Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are totally in denial, it's fun to watch at this point. Rents in the most expensive parts of LA are significantly higher than the rents in the most expensive parts of Chicago. And median rents are higher in LA than Chicago. The UBS study should remove the U.
Then we have the study using real incomes and rents showing LA to have one of the highest rent burdens in the nation. Miami is worse though. A city UBS claims is cheaper.
Where would you rank Chicago among the 71 global cities that are part of UBS survey? You are so happy waving around the housing info from standard sources, do you think that UBS has some axe to grind with Chicago? Do you think they'd go through the trouble of creating their own study if they could just extract useful info from existing sources? Maybe UBS wants to ease people fears that Chicago is some horrible pit of doom that only a fool would invest in...
It is simply astounding the lengths you will go to try to make it seem like Chicago is some kind of bargain when the evidence from this study, and frankly from lots of people that post here shocked at how hard it is to find acceptable housing for their family when offered an opportunity to transfer, both point to a different conclusion.
Does make sense that if nice apartments are so cheap and plentiful as you claim there would be so many firms planning on building large new towers of apartments?
There is some "good news" in being ranked so high -- it will encourage those who want to increase wages and add to the supply of housing as having some evidence to do so. Of course if they'd follow your analysis they'd probably cutting salaries and cancelling planned apartment developments...
Last edited by chet everett; 10-01-2015 at 02:17 PM..
You are the type of small minded person that makes Chicago what it is becoming...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein
LOL at this "study".
Why are the myopic cheerleaders of Chicago so eager to assume that there is no valid data that can convince them that this is a low cost haven, when the continual movement strongly shows that it harder and harder for regular people to afford to make ends meet?
As as asked your fellow jesters: Where do believe Chicago should be ranked against the other 71 global cities? What possible motive would lead UBS to misrepresent Chicago's place?
LOL ACE! HA HA! ENJOY THE STINKING MESS YOUR CAREFREE ATTITUDE FOSTERS!
Why are the myopic cheerleaders of Chicago so eager to assume that there is no valid data that can convince them that this is a low cost haven, when the continual movement strongly shows that it harder and harder for regular people to afford to make ends meet?
As as asked your fellow jesters: Where do believe Chicago should be ranked against the other 71 global cities? What possible motive would lead UBS to misrepresent Chicago's place?
Because the data in this study isn't valid. Chicago is probably somewhere right around 7th in the US and much lower globally. Sure, prices have increased here but they are increasing everywhere.
Where would you rank Chicago among the 71 global cities that are part of UBS survey? You are so happy waving around the housing info from standard sources, do you think that UBS has some axe to grind with Chicago? Do you think they'd go through the trouble of creating their own study if they could just extract useful info from existing sources? Maybe UBS wants to ease people fears that Chicago is some horrible pit of doom that only a fool would invest in...
It is simply astounding the lengths you will go to try to make it seem like Chicago is some kind of bargain when the evidence from this study, and frankly from lots of people that post here shocked at how hard it is to find acceptable housing for their family when offered an opportunity to transfer, both point to a different conclusion.
Does make sense that if nice apartments are so cheap and plentiful as you claim there would be so many firms planning on building large new towers of apartments?
There is some "good news" in being ranked so high -- it will encourage those who want to increase wages and add to the supply of housing as having some evidence to do so. Of course if they'd follow your analysis they'd probably cutting salaries and cancelling planned apartment developments...
It is not easy to quantify the term "affordable", as it means different things to different people. Chicago(land) can be one of the most affordable places in the Country, or can be one of the most unaffordable places, depending on your perspective.
Affordability comparisons are meaningless unless we are looking at an apples to apples comparison. If somebody is looking to live in the core of Chicago (downtown/near north/LP/etc.), there are truly only 6 cities in the US more expensive: Boston, NYC, DC, SF, SoCal (LA/SD).
However, one thing that Chicago has that virtually none of those other cities have (with maybe the exception of LA, but not at same scale), is a vast swath of the city that is cheap by almost anybody's standards, however, most people are not interested in living in neighborhoods with Housing that costs $60-100K.
Another consideration point is standard of living, most Chicagoans are not willing to live in the types of apartments many who live in NYC or SF would live in (ie. 300sq ft on 6th floor of walkup), so that will typically increase the COL in Chicago as the standard will increase as well.
Part of your arguement may be worth considering, though you seem to forget that the UBS study looks at earnings too...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FAReastcoast
It is not easy to quantify the term "affordable", as it means different things to different people. Chicago(land) can be one of the most affordable places in the Country, or can be one of the most unaffordable places, depending on your perspective.
Affordability comparisons are meaningless unless we are looking at an apples to apples comparison. If somebody is looking to live in the core of Chicago (downtown/near north/LP/etc.), there are truly only 6 cities in the US more expensive: Boston, NYC, DC, SF, SoCal (LA/SD).
However, one thing that Chicago has that virtually none of those other cities have (with maybe the exception of LA, but not at same scale), is a vast swath of the city that is cheap by almost anybody's standards, however, most people are not interested in living in neighborhoods with Housing that costs $60-100K.
Another consideration point is standard of living, most Chicagoans are not willing to live in the types of apartments many who live in NYC or SF would live in (ie. 300sq ft on 6th floor of walkup), so that will typically increase the COL in Chicago as the standard will increase as well.
The study already ranked NYC higher than Chicago, so there is no need to argue over that but it makes sense to review:
Though the UBS study does have the headline of "expensive" they arrive at these by comparing the COSTS and EARNINGS. Things like the local tax structures of NYC, which are always ultimately reflected in COSTS make NYC expensive, even if there many occupations that also show EARNINGS are higher, it is not offsetting the expense. The thing is the "attractiveness" of NYC both in terms of truly sky-high earnings potential and its undeniable global importance make it kind of THE special case globally.
The many folks that are so eager to assume UBS has some ulterior motive in ranking Chicago so high are missing the point. It is not simply about "affordability" in some sort of "scraping by" sense. The "basket of goods" includes things like cell phones and eating out. This is a far more comprehensive measure of what it takes to have a decent life. As you get further and further down the list there are many global cities that have some meager earnings that virtually no one really is having a decent life -- that becomes of issue of global inequity... And that means that those rare "new construction apartments" that have kitchens and baths in third world countries are still CRAZY expensive for the folks living in tin shacks -- that is not a precise match to the existence of burned out ghettos of Chicago or East LA, but the logic of NOT including any substandard housing is part of the genius of a study that is globally useful.
When it comes to possibility of including more US cities it might interesting to speculate where they'd rank in comparison to Chicago. Some many very well have even higher costs, but they may have offsetting higher earnings. I've quoted data that clearly showed the occupations that are included in the study for Los Angles reported higher earnings, that offsets things like higher rents. I am fairly sure that if cities like Boston and some of the others that are not included were studied there would be similar offsets. It is not so much that Boston is any "cheaper" but that folks living there are almost certainly not as burdened by a mismatch between costs and earnings. And remember, the cities way down the list are not just low cost, they're low earnings...
For folks that really do think about this in an honest way, it is interesting way to look at how expensive a city feels to the kinds of people that almost certainly in the most globally similar jobs -- no study will ever be perfect but the depth of data really is useful.
The study already ranked NYC higher than Chicago, so there is no need to argue over that but it makes sense to review:
Though the UBS study does have the headline of "expensive" they arrive at these by comparing the COSTS and EARNINGS. Things like the local tax structures of NYC, which are always ultimately reflected in COSTS make NYC expensive, even if there many occupations that also show EARNINGS are higher, it is not offsetting the expense. The thing is the "attractiveness" of NYC both in terms of truly sky-high earnings potential and its undeniable global importance make it kind of THE special case globally.
The many folks that are so eager to assume UBS has some ulterior motive in ranking Chicago so high are missing the point. It is not simply about "affordability" in some sort of "scraping by" sense. The "basket of goods" includes things like cell phones and eating out. This is a far more comprehensive measure of what it takes to have a decent life. As you get further and further down the list there are many global cities that have some meager earnings that virtually no one really is having a decent life -- that becomes of issue of global inequity... And that means that those rare "new construction apartments" that have kitchens and baths in third world countries are still CRAZY expensive for the folks living in tin shacks -- that is not a precise match to the existence of burned out ghettos of Chicago or East LA, but the logic of NOT including any substandard housing is part of the genius of a study that is globally useful.
When it comes to possibility of including more US cities it might interesting to speculate where they'd rank in comparison to Chicago. Some many very well have even higher costs, but they may have offsetting higher earnings. I've quoted data that clearly showed the occupations that are included in the study for Los Angles reported higher earnings, that offsets things like higher rents. I am fairly sure that if cities like Boston and some of the others that are not included were studied there would be similar offsets. It is not so much that Boston is any "cheaper" but that folks living there are almost certainly not as burdened by a mismatch between costs and earnings. And remember, the cities way down the list are not just low cost, they're low earnings...
For folks that really do think about this in an honest way, it is interesting way to look at how expensive a city feels to the kinds of people that almost certainly in the most globally similar jobs -- no study will ever be perfect but the depth of data really is useful.
I agree with you on costs vs earnings. Let's throw NYC out the window, as we all know how expensive it is.
Look San Francisco vs. Chicago; sure the average household income in the Bay Area is higher than Chicago, but that is not because pay for the same work is significantly higher, it's because there are more high paying jobs in the Bay Area, if not in raw numbers, certainly in percentage. If you keep it apples to apples and look at similar people working similar jobs looking for a similar type of neighborhood, the Bay Area is no doubt more expensive. A plumber or a bus driver is not making much more money in the Bay Area than Chicago, there is no way Chicago is more expensive for this type of individual.
HOWEVER, if you were to just lump everyone together, including the significantly higher poor population in Chicago, and try to compile data in some "study" I could see how Chicago can come out as more expensive, but in that case, what are you proving?
The study really is interesting at a global macro-economic level...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FAReastcoast
I agree with you on costs vs earnings. Let's throw NYC out the window, as we all know how expensive it is.
Look San Francisco vs. Chicago; sure the average household income in the Bay Area is higher than Chicago, but that is not because pay for the same work is significantly higher, it's because there are more high paying jobs in the Bay Area, if not in raw numbers, certainly in percentage. If you keep it apples to apples and look at similar people working similar jobs looking for a similar type of neighborhood, the Bay Area is no doubt more expensive. A plumber or a bus driver is not making much more money in the Bay Area than Chicago, there is no way Chicago is more expensive for this type of individual.
HOWEVER, if you were to just lump everyone together, including the significantly higher poor population in Chicago, and try to compile data in some "study" I could see how Chicago can come out as more expensive, but in that case, what are you proving?
...again, the study did focus on just the working population, and that is important because you do get some non-trivial information.
First, my gut says that there absolutely are differences in the wages of many occupations when comparing SF to Chicago. To be sure, there are a handful of occupations in the already mentioned comparisions of LA to Chicago where Chicago came out slightly better. Those are, predictably, the sorts of sectors where LA's much larger population of undocumented workers and Chicago's still stronger labor unions tip the scales. Even though those differences exist, the scale that UBS used still ranked Chicago as more expensive than LA. I really can't do other than speculate if the same factors would send SF up a notch or not, though I do know that when I have been out in the Bay Area the relative affordability offered by Oakland may be a unique local offset, and perhaps a reason to exclude it from such a study.
The study is not, in my mind, about "proving" anything so much as useful reference point in the ongoing effort to assess the costs and earning of residents of many cities / countries relative to other globally important cities. The important lesson should be for policy makers to understand that their efforts to convince firms to relocate to their city are driven by complex factors. The data can be used to explain things as diverse as the offsets that they may use to reduce tax burdens as an enticement probably are not adequate to address the ongoing wage premium they may need to attract talent to the scarcity of certain kinds of housing, or the relative difficulty of existing residents to find employment that allows them to buy the goods needed for a normal western style life...
Last edited by chet everett; 10-02-2015 at 02:10 PM..
Why are the myopic cheerleaders of Chicago so eager to assume that there is no valid data that can convince them that this is a low cost haven, when the continual movement strongly shows that it harder and harder for regular people to afford to make ends meet?
Chicago is hardly a "low-cost haven"; it's the most expensive city in the Midwest. But it's also completely ridiculous to claim it's the 7th most expensive city in the world. It isn't even the 7th most expensive city in the U.S.
In a top-tier city like NYC or London or Paris or Hong Kong you're easily paying $1 million+ for a non-shoebox apartment in a good central neighborhood. No one is paying those kind of prices in Chicagoland. If you're paying $1 million+ in the Chicago area you're getting something big or luxurious or more likely both.
Chicago is hardly a "low-cost haven"; it's the most expensive city in the Midwest. But it's also completely ridiculous to claim it's the 7th most expensive city in the world. It isn't even the 7th most expensive city in the U.S.
In a top-tier city like NYC or London or Paris or Hong Kong you're easily paying $1 million+ for a non-shoebox apartment in a good central neighborhood. No one is paying those kind of prices in Chicagoland. If you're paying $1 million+ in the Chicago area you're getting something big or luxurious or more likely both.
The study included 71 GLOBAL cities, it makes no claim for including EVERY city, but by comprehensive analysis of what sorts of EARNINGS are common in the cities studied AND ranking of the COSTS of those cites there were only a few cities that were ranked higher --
The headlines seem to have focused on the the data from the COST side
Quote:
Price levels: Do I live in an expensive city?
City Incl. rent*
New York City _|100.0
Zurich_______|92.6
Geneva______|91.8
Oslo_________|79.9
London_______|79.5
Hong Kong____|76.8 Chicago______|76.7
Copenhagen___|74.3
Sydney_______|72.5
There are additional rankings of earnings and purchasing power that others seem less interested in exploring
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are the type of small minded person that makes Chicago what it is becoming...
