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.
That same point can be made when comparing Chicago to Washington, D.C. Chicago is nearly twice the size of the DC metro area and there is only a gap between them of 300,000 people who hold bachelor degrees.
True, but the 2 cities are COMPELTELY different, one is white collar, the other blue. Id naturally expect places like D.C. to have a very well educated core.
Well, DC is always among the top educated metros. This list below somehow missed out Seattle and Minneapolis. I would group Seattle, Minneapolis alongside with DC, SF, Boston as the top educated metros.
Percent of total population of 25+-year-olds who hold at least a bachelor’s degree
Washington DC: 42%
San Francisco: 38%
Seattle ???
Minneapolis ???
Boston:37%
Atlanta:31%
New York: 30%
Chicago: 29%
Dallas: 29%
Philadelphia:28%
Houston: 27%
Los Angeles:26%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-o
True, but the 2 cities are COMPELTELY different, one is white collar, the other blue. Id naturally expect places like D.C. to have a very well educated core.
Last edited by downtown1; 11-05-2007 at 10:47 AM..
Well, according to the link you posted, the percent of total population of 25+-year-olds who hold at least a bachelor’s degree is what matters most. It shows LA is in the last place among major U.S cities when it comes to "brainpower". Using the raw data for your claim is just plain ridiculous because the LA metro population is much larger than most metros below.
Percent of total population of 25+-year-olds who hold at least a bachelor’s degree
Washington DC: 42%
San Francisco: 38%
Boston:37%
Atlanta:31%
New York: 30%
Chicago: 29%
Dallas: 29%
Philadelphia:28%
Houston: 27% Los Angeles:26%
Matters most to whom? I know it does to you. But it's your choice to interpret data however you wish. Also World Business Chicago does not say or give an opinion on whether they think the actual number of BA degree holders or percentage of BA degree holders is more important. It's completely irrelevant. Even though the percentage of BA degree holders in the LA metro might be smaller, there's obviously enough to keep LA's economy ahead of every other metro area (except NY) and enough for LA to incubate the largest corporate base in the U.S after NY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1
The problem I see is that sometimes you blindly posted the stats without knowing what they really mean. An example of this is the stats regarding the private sector job growth. Read the below
"
Indeed, L.A.'s status as one of the nation's capitals of economic deprivation remains unchanged, with nearly 40 percent of the county's residents unable to meet their basic needs, close to one third of full-time workers earning less than $25,000 a year and more than 20 percent of children living in extreme poverty. This picture is aggravated further by low rates of health insurance and the rising cost of living
One of the chief causes of Los Angeles’ woes is an economy that produces too many low-wage jobs. Indeed, the Census data bear out that many of the very poor are working people. Los Angeles County has shed 170,000 manufacturing jobs in the past decade—jobs that were more likely to provide a decent standard of living for working people—and replaced them with service sector jobs, many of them paying meager wages. The rise in low-wage jobs is likely to continue; half the occupations with the most projected new jobs pay low wages. In addition, the number of jobs in the formal economy has declined since 1990, while there has been growth in the often marginal and low-paying informal sector and in the number of self-employed."
Give me a break. You are citing a passage in a report that's highlighting job loss not job growth. I am talking about economic growth. You also now seem to want to change the conversation to comparing counties versus metros. Typical. You always try to change the subject when you can't support your weak arguments.
It means that New York's and Chicago's economic growth is not keeping pace with the rest of the U.S. overall while LA is. Chicago is also losing jobs. Zero job growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1
Also, as you already know that LA ranks fifth in the U.S where the Fortune 500 companies are headquartered. It is ranked after New York, Chicago, Houston, Dallas. And many of the major corporations that build facilities in LA are in New York, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, San Francisco, Seattle. i.e Boeing, Motorola, Exxon Mobil, Verizon, IBM, HP, Mc Donald's, Sears, Time Warner, Pfizer, Coca Cola, Pepsi Co...etc. Stocks and futures contracts of these companies are traded daily on the New York and Chicago's financial exchanges.
So what. Of course, practically every company in America has operations in LA, which contradicts your earlier point about LA lacking "brainpower." If such a claim made any sense those companies would not invest so heavily in having LA offices.
True, but the 2 cities are COMPELTELY different, one is white collar, the other blue. Id naturally expect places like D.C. to have a very well educated core.
Finally, you say something I actually agree with and that's supported factually. Chicago is mostly a blue collar city.
Washington is a magnet for very highly educated people.
US Metro Areas by Graduate Degrees, 2007 American Factfinder
New York 2,082,537
Washington DC 1,026,501
Los Angeles 1,016,776
San Francisco 775,535
Chicago 740,960
Boston 636,587
Philadelphia 465,673
Atlanta 381,390
Detroit 373,203
Dallas 356,438
Houston 316,430
Exactly. This also disproves the point downtown1 is suggesting that LA has more degree holders because of its population size. Chicago is the third largest city and metro area in the U.S., far exceeding the size of the SF and DC metro areas and yet Chicago has fewer residents who are graduate degree holders.
Chicago will dominate the US in ten years, my prediction. In skyline height, in sports, in everything. ...especially if we win the olympic bid.
Think about it...olympics, the spire, trump tower, south loop/side development...Theres SO much that's going to happen here real soon its going to completely take off. Just need to fix the cta....and make o'hare more efficient.
Chicago will dominate the US in ten years, my prediction. In skyline height, in sports, in everything. ...especially if we win the olympic bid.
Think about it...olympics, the spire, trump tower, south loop/side development...Theres SO much that's going to happen here real soon its going to completely take off. Just need to fix the cta....and make o'hare more efficient.
Guess we gotta build another airport too!!
Aside from the domination rhetoric(why?),
Chicago is an awesome city that really has its act together across the board. There's no denying that.
Well, the data from the University of California already already proved
that LA is near bottom of the worst educated metros in US so I don't need more explanation.
Don't forget that LA is ranked fifth in the US in terms of total Fortune 500 headquarters and most big name corporations are not in LA.
Again, you failed to read this sentence when it talks about the private sector job growth in LA.
"The rise in low-wage jobs is likely to continue; half the occupations with the most projected new jobs pay low wages"
And failed again to acknowledge this. This is the 2007 report
" One of the chief causes of Los Angeles’ woes is an economy that produces too many low-wage jobs."
Indeed, L.A.'s status as one of the nation's capitals of economic deprivation remains unchanged,
with nearly 40 percent of the county's residents unable to meet their basic needs, close to one
third of full-time workers earning less than $25,000 a year and more than 20 percent of children
living in extreme poverty.
Matters most to whom? I know it does to you. But it's your choice to interpret data however you wish. It's completely irrelevant. Even though the percentage of BA degree holders in the LA metro might be smaller, there's obviously enough to keep LA's economy ahead of every other metro area (except NY) and enough for LA to incubate the largest corporate base in the U.S after NY.
Give me a break. You are citing a passage in a report that's highlighting job loss not job growth. I am talking about economic growth. You also now seem to want to change the conversation to comparing counties versus metros. Typical. You always try to change the subject when you can't support your weak arguments.
It means that New York's and Chicago's economic growth is not keeping pace with the rest of the U.S. overall while LA is. Chicago is also losing jobs. Zero job growth.
So what. Of course, practically every company in America has operations in LA, which contradicts your earlier point about LA lacking "brainpower." If such a claim made any sense those companies would not invest so heavily in having LA offices.
Well, the data from the University of California already already proved
that LA is near bottom of the worst educated metros in US so I don't need more explanation.
Don't forget that LA is ranked fifth in the US in terms of total Fortune 500 headquarters and most big name corporations are not in LA.
Again, you failed to read this sentence when it talks about the private sector job growth in LA.
"The rise in low-wage jobs is likely to continue; half the occupations with the most projected new jobs pay low wages"
And failed again to acknowledge this. This is the 2007 report
" One of the chief causes of Los Angeles’ woes is an economy that produces too many low-wage jobs."
Indeed, L.A.'s status as one of the nation's capitals of economic deprivation remains unchanged,
with nearly 40 percent of the county's residents unable to meet their basic needs, close to one
third of full-time workers earning less than $25,000 a year and more than 20 percent of children
living in extreme poverty.
I am not sure, but I think that some of these figures are due to immigrants, legal and illegal, recently migrating to Los Angeles. They do have a larger share of low-income immigrants than many other major metropolitan areas, and LA has a relatively high cost of living.
Still would like to see some growth in the high-wage job sectors though.
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.
You are citing a passage in a report that's highlighting job loss not job growth. I am talking about economic growth. You also now seem to want to change the conversation to comparing counties versus metros. Typical. You always try to change the subject when you can't support your weak arguments.
...especially if we win the olympic bid. 