HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 5, 2018, 7:01 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
It would be better if we could get some PPP numbers instead of nominal GDP numbers. Nominal numbers over inflate California's GDP (especially in places like San Francisco). All these people making comparisons between people in San Fran and the rest of the country need to take into account just how much more San Fran costs than the rest of the country. Calling someone who makes $100,000 in San Fran better off than someone who makes $90,000 in Atlanta would be ridiculous for instance because the later individual could be living in a mansion while the former probably couldn't even afford a house at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 5, 2018, 7:06 PM
tablemtn tablemtn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 871
To be a bit more cynical, this means that California has even less excuse for its various failings. Many areas of the state look downright ramshackle. Driving through the central valley or the areas southeast of San Diego or parts of the inland empire can be a very depressing experience, to say nothing of the homelessness crisis, dismal schools, and other social ills. It goes from something understandable to something almost inexcusable - "You have such vast wealth, and THIS is the society you produced? Shame on you."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 5, 2018, 7:25 PM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is offline
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: all over
Posts: 2,301
It's bc so much of the money is wasted on shit like pensions (for people who have often moved out of state after retiring). For instance the city of LA spends over 20 percent of its entire budget on pensions alone. If that wasn't a factor we could have immaculate streets or house every single homeless person.

@Browntown foh. Ain't nobody paying a mansion in Atlanta on a 90k salary. Ask any of the ATL (or Houston or Dallas or Miami) posters, nice neighborhoods are expensive nowadays in all the biggest cities in the SE.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 5, 2018, 7:26 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
To be a bit more cynical, this means that California has even less excuse for its various failings. Many areas of the state look downright ramshackle. Driving through the central valley or the areas southeast of San Diego or parts of the inland empire can be a very depressing experience, to say nothing of the homelessness crisis, dismal schools, and other social ills. It goes from something understandable to something almost inexcusable - "You have such vast wealth, and THIS is the society you produced? Shame on you."
California is one of the top 5 most unequal states in the US and would be one of the most unequal countries if it were a country (worst than most 3rd world countries). The tech boom gets all the headlines, but the average Californian isn't seeing any of that money. Even worse all that wealth in the hands of the few drives up prices which hurts the average person even more.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 5, 2018, 8:52 PM
Jonesy55 Jonesy55 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
It would be better if we could get some PPP numbers instead of nominal GDP numbers. Nominal numbers over inflate California's GDP (especially in places like San Francisco). All these people making comparisons between people in San Fran and the rest of the country need to take into account just how much more San Fran costs than the rest of the country. Calling someone who makes $100,000 in San Fran better off than someone who makes $90,000 in Atlanta would be ridiculous for instance because the later individual could be living in a mansion while the former probably couldn't even afford a house at all.
I don't think any country does PPP adjustments for internal sub-divisions like states, provinces or regions, the data you'd need for that only seems to exist at national levels.

If you do have areas which are much more or less expensive than the national average as many countries do them that makes it a bit difficult to draw conclusions on living standards based on state/regional GDP/capita.

And anyway of course GDP per capita isn't the same as average or median incomes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 5, 2018, 9:37 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesy55 View Post
I don't think any country does PPP adjustments for internal sub-divisions like states, provinces or regions, the data you'd need for that only seems to exist at national levels.
They wouldn't call it PPP since that is based on exchange rates, but obviously cost of living factors are routinely calculated for different cities and regions.

Here's an example showing just how expensive California is compared to the rest of the country.

https://www.missourieconomy.org/indi...ost_of_living/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 5, 2018, 10:12 PM
Reverberation's Avatar
Reverberation Reverberation is offline
disorient yourself?
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Diaspora
Posts: 4,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
To be a bit more cynical, this means that California has even less excuse for its various failings. Many areas of the state look downright ramshackle. Driving through the central valley or the areas southeast of San Diego or parts of the inland empire can be a very depressing experience, to say nothing of the homelessness crisis, dismal schools, and other social ills. It goes from something understandable to something almost inexcusable - "You have such vast wealth, and THIS is the society you produced? Shame on you."
I heard a good lecture on this a while ago. Back in the mid 20th century, when California was a much much more conservative place, the state invested in higher ed and massive infrastructure projects. The population still benefits from those today, despite the state abandoning, say, dams for minnow habitats. The public universities have been able to withstand the rot - for now due to an influx of out of state and foreign students pumping money into them. Lower level public schools have been obliterated since the 80’s. When I lived in the Bay Area in the 90’s, the public school situation was not unlike New Orleans. As a result, the states wealth is concentrated around the big universities along the coast where hyper profitable industries reside. As a Texan and former resident of CA, it is effectively rural Mississippi or Massachusetts depending on which side of I-5 you are visiting.
__________________
RT60
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 5, 2018, 10:51 PM
Jonesy55 Jonesy55 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
They wouldn't call it PPP since that is based on exchange rates, but obviously cost of living factors are routinely calculated for different cities and regions.
Not necessarily, all the Eurozone countries have the same exchange rate with the US$ but all of those countries have different PPP rates based on cost differences between those countries (eg, Slovakia is cheaper than Finland so Slovakian GDP per capita gets boosted more when looking at PPP compared with Finnish GDP per capita).

But there are no different PPP exchange rates for regions within those countries even though costs might also vary a lot internally (eg Paris being a lot more expensive than Brittany).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 6, 2018, 1:24 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubu View Post
California is weird it has a lot of white trash and a lot of rich people. I think that's why someone would think that state has faild.
So, basically it’s the US. And yeah, some areas of California are as crazy isolated as any area in the country. Especially in a lot of agricultural areas where there’s an acute feeling of lawlessness.

Last edited by ocman; May 6, 2018 at 1:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted May 6, 2018, 1:38 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Yes!

Passenger rail, intercity rail, construction of the interstate highway. Federal dollars went toward creating huge public housing systems, other infrastructure..
Flying affordable by the rich alone, family housing with a single bathroom for a family of 4 or more, in 1950 the Interstate Highway system may have been a fever dream for FUTURE President Eisenhower but most intercity highway travel was on 2 lane roads, very few Americans had passports or had been abroad on vacation (vast numbers obviously had fought the recent wars), luxury items given away on the new TV game shows included home freezers but home air-conditioning, even in Florida was still a dream.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted May 6, 2018, 1:41 AM
dubu's Avatar
dubu dubu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: bend oregon
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocman View Post
So, basically it’s the US. And yeah, some areas of California are as crazy isolated as any area in the country. Especially in a lot of agricultural areas where there’s an acute feeling of lawlessness.
I might be moving back to a place were all the roads are dirt. It's ether a nice rich city that I don't have freedom or a place where it's poor and you have a lot of freedom.
I'm not very good with stress
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted May 6, 2018, 1:56 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverberation View Post
despite the state abandoning, say, dams for minnow habitats.
More mythology. Why don't people check actual facts before posting?

Quote:
11 projects battling for Proposition 1 water bond funding

Proposition 1 (of 2014) included $2.7 billion for water storage projects, but the 11 proposals would cost $5.7 billion.

Six of the projects include new or enlarged dams. Others are “conjunctive use,” which typically involves putting excess surface water into the ground when available, and pumping it out later when needed.

There are rules on how the money can be allocated. No more than half the cost of a project can be funded, and only “public benefits” can be funded. Public benefits have been defined as ecosystem benefits, water quality, flood control, emergency response — providing water in a drought, for instance — and recreation.

Those parts of projects that increase water supply for municipal or agricultural users cannot be paid for with Proposition 1 funds.

Each of the applicants put an estimate on the public benefit that would result from a state investment. The next step is for Water Commission staff to adjust those numbers, which will be finalized in March.

More ranking of the projects will come in April and May, and by June it may be clearer which will be funded. However the Water Commission has until the end of 2021 to actually allocate the funds.

Here are the 11 projects, ranked from the one seeking the most money to the one seeking the least:

- SITES PROJECT

The Sites Project Authority is seeking $1.7 billion for a $5.2 billion project to build Sites Reservoir . . . .

- TEMPERANCE FLAT RESERVOIR PROJECT

The San Joaquin Valley Water Infrastructure Authority is seeking $1.3 billion for a $2.7 billion project to build a new 319-foot high dam on the San Joaquin River, upstream from the existing Friant Dam . . . .

- PACHECO RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT

The Santa Clara Valley Water District is seeking $485 million . . . . The project would replace an existing 100-foot-tall dam on Pacheco Creek, between Gilroy and Los Banos off Highway 152, with a new 319-foot dam just upstream. Storage would increase from 6,000 acre-feet to 140,000 acre-feet.

- CHINO BASIN CONJUNCTIVE USE ENVIRONMENTAL WATER STORAGE/EXCHANGE PROGRAM

The Inland Empire Utilities Agency is seeking $480 million for . . . an underground storage project southeast of Ontario in San Bernadino County that would draw water from local wastewater treatment plants and a contaminated groundwater basin, treat it, and put it in the ground . . . .

- THE TULARE LAKE STORAGE AND FLOODWATER PROTECTION PROJECT

Semitropic Water Storage District is seeking $452 million for a . . . project (that) would capture excess Kings River winter flows and transport the water to a new surface reservoir adjacent to the California Aqueduct. Water could then— depending on need — go either into the aqueduct to reduce imports from the delta, or into Semitropic’s groundwater storage bank farther south in Kern County.

- LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT

The Contra Costa Water District is seeking $434 million for a $795 million project to enlarge Los Vaqueros Reservoir from 160,000 acre-feet to 275,000 acre-feet . . . .

- SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY AGRICULTURE AND HABITAT LANDS RECYCLED WATER

The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District is seeking $304 million for a (project that) would put treated wastewater into a groundwater bank in southern Sacramento County, between Elk Grove and the Consumnes River. The plan would irrigate 1,600 acres of agriculture, and improve groundwater conditions and habitat. However up to 32,000 acre-feet would be available for use in dry years.

- WILLOW SPRINGS WATER BANK CONJUNCTIVE USE PROJECT

The Southern California Water Bank Authority is seeking $306 million for a (project that) would expand an existing Southern California groundwater bank from 500,000 to 1 million acre-feet, to store State Water Project water in extremely wet years.

- PURE WATER SAN DIEGO PROGRAM NORTH CITY PHASE 1

The city of San Diego Public Utilities Department is seeking $219 million for a (project that) would pump waste water to a new treatment plant, then pump the treated water into existing Miramar Reservoir. Proponents say it would reduce exports from the delta by 4,000 acre-feet per year.

- KERN FAN GROUNDWATER STORAGE PROJECT

The Irvine Ranch Water District/Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District is seeking $86 million for a . . . (project tht) would expand an existing groundwater bank in Kern County, about 15 miles west of Bakersfield. Water would be pumped from the California Aqueduct onto 1,500 acres of recharge basins to let the water seep into the ground for use later.

- CENTENNIAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

The Nevada Irrigation District is seeking $12 million for a . . . new 110,000-acre-foot reservoir and Sites are the only projects north of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta . . . .
http://www.montereyherald.com/articl...NEWS/180109931

This year CA voters will vote on an additional 8.9 billion water bond in November.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted May 6, 2018, 2:00 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
California is one of the top 5 most unequal states in the US and would be one of the most unequal countries if it were a country (worst than most 3rd world countries). The tech boom gets all the headlines, but the average Californian isn't seeing any of that money. Even worse all that wealth in the hands of the few drives up prices which hurts the average person even more.
The average citizen of San Francisco certainly is. The citizens of the Central Valley may not but they vote against most things that support the Tech industry.

Quote:
Apr 22, 2017 - San Francisco and San Mateo counties have the highest limits in the Bay Area — and among the highest such numbers in the country. A family of four with an income of $105,350 per year is considered “low income.” A $65,800 annual income is considered “very low” for a family the same size, and $39,500 is “extremely low.”
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/...ed-low-income/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted May 6, 2018, 4:49 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
To be a bit more cynical, this means that California has even less excuse for its various failings. Many areas of the state look downright ramshackle. Driving through the central valley or the areas southeast of San Diego or parts of the inland empire can be a very depressing experience, to say nothing of the homelessness crisis, dismal schools, and other social ills. It goes from something understandable to something almost inexcusable - "You have such vast wealth, and THIS is the society you produced? Shame on you."
The bolded part applies to the whole United States.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted May 6, 2018, 11:53 AM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is offline
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,185
Guys one needs to take the 1% into the equation, who earn more than the other 99%, and which heavily skews the US more than elsewhere. This is why rustbelt areas measure as 'richer' than Switzerland, or why Detroit is one of the 'richest' cities in the world, ahead of Moscow (or San Diego for that matter) due to its automobile billionaires. It's also why Japan, Benelux or Scandinavia live so well with some of the richest lifestyles in the world (partly due to having far less billionaires per capita, and thus more liquid money in the economy for the next few centuries), but don't measure as well on paper.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted May 6, 2018, 2:07 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Definitely. We had transit, downtowns, public spaces. The average American had access to all this.
We have all of this now. Since the 1950s the U.S. has urbanized. In 1950 40% of the U.S. population was rural. The South reached majority urban in 1950, the NE is was in the 1880s. Since you mentioned Phoenix - AZ was 55% urban in 1950, today Arizona is 90%. Today the West is the most urbanized region in the U.S. coming in at 90%. In 1950 it was 69% urban.

Average Americans have never had better access to those things you mentioned.

-Off topic, but transit is interesting. It better served the average American in our old urban centers when it was privately operated. Think L.A.'s street car system of the 1930s. Once those companies began to fail [due to technological advances and consumers embracing automobiles], government took them over and turned them into expensively operated inefficient subsidized metropolitan transit agencies that ended services.

Quote:
The U.S. in 1950 probably had the same quality of public sphere as Western Europe. We've since gotten much wealthier, but the public sphere has largely disappeared.
Is there any information about this? A link or source? Or is this subjective?

Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Yes!

Passenger rail, intercity rail, construction of the interstate highway. Federal dollars went toward creating huge public housing systems, other infrastructure..
We have all of this today. Federal dollars are being spent at record amounts on public projects all over the place. Is it enough? Probably not, but was it ever enough?

Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
We had a better public sphere in 1950, when we had a fraction of our present population. Not an excuse
Is there any verifiable evidence to this statement? And does it matter when the overall quality of life in the U.S. is light years ahead of where it was in 1950? Just about every important metric has greatly improved since then. Education attainment [college educated used to be around 6% in 1950!], life expectancy, literacy rates, racial tension, segregation, income levels, technological advance, air travel and overall connectedness and so on.

The 'public sphere' of Washington has changed. I can no longer ride my horse and tie it up to a hitch outside of the Capitol. Technology changes cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted May 6, 2018, 2:23 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
The 'public sphere' of Washington has changed. I can no longer ride my horse and tie it up to a hitch outside of the Capitol. Technology changes cities.
And if, for example, you wanted to drive to Baltimore, as my family often did in those days, you wouldn't take 2-lane Rt.29. You'd take either of 2 multilane highways that connect the cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted May 6, 2018, 2:41 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
A lot being posted here is nonsense from people who believe what is made up in the media. As someone who lives both in "high tax" and wealthy CA and lower tax Arizona, I can tell you the public infrastructure and general care of the poor is much better in CA whose wealth makes it all possible. In the Bay Area we have a high speed transit system (BART) that is constantly being enlarged and will soon connect the downtowns of cities 50 miles apart (SF and San Jose). Already those downtown are connected by regular commuter rail (CalTrain). We have multiple soaring bridges inlcuding the SF-Oakland Bay and Golden Gate Bridges but also the Richmond-San Rafael, the San Mateo, the Dumbarton and the bridsge spanning the mouth of the Sacramento River.

In San Francisco, freeways that divided enighborhoods have been removed and surface boulevards, which are quite attractive have been built.

We have glorious parks inclduing Golden Gate Park which contains 2 new museums as well as other recent improvement and Presio which has been vastly improved by the undergrounding of freeways crossing its space.

San Francisco has 4 entirely new major museums (the deYoung, the Asian Art Museum, the Modern, and the Academy of Science) and 1 whose size has been doubled (the Legion of Honor).

And CA has spent hundreds of billions of $ since 1989 on seismic safety. Most Bay Area public buildings have been improved in some way. San Francisco City Hall and some other public buildings have been put on "base isolation" systems (springs). Other buildings have incorportated other technolgy. Every one of California's hospitals is being either rebuilt entirely or extensively retrofitted so it can continue to function after the "maximum anticipated earthquake".

In many ways the public realm now is much better than in the 1950s--and I actually remember it then.

As for the poor, all CA counties provide "general assistance payments" but San Francisco in particular spends over $30,000 per person per year on its homeless population whp nevetheless inhabit its streets largely because what it doesn't have is the will to force them to do otherwise. Most of those resistant to help are either mentally ill (for whom there is free mental health care available) or susbtance addicted (for whom there is free treatment available). But as you can lead a horse to water but not make it drink, you can offer a metnally ill, heroin addicted homeless street person and the services in the world but you often have to make him use them which SF won't do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted May 6, 2018, 2:56 PM
JoeMusashi JoeMusashi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 161
I think some are going to have to come to the realization that America will never demand the sort of rail service dreamt of here. Like it or not, we took a different path with the automobile and now our entire way of life is built around that, aside from a handful of urban areas. Battery and fuel efficient cars as well as self-driving technology is what people are going to want. It gives them the independence that Americans crave along with a better environment, cheaper commutes, and perhaps the comfort benefits of mass transit if self-driving pans out.

America is too decentralized and not dense enough to have an effective rail network like in Japan, China, or Europe. It would work out on the Northeast corridor and maybe a few other places. But look at the debacle in California and imagine that for the rest of the country. If we are going to have to fund major highways anyway, for trucks, may as well start looking into self-driving improvements when it comes to new construction. That and improving our airports.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted May 6, 2018, 3:17 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
We have all of this now.
What? Are you living in 2018?

Where in SW US 2018 are metropolitan residents typically shopping/congregating on main streets and taking transit for their daily needs?

Where in SW US 1950 were metropolitan residents NOT typically shopping/congregating on main streets and taking transit for their daily needs?

And I don't understand the rest of your post. You talking about % urbanization and educational attainment, which has nothing to do with anything we're talking about.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:53 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.