• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2008 Best Cities

Originally posted by: Riverhound777
Why is Sac showing up on all these lists lately, did they pay someone?
Click to expand...

All the places on this list have a high number of jobs and a low cost of living. Of course, they have low costs of living because people leave them to go to nicer places. Who the hell wants to live in Houston?
 
Houston is higher rank than Austin? No way. The only thing Houston is better than Austin is housing is a little bit cheaper.
 
All of those lists are screwy. I remember seeing a list that someone produced about the best places to raise a family. Both NYC and LA were on the list. I think they were just basing their figures on city size....
 
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
From Kiplingers

No. 1: Houston

No. 2: Raleigh

No. 3: Omaha

No. 4: Boise

No. 5: Colorado Springs

No. 6: Austin

No. 7: Fayettville

No. 8: Sacramento

No. 9: Des Moines

No. 10: Provo
Click to expand...

LOL @ HOUSTON

srsly

definitely 5 & 6 are in top 10 list but no way in hell should Houston be on there. no "real" tourist attractions, major major major traffic, surprisingly high costs of entertaining (bars, movies, etc)

lol @ sacramento also

where is Portland?

 
Originally posted by: Svnla
Houston is higher rank than Austin? No way. The only thing Houston is better than Austin is housing is a little bit cheaper.
Click to expand...

also, this is only true if prices from the entire houston metroplex is averaged together

if metric is Rent/distance_from_city_center , then it would be at least even
 
I about crapped my pants when I saw Houston as number one. I live here too.

Now, if you look at the criteria in which they chose the cities, it does make sense. The oil industry is big down here and there are no shortage of jobs - which seemed to be the key indicator in this study.
 
Originally posted by: CPA
I about crapped my pants when I saw Houston as number one. I live here too.

Now, if you look at the criteria in which they chose the cities, it does make sense. The oil industry is big down here and there are no shortage of jobs - which seemed to be the key indicator in this study.
Click to expand...

Colo Springs is tougher to get a job in depending on your field. Lots of government jobs that require clearances and such which aren't always very simple to get.
 
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Riverhound777
Why is Sac showing up on all these lists lately, did they pay someone?
Click to expand...

I can only guess b/c it's a whole lot cheaper to live there now.
Click to expand...

It must be in Houston too, those places are both crapholes. This list is even more of a joke than these type of lists usually are.
 
According to Wikipedia those cities have a combined population of 12,843,868 people. Someone must like living there.

I see that no cities from New England or the Tri-State area made the list. Oh well.

IMO the city at the top of the list should be Chicago.
 
Originally posted by: E equals MC2
Where's Boston & NYC?
Click to expand...

cost of living. very few young people can live well in expensive cities like that. This has been true since well, before you were sucking your mother's teet.
 
Raleigh is alway sup there, makes a lot of sense.

Though, I about crapped myself thinking Fayetville was referring to "FayetNam," NC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top