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.
"The lack of tremendous affluence in Philadelphia means there's room for teachers, cops, artists, doctors, boilermakers, plumbers, electricians, lawyers, bailbondsmen, porters, fast food workers, estimators, engineers, firefighters, and even bounty hunters all within the city limits. If the city witnessed a sudden infusion of Harvard, Stanford, and MIT grads, then most of those people would have to leave the city."
Explain to me how that would work?
Sure. Just look at Washington, DC. Areas that used to be middle to working class (Takoma, Brookland, Shepherd Park, Hillcrest, 16th Street Heights, Michigan Park) are now unaffordable for most working families. $500,000 is a lot of money for a house, don't you think?
Show me the link to all the things in bold. I would like to see validation more than words. You argument makes sense logically but constructively it does not until I see the source of your information, or anything for that matter that can validate it. Please & Thank You.
I'm not so sure about some of the population claims of lmckin. I have personally checked added up some population numbers of Boston and found that in 135 square miles, Boston would have 1.35 million, slightly smaller than Philly. Philadelphia is a larger city than Boston on all accounts...Philly has a larger GDP than Boston ($331.897B vs $299.59B) but Boston packs a bigger per capita punch in GDP ($65,289 vs $55,610).
Anyway, in terms of Boston & Washington DC being among the most diverse in the country...I think it's fair to say that of Boston: it's a major player in financial services, education, (local) government, pharmaceuticals, high technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and management consultancy.
I'm not too sure about Washington DC, but I know they're big in things like high technology, biotechnology, weapons defense, and financial services. Obviously the big boy is the federal government...this makes Washington DC's economy one of the best in the country not because it's diversified, but because it is the industry which is the most protected from unsystematic risk.
On topic:
- retaining and attracting large corporations (including offices of foreign businesses) - Both of these cities are located in high-tax areas which obviously hurts their potential for luring new companies...however I think Los Angeles' proximity to Asia and international recognition gives it an upper hand in this category. - attracting an educated work force - The quality of Philadelphia's educational institutions is greater than those in Los Angeles. LA is no slouch in this department, but Philly has a solid argument to be considered the #2 or #3 educational center in the country. Los Angeles' international appeal earns it points, but I will give Philly an edge. - city budget and checkbook are balanced - I have no clue. I know Cali's state books are in bad shape, but no clue as to how these particular metro areas are. - low unemployment - National Average: 9.3%. Philadelphia: 9.4%, Los Angeles: 11.4%. So while both are worse than the national average, Philadelphia is healthier. - impressive GDP and GDP per capita numbers - Los Angeles on sheer bulk, Philadelphia per capita - manageable cost of living (within the context of income levels) - Philadelphia by a wide margin. - generates or attracts venture capital - Philadelphia is no slouch in this department, the Los Angeles area is among the best in the country. - high occupancy rates - Office Vacancy Rates:
CBD:
Los Angeles: 15.7%
Philadelphia: 14.1%
Greater:
Los Angeles: 16.6%
Philadelphia: 16.6%
- growing or at least non-declining population growth - Los Angeles...though their population growth will mainly be from people who climbed fences and ran through the desert with their family to get here.
Overall I can't see a distinct advantage for either side. I call it a draw.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,928,719 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
Anyway, in terms of Boston & Washington DC being among the most diverse in the country...I think it's fair to say that of Boston: it's a major player in financial services, education, (local) government, pharmaceuticals, high technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and management consultancy.
I'm not too sure about Washington DC, but I know they're big in things like high technology, biotechnology, weapons defense, and financial services. Obviously the big boy is the federal government...this makes Washington DC's economy one of the best in the country not because it's diversified, but because it is the industry which is the most protected from unsystematic risk.
tmac9wr, another great post. I would rep you if I could.
However, if you look at the quote that I highlighted of his, I was asking him why Washington DC along with Boston have the most diverse economies in the country, not doubting they were among the most diverse, but in actuality why they have the most diverse.
I saw his wording and I play suspect until someone can back it up. I have heard of another large city that has made magazine covers and headlines for having the most diverse economy among the largest 25 metropolitan areas in the country, and that city was neither Boston nor Washington DC.
So I am just making sure, that I am not reading some trash magazine, I mean if lmkcin who seems to know his information when it comes to Boston claims it, he must have learned it somewhere from some source.
I already knew Boston's economy was diverse, I looked it up on the US Census Government site on employer statistics and major industries back when that one poster was arguing with me about how Boston is a "niche" economy and how Chicago is not a transportation hub.
I actually didn't know for Washington DC though, I know they have a large presence in tech, but I thought the large majority was still federal government or government related industries.
I just like to have a good idea of what is being said here, last thing I want to do is jump into a discussion not knowing how to counter, thus I like to see some proof from what others claim. It's only fair.
- attracting an educated work force - The quality of Philadelphia's educational institutions is greater than those in Los Angeles. LA is no slouch in this department, but Philly has a solid argument to be considered the #2 or #3 educational center in the country. Los Angeles' international appeal earns it points, but I will give Philly an edge.
I agree with basically your entire post except for this.
Philadelphia attracts great students-Im not so sure that they actually stay there once they've graduated.
LA otoh definitely attracts more highly educated folks from all over the world.
I voted for Los Angeles because it seemed to be the rather obvious answer.
Philadelphia certainly needs more economic growth, but its relative lack of growth so far actually makes it a more enjoyable and livable city than others. The lack of tremendous affluence in Philadelphia means there's room for teachers, cops, artists, doctors, boilermakers, plumbers, electricians, lawyers, bailbondsmen, porters, fast food workers, estimators, engineers, firefighters, and even bounty hunters all within the city limits. If the city witnessed a sudden infusion of Harvard, Stanford, and MIT grads, then most of those people would have to leave the city. It would in essence become San Francisco. If a middle class family wants to live in Philadelphia, they can afford it. They may ultimately choose not to because of other QOL issues. But I really like the fact that, among all the other East Coast cities, the cost-of-living does not bar regular people from the city.
Since when has Los Angeles attract Harvard, Stanford and MIT grads? That crowd has always flocked to NYC/Washington/Boston/Silicon Valley. Simply put, Los Angeles isn't a very educated city. Or a wealthy one by any means.
I don't think there is much difference between LA and Phila regarding wealth or educational attainment.
But Philadelphia is the more educated city, if we go by statistics. Their metro is also wealthier than LA metro if we go by statistics.
Since when has Los Angeles attract Harvard, Stanford and MIT grads? That crowd has always flocked to NYC/Washington/Boston/Silicon Valley. Simply put, Los Angeles isn't a very educated city. Or a wealthy one by any means.
I don't think there is much difference between LA and Phila regarding wealth or educational attainment.
But Philadelphia is the more educated city, if we go by statistics. Their metro is also wealthier than LA metro if we go by statistics.
Statistically speaking LA isn't very educated, and wealthy?..true.. that is because much of Los Angeles stats are brought down by migrants, and larger groups of poverty. LA has some of the wealthiest and brightest people in America. If some LA zips succeeded from their lower priced surroundings like Beverly Hills adjacent(low rent)..the income, and housing stats would be some of the highest in the US. LA is huge wealth surrounded by poverty. Philly is much more uniform..On the subject of who will be better off..I don't really know..California has some work to do if it wants to retain a decent position.
Last edited by Scott5280; 07-19-2010 at 02:15 PM..
Since when has Los Angeles attract Harvard, Stanford and MIT grads? That crowd has always flocked to NYC/Washington/Boston/Silicon Valley. Simply put, Los Angeles isn't a very educated city. Or a wealthy one by any means.
I don't think there is much difference between LA and Phila regarding wealth or educational attainment.
But Philadelphia is the more educated city, if we go by statistics. Their metro is also wealthier than LA metro if we go by statistics.
I wasn't comparing Philly and LA. First, I said that LA was the obvious choice. Then I said that I didn't want Philly to be flooded by Yuppies because they'll completely ruin my chance of ever buying a 4-BR, 3BA home near the park. LA had nothing to do with that second paragraph.
*Actually, I didn't explicitly state that last part in the post, but that's really what I meant.
Los Angeles is the big cheese in its region of the country, but California's state government makes Pennsylvania's state government look competent. This comparison could be a draw.
Los Angeles is the big cheese in its region of the country, but California's state government makes Pennsylvania's state government look competent. This comparison could be a draw.
I would love to see the arguement defending California's current state government and policies..there would be a sizable whole in that cheese.
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.