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.
only people saying Chicago would be midwesterners that gawk at a Vietnamese person or say things like "ethnic grocers" etc
and i love how smaller metros try to get all big and bad when coming at SF because the city limits are small itself...they never look at the metro area(the greater bay area) for their stats so they think they are "winning" ...kinda like the Milwaukee guy....cut that out buddy...your not cool
Last edited by LosAngelesNightmare; 05-08-2009 at 09:59 AM..
only people saying Chicago would be midwesterners that gawk at a Vietnamese person or say things like "ethnic grocers" etc
Weak. I am a Bay Area native, who has been displaced to the midwest for professional school. I voted for SF, but to say that Chicagoans would "gawk at a Vietnamese..." is just plain ignorant and untrue.
When making the daily drive from underground pkng garage in San Francisco en route to the estate in Woodside, one can't help but feel sorry for the blue-collar poors in Chicago slipping and sliding on the terribly icy third-world roads while I safely steer my high perf. Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG or Ferrari 599GTB on scenic 280 route while having phone conf. w/ peers at offices in New York/London.
Would argue that San Francisco/Woodside (along with Manhattan/Greenwich) collective IQ is 10X that of Chicago. SF/Woodside/Manhattan/Greenwich boasts some of the world's brightest/most enlightened/$1mm+ per/yr earning populace in the entire world while aspirationals from big midwestern dump universities/Ohio State/community college end up in Chic.
Would also argue that SF boasts the highest QOL on the Western Hemisphere. SF/Woodside is an exclusive club; would hope that CA's current economic collapse/housing crisis will further cleanse unwashed underachievers out of the area and into dumps like Illinois/Arizona/Houston/Podunk as us tax-payers in the top 1% see the poors as nothing more than a great tax burden/waste of space.
Wow - I love San Francisco. Are you sure you live there? I have met so many people from the city, and have never encountered such bitter, uneducated comments until now. Everyone I've ever met who's claimed to be in the top 1% of taxpayers was more of a giver to the community, not a hater. Me thinks you work at Walgreens...
In addition, people who are from money don't have to flaunt it. It's the people w/ new money or the $80,000 millionaires who flaunt it.
Incidentally, from May of 2008:
Rank County Millionaire Households
1 Los Angeles Co., Calif. 261,081
2 Cook Co., Ill. 168,422
3 Maricopa Co., Ariz. 126,394
4 Orange Co., Calif. 115,396
5 Harris Co., Texas 107,513
6 San Diego Co., Calif. 100,727
7 King Co., Wash. 75,616
8 Santa Clara Co., Calif. 72,932
9 Nassau Co., N.Y. 71,869
10 Suffolk Co., N.Y. 71,343
only people saying Chicago would be midwesterners that gawk at a Vietnamese person or say things like "ethnic grocers" etc
Wow, you're ignorant. It must be a California thing.
As someone else already commented, the Midwest has plenty of Asians, more specifically, Hmong people who come from countries like Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and Burma. In fact, aside from California, Minnesota and Wisconsin have the largest Hmong populations in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesNightmare
and i love how smaller metros try to get all big and bad when coming at SF because the city limits are small itself...they never look at the metro area(the greater bay area) for their stats so they think they are "winning" ...kinda like the Milwaukee guy....cut that out buddy...your not cool
It seems like the people in SF always have to count the entire Bay Area because the city has nothing to stand on, on its own. Like when I say things like only 7% of SF's total population is African-American, which is far lower than the national average. You guys jump in and say what about Oakland? Nobody else does this. If I were to insult NYC, they wouldn't bring Newark or New Haven into the conversation. Why can't we have a discussion strictly about major cities? Why do you guys rely so heavily on the accomplishments of your suburbs?
Wow, you're ignorant. It must be a California thing.
As someone else already commented, the Midwest has plenty of Asians, more specifically, Hmong people who come from countries like Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and Burma. In fact, aside from California, Minnesota and Wisconsin have the largest Hmong populations in the US.
It seems like the people in SF always have to count the entire Bay Area because your city has nothing to stand on, on its own. Like when I say things like only 7% of SF's total population is African-American, which is far lower than the national average. You guys jump in and say what about Oakland? Nobody else does this. If I were to insult NYC, they wouldn't bring Newark or New Haven into the conversation. Why can't we have a discussion strictly about major cities? Why do you guys rely so heavily on the accomplishments of your suburbs?
Wow, you're ignorant. It must be a California thing.
As someone else already commented, the Midwest has plenty of Asians, more specifically, Hmong people who come from countries like Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and Burma. In fact, aside from California, Minnesota and Wisconsin have the largest Hmong populations in the US.
It seems like the people in SF always have to count the entire Bay Area because the city has nothing to stand on, on its own. Like when I say things like only 7% of SF's total population is African-American, which is far lower than the national average. You guys jump in and say what about Oakland? Nobody else does this. If I were to insult NYC, they wouldn't bring Newark or New Haven into the conversation. Why can't we have a discussion strictly about major cities? Why do you guys rely so heavily on the accomplishments of your suburbs?
I have to defend the Bay Area on this one. When comparing cities, its often necessary to compare the full Urbanized Area populations, since that tells the full story of the sphere of influence of the central city. Political boundaries are almost arbitrary. Yes they are significant, but not in the grand scheme of looking at an urbanized area - its contributions, its urbanity, its economy etc. Therefore, when talking about demographics and influence etc its only fair to compare the Urban Areas (or even MSA) of that city as well. For SF this would include cities like Oakland, Daly City, Berkely, Alameda, etc. Their history of population and economical growth is shared, and they are strongly related politically or culturally (ie transit systems, sports, airports etc) or in some other fashion.
I personally do not like CSA population stats however, since they artifically blow up a city's area population by linking it to other cities across relatively far distances (>50 miles) with little historical connections, save a measly 5% share of commuters. Urban Area stats show the true size of a city (a constant population density must be maintained), while CSAs are basically inflated stats.
only people saying Chicago would be midwesterners that gawk at a Vietnamese person or say things like "ethnic grocers" etc
and i love how smaller metros try to get all big and bad when coming at SF because the city limits are small itself...they never look at the metro area(the greater bay area) for their stats so they think they are "winning" ...kinda like the Milwaukee guy....cut that out buddy...your not cool
Wow - I love San Francisco. Are you sure you live there? I have met so many people from the city, and have never encountered such bitter, uneducated comments until now. Everyone I've ever met who's claimed to be in the top 1% of taxpayers was more of a giver to the community, not a hater. Me thinks you work at Walgreens...
In addition, people who are from money don't have to flaunt it. It's the people w/ new money or the $80,000 millionaires who flaunt it.
Incidentally, from May of 2008:
Rank County Millionaire Households
1 Los Angeles Co., Calif. 261,081
2 Cook Co., Ill. 168,422
3 Maricopa Co., Ariz. 126,394
4 Orange Co., Calif. 115,396
5 Harris Co., Texas 107,513
6 San Diego Co., Calif. 100,727
7 King Co., Wash. 75,616
8 Santa Clara Co., Calif. 72,932
9 Nassau Co., N.Y. 71,869
10 Suffolk Co., N.Y. 71,343
Silly and misleading statistics; New York City + immediate suburbs holds 404,000 millionaires/New York City metro holds 750,000+ millionaires. Would argue NYC holds most > $1mm/ yr earners in entire world. Your statistics are highly inaccurate and counties are silly/obsolete way to count affluence since [X County] can be 10X > than [X County] i.e. LA County 3X larger than any county in America so one would hope it would be at top . Below are the true statistics:
As evidenced, NY/SF trumps any other city re: successful/high-achieving/smart/enlightened/financiers/hedge funders/ competent populace. Although one could argue millionaire stats are seemingly obsulute and only $1mm in assets could be considered middle-class/aspirational so billionaire stats are far more relevant than middle-class/(<$10mm net worth millioniare) stats. SF/NY has highest concentration/sheer populace of highly-compensated/smart people in entire world.
The smartest grads from nations top 10 institutions are attracted to New York/SF (w/some holding wknd homes on LA's Westside). Other groups such as community college dropouts/state college/sub-par graduates from third-world dump institutions usually find themselves in Illinois/Arizona/San Fernando Valley/Kentucky (Darwinism at its finest ); nowhere on planet has as many smart/wealthy people concentrated within a few blocks as Midtown Manhattan/nondescript suburban offices in Bay Area (w/ample parking for fleet of high perf. cars) on a wkday.
Forbes Billioniare Count:
New York City Area 88
San Francisco Area 42
Los Angeles Area 35
Dallas Area 24 Chicago Area 18
Washington DC Area 12
Houston Area 9
Minneapolis Area 9
Boston Area 7
Denver Area 6
Detroit Area 5
Las Vegas Area 5
Seattle Area 5
Atlanta Area 4
Pittsburgh Area 4
Cleveland Area 3
Nashville Area 3
Phoenix Area 3
San Antonio Area 3
San Diego Area 3
As further evidenced SF/NY easily trumps all other inept cities when it comes to affluence/influence.
Last edited by Americanboy; 05-08-2009 at 12:57 PM..
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.
. Below are the true statistics:
); nowhere on planet has as many smart/wealthy people concentrated within a few blocks as Midtown Manhattan/nondescript suburban offices in Bay Area (w/ample parking for fleet of high perf. cars) on a wkday.
