Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which city is better?
Los Angeles 31 36.47%
Chicago 54 63.53%
Voters: 85. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-24-2007, 08:55 AM
 
Location: C.R. K-T
6,202 posts, read 11,449,309 times
Reputation: 3809

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SurekRZA View Post
"when we run out of oil"?? the rumor that we are running out of oil is a hiuge lie by gas company's. If that was true, the government would put MUCH MORE attention to electric cars or water powered cars. Many gas company's have merged today and it's causing gas prices to go up not the hiuge lie that were running out of oil.
Don't you notice how powerful the 'energy' companies are? Bush and Cheney ring a bell? Alternative energy is not in their best interest but it's just given lip service for good PR. The industry doesn't want to learn anything else besides fossil fuels. The most likely candidate to develop clean energy would be some entrepreneur outside of the fossil fuel industry who will be bought out by the 'energy' companies to strengthen their PR campaign.

 
Old 09-24-2007, 09:32 AM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,004 posts, read 77,372,455 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colts View Post
Los Angeles. Take that, Chicagoans.
LOL

This is coming from a Hoosier....
 
Old 09-24-2007, 11:02 AM
 
1,119 posts, read 2,742,172 times
Reputation: 389
Some interesting facts according to the U.S Census Bureau, 2006.

Per capita income for LA area: $26,242
Per capita income for Chicago area: $28,164

PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES AND PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS IS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL

All families

LA area: 11%
Chicago area: 9%

All people:

LA area: 14.1%
Chicago area:11.9%
 
Old 09-24-2007, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles-213.323.310.818/San Diego-619.858.760
705 posts, read 3,297,815 times
Reputation: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1 View Post
Some interesting facts according to the U.S Census Bureau, 2006.

Per capita income for LA area: $26,242
Per capita income for Chicago area: $28,164

PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES AND PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS IS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL

All families

LA area: 11%
Chicago area: 9%

All people:

LA area: 14.1%
Chicago area:11.9%
I would agree to those numbers. Considering the great amount of families that are residents to the U.S. and are living in Los Angeles with poor education and low paying jobs. You would think that Chicago would have a greater percent difference to Los Angeles or New York considering the greater amount of immigrant families in both cities.

Thank you for using the U.S. Census Bureau information and not using the Wikipedia table once you realized you're previous numbers were way off.
 
Old 09-24-2007, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles-213.323.310.818/San Diego-619.858.760
705 posts, read 3,297,815 times
Reputation: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown View Post
Don't you notice how powerful the 'energy' companies are? Bush and Cheney ring a bell? Alternative energy is not in their best interest but it's just given lip service for good PR. The industry doesn't want to learn anything else besides fossil fuels. The most likely candidate to develop clean energy would be some entrepreneur outside of the fossil fuel industry who will be bought out by the 'energy' companies to strengthen their PR campaign.
Yes, I know what you are saying. Developing a form of clean energy is not easy at all. The problem with that is that you need vehicles with long lasting energy and clean energy is only able to provide certain amounts of energy at a time. You're right, who ever is able to come up with that sort of clean energy will be tried to be boughten by enery companies. Such an invention is worth more than anything energy companies are willing to give him/her.

Natural gas(which is a clean burning and less expensive alternative to petroleum) is now being used by some transit, shuttle, taxi, police, state and interstate trucking and airport municipal fleet markets.

Last edited by SurekRZA; 09-24-2007 at 12:49 PM..
 
Old 09-24-2007, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Nashville
81 posts, read 333,106 times
Reputation: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-o View Post
LOL

This is coming from a Hoosier....
Pull your head out of your arse. It was a joke.

Jeez, why do some Chicagoans think they're at the center of the universe?
 
Old 09-24-2007, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,004 posts, read 77,372,455 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by DefaultAlias View Post
Pull your head out of your arse. It was a joke.

Jeez, why do some Chicagoans think they're at the center of the universe?
Coming from that guy (Colts), its not a joke. Chicagoans are always bashed by Hoosiers and Cheeseheads. None of us here think we're at the center of the universe, what a dumb comment to make.
 
Old 09-24-2007, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Lakeview, Chicago
436 posts, read 1,348,005 times
Reputation: 364
Now that I've scrolled past all the stats (whether true, false or wikipedia-based), the fact remains that I just don't like LA. I think Chicago is better for me. Maybe it's not better for you but it's better for me. I don't care about how many millionaires and movie stars are in LA or the per capita income for each area. I've spent a fair amount of time in both cities. I'm not asking for agreement. I'm just answering the question.
 
Old 09-24-2007, 02:39 PM
 
Location: City of Angels
1,287 posts, read 5,024,581 times
Reputation: 672
It's quite bizarre, but not at all surprising that a number of Chicago boosters try to deflect attention away from their city's decline by pointing to the problems of other cities, especially Los Angeles. One of the most common assertions is that LA is experiencing "white flight" and a huge outmigration of domestic residents.

The fact is LA is not actually loosing white residents, it's just that the growth of Latino residents and people of other mixed races and foreign backgrounds is outpacing the growth of whites.

The city that is not only declining in population overall, but that is also seeing a real and dramactic "white flight" is CHICAGO!

In 2000 the white population was 1,215,315
In 2006 the white population was 1,004,760

More than 200,000 people

For Cook County "white flight" is even more stunning

In 2000 the white population was 3,025,760
In 2006 the white population was 2,688,083

More than 300,000 people

Chicago is also seeing "black flight"

In 2000 the black population was 1,065,009
In 2006 the black population was 970,244

Overall, there is also "Chicago Flight"

In 2000 the total population was 2,896,016
In 2006 the total population was 2,749,283

Cook County is also in decline

In 2000 the total population was 5,376,741
In 2006 the total population was 5,288,655

Chicago city, Illinois - Fact Sheet - American FactFinder

Cook County, Illinois - Fact Sheet - American FactFinder


So it seems to me the question Chicagoans should be asking themselves is, why are people fleeing your city and county? Espescially white people?
 
Old 09-24-2007, 02:45 PM
 
1,119 posts, read 2,742,172 times
Reputation: 389
Good to see that you have toned down your language after someone already pointed out some of your erroneous statements.

Regarding the stats on the Wiki page, I guess you should pay a bit attention at the info posted there. It says "The United States Bureau of the Census defines 280 metropolitan statistical areas". It compares Chicago CMSA (Combined Metropolitan Statistical areas) and Los Angeles CMSA.

MSA (Metropolitan Statistical areas)

Los Angeles: $55,516.
Chicago: $57,008.

CMSA (Combined Metro Statistical areas)

Los Angeles: $45,903 (#43)
Chicago: $51,046 (#11)


Highest-income metropolitan statistical areas in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Originally Posted by SurekRZA View Post
I would agree to those numbers. Considering the great amount of families that are residents to the U.S. and are living in Los Angeles with poor education and low paying jobs. You would think that Chicago would have a greater percent difference to Los Angeles or New York considering the greater amount of immigrant families in both cities.

Thank you for using the U.S. Census Bureau information and not using the Wikipedia table once you realized you're previous numbers were way off.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top