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.
I don't think tmac is saying that you can directly attribute all the earnings and inventions of a Boston-area graduate working elsewhere as completely the result of a Boston education. What does make sense is that those years of study, and that expertise centered where he studied, makes a crucial difference--and this goes hand-in-hand with saying how difficult it is to measure a place strictly by its GDP.
That's not what I was saying either, thats just the best example I could come up with at the time.
What wasn't clear? The fact that Boston is a world economic engine. The fact it's a major center of tech/research and education. Yeah they are linked. The Silicon Valley exists because the banks in SF financed the research at Stanford/Palo Alto. The same thing happend here in Boston only about 50 years ago.
Houston is a world economic engine...larger than Boston. Take in all areas of its economy versus Boston's.
Quote:
I'm sure Houston is very livable. Just not as livable as Boston, which isn't as much as Honolulu or Vancouver. These aren't opinions. They calculate factors to make the study. Call up the Mercer Foundation and prove to them otherwise about Houston.
I don't care what the Mercer Foundation says. What they rank as a livable city may not be what I think is a livable city. This is like Men's Fitness claiming Houston is the fattest city in America based on how many gyms and restaurants there are per square mile, when in fact, Houston residents have some of the lowest BMI counts in the nation. And again, who are they to say what I THINK is livable? That wasn't a job growth ranking or anything, where you can outright prove it.
Quote:
All of these studies are independent. They don't care about Boston or Houston.
But when half a dozen studies show the same thing about Boston's supremacy, a very clear conclusion HAS to be made. And any argument against better have a good source to back it up!
I feel the only thing you are doing is disputing these because they do not favor Houston. Rather then get upset about it, you should ask, why don't they? Are there other studies, I should look at, that list similar factors, that I can bring to the discussion?
I can post much more ranking lists, having Houston ahead of Boston in a ton of categories, but what's the point? Texas and its cities were topping most lists during this decade.
Houston is a world economic engine...larger than Boston. Take in all areas of its economy versus Boston's.
I don't care what the Mercer Foundation says. What they rank as a livable city may not be what I think is a livable city. This is like Men's Fitness claiming Houston is the fattest city in America based on how many gyms and restaurants there are per square mile, when in fact, Houston residents have some of the lowest BMI counts in the nation. And again, who are they to say what I THINK is livable? That wasn't a job growth ranking or anything, where you can outright prove it.
I can post much more ranking lists, having Houston ahead of Boston in a ton of categories, but what's the point? Texas and its cities were topping most lists during this decade.
Haha, lmfao!
I don't think you actually looked at those studies, or read the last few posts by people fom Boston. Boston's economy is a world engine. It's been established that though a GDP is important, it is only part of measuring economy, seeing as how it only measures tangible monies, and not capital, for which Boston is one the top 10 cities IN THE WORLD for finance. Boston is one of the top 10 cities IN THE WORLD for human capital--brain power--the force behind an economy. Those are two factors not taken into account in GDP, so go back and look at the studies I posted.
Since you brought it up Texas is one of the fattest states, and one of the least healthiest. Massachusetts is one of the healthiest states, even before our universal healthcare. There are overweight people everywhere, besides that study from Men's Fitness is backed up by plenty of other studies too. This is how that works, quoting one doesn't mean anything, when you quote several and if a pattern exists then they must be telling you the same thing. I'm not making fun Texas, so don't get all upset with me.
Livabilty takes into account that plus, jobs opportunities (Boston has more jobs per square mile than any city in the country), economic strength, cultural activies, world presence, costs of living. Boston outranks New York and Washington. I'm not basing my entire argument on this one point, there are half a dozen other studies that show Boston's supremacy for me to point to.
I'm not the one saying any of this, these insitutions and organizations are, I'm merely quoting them...that's how you form an argument. At least that's how we learned it at one of the elitist New England universities I attended.
Haha, lmfao!
I don't think you actually looked at those studies, or read the last few posts by people fom Boston. Boston's economy is a world engine. It's been established that though a GDP is important, it is only part of measuring economy, seeing as how it only measures tangible monies, and not capital, for which Boston is one the top 10 cities IN THE WORLD for finance. Boston is one of the top 10 cities IN THE WORLD for human capital--brain power--the force behind an economy. Those are two factors not taken into account in GDP, so go back and look at the studies I posted.
I looked at them. Don't see the big deal.
Houston is arguably THE top city in the world for energy. It is one of the tops in the world for healthcare. GDP measures economic output. It seems like those CEOs graduating from Boston become CEOs of the energy companies here in Houston.
Quote:
Since you brought it up Texas is one of the fattest states, and one of the least healthiest. Massachusetts is one of the healthiest states, even before our universal healthcare. There are overweight people everywhere, besides that study from Men's Fitness is backed up by plenty of other studies too. This is how that works, quoting one doesn't mean anything, when you quote several and if a pattern exists then they must be telling you the same thing. I'm not making fun Texas, so don't get all upset with me.
Oh yeah? Show me the other studies that stated that Houston is the fattest city in America. I'll follow that one up with the CNN report on BMI.
Quote:
Livabilty takes into account that plus, jobs opportunities (Boston has more jobs per square mile than any city in the country), economic strength, cultural activies, world presence, costs of living. Boston outranks New York and Washington. I'm not basing my entire argument on this one point, there are half a dozen other studies that show Boston's supremacy for me to point to.
And just like many posters have told you, livability is opinion and pretty weak to judge a city's livability based on some company's formula. I don't find Boston livable. It's too expensive. I can find much cheaper housing in Houston's core than Boston's. Houston grew by more people last year than Boston has since 2000. If it's so livable, why is it barely growing? Compare:
Curious to know why Boston is losing people domestically, too.
Quote:
I'm not the one saying any of this, these insitutions and organizations are, I'm merely quoting them...that's how you form an argument. At least that's how we learned it at one of the elitist New England universities I attended.
Houston is arguably THE top city in the world for energy. It is one of the tops in the world for healthcare. GDP measures economic output. It seems like those CEOs graduating from Boston become CEOs of the energy companies here in Houston.
Oh yeah? Show me the other studies that stated that Houston is the fattest city in America. I'll follow that one up with the CNN report on BMI.
And just like many posters have told you, livability is opinion and pretty weak to judge a city's livability based on some company's formula. I don't find Boston livable. It's too expensive. I can find much cheaper housing in Houston's core than Boston's. Houston grew by more people last year than Boston has since 2000. If it's so livable, why is it barely growing? Compare:
Curious to know why Boston is losing people domestically, too.
What are you trying to say?
Doesn't seem like a big deal? Seriously?
Boston ranks up there with London, New York, Mardrid, Milan in terms of financial capitial. But no...you're right, totally not a big deal.
I said Houston was tops in energy, and Boston was tops in education, those are the factors that drive those cities' economies. But the way you guys are talking about energy, it's as if that's all that goes on there...I know that's not true, but it's all you mention. Energy, energy, energy...which is a vague word for oil. If you get to say energy drives Houston's economy, then I get to say education drives Boston's economy. Boston leads the nation and arguably the world in the life sciences.
What is so hard to understand?
I've said twice now, I wouldn't put all my stock in livability, I refer you back to a previous post of mine, from earlier today. BTW, have you actually been to Boston? What was so unlivable about it? It's low crime rates, its abundant nightlife, bars, pubs, restaurants, it's world class museums and galleries, it's charming neighborhoods? It's most visited tourist attractions? What kind of people are moving there? Is there an exodus from other states to Texas...? Doubtful. Boston has grown by 50,000 people since 1990. Boston has never had over 1,000,000 people, the largest Boston has ever been was 850,000 people in the 1940s. Size has nothing to do with a city's importance. Boston's land area is only 40 square miles--that's 15,000 people per sqaure mile. Only New York and SF are more dense. If Boston was as large as Houston it would have 9,000,000 people. If Boston annexed a handful of its nearest suburbs (the cities/towns within the 128/95 cooridor), it would have a population of 2,000,000, in an area of only 150 square miles.
It didn't look as if Houston was growing by millions of people every year. It's a sunbelt city. Most of the people who live there are probably retirees, same deal in South Carolina, Florida, Hawaii. Every state in the south and west grew a lot since the last census, and no coincidence, those are the same same places responsible for the mortgage crisis...but I will not get into that.
Fattest states: This is stupid because it has nothing to do with the importance of any place. Massachusetts is the 2nd slimmest state.
But coming in at #10. They use the BMI to calculate obesity...interesting
The Top 10 Fattest States in America | Healia Health Blog (http://blog.healia.com/00226/top-10-fattest-states-america - broken link)
#14 F as in Fat 2009 - Trust for America's Health
#14 Newsweek (America’s Fattest States – 2009 Mississippi had...)
But anyway, I present why I think Boston is tops, and even shown undisputable evidence to give what is ultimately an opinion some credence.
Just because you don't like what they say, doesn't make them wrong, or that it's not a big deal. It shows very much the contrary, that Boston is a huge deal.
To top off everything else said:
Mass receives the 2nd most federal funding for research than any state, only behind Californina
It has the highest concentration of scientists and researchers than other tech based states, twice that of California.
I've said twice now, I wouldn't put all my stock in livability, I refer you back to a previous post of mine, from earlier today. BTW, have you actually been to Boston? What was so unlivable about it? It's low crime rates, its abundant nightlife, bars, pubs, restaurants, it's world class museums and galleries, it's charming neighborhoods? It's most visited tourist attractions? What kind of people are moving there? Is there an exodus from other states to Texas...? Doubtful. Boston has grown by 50,000 people since 1990. Boston has never had over 1,000,000 people, the largest Boston has ever been was 850,000 people in the 1940s. Size has nothing to do with a city's importance. Boston's land area is only 40 square miles--that's 15,000 people per sqaure mile. Only New York and SF are more dense. If Boston was as large as Houston it would have 9,000,000 people. If Boston annexed a handful of its nearest suburbs (the cities/towns within the 128/95 cooridor), it would have a population of 2,000,000, in an area of only 150 square miles.
It didn't look as if Houston was growing by millions of people every year. It's a sunbelt city. Most of the people who live there are probably retirees, same deal in South Carolina, Florida, Hawaii. Every state in the south and west grew a lot since the last census, and no coincidence, those are the same same places responsible for the mortgage crisis...but I will not get into that.
I think we've established that city measures are pointless. From 2000 to 2008, Boston's CSA has grown by over 200,000.
At the same time, Houston's CSA grew by over 1,000,000. From 1990 to 2000, Houston grew by 900,000. I doubt we'll sustain the same percantage increases, but I think we'll be able to increase by around the same numerical values every decade, though eventually we'll have to slow down. But until then, Houston, from 2000 to 2030, the MSA is expected to grow by 2.7 million. By 2010, I'd say we already knocked 1.1 million from that figure. So by 2030, Houston should have over 7.5 million.
Can you imagine how denser Houston will be then?(mostly the inner core will be the intresting to watch for)
Boston's entire CSA is less than 9 million. If you stretched Bostons limits to 600 sq miles, it would not be 9 million.
Most of the people that live in Houston are not retirees. What do you think we are, Florida?
Yeah, but Houston is not one of those sunbelt cities responsible for the mortgage crisis and housing bubbles.
For example, Houston is ranked no.4 for places where the recession is easing. And from another ranking, is one of only 2 metros where home values never fell(or something like that, dont't remember). Cities Where The Recession Is Easing - Yahoo! Real Estate
I think we've established that city measures are pointless. From 2000 to 2008, Boston's CSA has grown by over 200,000.
At the same time, Houston's CSA grew by over 1,000,000. From 1990 to 2000, Houston grew by 900,000. I doubt we'll sustain the same percantage increases, but I think we'll be able to increase by around the same numerical values every decade, though eventually we'll have to slow down. But until then, Houston, from 2000 to 2030, the MSA is expected to grow by 2.7 million. By 2010, I'd say we already knocked 1.1 million from that figure. So by 2030, Houston should have over 7.5 million.
Can you imagine how denser Houston will be then?(mostly the inner core will be the intresting to watch for)
Boston's entire CSA is less than 9 million. If you stretched Bostons limits to 600 sq miles, it would not be 9 million.
Most of the people that live in Houston are not retirees. What do you think we are, Florida?
Yeah, but Houston is not one of those sunbelt cities responsible for the mortgage crisis and housing bubbles.
For example, Houston is ranked no.4 for places where the recession is easing. And from another ranking, is one of only 2 metros where home values never fell(or something like that, dont't remember). Cities Where The Recession Is Easing - Yahoo! Real Estate
Well I was talking city proper. Boston proper is 40 square miles, with 630,000 people that's about 15000/per sq mi. Now Houston's is 600 sq miles. Simple math is 600x15000=9000000. That is how dense Houston (proper) would have to be to be as dense as Boston. Besides even if Houston's metro was 7.5millon in 2030-that's what Boston's is now. I'm sure it'll squeeze a few thousand people a year. It did manage to gain 100,000 people from 2005.
I was comparing density's, not specifically metro areas. But if Boston annexed some of its nearest 'burbs like Cambridge-110,000ppl, Somerville-80,000, Newton-85,000, Brookline-Waltham-Medford-Malden-Everett-55,000, plus half a dozen other communities, it's population would be the same as Houston's. Boston plus those cities is only about 150 square miles. They all border each other. Boston is surrounded by very, very densily populated cities.
So city size is pointless. Census figures don't include college students anyway. There are about 500,000 college students in the Boston Metro, most of whom come from outside the state. There are alone 250,000 students in Boston by itself. And considering the fact they spend about $5 billion a year to the city's economy, I'd say they're pretty important.
I didn't really mean to insinuate that about Houston's housing. But it certainly is a sunbelt city, which is perhaps the primary factor for it's growth. A growth that in the long run that probably isn't sustainable. Boston has built a very sustainble economy, it's had decades of practice, even if shaken a little by the recession. There are already new inititives in place to create jobs. I mean honestly the economy is great if you are in the life sciences or bio tech. Money is still flowing in from grants. Just as people need energy and energy related products from Houston.
Boston is #3, don't worry Houston is #9. This is from 2009, obv they won't have this year's. "No. 3 Boston: Unemployment rate: 4.4% Boston's unemployment rate has risen almost a full percentage point since October 2007, when it was 3.5%, but things continue to look good on the job front there. All those colleges keep on employing thousands of area residents, and the many hospitals and research institutions make for a strong showing in health care. Not everyone who works at those institutions is a physician or researcher either--finance staff, managers and all kinds of back-office workers are always needed. With so many educated men and women wanting to stick around after graduating, Boston has become a hub for the tech and pharmaceutical industries. The city lost just 900 financial sector jobs in the past year--far fewer than other, harder hit places."
Doesn't seem like a big deal? Seriously?
Boston ranks up there with London, New York, Mardrid, Milan in terms of financial capitial. But no...you're right, totally not a big deal.
I said Houston was tops in energy, and Boston was tops in education, those are the factors that drive those cities' economies. But the way you guys are talking about energy, it's as if that's all that goes on there...I know that's not true, but it's all you mention. Energy, energy, energy...which is a vague word for oil. If you get to say energy drives Houston's economy, then I get to say education drives Boston's economy. Boston leads the nation and arguably the world in the life sciences.
What is so hard to understand?
I've said twice now, I wouldn't put all my stock in livability, I refer you back to a previous post of mine, from earlier today. BTW, have you actually been to Boston? What was so unlivable about it? It's low crime rates, its abundant nightlife, bars, pubs, restaurants, it's world classmuseums and galleries, it's charming neighborhoods? It's most visited tourist attractions? What kind of people are moving there? Is there an exodus from other states to Texas...? Doubtful. Boston has grown by 50,000 people since 1990. Boston has never had over 1,000,000 people, the largest Boston has ever been was 850,000 people in the 1940s. Size has nothing to do with a city's importance. Boston's land area is only 40 square miles--that's 15,000 people per sqaure mile. Only New York and SF are more dense. If Boston was as large as Houston it would have 9,000,000 people. If Boston annexed a handful of its nearest suburbs (the cities/towns within the 128/95 cooridor), it would have a population of 2,000,000, in an area of only 150 square miles.
It didn't look as if Houston was growing by millions of people every year. It's a sunbelt city. Most of the people who live there are probably retirees, same deal in South Carolina, Florida, Hawaii. Every state in the south and west grew a lot since the last census, and no coincidence, those are the same same places responsible for the mortgage crisis...but I will not get into that.
But anyway, I present why I think Boston is tops, and even shown undisputable evidence to give what is ultimately an opinion some credence.
Just because you don't like what they say, doesn't make them wrong, or that it's not a big deal. It shows very much the contrary, that Boston is a huge deal.
So retirees are the reason, the Houston metro area grew by a million last decade? ) LOL! Than Houston, Atlanta, DFW and Phoenix are the only sunbelt metros that grew by actual numbers that much, not the whole Sunbelt.
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.
) LOL! Than Houston, Atlanta, DFW and Phoenix are the only sunbelt metros that grew by actual numbers that much, not the whole Sunbelt. 
)
