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 grew up "outside of the loop" before later moving to SW MO relatively recently. STL2006 appropriately noted that St. Charles County is really where the bulk of the money really is. St. Louis City itself is a pit where money is thrown and disappears. Drive from points westward into St. Louis especially on I-44 and that is glaringly obvious. And RisingAuvandril, you do need to realize that there is such a thing as purchasing power. Just because you earn a lower nominal dollar wage somewhere outside of a city doesn't mean you have a lower standard of living. Getting paid more doesn't result in a better standard of living as higher nominal wage areas have higher taxes which reduce the actual wages, plus costs of living are much higher so your dollars don't go nearly as far. If if you really want to carry it to an extreme, I could move from SW MO to San Francisco where one of my relatives lives. Yes, I would get paid more as I would gross about 15% more but I would actually net about the same or even a little less due to the taxes being much higher. I would also see my costs of living go up by about 250% and I would end up with a lot less money left over at the end of the month. You really do have to crunch the numbers...ALL of the numbers.
I grew up "outside of the loop" before later moving to SW MO relatively recently. STL2006 appropriately noted that St. Charles County is really where the bulk of the money really is. St. Louis City itself is a pit where money is thrown and disappears. Drive from points westward into St. Louis especially on I-44 and that is glaringly obvious. And RisingAuvandril, you do need to realize that there is such a thing as purchasing power. Just because you earn a lower nominal dollar wage somewhere outside of a city doesn't mean you have a lower standard of living. Getting paid more doesn't result in a better standard of living as higher nominal wage areas have higher taxes which reduce the actual wages, plus costs of living are much higher so your dollars don't go nearly as far. If if you really want to carry it to an extreme, I could move from SW MO to San Francisco where one of my relatives lives. Yes, I would get paid more as I would gross about 15% more but I would actually net about the same or even a little less due to the taxes being much higher. I would also see my costs of living go up by about 250% and I would end up with a lot less money left over at the end of the month. You really do have to crunch the numbers...ALL of the numbers.
One has to also look at how well certain specific job related sectors are performing in these "low cost areas." Most can't retain specialized human capital in many cases, as it is very mobile in the 21st century economy, even with remote working becoming quite common. Therefore, there are still clusters of high job growth metros that do have higher cost of living, but are also creative magnets that draw in most of the venture capital and investment dollars. I live in a "low cost" area right now, Louisville metro area, due to employment reasons, but it has far more amenities than SW MO does with nominal differences in cost of living. That is just one example.
I grew up "outside of the loop" before later moving to SW MO relatively recently. STL2006 appropriately noted that St. Charles County is really where the bulk of the money really is. St. Louis City itself is a pit where money is thrown and disappears. Drive from points westward into St. Louis especially on I-44 and that is glaringly obvious. And RisingAuvandril, you do need to realize that there is such a thing as purchasing power. Just because you earn a lower nominal dollar wage somewhere outside of a city doesn't mean you have a lower standard of living. Getting paid more doesn't result in a better standard of living as higher nominal wage areas have higher taxes which reduce the actual wages, plus costs of living are much higher so your dollars don't go nearly as far. If if you really want to carry it to an extreme, I could move from SW MO to San Francisco where one of my relatives lives. Yes, I would get paid more as I would gross about 15% more but I would actually net about the same or even a little less due to the taxes being much higher. I would also see my costs of living go up by about 250% and I would end up with a lot less money left over at the end of the month. You really do have to crunch the numbers...ALL of the numbers.
No, St. Charles County is not where the money is.
Do you realize that St. Louis County is almost 1 million in population? Maybe we should call that a city.
And St. Louis County includes Ladue, Clayton, Frontenac, Huntleigh, Town and Country, Chesterfield, etc. That's where the money is. Serious money.
St. Charles County has some money and is still the fastest growing county in the MSA. But it is not where all the money is by a long shot. St. Charles County does not have the poor areas that St. Louis County has in North St. Louis County which brings down per capita income averages.
St. Louis County is the biggest economic engine in the State of Missouri.
Do you realize that St. Louis County is almost 1 million in population? Maybe we should call that a city.
And St. Louis County includes Ladue, Clayton, Frontenac, Huntleigh, Town and Country St. Charles County does not have the poor areas that St. Louis County has in North St. Louis County which brings down per capita income averages.
St. Louis County is the biggest economic engine in the State of Missouri.
St. Louis County has a population over 1 million people based on 2014 census estimates.
It's the most populous county in the state.
It has the highest per capita income of any county in the state.
"Economy[edit]
As of 2009, the largest employment sectors in St. Louis County are education and health (25.2%), trade and transportation (19.6%), and professional business services (12.7%).[45] The county also has the highest per capita income in the state of Missouri ($49,727), and nearly one-fourth of the state workforce is employed in St. Louis County,[46] but it accounts for 27% of the state's wages. It is home to the eighth-strongest market for technology hiring, and the world's largest concentration of plant science Ph.D.'s.[47] The St. Louis County Economic Council is the economic development agency of St. Louis County, and it is operated under the authority of the St. Louis County government.[48] Among the largest employers in the county are Boeing (16,000 employees), Washington University in St. Louis (13,200 employees), and SSM Healthcare (12,400 employees).[45] As of 2013, Express Scripts has approximately 4,500 employees, with a planned expansion of 1,500 jobs to be added over the next five years.[49]"
Unemployment in St. Louis County is well below the national rate of 7.7% (November 2012) at 6.5% (October); for monthly unemployment numbers since June 2012, see below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis_County,_Missouri"
And just to compare per capita income for St. Louis County to some random state, I dunno, New Mexico for example I would say St. Louis County compares very favorably:
And just to compare per capita income for St. Louis County to some random state, I dunno, New Mexico for example I would say St. Louis County compares very favorably:
I phrased "OMG if that's the case.." as a reaction of surprise, not sarcasm. And of course you feel compelled to immediately attack my home state. "Missouri nice" at its finest once again.
Take it easy, breezy, I'm not on the attack.
I feel honored to live in the most populous and wealthiest county in the Show-Me State.
Maybe someday soon I can join a Masonic Lodge and really live the dream.
I phrased "OMG if that's the case.." as a reaction of surprise, not sarcasm. And of course you feel compelled to immediately attack my home state. "Missouri nice" at its finest once again.
Take it easy, breezy, I'm not on the attack.
I feel honored to live in the most populous and wealthiest county in the Show-Me State.
Maybe someday soon I can join a Masonic Lodge and really live the dream.
Just keep looking for those fit people, eventually you will find them. You are obviously "New Mexico passive/aggressive."
I'm not even going to bother regurgitating the points that other posters have made. That said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyover_Country
Drive from points westward into St. Louis especially on I-44 and that is glaringly obvious.
Hah, you must have a better eye. I-44 is one of the few thruways that doesn't pass through impoverished areas. Maybe McRee Town? That's all I can think of, and most of that neighborhood has been rebuilt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyover_Country
Getting paid more doesn't result in a better standard of living as higher nominal wage areas have higher taxes which reduce the actual wages, plus costs of living are much higher so your dollars don't go nearly as far. If if you really want to carry it to an extreme, I could move from SW MO to San Francisco where one of my relatives lives.
But we're not comparing SW MO to the Bay Area. This is an StL thread. A 5-minute stat search made this easy.
The cost of living is 3.8% higher in metro StL than the Springfield area, yet the wages are 14k higher in StL.
Unemployment is only 4.3% in StL. It is 5.3% in the Springfield area.
Stats for KC are similar to StL. Considering these stats and the population of both metros, it should be clear that StL and KC drive the Missouri economy.
This is not to disparage any area of the state either. I have spent years living in both SW MO and StL. SW MO was a great place to live and the people are good. But I harbor no illusion about where the biggest economic producers are in Missouri. And returning to the original point...larger production = larger share of taxes.
You might mention, as MUTGR noted, that we should only consider the City of St. Louis. But then we must consider that the City is still the center of cultural institutions, education, and transportation for the metro. And relative to its size, it has a large proportion of jobs. These things are central to this region's prosperity and standard-of-living. So NO, I don't believe the state would be better off without StL City.
One has to also look at how well certain specific job related sectors are performing in these "low cost areas." Most can't retain specialized human capital in many cases, as it is very mobile in the 21st century economy, even with remote working becoming quite common. Therefore, there are still clusters of high job growth metros that do have higher cost of living, but are also creative magnets that draw in most of the venture capital and investment dollars. I live in a "low cost" area right now, Louisville metro area, due to employment reasons, but it has far more amenities than SW MO does with nominal differences in cost of living. That is just one example.
I work in the largest (non-governmental) sector of the economy, healthcare. It's fully a sixth of the national economy and in the vast majority of the country is the largest employment and economic sector and provides many of the best-paying and most stable jobs in most places. No, it isn't a get-rich-quick field for more than the very rare person, but it is much more representative of the economy of the country as a whole than, say, some little tiny VC-funded startup in southern California.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil
Hah, you must have a better eye. I-44 is one of the few thruways that doesn't pass through impoverished areas. Maybe McRee Town? That's all I can think of, and most of that neighborhood has been rebuilt.
Have you ever driven through St. Louis on I-44? Once you hit where the old gasometers were at the city limits it's very cruddy with a bunch of abandoned and semi-abandoned buildings until you get right to downtown. They cleaned up downtown a bunch since the 1980s crack days but a handful of blocks out it is still pretty tough looking. I-70 is a little better since you are below grade for a while and then pass by the airport. I-64 (oops, "Highway Farty") is about the same as I-70.
Quote:
But we're not comparing SW MO to the Bay Area. This is an StL thread. A 5-minute stat search made this easy.
The cost of living is 3.8% higher in metro StL than the Springfield area, yet the wages are 14k higher in StL.
Unemployment is only 4.3% in StL. It is 5.3% in the Springfield area.
Stats for KC are similar to StL. Considering these stats and the population of both metros, it should be clear that StL and KC drive the Missouri economy.
This is not an apples to apples comparison.
1. Cost of living depends strongly on what you are looking for in housing. If you want a nice 3000 square foot 4 bedroom house out on 10 acres within 20 minutes of downtown Springfield, you can get that easily and pay $250-300k for it. Getting that 20 minutes from downtown St. Louis would be way more than simply 5% more expensive, it would likely be about 1000% more expensive (a few million bucks) if you can even do it.
2. The official U3 unemployment numbers are a great case of "lying with statistics" as working-aged able-bodied people who haven't worked for more than 6 months are no longer included in the calculations as are people who are working part-time jobs instead of full-time jobs they would prefer. The real unemployment figures require a lot of calculations using numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website and essentially require you to calculate the labor force participation rate for non-college-aged people who are not disabled, institutionalized, or most importantly, retired plus add in the "want to work full time but can't" people from the U6 rate. (Pre-calculated BLS figures for labor force participation rate simply count people 16 and over, which counts a lot of retirees as "unemployed.")
3. Larger cities also tend to consume the bulk of the tax money of the state as well. Personally, I'd let the counties and the non-county autonomous area of St. Louis fund themselves and we'd see just how much money St. Louis proper really takes in versus what it spends.
Quote:
You might mention, as MUTGR noted, that we should only consider the City of St. Louis. But then we must consider that the City is still the center of cultural institutions, education, and transportation for the metro. And relative to its size, it has a large proportion of jobs. These things are central to this region's prosperity and standard-of-living. So NO, I don't believe the state would be better off without StL City.
I personally value things such as the nearly all rural (and generally donated) state parks much more highly as cultural institutions than I would something like the St. Louis Art Museum. Yes, I've been through the art museum and appreciate it but I much more appreciate the vast network of state parks and personally find them much more worthwhile and accessible to many more Missourians than a few institutions in two relatively small areas of the state. I don't value Bi-State buses and Metrolink (or KCATA) one iota, they have zero worth to me as I furnish my own transportation with an automobile like the vast majority of the state does. Therefore all of the money spent on publicly-funded mass transit is near worthless and it would be far better spent on something like widening I-70 to six lanes like has been proposed since 20+ years ago as that would actually benefit more Missourians rather than giving Clay Chastain his light rail funding in KCMO. Or for that matter, improving I-44 would be a good idea as well as that is another major artery of commerce in the state. (I wouldn't sink a bunch of money into I-29, I-35, or I-49 as I've driven all of them, and I-29 and I-49/US 71 extensively, and they are simply not that busy very far "out of town" to justify it.) The main state institution of higher education isn't even anywhere close to St. Louis, it is two hours west in Columbia. St. Louis has UMSL which is largely a commuter school. Ditto with KC, they have the very much a commuter school in UMKC. Yes there is Washington University and St. Louis University but those are far less relevant than the University of Missouri system, or even a second-tier institution like (Southwest) Missouri State University due to the fact they are very expensive and fairly small private schools.
Therefore I don't buy the fact that St. Louis and KCMO are the end-all be-all in the state and thus worthy of the rest of the state propping them up with tax dollars.
I thought the "fit" people (a relative adjective taking into consideration the geographic area) live in STL City and not the county? Based on the posts of many locals/long timers, I thought that County dwellers were just ignorant fat ****s that ate at Applebee's and the Pasta House all the time?
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.
