Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek
"change in unemployment rate in 2015"
So a city (like Austin) that has been at (over) full employment for years, and stays low while absorbing a huge population increase gets ranked lower than a city climbing out of the shitter?
Right.
|
Dude... you zeroed in on 1 of the 5 factors. They also considered ratio of general fund balance to expenditures; ratio of pension contributions to total government-wide revenues; change in unemployment rate in 2015 and change in property values in 2015. If you want to scoff at the ranking then you should't cherrypick %20 of the factors behind what you have an issue with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek
Btw, which of those circles was Austin? Edit: Weird, the names weren't showing up for me before.
|
I originally sourced their image which turned out to be a transparent PNG. I screenshot the website and uploaded it to IMGR so you could see the names.
I obviously think that Atlanta is a great pick (certainly better than Austin.) However, looking at this is a reminder that the Dallas metro is a juggernaut and rests on the back of 22 fortune 500 companies. You don't need to depend on population growth or attracting a lot of people to relocate. There are literally 5 million more people in that metro area than Austin.
This is a huge investment and there is much less risk in Dallas. Their council is certainly more business friendly.
Threaded Mode