CERN exerts a brain drain effect: many of the most promising experimental physicists are relocating to Europe because that's where the action is in their field. From the perspective of an American, it would be better for America to gain physicists from Europe rather than losing them. There are arguments that benefiting from scientific brain drain is excellent for the US economy.

The data from the LHC and the theories it's testing are arcane for now, but there's a chance it could be massively important down the road. The study of atomic fission used to be merely scribbles. Is there a guarantee that quantum field theory will be as pivotal as atomic fission? No. But there's a slight chance.

It's kind of like early exploration of Antarctica: was it useful at the time? No. Expensive? Yes. Worth it? Yes and No are both valid (depending on what you value), but I'd say yes.

edit: I meant to link this book instead

I would highly recommend everyone read The New Geography of Jobs by Enrico Moretti. It is an amazing book and not difficult to digest.

Here is a snippet and here is the link to buy it off Amazon.

For the question of what makes cities rich and poor there a huge number of possible answers including human capital, infrastructure, luck (take Seattle as an example, it got a big technology industry pretty much by luck because Bill Gates moved Microsoft there from Albuquerque because it was his home area and then the forces of urban economics does the rest), resources, etc.

I'd recommend reading these books: Keys to the City by Michael Storper (he was my lecturer, he's a professor at LSE, UCLA and Sciences Po) and The New Geography of Jobs by Enrico Moretti. Even just the introductions provide a good insight.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Geography-Jobs-Enrico-Moretti/dp/0544028058http://www.amazon.co.uk/Keys-City-Institutions-Interaction-Development/dp/0691143110/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451394581&sr=8-1&keywords=keys+to+the+city

To get an insight into what our economy makes and then sells, and it buys from abroad, and from where, this is a good website. Bear in mind it's looking at goods - the UK sells quite a lot of services abroad too. http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/gbr/all/show/2013/

In a nutshell the UK is good at services (financial services, consulting (of all types not just management or strategy), advertising, law etc.), pharmaceuticals, high tech engineering (aerospace stuff, ARM in Cambridge for example and other IT, car production)

Good article about growth and decline of a city here too http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/03/29/the-churn

The economy section of the ONS website also contains a lot of information about which sectors are big, how many people work in them, their growth and contribution to the economy, regional growth and contribution to UK overall too, and so on. House of Commons Library and Bank of England are good too.

I read in this book recently

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0544028058/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687722&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0143120549&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=185ENY9WB6J9WYNFAWQK

That to have a growing region, you need cities which attract young and educated people. Having major universities is very helpful.

The New Geography of Jobs https://www.amazon.com/dp/0544028058/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_YkGSzbYRKY47V

The service industry, which includes doctors, lawyers, restaurants and their staff, plumbers, carpenters, nurses, electricians, DPW workers, etc. also benefit.

That is truly a mind-blowing stat.

Enrico Moretti's book "The New Geography of Jobs" touches on this idea in depth, too. Cities are by definition more productive, and we either need to build more within cities, or at worst, provide better transportation links between cities - if a worker in Fresno can commute by rail to SF in an hour, they bring some of those productivity gains into less productive areas.

It wasn't the 'best of' lists that made people move to austin or seattle, it was the strong, booming economy. I recommend this book to understand Austin's growth:

https://www.amazon.com/New-Geography-Jobs-Enrico-Moretti/dp/0544028058

Every information/innovation jobs creates 5 service jobs. Having a microsoft or dell in town allows thousands of hipster bars and restaurants.

> reading a report from an economist for Trulia

what about other economists who would for state universities, like Enrico Moretti or Edward Glaser or any number of other economists? Will you accept their peer reviewed claims?

>But what people don't know is with every manufacturing job that disappeared, 1.6 service jobs also disappeared - waiter and barista for example

>#1.6 service jobs also disappeared

It's already been happening dingus, for a long time. And do you really think that the workers at McDonalds would be demanding $15/hr minimum wage if it was full of teens/college students like it was in the 1980s-early 1990s when there were decent manufacturing jobs?

No.

Because all of those decent paying manufacturing jobs have been eliminated, every eliminated manufacturing job has also taken 1.6 service jobs. Those people have not gone anywhere - all of the unemployed manufacturing positions are taking these service jobs and demanding the old 1980s-early 1990s manufacturing living wages. There are less service jobs because there are less manufacturing jobs but all manufacturing sector unemployed are competing for the less prevalent service jobs.

It's basic economics guy. If you are only a high school grad in 2000s America you are fucked career wise in most cases.

READ THIS BOOK FROM YOUR LOCAL LIBRARY

A lot of people think we are all divided by red and blue ideologies but we are even more divided by blue collar, white collar, and gray collar.

https://smile.amazon.com/New-Geography-Jobs-Enrico-Moretti/dp/0544028058/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_4497631610?_encoding=UTF8&%2AVersion%2A=1&%2Aentries%2A=0&ie=UTF8

It’s not so simple