Jump to content

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Luvemtall said:

So, Smeagolsfree is that lava brewing going to erupt anytime soon ? Patiently waiting. 

Think of more as Mauna Loa rather than Mount St Helens. The eruption has already started. A continuous eruption of lava from a volcano.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So Nashville added another resident last night... Turner Wallace Chinetti 9 pounds 6 ounces. 20 inches.  Mom and baby are doing great! He’s ready to argue about scooters, height re

Took this yesterday.  Wanted to make it longer but it was quite windy yesterday. Some random thoughts...  How much room there is between Lafayette and the Interstate

I am humbled that NashvilleNowNext did a feature on my photo work here at Urban Planet Nashville. https://nashvillenownext.com/2021/04/02/the-hollingsworth-reel-vol-1-highlighting-the-work-of-nas

Posted Images

11 hours ago, UTgrad09 said:

Soooo.....I got busy with the map and the Census tracts.

Caveat: The Census tracts do not match the map lines exactly, but they are pretty close. Close enough to make some approximations. The tracts are also listed in land area to 1/10th of a square mile, so over the 60+ tracts sampled, there may be some rounding differences. All in all, I think it's a pretty good snapshot -- and I was actually pleasantly surprised.

 

1952 Nashville boundary - 24.2 sq mi - 117,752 population (2020) - 4,865.8 ppsm <----notice that the source I linked had the 1950 Nashville land area at 22.0 sq mi.

1962 Nashville boundary - 69.1 sq mi - 236,020 population (2020)- 3,415.6 ppsm <----I can't find the source right now, but I remember that Ben West had annexed land to about 70-75 sq mi, which was one of the factors that forced the vote on consolidation. I did not include the airport or Radnor Yards in my figure (low population areas -- plus the airport has expanded greatly). 

1) I would be very interested to see what the population was of the 69.1 sq mi in 1962. The 2020 population is about 56,000 less for the 1952 limits. The 1962 limits were about triple the size (but the interior city was shrinking rapidly).

2) It will probably take about 20 years to add the 56,000 people back to the old 1952 boundaries....but man oh man will it look impressive.

3) Originally, the city boundaries served as the Urban Service District. That has been expanded a number of times over the years (including very recently).  In the latest copy of the Metro budget, it lists the USD as having 498,007 in 197.8 sq mi (2,517.7 ppsm) and the GSD as having 196,137 in the remaining 327.4 sq mi. (599.1 ppsm).  This actually makes the GSD as populous as Sumner County in about 60% of the land area. Those numbers are based off of the 2020 estimates, I believe. If you plug in the 2020 Census and assume the proportions are the same, then that brings the USD population to about 513,289 in 197.8 sq mi (2,595.0 ppsm) and the GSD population to about 202,595 in 327.4 sq mi (618.8 ppsm).

Wow!  Thank you for putting in the work to figure this out!  So it sounds like Nashville would basically be on par with most of it's peer cities in terms of density if we were somehow able to cut out a lot of the fat (i.e. northwest Davidson County etc.)?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dragonfly said:

The state of Texas with numerous large military bases and defense contractors is typically ridiculed by the elite on their lists of states on the dole but the joke is on them, they think that all of the cost of the military spending in Texas is just welfare, when that spending may be returning as much as 200% of its cost back to our economy. 

I agree with you about the importance of the role that the US military plays in maintaining the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. I also think you're right that a significant chunk of military spending has a positive return on investment. 

The part that you're missing from the equation, however, is that the military spending that is occurring in Texas could just as easily be happening somewhere else and making a comparable  ROI. Similarly, some if not all of those large bases that happen to be located in Texas could just as easily have been located in Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, or Oregon, Virginia, Upstate New York, etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, UTgrad09 said:

1952 Nashville boundary - 24.2 sq mi - 117,752 population (2020) - 4,865.8 ppsm <----notice that the source I linked had the 1950 Nashville land area at 22.0 sq mi.

1962 Nashville boundary - 69.1 sq mi - 236,020 population (2020)- 3,415.6 ppsm <----I can't find the source right now, but I remember that Ben West had annexed land to about 70-75 sq mi, which was one of the factors that forced the vote on consolidation. I did not include the airport or Radnor Yards in my figure (low population areas -- plus the airport has expanded greatly). 

1) I would be very interested to see what the population was of the 69.1 sq mi in 1962. The 2020 population is about 56,000 less for the 1952 limits. The 1962 limits were about triple the size (but the interior city was shrinking rapidly).

2) It will probably take about 20 years to add the 56,000 people back to the old 1952 boundaries....but man oh man will it look impressive.

Thanks for this analysis! Do you know what the 2010 population for the 1952 boundaries was? Or if not, do you have a list of which census tracts you included for your analysis (I have the 2010 census data by tract saved to my hard drive)?

I had looked at the population within the inner highway loop (with caveat that one of the census tracts doesn't perfectly align with that) and got a population of 13,078 in 2010 and 24,243 in 2020, a really rapid re-population of the city center, so would definitely be interested in seeing that comparison for the original city limits.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AsianintheNations said:

Thanks for this analysis! Do you know what the 2010 population for the 1952 boundaries was? Or if not, do you have a list of which census tracts you included for your analysis (I have the 2010 census data by tract saved to my hard drive)?

I had looked at the population within the inner highway loop (with caveat that one of the census tracts doesn't perfectly align with that) and got a population of 13,078 in 2010 and 24,243 in 2020, a really rapid re-population of the city center, so would definitely be interested in seeing that comparison for the original city limits.

 

It’s going to be really interesting to see how Nashville redraws the downtown council districts. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AsianintheNations said:

Thanks for this analysis! Do you know what the 2010 population for the 1952 boundaries was? Or if not, do you have a list of which census tracts you included for your analysis (I have the 2010 census data by tract saved to my hard drive)?

I had looked at the population within the inner highway loop (with caveat that one of the census tracts doesn't perfectly align with that) and got a population of 13,078 in 2010 and 24,243 in 2020, a really rapid re-population of the city center, so would definitely be interested in seeing that comparison for the original city limits.

 

I do have the list of Census tracts I used. I don't think there were any major changes to this area since 2010 (in terms of tract geography), but they did split some of the downtown/midtown tracts, so beware! I think the old downtown tract was split into 3 parts (195).

In numerical order:

117, 118, 119, 126, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 142, 143, 144, 148, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 192, 193, 194.01, 194.02, 195.01, 195.02, 195.03

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, UTgrad09 said:

I do have the list of Census tracts I used. I don't think there were any major changes to this area since 2010 (in terms of tract geography), but they did split some of the downtown/midtown tracts, so beware! I think the old downtown tract was split into 3 parts (195).

In numerical order:

117, 118, 119, 126, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 142, 143, 144, 148, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 192, 193, 194.01, 194.02, 195.01, 195.02, 195.03

Not really a surprise here and what I expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2021 at 5:01 PM, ruraljuror said:

Would you mind sharing your source for this info? Seems like most of the data I've seen indicates that young people and more economically vulnerable populations are the ones that get hit hardest during economic downturns. 

Also, just to make sure we're on the same page, am I correct that the threshold to enter the top 20% of income earners is only about $130k per household currently? Also, it's my understanding that only the top 10% most successful business owners are able to pull out that much  (~$130k) from their business in a given year, but correct me if I'm wrong of course. 

Assuming those figures are in the ballpark, I'm curious at what income level do you think taxes should be raised in order to fund social services during a downturn? Or do you think cutting social services during economic downturns is the better way to balance the budget since the business owners are bearing more of the direct burden from the downturn itself?

I found annual tax revenue for California online.  For the 2007-2008 fiscal year, total tax revenue was $102,521,881.  For 2008-2009, it fell to $82,772,112, a drop of 19.26%.  I couldn't find anything that far back for Tennessee or Texas.  That would begin to give us a little perspective.

My comments come from being a portfolio manager during the Great Recession and having to pay attention to a lot of investment-related topics.  Many of my clients owned municipal bonds.  When the muni bond insurance fiasco started to unfold in 2007, I learned a lot about those types of investments that I didn't know before.  (As an aside, if you'd like to know my credentials, check out my profile or DM me.)

You are right that the lesser educated segment of the population suffers from greater unemployment during recessions and and they 'get hit hardest during economic downturns' if we're using the word 'hardest' to mean that they experience great financial hardship.  However, the loss of state tax revenue because of their unemployment is small compared to lower revenue from business owners whose profits shrink.  The point of view we are focused on here is that of the state treasurer.

The relevant question for this topic is not "what percentage of business owners can pull out $130K a year from their business?" but rather "how much of the income of the top 20% is comprised of profits and bonuses?"  Company managers of all levels see their bonuses shrink during a recession, reducing their taxable income.  So, lower bonuses and shrinking business profits hit some states harder than others.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2021 at 7:13 AM, UTgrad09 said:

So please, I urge all of you of all political persuasions, the next time someone says something you disagree with (at least on a national or global politics level), just let it go. You don't have to prove a point, and you won't be cluttering up topic threads with unrelated material.

 

OK so lets make it local. Tennessee gets ranked on these lists. Just wondering  how hunky dory to consider TN defense installations as welfare payments to Tennessee residents in these calculations. You know Campbell, Mid-South, Arnold, and ORNL. I hope you would see this as an intellectual arming of you guys to go up against these bogus comparisons. All federal spending going to a state gets counted just like welfare. Doesn't matter if that spending is on infrastructure to benefit interstate commerce, it gets added into the "welfare" spending on Tennesseans. There's really nothing wrong with publicizing this on here.image.gif.a7a6e3c23d1a70763ad23ae69c1e19ea.gif

image.gif.a7a6e3c23d1a70763ad23ae69c1e19ea.gif

On 8/24/2021 at 2:00 PM, ruraljuror said:

I agree with you about the importance of the role that the US military plays in maintaining the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. I also think you're right that a significant chunk of military spending has a positive return on investment. 

The part that you're missing from the equation, however, is that the military spending that is occurring in Texas could just as easily be happening somewhere else and making a comparable  ROI. Similarly, some if not all of those large bases that happen to be located in Texas could just as easily have been located in Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, or Oregon, Virginia, Upstate New York, etc. 

Don't get the thrust of the second sentence. The point is not altered and applies universally to these bogus comparisons. All defense and infrastructure spending in Tennessee as well as Texas and Arizona gets counted as welfare payouts in these bogus comparisons. Per capita defense contract value going to Arizona is probably a good bit higher than what goes to Texas.

image.gif

Edited by dragonfly
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, UTgrad09 said:

Yay! More nonsense not about Nashville Bits And Pieces! 

The past week has been a real low point for our forum. I'm sure we drove away several people from this site. We should really be proud of the show (sarcasm)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LA_TN said:

The past week has been a real low point for our forum. I'm sure we drove away several people from this site. We should really be proud of the show (sarcasm)

I'm certain that someone got their point across and changed somebody's mind, though. Had to. Otherwise we wouldn't keep having the same damn arguments over and over again.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LA_TN said:

The past week has been a real low point for our forum. I'm sure we drove away several people from this site. We should really be proud of the show (sarcasm)

I thought there were some good discussions about zoning and parking at least

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mr_Bond said:

I found annual tax revenue for California online.  For the 2007-2008 fiscal year, total tax revenue was $102,521,881.  For 2008-2009, it fell to $82,772,112, a drop of 19.26%.  I couldn't find anything that far back for Tennessee or Texas.  That would begin to give us a little perspective.

My comments come from being a portfolio manager during the Great Recession and having to pay attention to a lot of investment-related topics.  Many of my clients owned municipal bonds.  When the muni bond insurance fiasco started to unfold in 2007, I learned a lot about those types of investments that I didn't know before.  (As an aside, if you'd like to know my credentials, check out my profile or DM me.)

You are right that the lesser educated segment of the population suffers from greater unemployment during recessions and and they 'get hit hardest during economic downturns' if we're using the word 'hardest' to mean that they experience great financial hardship.  However, the loss of state tax revenue because of their unemployment is small compared to lower revenue from business owners whose profits shrink.  The point of view we are focused on here is that of the state treasurer.

The relevant question for this topic is not "what percentage of business owners can pull out $130K a year from their business?" but rather "how much of the income of the top 20% is comprised of profits and bonuses?"  Company managers of all levels see their bonuses shrink during a recession, reducing their taxable income.  So, lower bonuses and shrinking business profits hit some states harder than others.

I agree with everything you've written here, thanks.

What I was more interested in is the implications of what you're saying, and how those implications are best addressed in your professional opinion.

To clarify, it seemed to me that you were essentially saying states that rely on a significant portion of tax receipts from the top end of the tax bracket tend to struggle during economic downturns because a significant portion of the income typically collected in those upper most brackets will decrease in parallel to the economy because those incomes are often more closely correlated to macroeconomic trends than the incomes of lower bracket earners. You then went on to shoot down the possibility of governmental borrowing during economic downturns in order to maintain government services and obligations because as you noted politicians are not typically inclined or incentivized to retire those debts when the economy gets back to surer footing.

Do I have that about right? If so, the question that I was trying to get at is 'what we should be doing about it?'

I interpreted your remarks to indicate that your preferred course of action would be for governments not to rely on too much income from the top brackets in the first place in order to avoid these kind of credit-killing, budget-busting shortfalls during economic downturns. Am I correct that that's generally what you were advocating? If so, that's where my agreement with your position would diverge given that to me it seems that argument is basically the equivalent of a nutritionist recommending a daily caloric intake of only 800 calories so that during times of inevitable famine, our bodies are already used to the limited portions. It's a logical argument, but it's not a very practical argument, or a very humane one for that matter when there are potentially other possible ways to address the issue. 

Assuming I've got all your premises correct here, which is a big assumption on my part and correct me where I'm wrong of course, it seems like your prescribed course of action seems better suited to keeping high end tax rates low than it does to actually addressing the difficulties at hand, which is what I wanted to point out. Why not adjust the tax rates/brackets during economic slumps in order to prevent budgetary shortfalls, for example, unless the primary underlying goal is simply to keep the top tax rates low? Would that not address the credit and budget issues you raise while putting the bulk of the burden on those least affected by the economic downturn (who coincidentally also have the most to gain when economic trends turn upward again) instead of putting the burden on those we've agreed are most negatively affected by the downturn? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Digital Dust said:

I have really strong opinions on DDI and Roundabouts in Nashville. They need to be everywhere and that's that! /s

Real talk, I joined the forum for the insightful talks about what's going on in the city where I live. The insights and topics are still happening, but we got some funk to work out.  Plus it's really great to drop construction information on people like I have people. So thanks people ;) 

What is DDI?

Oh god I agree on roundabouts. I'd love to see some BIG roundabouts at large intersections,  like Lebanon Pike and Old Hickory Blvd in Hermitage. That intersection is such a big time waster.


We are a big diverse family there are gonna be arguments and disagreements, it is life. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dragonfly said:

Don't get the thrust of the second sentence. The point is not altered and applies universally to these bogus comparisons. All defense and infrastructure spending in Tennessee as well as Texas and Arizona gets counted as welfare payouts in these bogus comparisons. Per capita defense contract value going to Arizona is probably a good bit higher than what goes to Texas.image.gif

The point of the second sentence is that all defense and infrastructure spending that occurs in Tennessee, Texas, or any other state should be counted as welfare spending because most of the infrastructure spending that occurs in any state is either an accident of geography or could have just as easily be constructed in other states instead, therefore it shouldn't count toward the state's GDP.

If Texas remained a part of Mexico, for example, all the military bases and national infrastructure spending that occurs in Texas would simply be in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and New Mexico instead. Those bases and that spending wouldn't disappear, it would all just be happening somewhere else, which is why it shouldn't be counted toward Texas' bottom line. 

To provide another example, Route 66 could have just as easily been routed through Kansas instead of Oklahoma. Does all the money generated through federal spending/maintenance of that US highway in Oklahoma represent value produced by the state of Oklahoma, or does it represent value produced by the Federal Government that just happens to be in Oklahoma? 

Edited by ruraljuror
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Bos2Nash locked and unlocked this topic
  • Bos2Nash locked and unlocked this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.