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'm sorry, but do you have a problem with me and people that look like me living here?
The funny thing is, many cities have the same number of whites as there are Hispanics in LA, with the same percentage of other ethnic groups, and yet they are considered diverse.
But if it's Hispanics, which your problem is even with Americans of Hispanic descent, it's "overrun", and a "problem".
Sorry if you have a problem with us being so present in a major city in the Southwest. Maybe you should go to Atlanta and complain about it being overrun with the problem of Blacks, or to Portland to complain about being overrun with the problem of Whites.
Hispanics are 47 percent of Los Angeles, and non-Hispanic Whites are 45 percent of the population of San Francisco. And this makes San Francisco a more diverse city, and Los Angeles "overrun" with the "problem" of too many Hispanics? Yeah, okay.
If you want a small number of Hispanics that you don't have to see everyday, you're living in the wrong part of the country, pal. Sorry to see we bother you so, but I won't feel too sorry if you decided to find greener(less browner) pastures.
If it's not diverse enough for you, it's a pretty big country.
A city should be well represented by a percentage proportional to that of the nation as a whole. So yes, I do see the huge population of Hispanics in LA as a problem because LA is becoming less diverse.
From CNN:
The most Latino county in the nation was Los Angeles, with 4.7 million people. Latinos accounted for nearly half the population there.
I'm not the only one that feels as though Hispanics are a problem. Why do you think so many people care about illegal immigration. If LA's Hispanic population was only legal, it wouldn't be so bad, but it's not.
I take back what I said about diversity, but only partially. In terms of numbers, LA wins because it IS the largest county. In terms of percentage, IDK, so I won't say 100% that I'm wrong.
US Census Press Releases (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/010482.html - broken link)
but then jessehm431,
Its always cool to move somewhere new and spread your wings. Get to know the big wide world.
South Bay residents (where I go to school) have very closed minds and that's given me a bad representation of LA as a whole. I know it's not like that, but I can't get over dealing with it every day. They think LA is the best thing since sliced bread, that everyone's jealous of them in the entire world, and that anywhere else sucks. They don't visit any other city. They are afraid to leave the South Bay. They make fun of me for liking urban cities and wanting to live in NYC or Boston. It's just a very close-minded area of LA that gave me the wrong impression. And I don't have anything in common with them because all they do is drink beer, ride dirt bikes, and smoke weed or they are VERY nerdy. I don't fit in with either. I like exploring new places and trying new things, but no one will. Everyone I have met from NYC and Boston seems like someone I would get along with better than my lifelong friends.
Moving away will probably make me happier and prove to people in the South Bay that I know that there are places outside of the South Bay where people enjoy living.
Alameda County seems more diverse to me. Both on paper and definitely in person.
On paper? You have stats or some other references on immigrant populations in the U.S.? Something other than aggregate census data which provides no breakdown of what constitutes white, Asian, Hispanic, etc. There are many ethnic variations within each of those classifications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Actually 80% of LA County's hispanics are Mexican. Not a bad thing, but it is what it is.
Actually it is closer to 75 percent. However, there are more than 1 million Latinos in LA County who are not Mexican. Point me to another city/county with an equally sizable number of non-Mexican Latinos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
By 2050, SF is going to be the only coastal county in California that is NOT majority Hispanic.
So is this suppose to be a point of pride?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
I think the Bay Area is more diverse actually.
The data you show from Claritas is aggregate data. There is no drill down within racial classification to see what nationalities or ethincities are represented in each.
I don't think there is a single racial or ethnic group in the Bay area that is not more greatly represented in the LA metro population.
South Bay residents (where I go to school) have very closed minds and that's given me a bad representation of LA as a whole. I know it's not like that, but I can't get over dealing with it every day. They think LA is the best thing since sliced bread, that everyone's jealous of them in the entire world, and that anywhere else sucks. They don't visit any other city. They are afraid to leave the South Bay. They make fun of me for liking urban cities and wanting to live in NYC or Boston. It's just a very close-minded area of LA that gave me the wrong impression. And I don't have anything in common with them because all they do is drink beer, ride dirt bikes, and smoke weed or they are VERY nerdy. I don't fit in with either. I like exploring new places and trying new things, but no one will. Everyone I have met from NYC and Boston seems like someone I would get along with better than my lifelong friends.
Moving away will probably make me happier and prove to people in the South Bay that I know that there are places outside of the South Bay where people enjoy living.
And you will encounter the same kind of people in NYC and Boston who think they are the center of the universe and have never traveled outside of their part of the world either. This is not unique to people in the South Bay. LOL
I know, but when I don't like LA, it pisses me off. LOL.
SF and NYC just seem more cultured. I know LA is, but like everyone is thinking, it seems like I just think the grass is greener on the other side.
'more cultured?'
jesse...why do you feel as if you can speak about a city -- and cast large blanket generalizations, pigeonholes and catch-all's on it's people -- you know nothing about (you admitted this.)
On paper? You have stats or some other references on immigrant populations in the U.S.? Something other than aggregate census data which provides no breakdown of what constitutes white, Asian, Hispanic, etc. There are many ethnic variations within each of those classifications.
Yes, but when we look at the sum of all these groups, Alameda County is more diverse than Los Angeles County.
Quite a bit more actually.
Alameda County
Non Hispanic White 36.4%
Black 12.3%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 24.4%
Native Hawaiian/ Pac. Islander 0.7%
Other Race 0.5%
Multiracial 3.3%
Hispanic 21.7%
Los Angeles County
Non Hispanic White 28.6%
Black 8.4%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 12.7%
Native Hawaiian/ Pac. Islander 0.2%
Other Race 0.2%
Multiracial 1.6%
Hispanic 47.6%
The only group LA County has more of than AlaCo is Hispanics-otherwise, Alameda County has a higher percentage of non-hispanic whites, blacks, asians, polynesians, other races and multiracial residents. We're tied as far as Native Americans tho.
Also,
Alameda County is affluent-which makes its diversity even more impressive.
Quote:
Actually it is closer to 75 percent.
Well as far as the LA Area, its 81%
Hispanic Population, 2008
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 7,901,495
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 1,675,758
Mexican Population, 2008
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 6,443,828...81% of total hispanic pop.
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 1,293,881...77% of total hispanic pop.
To me this is not a bad thing-its to be expected. Hello? We border Mexico.
Quote:
So is this suppose to be a point of pride?
Well, the day will come when SF is going to be the only truly diverse county on the California Coast.
In a way its kinda sad, but our populations are a work in progress-keyword progress.
Quote:
The data you show from Claritas is aggregate data. There is no drill down within racial classification to see what nationalities or ethincities are represented in each.
Yet Queens still manages to be 1st. Interesting.
Alameda County is 2nd. In the country.
Quote:
I don't think there is a single racial or ethnic group in the Bay area that is not more greatly represented in the LA metro population.
Racial Breakdown 2008
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside
Non Hispanic White 34.9%
Black 6.6%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 11.3%
Native Hawaiian-Pac Islander 0.2%
Other Race 0.2%
Multiracial 1.7%
Hispanic 44.4%
Racial Breakdown 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland
Non Hispanic White 45.5%
Black 6.3%
American Indian
Asian 21.1%
Native Hawaiian-Pac Islander 0.5%
Other Race 0.4%
Multiracial 2.8%
Hispanic 22.7%
Two Largest Groups, 2008
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 79.3%
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 68.2%
And as far as actual ethnic groups, the Bay Area beats LA in several ethnic groups as far as a percentage of the total population, but in sheer numbers It took some digging, but I found some!
Chinese Population, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 546,492
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 482,836
Indian Population, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 211,232
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 136,551
Portuguese Population, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 90,969
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 38,350
Other Pacific Islanders(Besides Samoans, Hawaiians and Guamanians), 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 18,220
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 17,312
Thusfar, I've found that as far as sheer number, The Bay Area also has more Brazilians, Kenyans, Somalians, Liberians, Cypriots, Maltese, Assyrians, Guamanians, as well as more Pacific Islanders(who are not Samoan or Hawaiian).
Yes, but when we look at the sum of all these groups, Alameda County is more diverse than Los Angeles County.
Quite a bit more actually.
Alameda County
Non Hispanic White 36.4%
Black 12.3%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 24.4%
Native Hawaiian/ Pac. Islander 0.7%
Other Race 0.5%
Multiracial 3.3%
Hispanic 21.7%
Los Angeles County
Non Hispanic White 28.6%
Black 8.4%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 12.7%
Native Hawaiian/ Pac. Islander 0.2%
Other Race 0.2%
Multiracial 1.6%
Hispanic 47.6%
The only group LA County has more of than AlaCo is Hispanics-otherwise, Alameda County has a higher percentage of non-hispanic whites, blacks, asians, polynesians, other races and multiracial residents. We're tied as far as Native Americans tho.
You are talking percentages and I am talking NUMBERS. LA county has more in each classification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Well as far as the LA Area, its 81%
Hispanic Population, 2008
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 7,901,495
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 1,675,758
Mexican Population, 2008
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 6,443,828...81% of total hispanic pop.
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 1,293,881...77% of total hispanic pop.
To me this is not a bad thing-its to be expected. Hello? We border Mexico.
You are changing from county data to metro data. I thought we were comparing LA County to Alameda County. According to the U.S. Census, the Mexican population represents about 76 percent of the overall Latino population in LA County based on the most recently available data. Detailed Tables - American FactFinder
And, yes, I know LA metro has more hispanics than the Bay area. LA has more of ALL races and ethnicities than the Bay area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Yet Queens still manages to be 1st. Interesting.
Alameda County is 2nd. In the country.
Racial Breakdown 2008
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside
Non Hispanic White 34.9%
Black 6.6%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 11.3%
Native Hawaiian-Pac Islander 0.2%
Other Race 0.2%
Multiracial 1.7%
Hispanic 44.4%
Racial Breakdown 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland
Non Hispanic White 45.5%
Black 6.3%
American Indian
Asian 21.1%
Native Hawaiian-Pac Islander 0.5%
Other Race 0.4%
Multiracial 2.8%
Hispanic 22.7%
Two Largest Groups, 2008
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 79.3%
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 68.2%
And as far as actual ethnic groups, the Bay Area beats LA in several ethnic groups as far as a percentage of the total population, but in sheer numbers It took some digging, but I found some!
Chinese Population, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 546,492
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 482,836
Indian Population, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 211,232
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 136,551
Portuguese Population, 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 90,969
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 38,350
Other Pacific Islanders(Besides Samoans, Hawaiians and Guamanians), 2008
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland 18,220
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside 17,312
Thusfar, I've found that as far as sheer number, The Bay Area also has more Brazilians, Kenyans, Somalians, Liberians, Cypriots, Maltese, Assyrians, Guamanians, as well as more Pacific Islanders(who are not Samoan or Hawaiian).
Its quite interesting.
Don't know the source of your data which you did not name or provide a link to so I cannot validate or concur with your numbers. Regardless, LA has more people in each racial/ethnic classification which makes it more diverse. Percentage of population is less relevant than overall numbers. If we based diversity on percentages and general racial classifications alone then one could say the U.S. is not diverse since it is 74 percent white.
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.
