Alabama is the third poorest state (Birmingham, Montgomery: 2013, crime, bankruptcy)

[Nlambert]

The point of my comment is not to once again pit Birmingham against another city. My point is that you cannot say that Alabama relies heavily on Birmingham for most of its wealth. That just isn't true. There are many other cities that also have wealth through the state that also provide a financial benefit to Alabama as a whole. I don't care what photo the article chooses to use. Makes zero difference to me.


Let's be realistic. ANY wealthy suburb outside of a large city is going to get where it is because of that city. That's not specific to Huntsville, Birmingham, Mobile, New York, Atlanta, or anywhere else you choose.


And my other point is that people who are making assumptions that the small towns should change do not understand (either through ignorance, or some other reason) that a lot of these small towns do not want to turn into the next Birmingham or Huntsville. They might prefer for things to remain very much status-quo. It seems to me that a lot of implants or folks who grew up in the larger Alabama cities are the ones who have the opinion that small towns need to get on the bandwagon and push for growth.

[Tourian]

But you can say that because it is the largest metro with the most people. Its GDP is greater then the other three metros combined. I know that isn't personal wealth but it is indicative of the wealth that is here. You can't pick and choose and only take Birmingham's poor out of the equation. And without Birmingham metro, Alabama would be poorer as a whole. If you take Birmingham's elite out, the state's average would drop because there are more of them living around here than anywhere else in the state.

[Nlambert]

Originally Posted by ColdAilment

The COL in Alabama is not enough to make a serious dent in what you're comparing. $130k a year in NYC may be equivalent to about $50k a year in Alabama, but the same is not true when comparing an uber wealthy Alabama suburb to a small town and desolate Alabama town, sorry, the entire state enjoys relatively low cost of living, especially on a national scale.

So you do not think that there is a noticeable difference between the suburb of a larger city in Alabama and a small town's cost of living in Alabama?




Hoover - 104 - 4% higher than the national average
Vestavia Hills - 114 - 14% higher than the national average
Mountainbrook - 154 - 54% higher than the national average
Homewood 107 - 7% higher than the national average


Every one of these suburbs have a COL higher than Chicago, Houston, and many other large cities. They're knocking on the door to New York and Los Angeles. So to say the entire state enjoys a lower COL isn't a true statement. A lot of the smaller towns do, but the larger cities are quickly coming on par with other large cities.




Some of these cities and suburbs have a COL of up to 76% more than the small towns..... not to mention some are either higher than the national average or on par with large cities in other states. How is that not comparable?

[Nlambert]

Originally Posted by Tourian

But you can say that because it is the largest metro with the most people. Its GDP is greater then the other three metros combined. I know that isn't personal wealth but it is indicative of the wealth that is here. You can't pick and choose and only take Birmingham's poor out of the equation. And without Birmingham metro, Alabama would be poorer as a whole. If you take Birmingham's elite out, the state's average would drop because there are more of them living around here than anywhere else in the state.

I get it. You're an advocate for Birmingham. I think anyone who has hung around the Alabama forums for any length of time know this. My point is that you cannot say that Birmingham and Bham metro is where Alabama generates most of its wealth. There are numerous other areas that contribute to Alabama's wealth as a whole.

[Tourian]

Why would you pick VH or MB versus Chicago? Why not pick an affluent suburb of Chicago to compare?

That makes no sense. Theres plenty of slums and cheap houses in Chicago and Houston to bring the average COL down. It means nothing.

[Tourian]

Originally Posted by Nlambert

I get it. You're an advocate for Birmingham. I think anyone who has hung around the Alabama forums for any length of time know this. My point is that you cannot say that Birmingham and Bham metro is where Alabama generates most of its wealth. There are numerous other areas that contribute to Alabama's wealth as a whole.

And I get it.

It is entirely possible for Birmingham to generate most of Alabama's wealth AND for other places to contribute to Alabama's wealth too.

But there has to be a #1.

[Nlambert]

Originally Posted by Tourian

And I get it.

It is entirely possible for Birmingham to generate most of Alabama's wealth AND for other places to contribute to Alabama's wealth too.

But there has to be a #1.

We're still not getting anywhere with this and I don't think we will. The conversation has turned from how people deem Alabama as a poor state, and that the small towns somehow need to grow into Birmingham is better than any other city in the state (again).


Again, we get it. You want to boast that Birmingham is the best in the state. Let's throw out the high poverty rate, the high crime rate, has bankrupted once already, and the other stuff that no one wants to talk about.


Let's get back to the conversation of how those in these smaller towns are too "poor". My statement of they are no more poor than the folks in the larger cities still holds water. There is a major difference in the COL in some of those areas that allow those people to live just as comfortably as someone in a larger city. If you have lived in one of these towns, then you know this. If you have not, it is speculation.

[steveklein]

I don't think Birmingham has ever bankrupted. I could be wrong. Pretty sure that was just Jefferson County. Either way, that was ugly.

In Birmingham's defense, Birmingham's "wealth" is not really a fair comparison to a lot of other cities. In many cases, the principal city of a metro area makes up a much larger percentage of the population than Birmingham does relative to its metro area. Imagine if just the areas immediately close to Birmingham were considered part of Birmingham proper... then all of a sudden Birmingham wouldn't look so poor. The inclusion of places like Mountain Brook and Homewood (and yes, places like Midfield and Fairfield as well) would inch Birmingham's "wealth" up, and other metrics like crime and poverty % down.

That's really nothing but academic though.

The bottom line is this:

Yes, Alabama is one of the poorest states in the country.
Yes, Birmingham is the biggest metro area in the state and is the biggest economic engine in the state.
Along with wealthy people, there are also plenty of poor people in Birmingham (both city limits and the metro area).

[Tourian]

Originally Posted by Nlambert

We're still not getting anywhere with this and I don't think we will. The conversation has turned from how people deem Alabama as a poor state, and that the small towns somehow need to grow into Birmingham is better than any other city in the state (again).


Again, we get it. You want to boast that Birmingham is the best in the state. Let's throw out the high poverty rate, the high crime rate, has bankrupted once already, and the other stuff that no one wants to talk about.


Let's get back to the conversation of how those in these smaller towns are too "poor". My statement of they are no more poor than the folks in the larger cities still holds water. There is a major difference in the COL in some of those areas that allow those people to live just as comfortably as someone in a larger city. If you have lived in one of these towns, then you know this. If you have not, it is speculation.

Birmingham has never bankrupted. Sorry. Making up stuff doesn't help whatever point you are trying to make. And as just mentioned Birmingham's urbanized area doesn't have nearly as bad a crime or poverty rate as the city proper does. But that is just you diverting and sidestepping.

Pointing out your disdain for my enthusiasm for my home over and over doesn't make me wrong. It just shows you have no answer for my facts. We don't have to "get" anywhere. Birmingham makes Alabama richer and stronger more so than any other metro in the state. Period.

[ColdAilment]

Originally Posted by Nlambert

The point of my comment is not to once again pit Birmingham against another city. My point is that you cannot say that Alabama relies heavily on Birmingham for most of its wealth. That just isn't true. There are many other cities that also have wealth through the state that also provide a financial benefit to Alabama as a whole. I don't care what photo the article chooses to use. Makes zero difference to me.


Let's be realistic. ANY wealthy suburb outside of a large city is going to get where it is because of that city. That's not specific to Huntsville, Birmingham, Mobile, New York, Atlanta, or anywhere else you choose.


And my other point is that people who are making assumptions that the small towns should change do not understand (either through ignorance, or some other reason) that a lot of these small towns do not want to turn into the next Birmingham or Huntsville. They might prefer for things to remain very much status-quo. It seems to me that a lot of implants or folks who grew up in the larger Alabama cities are the ones who have the opinion that small towns need to get on the bandwagon and push for growth.

Birmingham metro accounts for 25% of Alabama's population.

Alabama's GDP is 165.8 billion dollars.
Birmingham Metro's is 62 billion dollars.

Birmingham Metro accounts for 37% of the state's wealth with roughly 25% of the population.