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.
. Alright, please explain to me how the city of L.A can house say....11,000,000 people. What about 10,000,000? The city at its current size can only house so many people. There is bound to be a point where the city just won't grow any larger and will stagnate.
I didn't bother reading your post =T. Maybe if you made them shorter I'd consider.
Then learn to start reading my post and other long posts before you start refuting things because all you did was essentially summarize my point and agree with me, and then tried to tell me I don't know about LA. The very first one you quoted from me I already stated I don't see LA passing up 4.5- 5 million people at city level. But that doesn't mean LA is going to see a population loss either. As for metro LA CSA, it will continue to grow, anyone who denies this is stupider than Sarah Palin.
It's called slow growth, maybe you've heard of it? People from Boston and Philly sure have.
Then learn to start reading my post and other long posts before you start refuting things. The very first one you quoted from me I already stated I don't see LA passing up 4.5- 5 million people at city level. But that doesn't mean LA is going to see a population loss either. As for metro LA CSA, it will continue to grow, anyone who denies this is stupider than Sarah Palin.
It's called slow growth, maybe you've heard of it? People from Boston and Philly sure have.
lol, good luck trying to get people on here to read.
Then learn to start reading my post and other long posts before you start refuting things because all you did was essentially summarize my point and agree with me, and then tried to tell me I don't know about LA. The very first one you quoted from me I already stated I don't see LA passing up 4.5- 5 million people at city level. But that doesn't mean LA is going to see a population loss either. As for metro LA CSA, it will continue to grow, anyone who denies this is stupider than Sarah Palin.
It's called slow growth, maybe you've heard of it? People from Boston and Philly sure have.
Again, you're trying to act like a know it all. You've done your research, kudos to you, but how would L.A NEVER see a population loss? How can YOU predict this? Can you show me a "credible source" displaying this information? I don't care about your empty theories
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
lol, good luck trying to get people on here to read.
Again, you're trying to act like a know it all. You've done your research, kudos to you, but how would L.A NEVER see a population loss? How can YOU predict this? Can you show me a "credible source" displaying this information? I don't care about your empty theories
How about this. I go by projections and the work of other PhD's and analysts and the the history of LA, which has never seen a population loss.
And you go with your little "LA will lose population" theories. You have to be real dumb to think a CSA the size of Tennessee will see a population loss while being near the border, oh and lets not forget the fact that 25% of all the illegal immigrants in the nation are accounted for in California. 85% of those in California are in LA region.
Riightt, DNCR thinks LA CSA or LA city will lose population, just about every projection from reputable sources 100 times more credibility disagrees. The history of LA disagrees. But ok, lets go by what DNCR has to say, LA is going to lose population you all!! Brace yourself Angelinos, LA's looking for a crash, DNCR predicted it his self!!
How about this. I go by projections and the work of other PhD's and analysts and the the history of LA, which has never seen a population loss.
And you go with your little "LA will lose population" theories. You have to be real dumb to think a CSA the size of Tennessee will see a population loss while being near the border, oh and lets not forget the fact that 25% of all the illegal immigrants in the nation are accounted for in California. 85% of those in California are in LA region.
Riightt, DNCR thinks LA CSA or LA city will lose population, just about every projection from reputable sources 100 times more credibility disagrees. The history of LA disagrees. But ok, lets go by what DNCR has to say, LA is going to lose population you all!! Brace yourself Angelinos, LA's looking for a crash, DNCR predicted it his self!!
Where are you getting this from?
A.) You provided no link whatsoever
B.) I never said that the Metro of L.A would shrink. I was speaking from a city level. Maybe you should considering reading my post
C.) You've proved no point, instead you type away at your computer and try to act like a know it all. Put up some links, and if they prove that L.A is never going to experience a population decline, I'll admit I was wrong. Until then....goodbye
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,034,220 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infamous Past
Then learn to start reading my post and other long posts before you start refuting things because all you did was essentially summarize my point and agree with me, and then tried to tell me I don't know about LA. The very first one you quoted from me I already stated I don't see LA passing up 4.5- 5 million people at city level. But that doesn't mean LA is going to see a population loss either. As for metro LA CSA, it will continue to grow, anyone who denies this is stupider than Sarah Palin.
I read through this thread and yes I did read all the posts, the entirety of them. I would like to say that I do agree with what you're saying here overall though. Border states do have the advantage of having that extra origin for their population gains over states that don't border high immigration countries.
However I also do agree with Dncr also, if Los Angeles has seen a population decline as recent as 2006 and if its economy phases as much struggle as it has been going through since 1992, you can bet on the fact that there will be instability and possibly a disruption in population gains from there on out.
What everyone here fails to realize is that yes Los Angeles is becoming larger and yes Tex?Il? Los Angeles is more expensive than Chicago. But that is irrelevant entirely right now, if Los Angeles continues to go down the economical path its on, which is high unemployment, loss of economic sectors as a whole, and no motive of fast recovery, then that's bad news if its gaining more people. That is essentially why if you compare Los Angeles to its peers in 1990, it was richer than its smaller peers, and its becoming less wealthy due to there not being enough opportunities and services for a increasing population.
Sometimes population loss isn't a bad thing, it certainly does help filter and cleanse out a lot of what holds a city back and takes a city straight back to a clean slate to reinvent itself. Sometimes the worst curse there can be is to have a very poor performance record (like Los Angeles presently) but still gain large numbers in population that it simply cant handle.
Think about it like this:
6 new residents --> 2 get a job because the economy sucks overall in the city --> They have more potential with their degrees of education for a higher paying job, but end up with low wage --> High property values, high taxes, high spendings all around = A very stressed and economically challenged populace
As for Los Angeles losing population, personally I don't know. And I do agree with the overall notion that Los Angeles's peak population will be 5 Million in the city, and from everything that I have read, most of Los Angeles's increases are actually in it's CSA, Riverside-San Bernardino MSA (Which is apart of Los Angeles CSA) due to more affordable homes and values there and more vacant land to increase upon. But I will say one thing people on City-Data, get real, population loss isn't always a bad thing. Some cities actually need it a lot to keep up with hard times and restructure themselves.
Pittsburgh today is still bleeding population but its becoming more prosperous today than it ever has been in the last 30 years, in fact Pittsburgh has been one of the fastest increases in income growth in the country. And it's seeing a population loss in city, MSA, & CSA levels. It's basically filtering out and cleansing itself of what has been holding it back. And that is a positive example of a city that's making good strides while having a population loss.
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.
. Alright, please explain to me how the city of L.A can house say....11,000,000 people. What about 10,000,000? The city at its current size can only house so many people. There is bound to be a point where the city just won't grow any larger and will stagnate. 
