T1B

Color me not surprised with today's announcement by the Brookings Institute which ranks the top 100 metro areas on their economic strength. Factors include, employment, average wages, housing prices, foreclosed homes, and Gross Metropolitan Product.

The Top 10 in order are:

1. San Antonio
2. Oklahoma City
3. Austin
4. Houston
5. Dallas
6. McAllen, TX
7. Little Rock, AR
8. Baton Rouge, LA
9. Tulsa, OK
10. Omaha, Neb


Not surprisingly all are red states.


The bottom 20:

81. Riverside, CA
82. Miami, FL
83. Las Vegas, NV
84. Los Angeles, CA
85. Grand Rapids, MI
86. Sacramento, CA
87. Oxnard, CA
88. Youngstown, OH-PA
89. Providence, RI-MA
90. Fresno, CA
91. Toledo, OH
92. Jacksonville, FL
93. Modesto, CA
94. Lakeland, FL
95. Palm Bay, FL
96. Bradenton, FL
97. Tampa, FL
98. Stockton, CA
99. Cape Coral, FL
100. Detroit, MI

Hmmmm. All Blue states in the last election.


Interesting, but not all that surprising.

Omaha's electoral vote went for Obama.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Obama gained majorities in most of those "top 10" cities you mentioned.

And yes, you are guilty of a whopper of a logical fallacy.

Yeah, a little closer look might be warranted. I'm no expert, but at first glance it appears to me that some of that top 10 are the more liberal-voting areas of red states, and some of the bottom 20 also seem to be more conservative-voting areas of liberal states.

Map view.

No, of course, it isn't surprising, LeftMarcus: Cali and Florida housing bubble, Michigan auto industry.

Regardless if your Omaha claim is correct, the city's listed are not just the cities themselves, but rather the metro areas.


For example Harris County (in which Houston is located) went slightly to Prez Hussein, but the surrounding counties, Ft Bend, Montgomery, Brazoria, Galveston, etc, were huge for wins on the red side. So when you add them up the metropolitan area was a Red win.


Clearly, this isn't just because of the vote for the last President. State and local policies make a huge part of this and again this just goes to show that those in Red states are doing much better.

Upon further research, it also appears that those rankings seem a little odd, considering their very own data.

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2009/0 ... nitor.aspx

A few metropolitan areas are beginning to showing signs of economic recovery, although none has completely recovered. McAllen is the only metropolitan area that saw growth in both employment and output during the first quarter of 2009. Employment also rose in New Haven and Baton Rouge, while output also increased in Seattle, Austin, Virginia Beach, Washington, Richmond, San Jose, and Riverside. Still, none of these metro areas has yet returned to its pre-recession levels of employment or output.

Furthermore, they are ranking the top 100 "Metropolitan areas". Obama won an overwhelming majority, across the entire country, if you take out the rural areas, which this ranking is doing.

How about a study of how rural communities are doing?

Wrong.


Prez Hussein may have won the inner city votes in some of these metro areas, but the vast majority of these metro areas went Red. The counties surrounding Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio are hardly rural.


And as I pointed out this likely has much more to do with state and local policies than it does federal policies. The fact that these cities reside inside generally red states is the reason they are much better off than the others. Every city operates under the same Federal guidelines, what sets them apart are the local and state wide regulations.


I would bet that rural areas in the red states are doing better than the rural areas in these same blue states. Again it is the local and state regulations that are different from one rural area to the next.

Wrong. Its a ridiculous assumption that state regulations have to do with it. Just look at the states they are saying are in trouble. For example, California, Florida, Michigan, New York. States that rely on tourism, banking and the automaking industry.

BSmack is right that you are simply jumping off on a fallacy. Correllation does not equate to causation. And its a pretty obvious one to see.

Also New York, California and Illinois are going to hit hard every time there is a major reccession and decreased consumer spending, nationwide, because all of the national advertising agencies are based in those locations and when spending is down, their major industries suffer. That' s got nothing to do with regulations, that's simply capitalism. They will do worse in a recession than elsewhere, and better in a strong economy. If/When the economy returns and housing once again skyrockets in California, does that mean failure for the red states? Of course not.

JayDuck wrote:Wrong. Its a ridiculous assumption that state regulations have to do with it. Just look at the states they are saying are in trouble. For example, California, Florida, Michigan, New York. States that rely on tourism, banking and the automaking industry.

Yes, lets not assume that govenrment spending and tax increases have anything to do with it. Big Government is the solution, not the problem.

you're a fuckin jerkoff.

Hey, whatever floats your boat. Its just a ridiculous argument in the first place. The argument here appears to be that Red states have it "right" because they aren't doing as badly in the poor economy.

If that's your definition of 'bode', then more power to ya. But, it's weak at best. If the choice is between doing better when things are good and not doing as badly when things are bad, I'll take the former.

Just like, in college football, would you rather win your conference in a down year, or win your conference when its the strongest?

Jsc810 wrote:Baton Rouge is 8th???

God help us all.

It must be true- Python is posting again

JayDuck wrote:The argument here appears to be that Red states have it "right" because they aren't doing as badly in the poor economy.

Clearly they do have it right. I don't see them going bankrupt.

JayDuck wrote:If the choice is between doing better when things are good and not doing as badly when things are bad, I'll take the former.

Where do you get that the blue states do better in good economic times? Make stuff up much? I have lived in blue states durring a boom time. Just because a unionized toll booth worker is making $75K per year doesn't mean the state is doing better than others. In fact that is a huge part of why this house of cards fell.

JayDuck wrote:Its a ridiculous assumption that state regulations have to do with it.

Yeah, that is why Cali pays the highest for their gas in the country.

JayDuck wrote:Just look at the states they are saying are in trouble. For example, California, Florida, Michigan, New York. States that rely on tourism, banking and the automaking industry.

Diversify your industry if you are so reliant on one thing.

JayDuck wrote:Just like, in college football, would you rather win your conference in a down year, or win your conference when its the strongest?

If you have to pay your players families housing, and your coaches give out cash to get them, and then profs allow everyone to take the same exam for the last 10 semesters, is that really winning?

Youngstown didn't suddenly become a shithole when Ohio went to Obama. It was a shithole all throughout the Bush Eras and way before.

PSUFAN wrote:Youngstown didn't suddenly become a shithole when Ohio went to Obama. It was a shithole all throughout the Bush Eras and way before.

I will take your word on that. But don't forget that the Metro area includes parts of Mercer and Lawerence Counties. Both of which are in western PA which has been blue for years.

Left Seater wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Youngstown didn't suddenly become a shithole when Ohio went to Obama. It was a shithole all throughout the Bush Eras and way before.

I will take your word on that. But don't forget that the Metro area includes parts of Mercer and Lawerence Counties. Both of which are in western PA which has been blue for years.

Jesus fucking Christ man, get over it. Your guy lost.

BSmack wrote:
Jesus fucking Christ man, get over it.

Sure looks like I am getting over.

Riverside, Fresno, Modesto and Stockton are blue?

Them are fightin' words, Bubba.

But of course all of their problems are directly caused by the libtards in Suckramento.

Not all the blame goes to "libtards" but then again you guys did elect your gov.

Dunno 'bout Riverside, Fresno and Modesto but yeah, I'd definitely expect Stockton to be blue. It's quite poverty stricken and loaded with minorities. Whole lotta social programs recipients in Stockton, and it's not exactly your typical red state Law & Order friendly city. The police are often under siege there.

Left Seater wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Youngstown didn't suddenly become a shithole when Ohio went to Obama. It was a shithole all throughout the Bush Eras and way before.

I will take your word on that. But don't forget that the Metro area includes parts of Mercer and Lawerence Counties. Both of which are in western PA which has been blue for years.

Youngstown's in OH. Sorry, bro - this one's a little flimsy.

BSmack wrote: Your guy lost.

we all lost.

PSUFAN wrote:

Left Seater wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Youngstown didn't suddenly become a shithole when Ohio went to Obama. It was a shithole all throughout the Bush Eras and way before.

I will take your word on that. But don't forget that the Metro area includes parts of Mercer and Lawerence Counties. Both of which are in western PA which has been blue for years.

Youngstown's in OH. Sorry, bro - this one's a little flimsy.

Never mind that Western PA is not exactly a hotbed of liberalism.

PSUFAN wrote:
Youngstown's in OH. Sorry, bro - this one's a little flimsy.

So is Cinci, but that doesn't mean that a big part of the metro area isn't in Kentucky. Ever connect flights thru Cincy? If you did you never were in the state of Ohio.

"Where is this Ohio you speak of ?"


Sincerely,

Youngstown is a small city - about 75k. It doesn't have a vast metro area. The nearest PA urban area is New Castle, about 30k. Neither of these towns are really very closely associated with Pittsburgh or Cleveland. They are rust belt towns...pretty rough and tumble, and definitely faded from a one time industry-fueled vitality. Neither were doing so well when industry started shuttering in the late 70s/early 80s. They haven't done very well since.

My point was that Ohio went for Bush in 2008, and for Obama in 2008. Things were tough during the Bush Eras, they definitely haven't suddenly become the tough towns they are under Obama. I think similar nuances are at work in the cities your post mentions. I just don't think there's much to the original point, although it is an interesting way to look at things.

Complete bullshit.

Oregon is as liberal as it comes and we have the second highest unemployment in the country.

PSU wrote:Ohio went for Bush in 2008, and for Obama in 2008.

Ohio should change its name to Sybil.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Left Seater wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:
Youngstown's in OH. Sorry, bro - this one's a little flimsy.

So is Cinci, but that doesn't mean that a big part of the metro area isn't in Kentucky. Ever connect flights thru Cincy? If you did you never were in the state of Ohio.

Well, no fucking shit.

Sincerely, the airport being next door to Churchill Downs.

So you must have gotten a 0/10 on wolfie's geography thread I guess? Or is 70 miles away "next door" in your book?

Oh, and instead of the typical tard reply, just lay down and post one of these. :doh:

Believe the Heupel wrote:Wow, how strange. States that are being hardest hit by an economic downturn didn't vote for a guy who claimed to have no knowledge of economic issues and had an economic advisor who claimed that we were all a bunch of whiny pussies for thinking the economy was going in the shitter.

That's some fine police work there, Lou.

Instead they voted for a guy who claimed to know about such things but has zero experience actually doing it.

BSmack wrote: Never mind that Western PA is not exactly a hotbed of liberalism.

Western PA may not be culturally liberal, but they are as solidly Democratic as anyone.

Mikey wrote:Riverside, Fresno, Modesto and Stockton are blue?

Them are fightin' words, Bubba.

But of course all of their problems are directly caused by the libtards in Suckramento.

Yeah, in large part, it is. Those are farming-heavy co
mmunities and the CA Dems recently cut irrigation water significantly to help some fish that lives in the delta. This retarded decision has left tens of thousands of acres of farmland fallow (which will drive up food prices) and cost CA thousands of jobs during the growing season in the middle of a horrid recession. Oh, and the loss of payroll tax, income tax and ultimately sales tax revenue is an awesome decision when your state is billions in the red.

OCmike wrote:Yeah, in large part, it is. Those are farming-heavy communities and the CA Dems recently cut irrigation water significantly to help some fish that lives in the delta.

Let me guess. And those fish in the delta can't be caught and eaten for consumption. Prolly a load of guppies?

IndyFrisco wrote:

OCmike wrote:Yeah, in large part, it is. Those are farming-heavy communities and the CA Dems recently cut irrigation water significantly to help some fish that lives in the delta.

Let me guess. And those fish in the delta can't be caught and eaten for consumption. Prolly a load of guppies?

You got it. It's some species of fish that lives in the waters between the river delta and SF Bay. Probably a Western Brown-bellied Mudskipper.

Howdy, mike.

Where the fukks my OCDM's HDC?

New meds musta made you lazy.

smackaholic wrote:Howdy, mike.

Where the fukks my OCDM's HDC?

New meds musta made you lazy.

Nah, it's just difficult to make the time when I'm washing my hands 57 times a day.

Well, that, and work went all Nazi on internet usage after discovering personal usage took up 70% of the internet bandwidth ftom all the dopes streaming music :raiseshand:

So I'm relegated to random internet bitching on the Bill Maas Superphone.

Goddamn nazi bastids.

Do those fukkers actually expect a majority of BW go towards real work?

I 'spose the micromanaging pricks went and blocked all the good pron sites too?