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.
Well you conveniently left off my second part of that statement, which is the case for many people. I just read that 1 in 5 homes in the U.S. is underwater (homeowner owes more than the home is worth). The stats get even worse in areas of newer homes, built during the last 5 - 8 years where funky financing was more readily available. In Vegas, where the great majority of the housing stock is less than a decade old, 67% of homeowners are upside down:
Zillow: 1 in 5 American homes underwater | L.A. Land | Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2009/05/zillow-one-in-five-american-homes-underwater.html - broken link)
Add to that the stretching of our resources and infrastructure to the breaking point, and it's unsustainable. Are people really under the false illusion that natural resources and energy supplies are infinite? Certainly it's fine if ONE PERSON wants that life, and can afford it. When it's 50 Million people who want that lifestyle, and 45 Million can't afford it (but do it anyway), then it becomes a problem.
Me thinks I stumped the OP, as he has been unable to answer the obvious question I asked and has chosen to stop posting in this thread. Maybe it is just taking a lot of time to figure out an answer that will cover both sides of the debate.
Charleton Dude, he stated that he is a southernern & wants to come home to be near his family.
1. Who said anything about Charlotte? I thought this was about Raleigh.
2. How was Syracuse, or Pittsburgh doing 5 years ago in comparison to the rest of the country?
According to my data, Pittsburgh had about a 5.7% unemployment rate in 2004. The US? 5.53% Wake County, NC? 4.3%
Did you ever think for one minute the reason why the Northeast unemployment numbers are clearing up a little is that people are MOVING.
According to city data between 2000-2007
Albany- Lost 1.1% of its population
Buffalo- Lost 6% of its population
Binghampton- Lost 4.6% of its population
Rochester- lost 5.5% of its population
Rome- lost 2.2% of its population
Syracuse- lost 4.8% of its population
Utica- lost 3.3% of its population
Pittsburgh- lost 6.2% of its population
(by the way, Charlotte added a 20.9% increase, and Raleigh 30.6%)
Wow, it looks like Northeast Appalachia has found the perfect solution to unemployment......negative migration. If you wait long enough, and if the situation gets bleak enough, every one unemployed or underemployed who possibly has the means will move, and your numbers will improve!
However, they end up flooding Charlotte and Raleigh, and growing the population much faster then the economy can handle, causing big blips in the unemployment rates.
I actually find it amazing how well Raleigh has kept up with its growth without heavy dependency on the federal government.
Those population loss figures are for the city-limits only. All of those metro areas populations (which the unemployment figures are for..the metro area, not the city itself) with the distincit exception of Buffalo and Pittsburgh ; have remained relativiely stable. Nice try though. A for effort.
You are right...Raleigh has a fast-growing population; with a shrinking number of jobs; which is why it has a higher unemployment rate. If you choose to see that as a possitive thing that you are "amazed" by that is your decision (and probably the way you would prefer to see it if you are a recent transplant) but I seirously doubt many long-time residents would view it as a GOOD thing that the population is rising so fast at a time when the number of jobs is declining.
Charleton Dude, he stated that he is a southernern & wants to come home to be near his family.
He is looking to relocate and is asking for information, yet states he has an issue with everyone else doing the same. I was just asking for clarification why it is alright for one person to relocate, but not others.
Well you conveniently left off my second part of that statement, which is the case for many people. I just read that 1 in 5 homes in the U.S. is underwater (homeowner owes more than the home is worth). The stats get even worse in areas of newer homes, built during the last 5 - 8 years where funky financing was more readily available. In Vegas, where the great majority of the housing stock is less than a decade old, 67% of homeowners are upside down:
Zillow: 1 in 5 American homes underwater | L.A. Land | Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2009/05/zillow-one-in-five-american-homes-underwater.html - broken link)
Add to that the stretching of our resources and infrastructure to the breaking point, and it's unsustainable. Are people really under the false illusion that natural resources and energy supplies are infinite? Certainly it's fine if ONE PERSON wants that life, and can afford it. When it's 50 Million people who want that lifestyle, and 45 Million can't afford it (but do it anyway), then it becomes a problem.
I agree that funky financing is a problem, along with government mandates forcing banks to lend to people that cannot afford it. If I was in charge, it would be fixed rates only, actual employment, good credit and a sizable down payment. No trying to manipulate the market for votes. Regarding what types of homes people choose, I have no problem with anyone living the way they want to, whether it is downtown Raleigh, taking the bus everywhere or in the country on 10 acres and driving an SUV to work. To each his/her own and it is not up to anyone or group to tell someone else how they must live. I just traded in the single best location in the Triangle (Cary in particular) to obtain the country lifestyle that will always be in my heart. As a result, I will drive further to work and use more gas. OH WELL. When they invent a car that can go 200 miles on an electric charge and be affordable, I will buy it. In the meantime, I love my home, neighborhood and land. That's my choice to make and not anyone else's.
I agree that funky financing is a problem, along with government mandates forcing banks to lend to people that cannot afford it. If I was in charge, it would be fixed rates only, actual employment, good credit and a sizable down payment. No trying to manipulate the market for votes. Regarding what types of homes people choose, I have no problem with anyone living the way they want to, whether it is downtown Raleigh, taking the bus everywhere or in the country on 10 acres and driving an SUV to work. To each his/her own and it is not up to anyone or group to tell someone else how they must live. I just traded in the single best location in the Triangle (Cary in particular) to obtain the country lifestyle that will always be in my heart. As a result, I will drive further to work and use more gas. OH WELL. When they invent a car that can go 200 miles on an electric charge and be affordable, I will buy it. In the meantime, I love my home, neighborhood and land. That's my choice to make and not anyone else's.
I agree with you on the lending aspects. Unfortunately, I have to admit that my decisions to live where I want, when I want, on my terms, do affect other people. Unless you're living off the grid, driving a solar powered vehicle, home-schooling your kids, and growing your own food, your decisions too affect other people.
But it's somewhat off-topic from the OP's distaste for suburban Raleigh. I say, if you don't like a place, don't live there. Very few people live someplace with a gun to their heads. And if you have a problem with growth patterns in your area, do something about it instead of beotching about it on discussion boards.
Those population loss figures are for the city-limits only. All of those metro areas populations (which the unemployment figures are for..the metro area, not the city itself) with the distincit exception of Buffalo and Pittsburgh ; have remained relativiely stable. Nice try though. A for effort.
From my sources, the Syracuse Metro Area lost about 7,000 people between 2000-2007, the Rochester Metro Area lost about 7,500, Utica-Rome lost about 5,000....etc. Not as bad as the cities themselves, but considering that the overall US population has been increasing at over 1% per year on a whole, losing people at all is a bad sign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I'minformed2
You are right...Raleigh has a fast-growing population; with a shrinking number of jobs; which is why it has a higher unemployment rate. If you choose to see that as a possitive thing that you are "amazed" by that is your decision (and probably the way you would prefer to see it if you are a recent transplant) but I seirously doubt many long-time residents would view it as a GOOD thing that the population is rising so fast at a time when the number of jobs is declining.
1. Im amazed that it is not in the same boat as Charlotte.
2. The number of jobs is increasing, the problem is, its not increasing as fast as the population. This would be expected of any boom town. Supply almost always trails demand. It takes time for the schools to go up, the construction companies to build the houses, the restaurants, banks etc to move in. If 30,000 people move in, the infrastructure and services they demand is going to create jobs, but not automatically. Eventually, when the population growth levels off, the unemployment rate will begin dropping dramatically.
I agree with you on the lending aspects. Unfortunately, I have to admit that my decisions to live where I want, when I want, on my terms, do affect other people. Unless you're living off the grid, driving a solar powered vehicle, home-schooling your kids, and growing your own food, your decisions too affect other people.
But who is the person who will have the right to say how you should live? Is a far left liberal going to have no problem with a far right wing conservative deciding how they should live or vice versa? Big Brother is not a good idea. We cannot protect against everything and when we try, we get the continuing failed policies that end up creating unintended consequeses....see ethanol and starvation. One person may think that living in DT Raleigh, no car and a concrete jungle is the way to go. Others may think true country with your own garden and fewer people is the way to go. We cannot and should not dictate to others how they must live. One might like it if there side that has the control, but the controlling side always changes and then I bet that person wouldn't be so happy about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan
I say, if you don't like a place, don't live there. Very few people live someplace with a gun to their heads. And if you have a problem with growth patterns in your area, do something about it instead of beotching about it on discussion boards.
GREAT post. Rep points headed your way.
Last edited by Charlton Dude; 05-11-2009 at 03:52 PM..
From my sources, the Syracuse Metro Area lost about 7,000 people between 2000-2007, the Rochester Metro Area lost about 7,500, Utica-Rome lost about 5,000....etc. Not as bad as the cities themselves, but considering that the overall US population has been increasing at over 1% per year on a whole, losing people at all is a bad sign.
1. Im amazed that it is not in the same boat as Charlotte.
2. The number of jobs is increasing, the problem is, its not increasing as fast as the population. This would be expected of any boom town. Supply almost always trails demand. It takes time for the schools to go up, the construction companies to build the houses, the restaurants, banks etc to move in. If 30,000 people move in, the infrastructure and services they demand is going to create jobs, but not automatically. Eventually, when the population growth levels off, the unemployment rate will begin dropping dramatically.
False...the number of jobs available in the triangle is in fact decreasing. The region as a whole has seen its unemployment figures increase and number of jobs decrease over the past year. You are correct that clearly it is not as bad in Raleigh as Charlotte; but it is still a true fact that the number of people is increasing pretty dramatically (though not as dramatically as several years ago) while the number of jobs (not just the number of "Easily available" jobs...the number of jobs in total) is decreasing. That discussion and statistic has been thoroughly discussed in several threads on this forum.
If the Rochester metro area has lost 7000 people (which is subjective, considering you post no source for that number and population estimates are usually fairly lower than the official census figures that come out later) that would be a decrease of .67%. Fairly minimal population loss that could be interpreted as "relatively stable" population numbers as I said.
False...the number of jobs available in the triangle is in fact decreasing. The region as a whole has seen its unemployment figures increase and number of jobs decrease over the past year. You are correct that clearly it is not as bad in Raleigh as Charlotte; but it is still a true fact that the number of people is increasing pretty dramatically (though not as dramatically as several years ago) while the number of jobs (not just the number of "Easily available" jobs...the number of jobs in total) is decreasing. That discussion and statistic has been thoroughly discussed in several threads on this forum.
If the Rochester metro area has lost 7000 people (which is subjective, considering you post no source for that number and population estimates are usually fairly lower than the official census figures that come out later) that would be a decrease of .67%. Fairly minimal population loss that could be interpreted as "relatively stable" population numbers as I said.
You're both right.
Here's a great source for population estimates for MSA's. Not only net population, but births/death and net domestic migration:
Assuming at least 1/2 the people who moved to Raleigh need a job (labor force is usually about 1/2 the population), it seems like those two numbers are on diverging paths.
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.
