,414 posts, read 5,006,098 times
Reputation: 1192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael84 View Post
Ask on the NYC forum where NYers moved down south because they saw more house for the price. Most of them say there's a reason why it's cheaper, and they aren't good reasons.
Yeah, because the world revolve around what New Yorkers think
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 11:27 PM
 
2,506 posts, read 7,769,561 times
Reputation: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grenoble_slopes View Post
Maybe they weren't part of the metro in 1980? Just a guess



Indeed. Better, more efficient infrastructure. More efficient government, lower taxes, better conditions for business development and thus job creation. More freedom for property owners and for people to live where they want to live (saner zoning laws). These things bring costs down ... cheaper doesn't necessarily mean worse quality.
1. The infrastructure in older cities is generally more efficient. A Los Angeles-style freeway system doesn't yield efficiency. A freeway system, coupled with a mass transit system in an area that also has railroad and water traffic is the most efficient. Cities like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, even Cleveland have these complex systems. Las Vegas, Phoenix and Charlotte really don't. Cities that have based all of their infrasturcture on freeways and unplanned sprawl have a problem looming on their horizon that is so big that they can't even see it yet.
2. Those places usually have smaller government. They can be efficient, but they are not efficient because they are small. Minnesota has huge government, and it is one of the most honest and well-run in America.
3. Lower taxes can be good, and so can higher taxes. Different places have different systems, and more than one type can work.
4. This is the point that I take biggest exception to. For instance, a car plant opens in Tennessee. It didn't create jobs, it placed them in Tennessee. If Tenn. didn't take them, another state would. That isn't creating an environment for new business, it is just winning the competition on things that already exist. To really call yourself a place that fosters business, you need to produce ideas and new commodities. Minneapolis has a huge medical device industry because the University of Minnesota produced students who were able to invent the pacemaker in their garage. Now it is a Fortune 500 company called Medtronic. To be blunt, education is expensive and requires higher taxes to pay for it. It is no coincidence, though, that places with higher taxes generally have a more educated population. Unless we all want to move to China and base our economy on manufacturing again, this country needs those educated people.
5.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 11:29 PM
 
2,506 posts, read 7,769,561 times
Reputation: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by TB Fla View Post
Yeah, because the world revolve around what New Yorkers think
Your argument would be much stronger if you replaced your pithy personal attacks with a substantive idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 11:56 AM
 
Location: 3219'03.7"N 10643'55.9"W
8,122 posts, read 17,370,492 times
Reputation: 7304
I think the intent of this map is what it is: the website's message which they are attempting to convey is for lower immigration levels. If you consider that Mexico is by far the highest nation when it comes to accepting immigrants, then, look at where the areas of growth are highest, it correlates to big metros that are in closer proximity to Mexico. The number 1 is Douglas County Colorado. Denver County Colorado has experienced a tremendous surge of Mexican American transplants since 1980. The effect of migration that follows is known in urban planning circles as 'foiling', where by a chain reaction of white flight ensues, in order to maintain and preserve a culture they are more comfortable with. Douglas County Colorado is middle to upper middle class, and largely white-Non Hispanic. What you are seeing there is a large emigration of prosperous people who relocated out of neighboring Denver. I am not as learned with other places, but I can surmise that one can affix a similar pattern to places such as Riverside County California, as well as counties which neighbor Harris (Houston), Dallas, and Travis (Austin) counties in Texas. This list can go on and on, using a similar blueprint. If you really examine the intent, per the website, that is what one can feasibly conclude.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 03:53 PM
 
Location: The land of sugar... previously Houston and Austin
5,429 posts, read 13,203,234 times
Reputation: 3642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael84 View Post
Ask on the NYC forum where NYers moved down south because they saw more house for the price. Most of them say there's a reason why it's cheaper, and they aren't good reasons.
Really? Because that's the best way to get an informed, completely unbiased opinion from economic and demographic experts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 04:25 PM
 
88 posts, read 374,792 times
Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan View Post
1. The infrastructure in older cities is generally more efficient. A Los Angeles-style freeway system doesn't yield efficiency. A freeway system, coupled with a mass transit system in an area that also has railroad and water traffic is the most efficient. Cities like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, even Cleveland have these complex systems. Las Vegas, Phoenix and Charlotte really don't. Cities that have based all of their infrasturcture on freeways and unplanned sprawl have a problem looming on their horizon that is so big that they can't even see it yet.
The public transportation system in Chicago is prohibitively expensive and the commute times in Chicagoland are significantly higher than in LA, despite having a significantly smaller population. That's not efficient. Their highway network is lackluster compared to LA and other automobile oriented metropolitan areas in the sun belt. New York City has the highest commute times in the nation. The transportation costs also apply to businesses... the general costs of living in older cities is higher. Businesses wouldn't be relocating south if the infrastructure was subpar.

Not to mention, this unplanned sprawl that you mention being inefficient and destined for big problems in the future is just as common in older metropolitan areas as it is in newer ones. All large metropolitan areas in the Northeast and Midwest are very sprawling... they just have urban cores of older infrastructure that have generally faced large problems with disinvestment and poverty, with only a fraction of their metro populations living in them. Their suburbs, while reliant on the automobile, are generally older and not designed for the large traffic volumes of today.

Quote:
4. This is the point that I take biggest exception to. For instance, a car plant opens in Tennessee. It didn't create jobs, it placed them in Tennessee. If Tenn. didn't take them, another state would. That isn't creating an environment for new business, it is just winning the competition on things that already exist.
Economies are not zero sum like that. Bad policies ruin economic potential. Other areas may compensate, as you mention, but it's not one in the same. Anti-business states destroy economic potential.
Promethean Capitalism Part Thirteen: The Economic Zero-Sum Fallacy
Lump of labour fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
To be blunt, education is expensive and requires higher taxes to pay for it.
Many countries have far lower education spending than the USA, but a more educated population. Our worst schools are often very well paid for. Washington DC has one of the worst school systems, even though they're one of the highest paid school systems in the country. (if not the world?)

Quote:
Unless we all want to move to China and base our economy on manufacturing again, this country needs those educated people.
Very true! These days, natural resources are not very useful at all... what sets countries apart is their human capital. But higher taxes don't make people smarter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 04:29 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,210,995 times
Reputation: 10914
Also, rural areas continue to be depopulated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 04:50 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,810 posts, read 18,871,299 times
Reputation: 11149
There are several factors to consider when looking at data like this...
  1. Rapid growing Counties and Metros with lower populations in 1980 will yield much higher growth percentages than metro areas that were already huge in 1980 yet added significant numbers of people in the same time period.
  2. Counties and Metros that were substantially "built out" in 1980 have to grow in a more urban model than those counties and metros with lots of yet to be developed land.
  3. It's not necessarily the people that move first because it's cheaper. Oftentimes, industry and employers moves first and people follow suit.
  4. metros that are hemmed in by water and mountains will never grow as fast in our current suburban development model as will metros awash in land. Think San Francisco, NYC, Chicago, Miami juxtaposed with Nashville, Dallas, Las Vegas, Charlotte.
  5. More people than one might think move for weather not costs.

Last edited by rnc2mbfl; 07-06-2009 at 05:19 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.
Similar Threads
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