[Tires]

Originally Posted by airics

Now compare the cost of living in those cities....NYC, Boston, Baltimore, Hartford, etc. If you have determination you can get a job here. Take anything and continue the search plus no state and local taxes is a huge plus!

Plenty of choices on those lists with low cost of living and much lower unemployment. No reason to go through that list and pick out the most expensive cities as your only alternative Las Vegas.
Cost of living doesn't mean much if you have no income in Las Vegas.

I'm not really interested in the coldest states like North Dakota, Minnesota etc., but if I really needed a job, I would consider it, get an apartment near work so I didn't have to shovel snow or drive in snow storms and plan on moving away after a few years.
There are also some cities like Austin Texas that could be pretty nice to live in for a while.

[airics]

And the pay here is higher (at least in the casinos it is).

[airics]

Originally Posted by Tires

Plenty of choices on those lists with low cost of living and much lower unemployment. No reason to go through that list and pick out the most expensive cities as your only alternative Las Vegas.
Cost of living doesn't mean much if you have no income in Las Vegas.

I'm not really interested in the coldest states like North Dakota, Minnesota etc., but if I really needed a job, I would consider it, get an apartment near work so I didn't have to shovel snow or drive in snow storms and plan on moving away after a few years.
There are also some cities like Austin Texas that could be pretty nice to live in for a while.

True but if you own a home the taxes will kill you

[Tires]

Originally Posted by airics

True but if you own a home the taxes will kill you

You don't have to worry about taxes if you don't have a job in Las Vegas either.
Running from taxes shouldn't be the #1 priority people have if they are having trouble finding employment.

You can move to one of those high employment cites, rent, save up some money and maybe move to Las Vegas at some point in the future when Las Vegas has better employment opportunities.
If you NEED to have a job to live, why move to Las Vegas now? Makes more sense if you have a job waiting or are retired.

[Tires]

Originally Posted by olecapt

The US employment rate is about 90.5%. Las Vegas is about 86.3%. That says Las Vegas is about 5% worse than the US average.

That does not say Las Vegas is good. What it really says is the overall US is moderately bad and Las Vegas is a little worse.

Sure there are places with 5% unemployment...Lincoln NE, Bismarck, ND, Ames iA, Fargo ND, Iowa City IA, Burlington VT, Midland TX.

See a pattern there? You can't pay people to live in a lot of these places. Heck you can go to scenic Ely or Elko if you want low unemployment only.

Las Vegas is not ideal. If you have a reasonable job where you are you should stay there at this point.

But 86.3% of us are employed and it is not impossible to join that number. Come if it is the right thing for you to do...but with your eyes open and sufficient resources to deal with the difficult climate.

That's a pretty inaccurate spin on the numbers. It is not just 5% more difficult to find a job in Las Vegas than the average for the US.
You don't need to limit yourself to only the cities with less than 5% unemployment. If you go through that list of all the cities with an unemployment rate number at least half of Las Vegas, there are many cities that are not bad places to live.
It's fine that someone might "prefer" to live in Las Vegas and prefer the weather and prefer hanging out on the strip, but the odds will be against them if they are going to Las Vegas to find employment. They may not have their priorities in check (especially if they need to support a family) and would rather be unemployed in Las Vegas than move to where jobs are.

[Buzz123]

Originally Posted by Superman12

First of all, Las Vegas is no way is considered a small city!!! I'll agree with you that Las Vegas medical services should be compared to a small city. Our doctors are so good that they reuse needles to make a profit.

Thats Las Vegas for you!

Well, I don't want to get into a fight with you, but you do jump to conclusions, and obviously see only what reinforces your glass half empty viewpoint.

I never said Las Vegas was a small city. I'm saying that if you live anywhere smaller than Las Vegas the health care won't be as good. And for cities the size of Las Vegas, (nearly 2 million) and many larger ones, we are comparable to some and better than others. Cities with large Medical Schools give the impression that they offer better medical care. I guess that might be true, but then I don't see anyone curing anything.

As far as the Cancer Research Institute laying off half their staff, you were correct about the percentage, but wrong about the number. They employed 300 people, and are laying off 150. Your implication, unless I'm also jumping to conclusions, is that it is because of the Las Vegas economy. The truth is that it would have been in trouble in New York City, Los Angeles, or Podunk, due to the overall U.S. economy. Apparently, most of their funding comes from the U.S. Government and other large donors. That money has dried up. They also may have had poor management, and had over-hired administrators.

Another point is that they are not going out of business, they are trimming the fat.

The economy in Las Vegas is worse than I've seen it in my lifetime, but Las Vegas is not dead yet. After all, Las Vegas is one of a kind, and 100's of millions of people throughout the world want to see it at least once in their lives.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by Tires

That's a pretty inaccurate spin on the numbers. It is not just 5% more difficult to find a job in Las Vegas than the average for the US.
You don't need to limit yourself to only the cities with less than 5% unemployment. If you go through that list of all the cities with an unemployment rate number at least half of Las Vegas, there are many cities that are not bad places to live.
It's fine that someone might "prefer" to live in Las Vegas and prefer the weather and prefer hanging out on the strip, but the odds will be against them if they are going to Las Vegas to find employment. They may not have their priorities in check (especially if they need to support a family) and would rather be unemployed in Las Vegas than move to where jobs are.

That is in fact a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the unemployment numbers.

The actual ability to get employed contains a wide range of variabilty. If you are into residental construction work I would leave Las Vegas. If you are a nurse or skilled medical person you will do fine.

I know of no magical formula that links the unemployment number to the degree of difficult of getting work. We will all agree that 13.7 is worse than 9.5...but 10 time worse...nope. For many it would in fact be better to be looking in Las Vegas than in say LA or San Diego...much lower cost base to be unemployed with a rather small difference in the unemployment rates.

If one if desperate for work I would have no trouble with Lincoln NE or Iowa City IA. Both are nice cities. But if one wishes to live in the SW they are not ideal. Name your poison.

[SCGranny]

While "the 10 best cities" list seems to hold water, there are variables that most people (and researchers) don't take into consideration, either.

1) How many people are under-employed - that is, working as a clerk at WalMart with a degree in Business Admin, or Comparative Languages, or History and Sociology? Are most of the touted jobs service-economy jobs?
2) How many people are working nice 40-hour-a-week jobs - and how many are working two, even three jobs?
3) Cost of living. Even that is subjective, as the FedGov doesn't count food or gas - the two things that everyone buys, not because they want to, but because they HAVE to.
4) How many people are college students, working mothers, single parents, and how many of them supplement their income with AFDC, Welfare, Section 8 housing, college grants or scholorships, or other government programs?
5) How many illegal immigrants are living and working there, getting paid under the table, without benefits, but counted as part of the workforce?
6) Is the cost of infrastructure going up, due to not only an influx of non-taxpaying or minimally-employed people, but the empty and abandoned, foreclosed-on homes that currently are a tax negative - and will taxes have to escalate there (wherever) in the very near future?


I could go on, but you perhaps see my point. One has to take in all considerations, not just the ones that appeal, or the ones that the researchers counted to make their points or tout their agendas.

[Tires]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

While "the 10 best cities" list seems to hold water, there are variables that most people (and researchers) don't take into consideration, either.

1) How many people are under-employed - that is, working as a clerk at WalMart with a degree in Business Admin, or Comparative Languages, or History and Sociology? Are most of the touted jobs service-economy jobs?
2) How many people are working nice 40-hour-a-week jobs - and how many are working two, even three jobs?
3) Cost of living. Even that is subjective, as the FedGov doesn't count food or gas - the two things that everyone buys, not because they want to, but because they HAVE to.
4) How many people are college students, working mothers, single parents, and how many of them supplement their income with AFDC, Welfare, Section 8 housing, college grants or scholorships, or other government programs?
5) How many illegal immigrants are living and working there, getting paid under the table, without benefits, but counted as part of the workforce?
6) Is the cost of infrastructure going up, due to not only an influx of non-taxpaying or minimally-employed people, but the empty and abandoned, foreclosed-on homes that currently are a tax negative - and will taxes have to escalate there (wherever) in the very near future?


I could go on, but you perhaps see my point. One has to take in all considerations, not just the ones that appeal, or the ones that the researchers counted to make their points or tout their agendas.

Doesn't matter unless there was a conspiracy to count the numbers differently in those top 10 cities compared to other cities.

[Tires]

Originally Posted by olecapt

If one if desperate for work I would have no trouble with Lincoln NE or Iowa City IA. Both are nice cities. But if one wishes to live in the SW they are not ideal. Name your poison.

There are wishes, desires, ideals and preferences and there are needs.
Why become destitute in your geographical preference city than be able to make and save money somewhere else and then think about moving when you are financially stable?
If you can afford to pay a 12 month lease without working and then leave Las Vegas if you never find a job during that time, then go for it and consider it an extended vacation.