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.
Phoenix has a less-than-stellar reputation mainly because of Joe Arpaio, the immigration controversy, and the right-wing troglodytes that dominate the legislature. This is all very unfortunate because Phoenix as a whole is a nice place to live.
Unemployment is high all over the country right now. It's the national-global economy, not because Phoenix has a high population of older people or because of all the big trucks.
What a ridiculous writing of babble.
Who are you kidding?
About the only thing going in favor of PHX right now is Sheriff Arpaio for his tough stance on illegals, and he has actually made strides to do something about the problem. He might come across as a redneck sometimes and I don't care much for that aspect of him but at least he is more action than talk - more than I can say about John McCain.
Employment is better in many locations than in PHX. Growth is stagnant, unemployment is high, and more people want to leave than move in anymore. Lots of people are staying because they are stuck there. Hopefully I won't be of them.
Otherwise PHX has nothing going for it. Look at the poll response - only 2 people picked PHX for most important state capital. That's pathetic! America's 5th biggest city ranks very low among lots of people around the nation - even lower than many places half our size.
Face it, PHX is boring! It has nothing to offer that is fit for a city our size.
Sure we've tried to bring in major-league sports and light rail, but hardly anyone attends the games and the novelty of light rail has worn off after only a year in operation. I bet all the major-league sports will be moved out and the trains shut down in the near future.
What sports are the majority of people in PHX interested in? High-school football and NASCAR. It's an overgrown small town and it will always be that way.
Yea I'm not sure why people are voting for cities like Albany or Sacramento. The OP said that this isn't based off the power of the states the cities are in. Just the power/influence of the cities themselves. Atlanta & Boston are the two clear winners here in my opinion, with cities like Denver, Austin, Phoenix, and Raleigh (just because of the Research Triangle) coming up behind them.
Yeah, I would completely agree. Oklahoma City and Nashville might get an honorable mention. But, between all those cities, it's hard to say which is "more important," because they all excel in different areas. Austin is quickly becoming a music mecca for musicians and tourist a like, and not to mention their film and tech industry (Dell is based out of Austin). Phoenix has the largest population and possibly the largest GDP our of the remaining cities mentioned. Raleigh, as tmac mentioned, is in the Research Triangle which is a pretty big deal. So which is more important? Population, media/entertainment, or research? I don't know to be honest. Also, for me Denver seems to be the dark horse in this race. I really don't know why or how, but I'm sure someone can make compelling argument for Denver.
Anyways, I guess I'll have to go with Austin for third for purely bias reasons. (hey, at least I'm honest) That, and Austin innovation can produce stuff like this:
Yeah, I would completely agree. Oklahoma City and Nashville might get an honorable mention. But, between all those cities, it's hard to say which is "more important," because they all excel in different areas. Austin is quickly becoming a music mecca for musicians and tourist a like, and not to mention their film and tech industry (Dell is based out of Austin). Phoenix has the largest population and possibly the largest GDP our of the remaining cities mentioned. Raleigh, as tmac mentioned, is in the Research Triangle which is a pretty big deal. So which is more important? Population, media/entertainment, or research? I don't know to be honest. Also, for me Denver seems to be the dark horse in this race. I really don't know why or how, but I'm sure someone can make compelling argument for Denver.
Anyways, I guess I'll have to go with Austin for third for purely bias reasons. (hey, at least I'm honest) That, and Austin innovation can produce stuff like this:
Sacramento and Austin are importantly politically, as they are the center of government for two states that have trillion dollar economies.
How much influence can Sacramento or Austin have on their respective economies considering that the dormant Commerce Clause prohibits states from enacting legislation that burdens interstate commerce? Basically, state governments are the b*tches of the federal government. State legislatures can pass laws regulating duck hunt season, pass laws setting a minimum drinking age*, and pass laws saying that all 9th Grade students have to take chemistry, but once they attempt to regulate economic affairs, they get smacked down by Congress. The fact that Sacramento is a state capital does not make it important in the way that Washington, DC is important.
*Congress even lays the smack down on state legislatures when it comes to this. Even though the federal government technically can't stop a state from eliminating a minimum drinking age all together, they can play chicken with the states and withhold their federal dollars until they act right. This goes to show that Sacramento, despite being the capital of the state with the nation's largest economy, really has less control over its state's economy than Washington.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 09-15-2010 at 11:44 AM..
If we're talking about state capitals, can you really include Durham or other cities in the metropolitan area with Raleigh? Other wise, wouldn't Minneapolis-St Paul or Seattle-Olympia be up for debate?
Even though the federal government technically can't stop a state from eliminating a minimum drinking age all together, they can play chicken with the states and withhold their federal dollars until they act right.
They did that to Louisiana for a long time when the state wouldn't raise their drinking age to 21.
If we're talking about state capitals, can you really include Durham or other cities in the metropolitan area with Raleigh? Other wise, wouldn't Minneapolis-St Paul or Seattle-Olympia be up for debate?
I guess we could include Minneapolis-St.Paul since they're often referred to as being together: $193.947B.
I guess we'd be delving into some grey areas if we try to include all these areas within the metro. I suppose I combined Raleigh-Durham because they're so often combined with one another. If left to its own devices, Raleigh's GDP drops to a less-than-impressive $53.464B.
Boston. I see the Atlanta cheerleaders are out in full force.
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.
(hey, at least I'm honest) That, and Austin innovation can produce stuff like this:
