Chicago shrinks by over 200,000 in the 2000's Part 1 (Naperville, Joliet: month-to-month, unemployment)

[CHI787ORD]

Houston's population is officially at 2.1 million. Still 600,000 away from Chicago.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by 7Millionaire7

The response of raising taxes isn't going to help. Companies are simply waiting to flee because it's too expensive for them to be in the actual city. Being so ignorant as to say that they won't is plain stupid. Hell, even I'm considering moving later because I don't see myself paying these taxes for years and years.

I just feel like our city officials always just say "We're Chicago, such and such won't happen, we're too big, too powerful." Nothing is further from the truth and it's finally taking a toll on the city.

An important thing to look at is what truly urban cities have a lower tax burden? Even after the increase - none. There are very few truly urban cities in the US (i.e. you can take public transit, have loads of places to go within walking distance of work or home, etc.). NYC, San Francisco, parts of LA, Boston, DC, Philadelphia, and Seattle are about it.

You can find lower taxes in newer cities like Phoenix, but they are a completely different animal. They sprawl like crazy, have few (if any) public transit options, fewer city services, and have far fewer entertainment options and cultural institutions. You cannot live the same type of life in those places. The corporate tax is just as bad (if not worse) in many of those cities as well.

I also think that Chicago is fighting to bring jobs here. Boeing and MillerCoors were the big ones, but there have been a number of other wins for corporate HQs in the recent past (Evraz being the most recent). Hell, the CME may be buying the NYSE soon. Chicago's PMI numbers have also been very solid recently (looking better than anytime since the 80's) so it is really inaccurate to believe that Chicago is experiencing a net loss of businesses.

All in all, Chicago has fared pretty well through the recession of the last few years, and is showing signs of real growth ahead.

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by CHI787ORD

Houston's population is officially at 2.1 million. Still 600,000 away from Chicago.

Wow, they did not grow much at all. They were at 1,953,631 in 2000.

Looks like the Census was off in their estimation in 2009 of 2,257,926 or a bunch of people moved out in one year's time.

I wonder if all or most mid and large city's populations will be lower than the 2009 estimates.

Hmmm.

[CHI787ORD]

If you ask me, I think both Houston and Chicago's populations are undercounted due to illegals not responding.

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by CHI787ORD

If you ask me, I think both Houston and Chicago's populations are undercounted due to illegals not responding.

I agree.

[Drover]

OK, so the official Dallas numbers are in. And according to the Census Bureau, over the last 10 years, Dallas has grown by.....








..... *drumroll* .....
















9,236.

Huh??

Something's gone awry with this census. While I don't doubt Chicago has shed some population, I'm having a hard time swallowing this supposed 200,000 loss. Houston's 2009 estimate was supposedly off by 200,000 as well. And seriously, Dallas only grew by 9,000? Sheez, Dallas has probably grown by 9,000 since this thread started.

[Wonderful Jellal]

And this decade will be a disaster for the city..66% increase in income tax, +45% for businesses...The city won't avoid the pain

[nikitakolata]

Originally Posted by Attrill

An important thing to look at is what truly urban cities have a lower tax burden? Even after the increase - none. There are very few truly urban cities in the US (i.e. you can take public transit, have loads of places to go within walking distance of work or home, etc.). NYC, San Francisco, parts of LA, Boston, DC, Philadelphia, and Seattle are about it.

You can find lower taxes in newer cities like Phoenix, but they are a completely different animal. They sprawl like crazy, have few (if any) public transit options, fewer city services, and have far fewer entertainment options and cultural institutions. You cannot live the same type of life in those places. The corporate tax is just as bad (if not worse) in many of those cities as well.

I also think that Chicago is fighting to bring jobs here. Boeing and MillerCoors were the big ones, but there have been a number of other wins for corporate HQs in the recent past (Evraz being the most recent). Hell, the CME may be buying the NYSE soon. Chicago's PMI numbers have also been very solid recently (looking better than anytime since the 80's) so it is really inaccurate to believe that Chicago is experiencing a net loss of businesses.

All in all, Chicago has fared pretty well through the recession of the last few years, and is showing signs of real growth ahead.

The problem I have with your logic is that companies are not people. A company probably doesn't care if there are great cultural amenities near its office. A company doesn't need public transit to function. People want and, in many cases, need those things; however, if it is cheaper for a company to operate somewhere else, why wouldn't they? As a person, I have to go to where the jobs are, even if that is an area with less culture or public transit. That's just reality for me.

How is Chicago fighting to bring jobs here? I ask because I truly don't know. It seems to me that the best way to bring a company to a given location is to give the company benefits that it will appreciate; for the private sector, that benefit is money in the form of tax incentivies/cuts, low rents, a surplus of highly qualified candidates, etc. A private company needs to be concerned with money, or it isn't going to be around long (unlike the public sector which can apparently borrow endlessly).

Many companies don't need to be in any specific area, for example tech companies that produce a software product. Heck, even most trading is done electronically these days, so it isn't as though a financial company needs to be physically near an exchange. I don't see how Chicago or Illinois can compete if we continue to raise taxes. Maybe now we're just even with the rest of the world, but if there are cheaper places and I owned a company, I would be looking at them.

[Humboldt1]

Nikita,

Companies locate to areas where they have access to good employees. Many of the top jobs in the Chicago area are in the Loop, which is the hub of public transportation for Chicago. Why do you think I moved here from the Indianapolis area? It was not because the cost of living was cheaper or the commutes were shorter.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

Nikita,

Companies locate to areas where they have access to good employees. Many of the top jobs in the Chicago area are in the Loop, which is the hub of public transportation for Chicago. Why do you think I moved here from the Indianapolis area? It was not because the cost of living was cheaper or the commutes were shorter.

Exactly. No one moves to a big city for low cost of living. They move to a big city for the amenities.