New York City Vs San Francisco with Poll (living, best, state)

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

What name did I call you, exactly?



Excuse me, even without SF in half, the census bureau says the following:

Median Household Income, 2013
San Francisco, CA $77,485
Manhattan, NY $72,190

Median Family Income, 2013
San Francisco, CA $95,421
Manhattan, NY $88,247

Does that prove anything DEFINITIVELY?

lol

So SF has higher median wealth while Manhattan has higher mean wealth. Sure why not.

But the stat below(based on MSA) really kills the notion that NYC has a far higher proportion of super rich.

Individuals worth $30 Million+, 2014
New York 8,655................+8% over 2013
San Francisco 5,460...... +12% over 2013
Los Angeles 5,135............+4% over 2013

Source: Wealth-X & Union Bank of Switzerland

We're talking about 19M vs 4M in population btw.

Good luck reconciling that. lol


No, you've been stomping your feet but no one is beholden to go along. Grow up indeed.


Yes I did. NYs suburban wealthy are segregated from the poor. The MSA stat provides us with the complete picture. Guess who eins that one. Hint: Not NYC.


I charge money for research requests. Do you have paypal?

What's the goal here? Whichever one has a higher proportional number of super wealthy in a MSA?

I think maybe this discussion would make more sense if we were actually trying to define a criteria for what this matchup is supposed to be. The Bay Area certainly has a higher proportion of wealthy people than the Tri-State Area. Is that the rubric we're agreeing to? If so, then yes, it's obviously the Bay Area. If we're talking just proportionally, then the Bay Area also gets percentage of people with college degrees, potentially higher crime rate and homelessness, and a slew of others probably good and bad.

If we're talking about diversity, density, transit, overall clout or influence (whether measured by GDP, one of the various global rankings published, number of Fortune 500 companies, number of top spots for different industries, multinational companies, organizations, or political entities, etc.), and absolute numbers of anything (whether uber-wealthy, wealthy, middle class, working class or impoverished) then it's obviously the Tri-State area.

If we're talking about which one someone personally prefers, then obviously you prefer the Bay Area as do many others, and obviously others prefer the Tri-State area.

My point was generally along the lines of which one is the more influential city or had the most overall clout, in which case the Bay Area is in a very distinctly separate tier from NYC by a fairly vast margin. People who have interjected with other cities/MSA such as Philadelphia, Boston, DMV, Chicago, etc. with the intention of touting how great the Bay Area is seem misguided in that the gap among those cities/metros and SF/the Bay Area is dwarfed by the gap between SF/the Bay Area and NYC/Tri-State area with SF/the Bay Area forming a fairly closely bundled tier under this rubric with all of these a noticeable step down from NYC/the Tri-State area. Now, of course, this doesn't mean other people don't prefer these areas or that these places aren't great because this rubric isn't generally or necessarily closely tied to any one individual's personal preferences.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

What's the goal here? Whichever one has a higher proportional number of super wealthy in a MSA?

Yep, as though living next to Donald Trump inherently increases one's own standard-of-living.

The fact that both cities are home to a high concentration of 1%-ers is essentially meaningless in the context of the fact that the vast, vast majority of both cities' residents live a pretty standard middle-class lifestyle.

Let's not try to fool ourselves into believing that everyone in SF owns their own Google, or that everyone in New York is a real estate magnate.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

What's the goal here? Whichever one has a higher proportional number of super wealthy in a MSA?

I think maybe this discussion would make more sense if we were actually trying to define a criteria for what this matchup is supposed to be. The Bay Area certainly has a higher proportion of wealthy people than the Tri-State Area. Is that the rubric we're agreeing to? If so, then yes, it's obviously the Bay Area.

If we're talking about diversity, density, transit, overall clout or influence, absolute numbers of anything (whether wealthy, middle class, working class or impoverished) then it's obviously the Tri-State area.

actually am pretty sure the criteria is which has more fortune top 10 companies starting alphabetically between A and C

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

Agree. A city has to be better to be better. And NYC is better on every measure that is important to me. I could give a flip about average income, average education level, the number of billionaires per square foot and other meaningless nonsense. As a frequent visitor, NYC offers me more bang for my buck than any city in the US.

Do I want to live in NYC? Nope. But if I had to choose between the 2, NYC would win. Hands down. Reason number one: It's located on the right coast. SF has no answer to that.

Ewww, wow you lost me on the right coast part!

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

What name did I call you, exactly?



Excuse me, even without SF in half, the census bureau says the following:

Median Household Income, 2013
San Francisco, CA $77,485
Manhattan, NY $72,190

Median Family Income, 2013
San Francisco, CA $95,421
Manhattan, NY $88,247

Does that prove anything DEFINITIVELY?

lol

So SF has higher median wealth while Manhattan has higher mean wealth. Sure why not.

But the stat below(based on MSA) really kills the notion that NYC has a far higher proportion of super rich.

Individuals worth $30 Million+, 2014
New York 8,655................+8% over 2013
San Francisco 5,460...... +12% over 2013
Los Angeles 5,135............+4% over 2013

Source: Wealth-X & Union Bank of Switzerland

We're talking about 19M vs 4M in population btw.

Good luck reconciling that. lol


No, you've been stomping your feet but no one is beholden to go along. Grow up indeed.


Yes I did. NYs suburban wealthy are segregated from the poor. The MSA stat provides us with the complete picture. Guess who eins that one. Hint: Not NYC.


I charge money for research requests. Do you have paypal?

You said I appeared desperate and silly--name calling. Again, grow up.

SF has no answer for the obscene amount of wealth located in the NYC area. You keep speaking about proportions and per capita, but in this case, SF is a welterweight going up against a heavy weight--doesn't matter if it's Mayweather, the welterweight is going down. We're not even talking GDP, because you know that's lopsided, too.

Furthermore, when I do point out the several instances where NYC is proportionally wealthier (Manhattan, Hunterdon, Westchester, etc), you conveniently ignore those stats. NYC may have 1.7 million "poor" people to contend with, as you so eloquently put it, but its highs are significantly higher than anything in the Bay Area, except for Atherton (how nice of me to point that out for you). So lower lows, I admit, but much higher highs. And far more total wealth.

And as far as the high wealth population, some stats for you (here's a hint--SF is not number 1):

Capegmini Wealth Report

01. New York: 898,800 (increase of 12.2% year over year)
02. Los Angeles: 330,000 (increase of 14.4% year over year)
03. San Jose and San Francisco-Oakland: 321,700 (San Jose (122,400) with an annual increase of 14.3% / San Francisco-Oakland (199,300) with an annual increase of 14%)
04. Chicago: 264,300 (increase of 12.6% year over year)
05. Washington DC: 220,700 (increase of 15.6% year over year)
06. Boston: 147,700 (increase of 17.8% year over year)
07. Philadelphia: 135,700 (increase of 14.7% year over year)
08. Houston: 131,000 (increase of 18% year over year)
09. Dallas-Fort Worth: 113,300 (increase of 20% year over year)
10. Detroit: 108,200 (increase of 11.4% year over year)
11. Seattle: 87,800 (increase of 16.9% year over year)

2014 Forbes Billionaire Count
New York Tri-State Area101
San Francisco Bay Area 57
Los Angeles Area 40
Dallas-Ft Worth Area 26
Miami Area 25
Chicago Area 20
Houston Area 13
Washington-Baltimore Area12
Boston Area 11
Seattle Area 10
Phoenix Area 9
Las Vegas Area 8
Atlanta Area 7
Denver Area 6
Detroit Area 6
Philadelphia Area 6
San Antonio Area 5
Minneapolis Area 4

Wealth-X Billionaire Census

New York City has the most number of billionaires, at 103, followed by Los Angeles with 25, San Francisco with 20, Chicago with 18, Dallas with 17, Houston with 16, Miami with 11, Toronto and Atlanta with 10 each and Washington, D.C. with nine.

Lastly, the fact that you keep stalling on those stats (I charge for PayPal--how cute) leads me to believe you were just full of it on your assertion. Just admit to it. And if I keep stomping my feet, God knows what the hell you're doing--sticking out your tongue and making fart noises, at this point.

[slo1318]

Wow those Bay Area numbers are impressive!

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by slo1318

Ewww, wow you lost me on the right coast part!

Lol he didn't lose you before that?

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by qworldorder

You said I appeared desperate and silly--name calling

That's not name calling. That's pointing out how you come across.

SF has no answer for the obscene amount of wealth located in the NYC area.

You mean, in sum, New York has a greater sum of wealth? Yes.

You keep speaking about proportions and per capita

Because that's tells the true nature of how regular people live.

In that context, NYC at ANY LEVEL, BE IT CITY, COUNTY, URBAN AREA, METRO AREA OR COMBINED STATISTICAL AREA, IS MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING CLASS, WHILE SF IS AFFLUENT BY COMPARISON.

Furthermore, when I do point out the several instances where NYC is proportionally wealthier (Manhattan, Hunterdon, Westchester, etc), you conveniently ignore those stats. NYC may have 1.7 million "poor" people to contend with, as you so eloquently put it, but its highs are significantly higher than anything in the Bay Area

New York should actually have MORE wealth to be on the Bay Area's level.

And you say that 1.7 million people are a convenience? haha I guess you would rather there were killed off?

And as far as the high wealth population, some stats for you (here's a hint--SF is not number 1):

Capegmini Wealth Report

01. New York: 898,800 (increase of 12.2% year over year)
02. Los Angeles: 330,000 (increase of 14.4% year over year)
03. San Jose and San Francisco-Oakland: 321,700 (San Jose (122,400) with an annual increase of 14.3% / San Francisco-Oakland (199,300) with an annual increase of 14%)
04. Chicago: 264,300 (increase of 12.6% year over year)
05. Washington DC: 220,700 (increase of 15.6% year over year)
06. Boston: 147,700 (increase of 17.8% year over year)
07. Philadelphia: 135,700 (increase of 14.7% year over year)
08. Houston: 131,000 (increase of 18% year over year)
09. Dallas-Fort Worth: 113,300 (increase of 20% year over year)
10. Detroit: 108,200 (increase of 11.4% year over year)
11. Seattle: 87,800 (increase of 16.9% year over year)

2014 Forbes Billionaire Count
New York Tri-State Area101
San Francisco Bay Area 57
Los Angeles Area 40
Dallas-Ft Worth Area 26
Miami Area 25
Chicago Area 20
Houston Area 13
Washington-Baltimore Area12
Boston Area 11
Seattle Area 10
Phoenix Area 9
Las Vegas Area 8
Atlanta Area 7
Denver Area 6
Detroit Area 6
Philadelphia Area 6
San Antonio Area 5
Minneapolis Area 4

Wealth-X Billionaire Census

New York City has the most number of billionaires, at 103, followed by Los Angeles with 25, San Francisco with 20, Chicago with 18, Dallas with 17, Houston with 16, Miami with 11, Toronto and Atlanta with 10 each and Washington, D.C. with nine.

SF is more impressive than NY by far. New York needs 200 billionaires to be on SFs level.

Lastly, the fact that you keep stalling on those stats (I charge for PayPal--how cute) leads me to believe you were just full of it on your assertion. Just admit to it. And if I keep stomping my feet, God knows what the hell you're doing--sticking out your tongue and making fart noises, at this point.

haha no Im only casually interested whereas you seem to be off the deep end.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by SuperKirby

Is it possible to have another thread like this? I did not seem to find one with a poll so thought it might be okay to start another thread with a poll. If allowed, I would like to ask:

Which one do you prefer to live in? In terms of everything: quality of life, jobs, family, eating out, recreational, scenery, culture, transportation, traffic, costs, attractions, and you know the rest. You don't have to type out reasons if you don't want to (as I have seen plenty in other threads). A simple vote will suffice.

NY definitely. The people in the SF really bug me, if we could replace the people it would be a tougher decision.

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

LOL.

Next up - What fires the imagination of children across the country every December: Santa Claus? Or San Francisco? (I know how one poster will respond.)

Lmao