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.
You can argue over semantics all you want but the point stands that more people move to LA from the NYC area and Northeast in general than the other way around. Since when do the reasons all of a suddenly matter now? No offense, but some of you posters with a bias against/dislike of LA seem to do a good job at distorting things like LA's illegal immigrant situation and can't seem to accept the fact that your beloved NYC area sends more people to LA than the other way around. It is what it is.
No, actually both Orange County and the Ventura MSA are wealthier than LA County. LA's CSA is 17.7 million, not 20. And even if you double that 762K, that's only about half of your 3 million number.
That isn't semantics, it is logic. There isn't an EXODUS OF New Yorkers to LA, PERIOD. There is no semantic mistake about the word "exodus". NYC is more expensive than LA, LA has no incentive to go to NY because of cost. NYC has an incentive to go to LA because of cost! New Yorkers, as the list provided, go virtually everywhere, many places much more so than LA.
If you are mad about then maybe you should get on board with your posters to stop posting absurdities, my numbers were slightly off on ONE particular, but I came and provided the real data from Census and DHS. All of the other data is correct and you know it. I even ask for better data if somebody has it! How is that hating? I know *you* provide, but how about everybody else with off the cuff remarks?
I am not one of the posters calling either one of the cities cesspools, or anything like that, I am just getting to the bottom of it, claiming other cities have no schools, using Stanford as justification for LA prominence, etc. I critique ALL cities not just LA, don't worry.
I never said that what the public thinks makes it so, and I agree about NY being on a different level than LA I wasn't arguing that and like I said before this is just my opinion
I would think most people know that LA makes most of the movies in the US
No, I wouldn't say so for the general audience abroad. The general audience in the US, probably.
You can argue over semantics all you want but the point stands that more people move to LA from the NYC area and Northeast in general than the other way around. Since when do the reasons all of a suddenly matter now? No offense, but some of you posters with a bias against/dislike of LA seem to do a good job at distorting things like LA's illegal immigrant situation and can't seem to accept the fact that your beloved NYC area sends more people to LA than the other way around. It is what it is.
No, actually both Orange County and the Ventura MSA are wealthier than LA County. LA's CSA is 17.7 million, not 20. And even if you double that 762K, that's only about half of your 3 million number.
That would make sense seeing how NYC has alot more people than LA. More people would equal more people moving. Simple. See how that works. Besides, the main reason people move to LA is to get into the entertainment industry. Lets face it, that is the truth. This is coming from someone who once lived in LA. I'm not saying NY is perfect, but neither is LA. If you took away their entertainment industry (which is there thanks to NY'ers), LA's Population would probably look more like Charlottes. Just being honest. That is not to say that LA is not a good city. But these are the results of LA's good fortune in having good weather. The entertainment industry and "Hollywood" as a whole are complete descendents of NYC. NYC was where movies were first made and it made sense to seek out a location where filming could happen "comfortably" during all seasons. The "Industry" went from NY to Florida (once again, -due to weather), then to California. As more and more people migrated west, the industry took note of the fact of how little humidity there was on the west coast especially compared to Florida. Florida lost the chance to be "LA" to some degree (at least the entertainment industry, because of how humid the south is. LA had and has perfect weather and that's why the industry ended up there as well as all of their open spaces. And this is not a dig on LA. If you took the entertainment industry out of LA, LA without question would not be what it is. LA in a way can thank NY. Just as NY can thank Europe for their proximity to Europe. It works both ways. NY would not be NY without it's ideal location from European countries across the Atlantic.
All in all who cares. They are both great cities. There has to be some great cities as a result of location. Both cities are great examples.
That isn't semantics, it is logic. There isn't an EXODUS OF New Yorkers to LA, PERIOD. There is no semantic mistake about the word "exodus". NYC is more expensive than LA, LA has no incentive to go to NY because of cost. NYC has an incentive to go to LA because of cost! New Yorkers, as the list provided, go virtually everywhere, many places much more so than LA.
If you are mad about then maybe you should get on board with your posters to stop posting absurdities, my numbers were slightly off on ONE particular, but I came and provided the real data from Census and DHS. All of the other data is correct and you know it. I even ask for better data if somebody has it! How is that hating? I know *you* provide, but how about everybody else with off the cuff remarks?
I am not one of the posters calling either one of the cities cesspools, or anything like that, I am just getting to the bottom of it, claiming other cities have no schools, using Stanford as justification for LA prominence, etc. I critique ALL cities not just LA, don't worry.
How is that logic? "Exodus" is not the right word to use as it's an exaggeration but either way you look at there is an outflow, which is a synonym of exodus, of New Yorkers to LA period, its semantics. Then you try to use COL as the sole reason yet look at the areas that have a net inflow into NY, all of them have a cheaper cost of living. I don't care what the reasons are at all, I was just showing you and others the facts, that more people from NY and the NE move to LA than the other way around. I know it's a statistic thats probably hard for a lot of people to swallow on this site and they'll come up with their explanations and reasons, but that doesn't change the facts.
My posters? Who are "my posters"? And what absurdities am I posting? I wasn't responding to what other people were posting in my response to your post. I was never arguing against LA's high domestic outflow. I was just correcting your ABSURD "statistic" that there are 3 million illegals in the LA area, it has 25% of the nations illegals, 90% of CA's illegals live in Southern CA, etc..Your numbers weren't "slightly" off at all, they were way off. You were applying all of CA's illegal immigrants to the LA area. Then you try to argue that Mexico's drug war is increasing illegal immigration to LA, which is pretty absurd and not backed up by anything. Illegal immigration has actually been decreasing the past couple of years due to the economy, even as the drug violence in Mexico increases.
I'm a bit curious now though and have a few questions, anyone willing to answer is free to do so:
- LOL what was Harris Poll Interactive thinking ranking Nashville as their contender for "7th most desirable city in America"? Ahead of Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, Denver, Miami, & Atlanta. I mean I still cant get over how freakin hilarious this is, like no offense to anyone from there because I'm sure its a great city (That I would like to see soon) but reading through that list I was already iffy (borderline laughing) with where some cities were ranked as and then I saw this and was like "ROFLMFAO you f***in kidding me? People probably want to visit Miley Cyrus or something".
I don't get why some of you were bashing the Harris poll so badly. It had a very wide range of cities on there that reflects the very diverse taste of Americans. I'm sure if it listed the typical top 10 cities found here on City-Data like NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philly, DC, Seattle, SF, etc..people would have no issue with it. But too many people on this site are delusional and obsessed with urban cities and can't see that plenty of people out there would prefer Nashville to NYC, Denver to Chicago, San Diego to DC, etc.. Country music is very popular in America, I personally hate it, and Nashville is the epicenter of that genre. So people who are into that culture and lifestyle related to country music would find Nashville a much better place than NYC or Miami. That Harris Poll seems to have pretty much most types of major American cities on there and its probably a hell of a lot more reflective of Americans feelings than any thread on this urban-obsessed subforum that is City vs City. It's a very diverse list that relflects the different types of cities and lifestyles people live and seek out in this country.
How is that logic? "Exodus" is not the right word to use as it's an exaggeration but either way you look at there is an outflow, which is a synonym of exodus, of New Yorkers to LA period, its semantics. T
Per the IRS from 2007-2008 (the most recent data)
SOI Tax Stats - Migration Data - California (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/bustaxstats/article/0,,id=213845,00.html - broken link)
NYC (all counties) to Los Angeles: 3489
Los Angeles to NYC (all counties) : 3072
Exodus, really? Hard to swallow? Quite a pitiful difference considering the COL difference between the two (young NYers who don't want to move south and want a name brand city view LA as the cheaper version of NYC).
And while I was looking at the data, I found something interesting. Way more San Diegans move to New York than New Yorkers move to San Diego. That defies cold state --> sunbelt trends. How's that to swallow?
San Diego to NYC: 765
NYC to San Diego - 518
More San Franciscans also move to NYC than the other way around (strange for such a tiny city to send away its citizens in huge numbers while NYC hardly returns the favor). But San Francisco isn't a sunbelt city so the data isn't too odd, after all NYC is way better than San Francisco.
I love California, but it is way, way at the bottom of places New Yorkers move to. According to that table, New Jersey, North Carolina, Connecticut and Florida recieve the vast majority of New York City transplants. Los Angeles is the ONLY city in California that (barely) gets more New Yorkers than the other way around.
I don't think so, SF is more like a west coast Boston. There is nothing on the West Coast like NYC/London etc..
Huh? I used to think you were one of the smarter posters on this board until this response. My point was exceedingly simple: San Francisco is the west coast's version of New York City, it is urban, sophisticated, and beloved. I wasn't saying San Francisco is exactly like New York or that it matches it on every level, only that the affection for SF is similar to the affection for NYC.
And as soon as make this simple comparison bigcitydreamer comes out swinging in anger that I dare to compare SF to NYC and you back that up? Unfortunate.
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.
That defies cold state --> sunbelt trends. How's that to swallow? 
