Eight areas in California: Bakersfield, Chico-Paridise,
Fresno, LA-Long Beach, Merced, Modesto, Oakland, Orange
County. I have data on unemployment and labour force.
Regardless of population, how would you group the eight
areas together with respect of employment development? A
weird question maybe for a travel forum, but I have no idea
how those areas are located in California and the labour
situation there... thanks
[There are 21 posts - the latest was added on Mon 24 May, 1:18]
Use the form at the end of this page to add your own post.
Topics
| Thorn Tree
| Home
All the above, except LA, Orange County, and Oakland, are
agricultural-based, broiling-hot-in-summer cities in the
Central Valley that are rather unattractive. If you want
this information because you're thinking of moving there
from abroad (thinking perhaps the cost of living would be
lower than in SF), think again. You wouldn't want to live
there. Wilster went to college (uni) in Chico. Enough
said.
I go to school there!! Who's Wilster?
Also, I'm from Modesto, and our town is growing!! They're
building a multi-plex theater in downtown!!
Don't listen to the Freak. And I'm surprise that the Freak
didn't get your typo: it should read Chico-"Paradise".
The Chico area has changed heaps since I left there upon
being graduated to go live in NZ in the spring of '84. But
it is absolutely gorgeous. A college town with loads to
offer the residents. Incidently, it has the largest city
park, Bidwell, in the nation second only to Central Park in
NYC.
The Freak also forget that I went to grad school in Fresno.
Most the areas you've listed (ie in the Valley) are
significantly cheaper than the SF Bay...the Freak is
clearly wrong.
In order of liveability I would put them in the following
order, best at the top:
*Chico-Paradise
*Modesto--The movie, "American Grafitti" was filmed for the
most part in Modesto.
*Fresno
*Oakland
*Merced
*Bakersfield
*Orange County
*LA-Long Beach
Many of the Valley Cities are agriculturally-based, but
they have all changed rapidly over the past ten years.
Much of the economic power-house of the Bay Area has
spilled into the Valley. Each has many things to offer
along the lines of employment and pleasure. Sure, if
you're a gay man in his late 20's who's got ADD and has a
tremendous need for attention, you might be best suited for
San Francisco.
I wouldn't even give Southern California a thought and you
might consider some other areas of the Valley; the
surrounding Sacramento area, Farfield, and our own twin
cities (Marysville/Yuba City) area, all warrant
consideration. Let me know if I can give you some
specifics on any of the these areas.
Fresno is the armpit of the universe. I bigger hellhole I
cannot imagine. Bakersfield is only marginally better. Move
there only if you like roughnecks and farmers.
What are we quibbling on then? I say Fresno is better than
fucking helL.A., so you think Oakland should be above
Fresno? This I agree with, but if you take costs of
living, housing, raising kids and such, I think Fresno
comes out slightly ahead. I guess we need to find out more
from uranus as to what exactly he is looking for. And you
have been off HWY 99 in Fresno, right?
When I think of Fresno, I think more along the lines of
Eastern Fresno like Clovis...I'm lumping the two together.
And even in Fresno, the Fig Garden area with its
established homes is quite nice. After doing my grad work
there, I came to know a lot more about Fresno. Plus,
Fresno is a springboard to the Sierra and the Coast.
Wilster,
You must be joking when you claim Oakland is more habitable
than Los Angeles. Having all over the state, I must
disagree.
Here's my list in order:
LA
Orange County
Oakland
Modesto
Fresno
Merced
Chico-Paradise
Bakersfield
Long Beach is a really crappy place - it should go into its
own category at the bottom.
What about San Diego?
E-mail me if you need more specifics.
Wilster, as usual, is living in a fantasy world of his own
making. Cities like Bakersfield, Fresno, and Modesto are
barely-habitable hellholes that one should move to only if
one likes 110 degree F days in summer, a complete lack of
cultural opportunities, and enjoys the opportunites that
4-H clubs have to offer. Chico????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
-
Los Angeles is the US's second-largest city: a fascinating,
striving, vibrant metropolis with something for everyone. A
true and nearly unbelievable melting pot.
Home of the Oakland chapter of Hells Angels.
Nice to give me some response. No, I'm actually not
thinking of moving there. It's just that I downloaded some
time series from the net about labour and unemployment in
the aforementioned places. I did that to test a cluster
analysis and now I wanted to know if my analysis gives OK
results. Fresno and Modesto should have quite similar
labour developments? Merced and Orange County would be the
two most distant... OK?
I was just recently in Fresno on business, and my
grandmother lives in Visalia, so I've done my central
valley time. I guess the biggest appeal of Fresno is that
it is easy to get to a lot nicer places. I am curious,
though: to which coast is fresno a spingboard? Even the
Salton Sea is a bit of a drive.
I love LA, and I think Oakland is becoming increasingly
interesting. Long Beach is positively awful, but still
better than fresno. San Diego is the wonder bread capital
of CA (Dull dull dull as a bag of hair), but again, better
than fresno. However, having not spent much time in
Modesto, Merced or Chico, I won't comment. But I bet
they're all better than Fresno. I'll even go so far as to
say Irvine is better than Fresno. I guess what I'm saying
is every city in CA should be above Fresno. You can just
call me Anti-Fresno.
Fresno is PROVINCIAL. If it's so great, why do you live in
Belmont, right off of the World's Most Beautiful Freeway,
just a short drive to the city? Hmmm?
Christy, STOCKTON is the armpit of the universe. Fresno is
still better than Stockton, and Fresno State's basketball
team is pretty darn good.
Oakland is surprisingly up-and-coming and interesting (and,
hey, LP has its North American HQ there).
Fresno, Modesto, Stockton, etc. are just pits-- awful.
Orange County is sort of mildly interesting in a 1950s
suburbia meets 90s melting pot kind of SoCal way.
LA/Long Beach is complex and fascinating.
Merced is horrifying.
Oakland is SCARY. For pete's sake, JERRY BROWN is the
mayor. The sports teams are decaying- people only go out to
see the A's when they give away Beanie Babies, and the
Raiders constantly threaten to move (maybe to Fresno?). The
Coliseum/airport Bart stop is really really frightening.
Oakland's favorite son is MC Hammer. The only affordable
housing is in areas that are claim prostitutes and drug
dealer as neighbors.
On second thought, I put Modesto ahead on the list.
Rednecks are better than Crips and Bloods, I guess.
William, what part of Oakland is the LP HQ?
Como? You left out Bakersfield sweetie. So you gonna tell
me that Bakersfield is above Fresno too? ;-P My point was
that anything north of Bakersfield, including the latter,
is better than helLA. Yeah, okay, if I could live anywhere
down "there" it would Encinitas or maybe even the
Oceanside/Carlsbad area. I did live in San Diego for six
months (just not close enough to some skiing and the sierra
for my liking). But all these areas are just So Cal...too
weird, not my scene fur sur, like totally.
Fresno is the springboard to the Five Cities area (Pismo
Beach), SLO, Morro Bay, and Cambria to name a few. It's
only about two hour's drive. Hey, so are/were you a
Visalia Oaks minor league baseball fan. You know what
(okay shoot me) I kind of liked Exeter!!! I don't know, I
use to make calls in the Central Valley from where I lived
in Paso Robles. I got to know all the little cities of
this area. They all had real charm, were compact, etc.
Unlike the burgeoning spots along HYW 99.
Yeah, Irvine is nicer than Fresno in one sense, but since
it's in bloody helLA, it's no significant on any of my
lists above. Although I did see my second to last DEAD
concert at Irvine Meadows with bro and a former
girlfriend. She was pretty straightlaced, my brother and I
took shrooms for the concert.
Wilty, you just haven't spent enough time (if at all) in
the Central Valley dude.
You are dating yourself captain. Drugs are oh-so seventies.
I feel compelled to correct you (yet again) - Irvine is a
good 45 miles from Los Angeles, 50 if you head to Turtle
Rock. South Orange County is a separate cultural entity from
Los Angeles. To say that it is in Los Angeles shows a
frightful lack of knowledge regarding California geography.
You are henceforth banned from further participation in this
discussion.
I must agree with Wilster on one point, that Central
California, and other provincial areas of the state, have
some good baseball.
Go Chico Heat!
I don't know what else to say other than:
the Central Valley SUCKS. It is hot and flat and smells of
pig feces. Driving down Interstate 5 through the Central
Valley is the equivalent of falling asleep. Bakersfield is
like Amarillo, Texas, but without the cute guys. Fresno is
a blot on humanity. Los Angeles is fascinating and
interesting and always-changing. Orange County is cool in a
suburban sort of way. Oakland is crime-ridden but making a
serious effort.
if you wanna go to the beach, live in Santa Monica, not
Fresno! Think of all the better places to live that are not
two hours' drive to the beach! Oy! Whachu got moss growing
between your ears? :)
Living in Santa Monica is far more expensive than Fresno,
and requires far greater effort to get to the Sierra and
skiing, hiking, and camping than Fresno. Considering Santa
Monica is part of the helL.A. basin and a cluster-fuck of a
place to live, I'd opt for the two-hour drive to the coast
(could probably afford another place on the coast since
helL.A. is so fucking expensive) any time. You can take
that to the bank in my book.
You are not qualified to discuss this any further.
AS IF LA is more expensive than Belmont.
christy=Wendy?
Anti-Wilster=Marco?
Wilster=59 handles?