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.
Up until the crash Las Vegas was where blue collar people went for a better life. The casinos were mostly unionized and were full of jobs that paid relatively well but didn't require college educations.
Interesting numbers -- thanks for posting, Gnutella.
I think what would be especially interesting would be to compare numerical growth in this young graduate population during this timeframe as a percentage of total population growth.
In that case, I think it's pretty clear that cities like Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC (and especially Pittsburgh -- I don't think there's any other city to have flat total population growth in its MSA and to have gained over 20,000 young college grads) have even more of a disproptionate pull on this demographic.
Portland State seems to have a higher percentage of undergraduates than most universities with 30,000 students. That may be one of the reasons the PDX has a smaller than expected number of young college grads.
Last edited by SyraBrian; 05-20-2013 at 09:28 AM..
I crunched some numbers to make a list of young college grads as a percentage of total MSA population. There may be some errors, I did it pretty quickly, but it looks pretty accurate to me. Portland is surprising.
5.57051% -- Washington, DC
4.94418% -- Boston, MA
4.92145% -- San Francisco-Oakland, CA
4.72431% -- Austin, TX
4.63461% -- Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
4.45227% -- Denver, CO
4.41949% -- Raleigh-Durham, NC*
4.11689% -- New York, NY
3.99686% -- Chicago, IL
3.92841% -- Columbus, OH
*I did what the original study apparently did and just combined the Raleigh and Durham MSAs. If they used the whole Research Triangle, this percentage would actually be 3.55282%.
That 3.55282% number is irrelevant. The numerator and the denominator are based on the same population numbers. You can't change the denominator (in this case I'm assuming the total CSA) while the numerator remains associated with a smaller population.
In the end, this data doesn't surprise me for Raleigh/Durham. The area has been a draw for recent grads for decades.
As for the top ten, you continue to see some of the same metros bubble up here as are seen on lists of the most educated metros, fastest growing metros, healthiest metros, etc. Again, no huge surprises to me.
That 3.55282% number is irrelevant. The numerator and the denominator are based on the same population numbers. You can't change the denominator (in this case I'm assuming the total CSA) while the numerator remains associated with a smaller population.
In the end, this data doesn't surprise me for Raleigh/Durham. The area has been a draw for recent grads for decades.
As for the top ten, you continue to see some of the same metros bubble up here as are seen on lists of the most educated metros, fastest growing metros, healthiest metros, etc. Again, no huge surprises to me.
Right, I know, but it's not clear exactly what they're doing because Raleigh-Durham isn't an MSA. If they did just do what OP said and add together the two MSAs, it would be 4.4%, but if they used the Research Triangle CSA, it would be 3.5%
Right, I know, but it's not clear exactly what they're doing because Raleigh-Durham isn't an MSA. If they did just do what OP said and add together the two MSAs, it would be 4.4%, but if they used the Research Triangle CSA, it would be 3.5%
To complicate things, the definition of the Triangle's CSA has changed since 2011 (the year in which this study is based). Also, Durham's MSA can't be counted on its own because it nowhere near a million people on its own.
I am not trained in the math field, but it seems to me that you might be mixing apples and oranges when comparing the City of Chicago to any MSA. Besides this, every new census changes the face of the Chicago MSA. Perhaps rounding up actual populations to the next ?, leave out the MSA and it make look differently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl
To complicate things, the definition of the Triangle's CSA has changed since 2011 (the year in which this study is based). Also, Durham's MSA can't be counted on its own because it nowhere near a million people on its own.
I am not trained in the math field, but it seems to me that you might be mixing apples and oranges when comparing the City of Chicago to any MSA. Besides this, every new census changes the face of the Chicago MSA. Perhaps rounding up actual populations to the next ?, leave out the MSA and it make look differently.
A small nit, the growth rates are from 2006-2011 according the USA Today article.
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.
