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.
Other than that: L.A. is still a superior city even though SJ creams it in # of Fortune 500 companies, downtown, diversity, safety and cleanliness
Having Fortune 500 companies makes a place a worse place to live, not a better one. Really ask yourself if you want to be surrounded by the types of people (mostly men) who work at places like Facebook, Google and Uber.
Of course It is; everybody knows that. After Bloomington (Mall of America), Chicago is Minneapolis’s second best known suburb. We Chicagoans are pushing for the Twin Cities to be renamed the Quad Cities (sorry Davenport. Sorry Rock Island) because such a title would include us as the fouth most known city in the metro: 1 Minneapolis 2 St Paul 3 Bloomington 4 Chicago
Having Fortune 500 companies makes a place a worse place to live, not a better one. Really ask yourself if you want to be surrounded by the types of people (mostly men) who work at places like Facebook, Google and Uber.
Those men largely don't exist in places like Bakersfield.
Avoiding GDP generating companies because of the people that work at them is avoiding wealth (and wealthy places) because of what comes with the money.
In other words, at the extreme poles one picks poverty or the type of people who work at Facebook, Google, and Uber. Sure, most major metros fall somewhere between those extremes; but you are still going to have a mix of 'those people' and less money in any economy. Some compromise is likely good, but I'd personally still err on the side of money.
I feel that poverty is akin to a type of death for an individual and society and so I embrace what generates wealth in a largely honest fashion. Again, this is not an either or scenario / it runs across a gamut, but for me the wider social and personal benefits of more wealth generally outweigh the benefits of a community's people being 'not those people'.
And those people often have an unusually unique / bright and interesting one mixed in here or there: the type that knows that they won't be appreciated or well utilized in government nor industries with well worn tracks. I offer that the presence of those people is both not necessarily common in other communities and is generally a benefit to any community.
TL;DR: "Worse to live in" is completely relative and if one sees corporate execs as a legitimate complaint about a city's QOL then you are living in a type of Eden and don't know it.
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.
