Houston second in population growth for 2008

[memebag]

BJ Services (482)

4,802.4

Uh ... hu-hu-hu-huh.

[H-Town Man]

The level of hatred on here over my comments is astonishing, even by HAIF standards.

[TheNiche]

The doom and gloom that the world is passing us by occurred AFTER we led the country in job creation, came in 2nd in population growth, and led the country corporate real estate deals last year. Hell, Atlanta isn't even on that list. Shouldn't you at least wait until we fall out of 1st place before you worry that "Houston will likely have to fight harder and harder just to keep up with the likes of Dallas and Atlanta"? Isn't this a bit like UNC fans worrying right after they win the NCAAs that "Duke might win next year"?

Enjoy the spoils of success for an hour or two, will ya?

The past is to be celebrated; the future is to be prepared for. Neither activity is mutually exclusive to the other.

The issues being pointed out may not weigh on regular joes in the immediate term, but they are a long-term concern, especially for investors in locally-based fixed assets, such as real estate. To the extent that Houston has issues with economic diversity, many investors get leery when evaluating our market. That's why the economic diversification of the 1990's was trumpeted so much by the Greater Houston Partnership in its promotional materials.

[ToryGattis]

I'm all for diversification. It's just prudent to have a diverse economic base. But I would like to point out that the U.S. cities that got propelled to top tier, world class status, usually did it on the back of one or two major blockbuster industries: NYC and finance, Chicago and manufacturing/trade (HQ of the midwest), SF/SV and tech, LA and entertainment+defense. Purely diversified cities usually have trouble breaking through to the top. The reason is not too hard to discern: as cities get bigger, they get some big problems and costs to go with that growth. If companies and people don't have a compelling reason to stay in that city (or come to it in the first place), they will disperse to the next set of hot midsize cities with lower costs and fewer problems (the Charlotte's, Austin's, San Antonio's, Raleigh-Durham's, and Denver's of the world). You need some compelling pull that keeps the growth up even in the face of those growing negatives. If it's not climate (like CA and FL), it's usually a big, important industry where you "have" to be there if you want to be a player, both as a company and a professional.

For Houston, that's energy, and we need to do everything possible to stay the capital of that industry, no matter how the technology shifts.

[TheNiche]

Houston has energy, health care, NASA, the port, a top-tier private research university (and hopefully a Tier 1 public one soon), a stronger downtown, and far more international flights, culture, and business. Dallas has more diversified companies, more tech, more domestic flights and companies, and no hurricanes (but also a bit of a water supply problem). Atlanta has some good universities and the world's best geographical location for logistics and flights, including the world's busiest airport (and also no hurricanes but a water supply problem). I think we'll all do just fine in our different niches, just as DC, NYC, and Boston do in the east, and San Diego, LA, and SF do in the west.

Boston, San Diego, and San Francisco aren't exactly cities that we ought to aspire to. They're economically stagnant, and San Diego is like California's version of San Antonio.

Also, you left Detroit and Pittsburgh off your list.

I've also had a remarkable number of young college graduates tell me lately that Houston is a hotter destination for young talent than Dallas right now, with our more diverse, international, eclectic vibe/culture, including the restaurant scene.

Our service industry is not a measure of core employment; it is dependent on core employment. If we repeated 1986 for whatever reason, it goes away.

[TheNiche]

I'm all for diversification. It's just prudent to have a diverse economic base. But I would like to point out that the U.S. cities that got propelled to top tier, world class status, usually did it on the back of one or two major blockbuster industries: NYC and finance, Chicago and manufacturing/trade (HQ of the midwest), SF/SV and tech, LA and entertainment+defense. Purely diversified cities usually have trouble breaking through to the top. The reason is not too hard to discern: as cities get bigger, they get some big problems and costs to go with that growth. If companies and people don't have a compelling reason to stay in that city (or come to it in the first place), they will disperse to the next set of hot midsize cities with lower costs and fewer problems (the Charlotte's, Austin's, San Antonio's, Raleigh-Durham's, and Denver's of the world). You need some compelling pull that keeps the growth up even in the face of those growing negatives. If it's not climate (like CA and FL), it's usually a big, important industry where you "have" to be there if you want to be a player, both as a company and a professional.

For Houston, that's energy, and we need to do everything possible to stay the capital of that industry, no matter how the technology shifts.

Though I do have some issues with your assumptions on how people choose which regions to relocate in, I agree with your first couple of lines and your bottom line. We need both diversification and to the the capital of the energy industry. The latter is a status that is not debatable, however. We've scored so many corporate relocations from the energy industry throughout the last century that we can be secure in our role, and even if the energy industry did go bust, we'd still be the energy capital...just like Detroit is still a capital to the automotive manufacturing industry.

But diversified growth can be achieved concurrently, and needs to be.

[Houston19514]

So Dallas grew by 146,000 and we grew by 130,000. I guess if we can't outgrow them with a spike in oil prices we never will outgrow them. I don't suppose people returning to New Orleans from Katrina could still be a factor?

I suspect people returning to New Orleans from Katrina actually could have still been a factor. We are talking about the 2007-2008 time period, a period when people were clearly still returning to New Orleans in fairly sizable numbers. I believe Houston experienced larger job growth than did DFW during that period of time, so . . .

6th behind Philly, but only because the Census added counties to Philly's metro area a year or so ago. We'll surpass them very soon, if we haven't already, and that makes us 5th in the nation right behind Dallas/FW.

Not true, Niche. (We've been over this before). A few counties were added to Philly's combined area, which is not what we're talking about here.

You are correct, however, that we have almost certainly either surpassed them already or will very very soon.

[H-Town Man]

Our service industry is not a measure of core employment; it is dependent on core employment. If we repeated 1986 for whatever reason, it goes away.

Good point - our energy industry carries these other things (culture, etc.) on its shoulders.

[TheNiche]

I suspect people returning to New

Not true, Niche. (We've been over this before). A few counties were added to Philly's combined area, which is not what we're talking about here.

You are correct, however, that we have almost certainly either surpassed them already or will very very soon.

Well somehow or another, we had been in a position where we should've passed them up and then the rules changed and bought them time. I know because I had started a thread on it a couple years ago, back when we originally should've surpassed them. ...but something happened to prevent that, and it most certainly was not a Philly growth spurt. If not the redefinition of their geographic area, then it must've been some kind of sweeping revisions to their population counting methodology. Or maybe it was part of some congressional compromise that Philly be counted as having more people; the Census is not immune to politics by any means.

[Houston19514]

Well somehow or another, we had been in a position where we should've passed them up and then the rules changed and bought them time. I know because I had started a thread on it a couple years ago, back when we originally should've surpassed them. ...but something happened to prevent that, and it most certainly was not a Philly growth spurt. If not the redefinition of their geographic area, then it must've been some kind of sweeping revisions to their population counting methodology. Or maybe it was part of some congressional compromise that Philly be counted as having more people; the Census is not immune to politics by any means.

. . . or your memory is playing tricks on you again. ;-)

The level of hatred on here over my comments is astonishing, even by HAIF standards.

Disagreement does not equal hatred.

[rsb320]

I don't think the demand for natural gas or plastics will ever decline. Also, as I understand it, the Oil & Gas industry is diversifying - Solar, Wind, Bio, Battery, etc.

[H-Town Man]

Disagreement does not equal hatred.

I wasn't referring to disagreement.

[713 To 214]

The oil companies have a responsibility to their shareholders not to die with any particular technology. They will aggressively get into whatever's next, and most already have, with the exception of Exxon.

I don't know what you could reference that would support the notion that oil ("energy") companies will "aggressively get into whatever's next." Just about everyone in the worldwide energy community acknowledges that the oil companies are investing minuscule amounts into R&D/renewable technology.

Please see the following: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/he...es/mindset.html

The oil companies kind of remind me of record companies 10 -15 years ago. At that time, record companies had an opportunity to step to the forefront of the digital download technology as it was evolving. Instead of embracing the technology, and acknowledging that times were changing, the major labels held a death grip on their old business model because that was the only way they knew how to make money. Fast forward to the present day, and you see massive layoffs, consolidations, and dwindling revenues as they scramble to play catch up to the technology/changing times. It's NO secret that fossil fuels won't be the predominant fuel source in the next 50 years. The oil. . .ahem, excuse me, energy companies better get on it.

[ToryGattis]

I don't know what you could reference that would support the notion that oil ("energy") companies will "aggressively get into whatever's next." Just about everyone in the worldwide energy community acknowledges that the oil companies are investing minuscule amounts into R&D/renewable technology.

It's NO secret that fossil fuels won't be the predominant fuel source in the next 50 years. The oil. . .ahem, excuse me, energy companies better get on it.

You don't need to necessarily create your own demise. Just have the financial capability to buy the right companies and technologies when they show viability. Cisco hasn't always been at the leading edge of networking technologies, but they buy the right companies and technology when they need to do so to maintain their dominance.

[713 To 214]

I see your concerns, but you have to understand Houston is the ENERGY Capital not just about Oil.

This is true. However, much of Houston's Energy Industry Workforce is rooted in oil production. . .From the training of highly skilled workers such as engineers, to lower level jobs like machinists. . .they exist to serve the purpose of extracting oil out of the ground. Even the mighty ship channel that we like to gush over so much wouldn't be near as mighty if it were not for the oil companies and their shipments of crude oil, tools, supplies, and people needed to extract that oil.

Turn the page to this century, when undoubtedly more and more energy generation will come from renewable sources. The need for oil tankers, and people trained to find/pull oil out of the ground, and others tied to the extraction of oil will take on a diminishing role. I have no doubt that the oil companies will be able to survive. However, I also have NO doubt that many of those jobs will disappear.

[TheNiche]

You don't need to necessarily create your own demise. Just have the financial capability to buy the right companies and technologies when they show viability. Cisco hasn't always been at the leading edge of networking technologies, but they buy the right companies and technology when they need to do so to maintain their dominance.

It's more than just an issue of ownership, though. Dallas has the Exxon corporate headquarters, yet for very practical reasons relating to logistics and labor markets, Houston has a larger Exxon workforce. Chevron is similarly situated, as is Shell Oil. All of these are major Houston employers.

But there is no compelling reason to locate a divisional headquarters, a large manufacturing operation, or a large research center for non-oil and non-gas energies in Houston. We aren't a capital for coal companies, for instance, even though they're part of the energy industry.

Tory, I really like your blog and am very simpatico with your general approach to growth in Houston, but sometimes you can go a little bit far on the cheerleading. This issue about the future of fossil fuels is a very real problem, one that needs to be addressed by economic development agencies all the way up through the State level. Houston has some secondary infrastructure in healthcare, transportation, and aerospace that it needs to do a much better job at leveraging them than we are at present.

[RedScare]

A couple of things to point out. For those who do not think that a reduction in oil/energy's impact on the Houston's economy is substantial, let's look at it in population terms. In 1980, when the Houston metro population was 2,750,000, oil and related industries impacted as much as 80% of Houston's economy. In other words, 2,200,000 Houstonians relied on the oil/energy industry for their survival. Just 550,000 were not reliant on the oil industry. Today, the estimated metro population is 5,840,000, and oil/energy as a percentage of the Houston economy is estimated at 47%. So, 2,745,000 depend on the oil industry, while 3,095,000 are not dependent on the oil industry for their living. The non-oil dependant economy has grown to almost 6 times its size in 1980, or 450%, while the oil-dependant population has grown only 25%. In other words, nearly all of Houston's growth during the last 29 years can be attributed to non-oil industries.

Those in the oil business can attest to this. In the 80s, massive layoffs occurred due to the oil crash. Drilling rig counts dropped from the mid-4000s to less than 1,000. Even now, they hover in the 1,000 range, 1/4 of the 1980 number. The oil industry has changed, as well. Where in 1980, 69% of the industry was engaged in drilling for oil, today that percentage is 31%. Over 51% of the oil business today is dedicated to refining and plastics and chemicals...all products that will be used and needed in the US economy for decades to come. Houston, being the refining capital of the US, will continue to be the hub for importing oil, refining it, turning it into plastic and chemicals and fertilizer, and shipping it off to the rest of the US. These activities take manpower.

The oil/energy industry also comprises natural gas, the new darling of the energy industry. Houston is home to virtually all of the biggest pipeline companies responsible for moving that gas to market. There are also LNG terminals being built to import liquid natural gas from overseas. The Port of Houston will continue to be important in accepting natural gas and shipping out refined chemicals and plastics. As the Panama Canal is expanded, Houston will receive ever larger shipments of containerized cargo for delivery to the nation's midsection. In fact, Dallas is counting on that expanded capacity to expand its rail transportation hub.

While it is easy to imagine a transformation to a non-oil based existence, in practice, it is not a simple or quick process. Only high oil prices will push the shift to renewables. High oil prices help Houston's economy. Even Peak Oil will benefit Houston, as oil prices rise for the dwindling supply. The $140 oil of 2008 showed us what happens when prices rise. People use less oil, and oil companies use the profits to look for more. All of that is to Houston's advantage.

I do not point this out as a cheerleader for Houston. It is merely to point out that predicting Houston's demise because the oil industry will go away now that Obama is president is the height of ignorance. Obama is attempting to push renewable energy from 1 or 2% to 10%. That leaves a lot of room for oil, and it does not even include chemicals and plastics, materials, I might add, that are crucial to the building of lightweight electric cars and windmills, and even solar panels. Oil is going nowhere soon, and neither is Houston, despite what the inlanders may wish.

[H-Town Man]

It is merely to point out that predicting Houston's demise because the oil industry will go away now that Obama is president is the height of ignorance.

Who predicted that?

Oil is going nowhere soon, and neither is Houston, despite what the inlanders may wish.

Who are the 'inlanders'?

Why have you reacted with so much rage to my comments?

[OkieEric]

It's NO secret that fossil fuels won't be the predominant fuel source in the next 50 years. The oil. . .ahem, excuse me, energy companies better get on it.

Do you have anything to back up that statement? I think fossil fuels will remain our primary source of energy for at least 50 years - google around and I think you will find most tend to agree

And why should Exxon rush into alternative fuels? I'd prefer them keep doing what they do best for now

Edit: removed a link

[TheNiche]

A couple of things to point out. For those who do not think that a reduction in oil/energy's impact on the Houston's economy is substantial, let's look at it in population terms. In 1980, when the Houston metro population was 2,750,000, oil and related industries impacted as much as 80% of Houston's economy. In other words, 2,200,000 Houstonians relied on the oil/energy industry for their survival. Just 550,000 were not reliant on the oil industry. Today, the estimated metro population is 5,840,000, and oil/energy as a percentage of the Houston economy is estimated at 47%. So, 2,745,000 depend on the oil industry, while 3,095,000 are not dependent on the oil industry for their living. The non-oil dependant economy has grown to almost 6 times its size in 1980, or 450%, while the oil-dependant population has grown only 25%. In other words, nearly all of Houston's growth during the last 29 years can be attributed to non-oil industries.

Those in the oil business can attest to this. In the 80s, massive layoffs occurred due to the oil crash. Drilling rig counts dropped from the mid-4000s to less than 1,000. Even now, they hover in the 1,000 range, 1/4 of the 1980 number. The oil industry has changed, as well. Where in 1980, 69% of the industry was engaged in drilling for oil, today that percentage is 31%. Over 51% of the oil business today is dedicated to refining and plastics and chemicals...all products that will be used and needed in the US economy for decades to come. Houston, being the refining capital of the US, will continue to be the hub for importing oil, refining it, turning it into plastic and chemicals and fertilizer, and shipping it off to the rest of the US. These activities take manpower.

The oil/energy industry also comprises natural gas, the new darling of the energy industry. Houston is home to virtually all of the biggest pipeline companies responsible for moving that gas to market. There are also LNG terminals being built to import liquid natural gas from overseas. The Port of Houston will continue to be important in accepting natural gas and shipping out refined chemicals and plastics. As the Panama Canal is expanded, Houston will receive ever larger shipments of containerized cargo for delivery to the nation's midsection. In fact, Dallas is counting on that expanded capacity to expand its rail transportation hub.

While it is easy to imagine a transformation to a non-oil based existence, in practice, it is not a simple or quick process. Only high oil prices will push the shift to renewables. High oil prices help Houston's economy. Even Peak Oil will benefit Houston, as oil prices rise for the dwindling supply. The $140 oil of 2008 showed us what happens when prices rise. People use less oil, and oil companies use the profits to look for more. All of that is to Houston's advantage.

I do not point this out as a cheerleader for Houston. It is merely to point out that predicting Houston's demise because the oil industry will go away now that Obama is president is the height of ignorance. Obama is attempting to push renewable energy from 1 or 2% to 10%. That leaves a lot of room for oil, and it does not even include chemicals and plastics, materials, I might add, that are crucial to the building of lightweight electric cars and windmills, and even solar panels. Oil is going nowhere soon, and neither is Houston, despite what the inlanders may wish.

Just a couple of days ago, researchers announced a potential breakthrough in nuclear fusion. Whether it is that sort of technological breakthrough, efficiency improvements to existing technologies, a cap-and-trade carbon program, windfall profits taxes such as would discourage new drilling when prices get too high, demand destruction resulting from high prices, the continued trend towards many countries seizing and operating their own oil reserves, or (more likely) some combination of these things over the period of the next ten to twenty years, I do believe that Houston's future is uncertain.

To be clear, this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Obama. I don't see a realistic threat within the next four to eight years, and the decline would probably be a slow one, more similar to Detroit than to Houston circa 1986.

[H-Town Man]

Just a couple of days ago, researchers announced a potential breakthrough in nuclear fusion. Whether it is that sort of technological breakthrough, efficiency improvements to existing technologies, a cap-and-trade carbon program, windfall profits taxes such as would discourage new drilling when prices get too high, demand destruction resulting from high prices, the continued trend towards many countries seizing and operating their own oil reserves, or (more likely) some combination of these things over the period of the next ten to twenty years, I do believe that Houston's future is uncertain.

To be clear, this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Obama. I don't see a realistic threat within the next four to eight years, and the decline would probably be a slow one, more similar to Detroit than to Houston circa 1986.

You know Niche, sometimes I think your posts are just too carefully reasoned and calmly stated for HAIF. Where's the rage? Obviously we all love Houston and are interested in its future or we would not be on this forum, so why not ridicule those who disagree with you? If nothing else, then at least selectively misquote them and put words in their mouth so that you can insult their intelligence.

[RedScare]

Why have you reacted with so much rage to my comments?

Why do you think a rebuttal of your non-fact based opinion is "rage" and "hatred"? Seriously, if you cannot support your opinion with a fact based argument, and must resort to claiming fact based rebuttals as "hatred" and "rage", I have no choice but to ignore you completely.

[Mister X]

Why do you think a rebuttal of your non-fact based opinion is "rage" and "hatred"? Seriously, if you cannot support your opinion with a fact based argument, and must resort to claiming fact based rebuttals as "hatred" and "rage", I have no choice but to ignore you completely.

I think anyone who is able to support an opinion with a few stats, figures and facts that can be verified on a google search engine MUST be full of hatred and rage. Therefore they MUST also be the devil! BTW, is that why they call you Red Scare?

Just kidding, please continue setting these maroons str8, red.

[RedScare]

Just a couple of days ago, researchers announced a potential breakthrough in nuclear fusion. Whether it is that sort of technological breakthrough, efficiency improvements to existing technologies, a cap-and-trade carbon program, windfall profits taxes such as would discourage new drilling when prices get too high, demand destruction resulting from high prices, the continued trend towards many countries seizing and operating their own oil reserves, or (more likely) some combination of these things over the period of the next ten to twenty years, I do believe that Houston's future is uncertain.

To be clear, this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Obama. I don't see a realistic threat within the next four to eight years, and the decline would probably be a slow one, more similar to Detroit than to Houston circa 1986.

I agree that over time there will be a gradual decline in the amount of oil produced and used. However, that is already occurring in some respects, and the oil industry has adapted to it, and more importantly, Houston has grown in spite of it. Since 1980, Houston's population has increased 3,084,000, nearly identical to Dallas' 3,254,000, even though Dallas was a bigger metro then and now. Percentagewise, Houston actually grew faster, 211% to 206%. This occured despite the oil crash of the mid 80s, and despite the dreadfully low oil prices of the 80s and 90s. This occured despite the fact that the US reached peak oil in 1970. The shift to offshore drilling and deeper drilling required more technology, more engineering, and more manufacturing. That will continue as world oil supplies shrink. Additionally, my post pointed out that Houston was growing its non-oil economy exponentially compared to its oil based economy. Even as the oil industry gradually shrinks, the non-oil industry will grow, at least as the national economy grows.

There is clearly uncertainty, but that uncertainty is worldwide. A prolonged recession will hurt the conversion to non-oil energy, as conversion takes money. Automobile production has plunged from 17 million to 9 million. That includes hybrids. New York's Wall Street has shed a quarter million jobs in the last year, far worse than anything the oil industry may experience. Home building has dropped from 1.6 million annual starts to 468,000. Consumer spending is down 5%. These issues hurt "diversified" cities far worse than Houston. Looking at Houston in a vacuum skews the picture.

EDIT: Sometimes it is helpful to look back at what the original point was. The original post suggested that Houston was not well positioned to compete with Atlanta and Dallas, presumably on population totals alone. While no facts were given to support that hypothesis, my responses are given merely to rebut the suggestion that Houston will fall behind, merely because it is overwhelmingly an oil and gas town. My responses suggest that Houston's diversified economy has grown far faster than its oil economy, and its diversified economy is largely responsible for what Houston looks like today, rather than its oil economy. The oil economy is more like icing on the cake, and will be more so in the future.

[tierwestah]

Dang DFW is definitely pulling away from Houston. By the time we reach the 6 million mark, DFW will be on the verge of approaching 7 million. The gap is widening because its now a 600k population difference as opposed to the 500k difference before. I wonder what's their secret?

I have no doubt that the oil companies will be able to survive. However, I also have NO doubt that many of those jobs will disappear.

Do you ever have anything positive to say about anything regarding Houston? I know you're a hope to die dallasite now but you really need to give it a rest sometime.

[Trae]

Who are the 'inlanders'?

Why have you reacted with so much rage to my comments?

LOL, you're too sensitive, bro.

[Deut28Thirteen]

I think what some people are worried about is what is Houston back up plan if or when oil is no longer dominate. New Tech is making transportaion with less and less gas possible, While Oil companies new tech is to go dig deeper for oil or use less oil platforms. I think where some differ on here is how difersified is the Houston energy sector, if at all. About 40% of our economy is energy and I think out of that 40 most is in oil.

[TheNiche]

I agree that over time there will be a gradual decline in the amount of oil produced and used. However, that is already occurring in some respects, and the oil industry has adapted to it, and more importantly, Houston has grown in spite of it. Since 1980, Houston's population has increased 3,084,000, nearly identical to Dallas' 3,254,000, even though Dallas was a bigger metro then and now. Percentagewise, Houston actually grew faster, 211% to 206%. This occured despite the oil crash of the mid 80s, and despite the dreadfully low oil prices of the 80s and 90s. This occured despite the fact that the US reached peak oil in 1970. The shift to offshore drilling and deeper drilling required more technology, more engineering, and more manufacturing. That will continue as world oil supplies shrink. Additionally, my post pointed out that Houston was growing its non-oil economy exponentially compared to its oil based economy. Even as the oil industry gradually shrinks, the non-oil industry will grow, at least as the national economy grows.

There is clearly uncertainty, but that uncertainty is worldwide. A prolonged recession will hurt the conversion to non-oil energy, as conversion takes money. Automobile production has plunged from 17 million to 9 million. That includes hybrids. New York's Wall Street has shed a quarter million jobs in the last year, far worse than anything the oil industry may experience. Home building has dropped from 1.6 million annual starts to 468,000. Consumer spending is down 5%. These issues hurt "diversified" cities far worse than Houston. Looking at Houston in a vacuum skews the picture.

EDIT: Sometimes it is helpful to look back at what the original point was. The original post suggested that Houston was not well positioned to compete with Atlanta and Dallas, presumably on population totals alone. While no facts were given to support that hypothesis, my responses are given merely to rebut the suggestion that Houston will fall behind, merely because it is overwhelmingly an oil and gas town. My responses suggest that Houston's diversified economy has grown far faster than its oil economy, and its diversified economy is largely responsible for what Houston looks like today, rather than its oil economy. The oil economy is more like icing on the cake, and will be more so in the future.

You're talking about the recession a lot. To be perfectly 100% clear, I'm not really arguing toward anything resulting from the recession as a factor in the potential decline of oil as an economic driver for Houston. I would be more inclined to believe that our exposure to this recession is lessened because we are so disproportionately dependent upon the energy industry, and that we will undergo another boom once the recession ends and oil prices increase once again. But as I stated earlier, my concerns are not at all short-term in nature. When oil prices increase again, that is when alternative energies become more economically viable, when governments may be inclined to punish oil companies rather than allow their incentives to produce, and when more monies are allocated for alternative energy research. When our boom matures, that is the danger zone. It's a ways off. Yet clearly, as evidenced by previous oil busts, it doesn't help us at all when the energy industry does poorly, and it is a very bumpy road on the path of recovery.

Also, as a footnote, one of the key datasets you've been relying on is the ratio of energy to non-energy core employment put out by the University of Houston's Institute for Regional Forecasting, headed by Prof. Barton Smith. Smith was one of my own professors, and the coursework I received from him was in all honesty some of the best-taught material that I'd received in all my time at UH. I respect the guy immensely and apply a lot of what I was taught to discussions here on HAIF. However, I've always found his methodology dubious when it comes to this statistic. I no longer have access to Databook Houston, so I can't go through his notes at the back of the book to cite the exact composition of this index, but it is sufficient to say that I doubt its validity; I'm not sure that it reports what it says it does. I don't blame him for trying to come up with some basic measure of economic diversification--it's a very important topic--but the historical SIC and NAICS employment estimates available to him are simply inadequate to the task.

[H-Town Man]

Why do you think a rebuttal of your non-fact based opinion is "rage" and "hatred"? Seriously, if you cannot support your opinion with a fact based argument, and must resort to claiming fact based rebuttals as "hatred" and "rage", I have no choice but to ignore you completely.

You say you have "no choice" but to ignore me: if my views are so silly and groundless, why didn't you just ignore me from the start? Why were you posting about it after midnight last night? A lot of people on here post things that don't make any sense to me and I usually do just that, ignore them. I don't devote multi-paragraph posts to trying to refute them with statistics dug up from all over the internet, and check back all day long to make responses. Either some point I made got to you, or you really have a lot of time to waste.

Fine Red, ignore me. I will continue to discuss this with anyone still interested in discussing (not arguing) it, and you are free to ignore me. But I don't think you can.

[TheNiche]

Sorry, H-Town, but I agree with Red on this one. Just because you got dogpiled doesn't mean people hate you.