i saw this on a pd newsflash. good info every big city mayor and councilperson should read:

 

link:

http://www.ceosforcities.org/rethink/research/

 

 

 

How cities can attract young people

 

10:39 a.m.

 

Two out of every three workers in the 25-to-34 age group say they pick the place they want to live first and then look to see if there are jobs available, according to a survey for CEOs for Cities. The online responses from 1,000 people said the preference of city first was the true for every category within the group, but especially strong for women. Among the things younger workers were looking for: basic quality of life, such as clean and safe streets, affordable homes and lots of parks; extras such as reasonable commute times and excellent schools; and lifestyle choices that will allow them to meet people. But when the study asked what these people knew about the specific cities they said they were interested in, "their reasons were vague."

 

 

But when the study asked what these people knew about the specific cities they said they were interested in, "their reasons were vague."

 

^Totally true.  I remember most of my classmates who moved to Chicago after school (a huge %, btw) had no job and little to no knowledge of the city (outside of having been there a few times to party). 

 

Sometimes, I'm not sure if I want the same lemmings coming to my city.

hmm.....i'm the other way around.....living in cleveland and looking for a better job basically in any major city in the midwest/northeast.

It also depends on job offers coming out of college. I don't think the avg person does a lot of research on other cities to figure out where they'd love to live the most. People like familiarity and want to be near friends and family too sometimes. Unless it's like Chicago, NYC, Boston, SF, or Seattle...I don't think someone is very likely to randomly select Cinci,Cleveland,Columbus,Detroit,Indy, or Pittsburgh. They're all very comparable medium sized cities (except for detroit)

I think the survey response is accurate. I know a lot of my friends in college who pick a city first, or have several desired areas they'd like to live in and then make the final decision based on jobs. Or since a lot of companies have offices in multiple cities, they can pick what city they'd like to be in once they get a job offer. I think very few college students want to go to Cleveland, and that's why we are supposedly loosing college grads. The fact that college grads' reasons were "vague" just goes to show how strong perceptions can effect local economies. 

Any metro could draw more young people if they offer higher wages, but then again that would tick off local workers that's been with the company for a few years.

 

  In my humble opinion, the weather and environment aspects are overrated. It is taken for granted that there are jobs. I can think of lots of places I would not mind living, including rural areas, except that job opportunities are scarce.

 

  Some jobs are less dependent on location, and these are easier to move. For example, computer programing and coding can be done anywhere with electricity and communication lines; hence Silicon Valley California and Boise Idaho have become tech centers.

 

 

Any metro could draw more young people if they offer higher wages, but then again that would tick off local workers that's been with the company for a few years.

 

Well as this study indicates, job offers (or wages) aren't what attract college students to cities. And I strongly believe it. Besides, even if wages are higher somewhere else, it doesn't gurantee you'd have as much fluid cash because cost of living can vary so much. I think college grads in Midwest cities have it pretty god after they graduate, whereas grads in first tier cities making a lot more money don't really have it all the good. I've seen the difference between my friends in Cleveland and those in Chicago or east coast cities.