Illinois - Staying or Moving? (Chicago: prices, law, vs)

[numberfive]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Are you seriously that dense? Why do people live anywhere? Economic opportunity. Chicago/Illinois offer a lot of it. That doesn't mean that other places aren't also doing well. It also doesn't mean everyone in Illinois is taking in the cash, but Chicago/Illinois are top performers both nationally and internationally. Not sure why you're role playing as some elite intellectual about this (you're not). These topics are beaten into the ground around here. There are many problems with the State of Illinois, but if you take a step back and look at the big picture, there's a lot of progress being made as well.

So I can use this post to measure any city to see if it's "Chicago class" how, exactly?

My day job is working for a predictive data analytics company (business intelligence). We have to quantify our analysis using objective measures, like demographics, volumes/output/etc. This doesn't make me "an elite intellectual", I think everyone is my superior in some way. There's always more to learn.

Show me how you know more about objective comparisons of cities than I do. I want to learn. However, your post above is all about the pros and cons of Chicago. I'm asking how you determine whether another city is in the same class as Chicago, since metros like Dallas and Atlanta apparently aren't. I want to use your same set of rules to determine if another metro area I haven't named yet is worthy of being grouped with Chicago or not.

That should be easy for someone like you to define. There's definitely more to it than "economic opportunity", since Dallas and Atlanta have that too.

"Every metro area above this line is comparable to Chicago. Every metro area below this line isn't." Define how the line is set.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by numberfive

So I can use this post to measure any city to see if it's "Chicago class" how, exactly?

My day job is working for a predictive data analytics company (business intelligence). We have to quantify our analysis using objective measures, like demographics, volumes/output/etc. This doesn't make me "an elite intellectual", I think everyone is my superior in some way. There's always more to learn.

Show me how you know more about objective comparisons of cities than I do. I want to learn. However, your post above is all about the pros and cons of Chicago. I'm asking how you determine whether another city is in the same class as Chicago, since metros like Dallas and Atlanta apparently aren't. I want to use your same set of rules to determine if another metro area I haven't named yet is worthy of being grouped with Chicago or not.

That should be easy for someone like you to define. There's definitely more to it than "economic opportunity", since Dallas and Atlanta have that too.

"Every metro area above this line is comparable to Chicago. Every metro area below this line isn't." Define how the line is set.

See post #122.

[numberfive]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

See post #122.

Post #123 shows why post #122 fails to answer the question.

I think this little exchange we've had makes my point quite clear. You don't have any objective list of criteria that's useful in determining if a city is "Chicago class" or "Dallas class". You've looked up a couple links that show what's different between cities, but you have no idea where the line drawn.

It's like if we were talking about if a family is full of "tall people" or not.
You come in and say "the Johnsons are tall, but the Smiths aren't tall."
I ask "what criteria do you use to define if a family is tall or not?"
You say "if 75% or more of the family is over 6' in height."

There, done, easy. Now I can use this to figure out if you think the Jones' are tall.

But that's not what you're doing here. What you did here is proclaim one family is tall and another isn't, pasted a bunch of links to how not every family is the same height, and found one link that also doesn't specify the cutoff between a tall family and not-tall families.

If you knew specifically what makes a city "Chicago class" vs "not Chicago class", you would have listed it by now.

[Vasily]

Like I said, personal taste. But for whatever reason some people here want to turn their preferences into a sort of natural law so those of us who prefer something else are (pick one or more) unsophisticated, ignorant, uninformed, misguided, just plain wrong.

[Atlanta_BD]

Originally Posted by numberfive

Thanks for your perspective! We're suburbanites, so places like Richardson TX or Alpharetta GA "feels like" a Naperville or Barrington to us. If everywhere feels the same, what's the financial advantage to living in a more costly IL vs a less costly TX, GA, or TN?

With the housing boom going on in the DFW area, that area has become less attractive to us financially. Over 10% housing growth year over year, with property taxes at similar percentages to here, means we'll have those $12k+ property tax bills in 2-3 years. We'd still be saving about $10k/yr through the cheaper cost of living + no income tax, but it's not as much of a win anymore vs GA, NC, or especially TN.

By the way, I noticed your links are about property taxes, I like looking at overall tax burdens:
State and Local Tax Burdens, 1977 - 2012 | Tax Foundation

For us, the decision really comes down to dollars (about $20k/yr) -- or more importantly -- being able to retire 10 years earlier. Is that uniqueness worth spending an extra 10 years in a cubicle for free?

So I'd ask that to you... is it worth spending an extra few years (up to a decade or more) to live in the Chicago area vs visiting? If so, what amenities make the extra working time "worth it" to you?

It all depends on your priorities and I get what you are saying about overall tax burdens. I'm not being dismissive of that at all. It also depends on your life station.

I miss being able to live car-free. What you see as additional tax burden, for me the extra money that I'd rather use for other things gets eaten up by what I call "forced car ownership," something I'd rather do without. I'd rather have the ability to walk everywhere and take transit to work than to have to dump all my extra income into owning car. Having access to public transit and walkability are the number one reasons I'd rather live in Chicago versus Dallas or the South. I'd save a lot of money in that area.

Amenities?

1. No beach in Dallas. Let's start there. The money I have to spend to travel places to go to a beach would be saved by living in Chicago.

2. Dallas is boring. Also see No. 1. Dallas is a dull and boring place to live. It lacks vibrancy, energy and excitement. You have to travel to other places--and travel often--to experience vibrancy and excitement. Yes, there are ticketed events that come to the city, but the city itself lacks that je ne sais quois.

I could go on but like I said, you have to actually experience living both places to get it. But everyone's life station is different. Mine is completely different from yours so people have different needs based on that. I'm single and Dallas doesn't offer much for single people (again, lame night life, lots of divorcees with 3 and 4 kids) and the having to drive long distances to find some sort of social opportunities to try to meet people makes it even more difficult. If you are a married couple bent on suburban living then it is ideal for you.

I think married couples may have a better go of it in the DFW. But I would tell singles to stay far away from here.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by numberfive

Post #123 shows why post #122 fails to answer the question.

I think this little exchange we've had makes my point quite clear. You don't have any objective list of criteria that's useful in determining if a city is "Chicago class" or "Dallas class". You've looked up a couple links that show what's different between cities, but you have no idea where the line drawn.

It's like if we were talking about if a family is full of "tall people" or not.
You come in and say "the Johnsons are tall, but the Smiths aren't tall."
I ask "what criteria do you use to define if a family is tall or not?"
You say "if 75% or more of the family is over 6' in height."

There, done, easy. Now I can use this to figure out if you think the Jones' are tall.

But that's not what you're doing here. What you did here is proclaim one family is tall and another isn't, pasted a bunch of links to how not every family is the same height, and found one link that also doesn't specify the cutoff between a tall family and not-tall families.

If you knew specifically what makes a city "Chicago class" vs "not Chicago class", you would have listed it by now.

See post #122. How's the view down in the 60601 this morning? You and the fellow 1%ers will have quite the view of today's storm

[Gemini1963]

In case anyone finds this interesting - another article about how trends are going in opposite directions. This is only about Chicago (not Illinois generally) and does not address the pension problems at all.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...-the-same-time

[numberfive]

Originally Posted by Vasily

Like I said, personal taste. But for whatever reason some people here want to turn their preferences into a sort of natural law so those of us who prefer something else are (pick one or more) unsophisticated, ignorant, uninformed, misguided, just plain wrong.

Well said!

I think it's funny when you ask them for details, and they have a meltdown and start deflecting and throwing insults. So much for their "natural law", eh?

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by numberfive

Well said!

I think it's funny when you ask them for details, and they have a meltdown and start deflecting and throwing insults. So much for their "natural law", eh?

Where have I or any other posters deflected? When has anyone had a meltdown, lol? I've provided information for you (see post #122). Salaries, career opportunities, sheer economic fortitude, cultural amenities, vibrancy, open space, reliable public transit, etc. all elevate Chicago's national and international profile. Not sure what's so difficult to understand about that. Seems more like you're interested in circular discussion and dishonesty.

[My Kind Of Town]

Originally Posted by Gemini1963

In case anyone finds this interesting - another article about how trends are going in opposite directions. This is only about Chicago (not Illinois generally) and does not address the pension problems at all.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...-the-same-time

Thanks for posting! Very interesting article. It sounds like the working, lower, and middle classes are being pushed out while the upper middle and upper classes are flourishing in Chicago. Explains why real estate prices and teardowns in my neighborhood seem to be taking off over the past couple years.