HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Midwest


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3101  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2019, 6:22 PM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum View Post
Anyone know what's going on in Phoenix and Miami? Florida in general?
Could be that homebuilding has slowed. Both are fairly reliant on homebuilding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3102  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2019, 10:55 PM
Rooster slayer Rooster slayer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: The Fresh Coast
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenmore View Post
no, you're completely right
For sure, did my time in the turnstiles during earlier booming decades.
__________________
The ones who love us best are the ones we'll lay to rest and visit their graves on holidays at best" - Paul Westerberg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3103  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2019, 11:16 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baronvonellis View Post
Yea, I agree. The IT techs I work with at a Fortune 500 company are constantly quitting every few weeks, and then they hire new people. Management has draconian policies that they are unwilling to change to make things more efficient and easier on the techs, and management constantly complains we don't accomplish enough while shackling us with dumb handicaps. I'm making 9% less than I did in 2016 and we got $0 bonus or raise this year, because the management constantly complains yet they do nothing to help out the techs do our jobs better. They are just happy to have a revolving door of IT workers as well, it's not only restaurants. I've asked management to give me some opportunities to help out with more advanced projects but wont let me do anything but basic stuff, I'm just a cog to them doing one little task, and as long as I do it ok they don't care about my career at all.
It's a vicious cycle. The issue is that actual transformation is extremely hard to pull off inside of a large division of a Fortune 500 type of company. We are currently going off of 2+ years of this and still have a long ways to go. When I worked at IBM, I knew many business transformation consultants, some of whom would go onto projects trying to change divisions of a Fortune 500 company - sometimes it would take 3-5 years to complete it. The issue is that some companies know this and are basically unwilling to take part in it because it's a pretty rough, painful, and long process. To transform also while getting all of your commitments done at the same time - really hard, and looks really easy until you have to do it. For us though, there was urgency from above to do it. However, the urgency came with hiring a few outsiders who called BS on parts of our process.

From my own experience..I am at management level, and if the people complaining are your direct bosses and not only people say 3 or 4 levels above you, then it's a weird position to be in. Being a middle manager is not necessarily a fun thing as you have people coming at you from all directions. What's going on is that they're (middle managers) probably getting pressure from above about how much they're delivering, but "secretly" know the problem is what you're saying. So in hopes of spurring you guys to do more work (maybe in the wrong way) they're expressing these things.

The thing you say about your salary sounds like crap though. Even around the recession, my salary never went down. It was always adjusted up slightly. The bonuses sucked, but I can't believe you get paid 9% less than you did in 2016. That's crazy. If the more upper levels of management are unwilling to change and they keep giving you guys crap, then I don't blame anyone for leaving. You should consider it if that's the case.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing

Last edited by marothisu; Jul 26, 2019 at 11:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3104  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2019, 2:52 PM
moorhosj moorhosj is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 511
Chicago: a tale of seven cities

Great article from Sun-Times today on demographic changes in the city broken into seven different pieces. It looks like this will be a running series, some good analysis in here.
  1. Central Area
  2. North Side
  3. Far West Side
  4. Southwest Side
  5. Far Southwest
  6. Far South Side
  7. South Lakefront
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3105  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2019, 3:02 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ Great find, I look forward to reading the whole series.

A quote from the article:

Quote:
Several trends are obvious:

The neighborhoods with the most positive indicators cluster along the north lakefront, as you’d expect.
More surprisingly, positive signs are apparent along most of the south lakefront all the way to 71st Street.
Chicago experienced a sharp turnaround after 2010. During the first decade of the century, downtown was the only part of the city to gain population. Everywhere else experienced declines, including the North Side, which lost almost 68,000 residents.
But, after 2010, most of the city recovered. Five of the seven sectors grew in population, including the south lakefront. Two didn’t.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3106  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2019, 6:04 PM
Baronvonellis Baronvonellis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 880
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
It's a vicious cycle. The issue is that actual transformation is extremely hard to pull off inside of a large division of a Fortune 500 type of company. We are currently going off of 2+ years of this and still have a long ways to go. When I worked at IBM, I knew many business transformation consultants, some of whom would go onto projects trying to change divisions of a Fortune 500 company - sometimes it would take 3-5 years to complete it. The issue is that some companies know this and are basically unwilling to take part in it because it's a pretty rough, painful, and long process. To transform also while getting all of your commitments done at the same time - really hard, and looks really easy until you have to do it. For us though, there was urgency from above to do it. However, the urgency came with hiring a few outsiders who called BS on parts of our process.

From my own experience..I am at management level, and if the people complaining are your direct bosses and not only people say 3 or 4 levels above you, then it's a weird position to be in. Being a middle manager is not necessarily a fun thing as you have people coming at you from all directions. What's going on is that they're (middle managers) probably getting pressure from above about how much they're delivering, but "secretly" know the problem is what you're saying. So in hopes of spurring you guys to do more work (maybe in the wrong way) they're expressing these things.

The thing you say about your salary sounds like crap though. Even around the recession, my salary never went down. It was always adjusted up slightly. The bonuses sucked, but I can't believe you get paid 9% less than you did in 2016. That's crazy. If the more upper levels of management are unwilling to change and they keep giving you guys crap, then I don't blame anyone for leaving. You should consider it if that's the case.
No my direct manager is totally on my side, and knows what they want to do is BS too. They are pressuring him to show results. It's more managers 2 to 3 levels above me, who have been here 30+ years that don't want to change. I don't envy his job though, with pressure from both sides.

Well I got laid off 2 years ago from another company due to a merger, and was making alot more there and I liked the job better. The company was alot better, it's too bad they got bought by another company. I took this job, and they wouldn't match my old salary but I needed a job. I've been looking for another job since, I've had several interviews but haven't gotten hired by anyone yet. Pretty much everyone I work with wants to quit. The pay is crap here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3107  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2019, 7:02 PM
bnk bnk is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 12,741
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...t-outpacing-us

July 29, 2019 12:24 PM |updated 26 minutes ago



Surprise: Chicago's job market outpacing the U.S.



The metro area now is gaining employment faster than the country as a whole, and faster than New York, L.A. and Denver. Is it a real shift or just a seasonal blip?






Greg Hinz  


Has metropolitan Chicago’s long-lagging economy finally turned a corner?

After years in which the job growth rate here lagged not only hot spots such as Houston and Atlanta but the nation as a whole, new federal employment data indicates the Chicago metropolitan area now is growing faster than the nation—in fact, gaining more jobs in the first six months of the year than any other metro area in the country except New York City.

Some of the data is preliminary and subject to change, and Chicago traditionally does well in the spring when construction, hospitality and other weather-related industries add staff. Economists and other experts I’ve spoken with here are somewhat divided on what the data means.

But the 12-month data is almost as good as the six-month figures. At a minimum, it suggests metro Chicago is showing signs of pulling out of its long funk.



..





For instance, the data indicates that between January and July of this year, Chicago added 164,000 non-farm jobs. That’s numerically more than any other metro area except New York, which added 349,000.



Beyond that, the growth in the past year here tops other large Midwest cities such as Cleveland and Indianapolis (each at 1 percent), Minneapolis/St. Paul (0.4 percent), and Milwaukee (1 percent). It matched the growth in St. Louis, at 1.8 percent year to year.

So what does the data mean?









Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago economists have suggested for years that Chicago generally is late to enter and late to come out of recessions, a trend that the peculiarities of its industrial mix may have accentuated in the subprime mortgage recovery. If so, the recovery now tends to prove that theory.

The fed nationally is in a “quiet period” before its expected decision to raise interest rate guidelines, and its economists here were unable to comment now.

Other researchers had plenty to say.

The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning was somewhat skeptical, noting that growth rates in the key sector of professional and business services have slowed a bit. "Because our economic cycles tend to lag slightly behind national and peer averages, we may still see slight upticks in monthly jobs data that don’t signal any abrupt changes in metropolitan Chicago’s overall trajectory. It remains to be seen,” CMAP said in a statement.

Orphe Divounguy, chief economist at the Illinois Policy Institute, a libertarian think tank, took some cheer from the figures.

“Chicago's labor market has been performing strongly despite the rest of the state still lagging the rest of the nation,” he emailed me. “It is promising and refreshing to receive some glimmer of hope."



...

“Chicago is leading other cities we’re usually compared to—including Midwestern Rust Belt and East Coast cities,” a spokesman told me in an email. “I think it’s also notable we’re beating—or on par with—destination cities like San Diego (1.7) and Denver (1.6).”

Economists rarely agree on anything. But I suspect that, after these figures, they’d all like to see the numbers from the next few months to decipher whether something significant really has occurred.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3108  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2019, 8:53 PM
Centropolis's Avatar
Centropolis Centropolis is offline
disneypilled verhoevenist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: saint louis
Posts: 11,964
"Beyond that, the growth in the past year here tops other large Midwest cities such as Cleveland and Indianapolis (each at 1 percent), Minneapolis/St. Paul (0.4 percent), and Milwaukee (1 percent). It matched the growth in St. Louis, at 1.8 percent year to year.

So what does the data mean?

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago economists have suggested for years that Chicago generally is late to enter and late to come out of recessions, a trend that the peculiarities of its industrial mix may have accentuated in the subprime mortgage recovery. If so, the recovery now tends to prove that theory."

Interesting. St. Louis is very similar in this way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3109  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2019, 9:50 PM
OrdoSeclorum OrdoSeclorum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj View Post
Great article from Sun-Times today on demographic changes in the city broken into seven different pieces. It looks like this will be a running series, some good analysis in here.
Man. I don't think this is surprising to anyone who follows Chicago demography. But I was thinking this afternoon what kind of story it might be in a decade or two. Chicago had about twice as many manufacturing jobs as Detroit. We've lost about 500,000 of those jobs in the last three decades. Just a constant headwind of job loss that has just recently bottomed out. And every year for the last couple decades Chicago has been losing about 15,000 people from the far west and far south side. Growth isn't everything, but losing people is a headwind you have to work against. That's a person who's not taking the L and not buying flowers to plant in the parkway and isn't paying 5% of a taxi driver's income for the day.

Once growth stops being negative in the far south side, man, it might be FOOM. There are lots of places people can move to in the U.S., but there's only a few where millions of people can walk to get haircuts or buy ice cream cones and hop on a train to access 400,000 jobs or attend 20 universities. And several of those cities are full. Seattle and Austin can and keep adding tech jobs, but if they wanted to squeeze 300,000 more people into the city, I don't know if they have the infrastructure to support it. And even if they do, I'm not sure prices can stay moderate. Houston and Dallas and San Antonio can keep adding beltways--and maybe they will--but that sure seems like a bleak future.

In Chicago, we can keep building high rises along the red line for years and years. And if that gets too pricey, we can flip a switch and legalize the construction of courtyard buildings and six-flats city wide. We could basically welcome as many people who are willing to come and remain affordable.

I don't think Chicago will ever get back to 3,600,000 or whatever. But if we get to the point where the city is adding 15,000 people a year, there's not much holding Chicago back once growth economics kicks in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3110  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 1:07 AM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,668
good post. I expect population loss will slow and stop and reverse as well. Too many factors pointing in a positive direction. And some of these neighborhoods as they empty are too close to the central area to stay depressed. If you read that ST article on the seven little cities inside Chicago it has already started.
If you look at the map the hot West Loop is slamming right up against some of the areas on the West Side that have been decreasing. Economics will take over.

And I agree Chicago has lots of room to build, and is even starting to press the button to add affordable homes to vacant city-owned property, in the form of formulate SF homes. Pretty cool idea
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3111  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 2:16 PM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,189
Article is interesting. It’ll be interesting to see what the census numbers are in 2020. I agree there have been a lot of positive indicators, but the estimates continually show modest declines, so hard to say what’s actually happening. I’d like to see the city approaching 3,000,000 by 2030 and the metro area comfortably over 10,000,000 without including Milwaukee.

Despite the good news on jobs and positive trends throughout the city, there’s still a lot working against us. It’s likely our black and working class communities continue to shrink, household size will continue to shrink, retirees will continue to move south, and the pension boogeyman/uncertainty will scare a not insignificant number of people off. Climate change could make our climate more temperate, but flooding is guaranteed to become an even bigger issue in parts of the region. Has the river ever flooded Lower Wacker? Could become a regular thing in the near future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3112  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 2:53 PM
Investing In Chicago Investing In Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by maru2501 View Post
good post. I expect population loss will slow and stop and reverse as well. Too many factors pointing in a positive direction. And some of these neighborhoods as they empty are too close to the central area to stay depressed. If you read that ST article on the seven little cities inside Chicago it has already started.
If you look at the map the hot West Loop is slamming right up against some of the areas on the West Side that have been decreasing. Economics will take over.

And I agree Chicago has lots of room to build, and is even starting to press the button to add affordable homes to vacant city-owned property, in the form of formulate SF homes. Pretty cool idea
It will be the politicians who ultimately decide the fate of this city - the city will continue to nickel and dime the residents.
Too many "programs" that need to be funded by the city's wealthy. I'm considering leaving the city, and on my block alone, there are 3 other families who are fed up with the pension uncertainty/property tax increases.

I don't see the cities future as rosey as some.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3113  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 3:25 PM
OrdoSeclorum OrdoSeclorum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago View Post
It will be the politicians who ultimately decide the fate of this city - the city will continue to nickel and dime the residents.
Too many "programs" that need to be funded by the city's wealthy. I'm considering leaving the city, and on my block alone, there are 3 other families who are fed up with the pension uncertainty/property tax increases.

I don't see the cities future as rosey as some.
I feel like almost every post you make is about taxes and "big government" fear mongering. The tax burden in Illinois above average and will probably go higher. After that, Chicago will still be one of the best bang-for-the-buck amenity rich, walkable cities in North America. People can move to Oak Park, where taxes are higher, or they can decamp and move to a sprawly, edge city near Houston and pay 4/5ths the taxes we do and STILL pass looming legacy infrastructure costs on to whomever is unfortunate enough to own the home in 30 years. Or they can move to an unincorporated nowhere and write comments under every news article about "Crook county" while, commuting 90 minutes each way and driving 15 miles to buy milk near a Burlington Coat Factory.

I don't know what the other options are, but if they are good, you should do it! But nice places *all over the world* all have moderate tax burdens to pay for all the nice stuff. Places with low tax burdens generally have low amenities. If you like living in the woods and don't need to be near other professionals or airports or if you're retired, you have plenty of good options.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3114  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 3:34 PM
Investing In Chicago Investing In Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum View Post

I don't know what the other options are, but if they are good, you should do it! But nice places *all over the world* all have moderate tax burdens to pay for all the nice stuff. Places with low tax burdens generally have low amenities. If you like living in the woods and don't need to be near other professionals or airports or if you're retired, you have plenty of good options.
I don't mind paying taxes if it's going to "nice stuff" - the problem is our tax dollars are going to unsustainable pensions and lining the pockets of politicians. I don't accept the status quo as OK.
I pay $40K in property taxes on my home, and can't even get the city to fill in pot holes in a timely matter, or have police come to my house to report a break in. That is not OK to me. The city is broken.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3115  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 3:35 PM
moorhosj moorhosj is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum View Post
I feel like almost every post you make is about taxes and "big government" fear mongering. The tax burden in Illinois above average and will probably go higher. After that, Chicago will still be one of the best bang-for-the-buck amenity rich, walkable cities in North America. People can move to Oak Park, where taxes are higher, or they can decamp and move to a sprawly, edge city near Houston and pay 4/5ths the taxes we do and STILL pass looming legacy infrastructure costs on to whomever is unfortunate enough to own the home in 30 years. Or they can move to an unincorporated nowhere and write comments under every news article about "Crook county" while, commuting 90 minutes each way and driving 15 miles to buy milk near a Burlington Coat Factory.

I don't know what the other options are, but if they are good, you should do it! But nice places *all over the world* all have moderate tax burdens to pay for all the nice stuff. Places with low tax burdens generally have low amenities. If you like living in the woods and don't need to be near other professionals or airports or if you're retired, you have plenty of good options.
Fully endorse this comment.

nitpick: it's just Burlington now, more than just coats!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3116  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 4:34 PM
OrdoSeclorum OrdoSeclorum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago View Post
I don't mind paying taxes if it's going to "nice stuff" - the problem is our tax dollars are going to unsustainable pensions and lining the pockets of politicians. I don't accept the status quo as OK.
I pay $40K in property taxes on my home, and can't even get the city to fill in pot holes in a timely matter, or have police come to my house to report a break in. That is not OK to me. The city is broken.
The pension issue is a problem. We should have negotiated a better deal. *That* was a government in crisis. But we also should have had a small tax hike 20 years ago! The Chicago Tribune and the Center for Growth and the Chamber of Commerce spent decades saying that we couldn't bear a small tax hike and that people would leave the city and so on. So every politician was afraid to raise taxes and now we need to pay for it all at once, with interest.

Wasted taxes are bad. But taxes also pay for the investments that create economic growth. If you're paying $40K a year in property taxes, you have a very nice home. If you take your professional skills and investments to Boston or New York or Seattle, you're not going to spend less each year on housing. AND if you wanted to save a bunch of money you could always move to a two bedroom. For me, personally, I could do my job anywhere in the country but I probably make $30,000 more a year than I would in Indiana due to productivity gains due to O'hare and Midway. And I could earn more in San Francisco or New York, but I probably save $40,000 a year not living there. Now, I could move to Dallas or Atlanta and benefit from those airports and save $10,000 more per year, but it simply isn't close to worth giving up all the great stuff about Chicago for $800/mo.

As for infrastructure and services in Chicago, I don't have any complaints, personally. The few times I've called the police I've gotten a rapid, professional response. My garbage is picked up on time. I move all about the city affordably and with ease. I feel safe when I walk and the environment I walk in is clean. My mailmain walks his route. The corner store is full of kids buying popsicles after school. It's not Singapore, but it's not a broken city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3117  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 4:38 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago View Post
I pay $40K in property taxes on my home,
Holy SHIT-CUPCAKES, dude, what?!

$40k on your home? Jeez, you're definitely getting shaken down. I'm sure you live in a very nice and huge home in a nice area, but damn I'd feel pretty down on things if I were shelling that much out to the Government on my home every year too.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3118  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 4:48 PM
moorhosj moorhosj is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I'd feel pretty down on things if I were shelling that much out to the Government on my home every year too.
Not sure I would "feel down on things" if I chose to buy a $2 million house and had to pay taxes commensurate to that value. Changes to the federal tax code absolutely killed people in this position who were used to getting massive deductions. So much for governing at the local level.

The real question is, what were the taxes on it when purchased compared to today?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3119  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 4:49 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,668
Coats and milk!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3120  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2019, 4:57 PM
Investing In Chicago Investing In Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Holy SHIT-CUPCAKES, dude, what?!

$40k on your home? Jeez, you're definitely getting shaken down. I'm sure you live in a very nice and huge home in a nice area, but damn I'd feel pretty down on things if I were shelling that much out to the Government on my home every year too.

Yep, 2018 tax bill is 41,200...I'm on a 37.5 x 125 lot off of Southport/Addison-ish.
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 > Regional Sections > United States > Midwest
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:49 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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