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.
Considering NJ and CT's wealth (2nd and 3rd in the nation by incomes respectively, behind MD), I'd say the NYC metro region probably wins. Northern NJ and southwestern CT have a lot of money and a lot of beautiful wealthy suburbs within the metro area. A few (3 to 4) of NJ's counties routinely make the list of top 10 wealthiest in the nation. Greenwich and the Hamptons are two extremely well known wealthy areas and Alpine NJ is lesser known but home to tons of celebrities and wealthy people alike. Then there are the dozens of other lesser known towns and cities known locally for their wealth. Lots of money around here, and no doubt in LA too. I could see arguments for both LA and NYC area to 'win' on this one but IMO Chicago is third either way. LA would probably win on scenery but that's not to say Chicago and NYC don't have beautiful areas in the cities and metros as well.
Perfect weather and beaches doesnt = wealthy
Look at Brazil
I think most people (not me, though) would prefer LA's dry 70F with a breeze year-round over Brazil's humid and hot weather all year. Though Brazil obviously has better beaches. ANYWAYS, the debate wasn't whether all places with nice weather and beaches are always rich. LA's suburbs are rich, have nice weather and good beaches nearby. Your argument doesn't really make sense.
The most recent Money magazine list pf highest earning towns was topped by Scarsdale NY and included 2 CT towns as well as Rye in the top ten. It also had two suburbs of Chicago (Winnetka and Hinsdale) but no LA suburbs (just one SF town, Orinda). While NY and LA may have alot of nice areas, they also have alot of ugly areas as well, while Chicago is more uniform, less highs and lows. Because of the extreme highs for both NY and LA ( Greenwich and Beverly Hills ) v Chicago (north shore and western suburbs) they might win on affluence, but maybe not on livability or desireability. What is "best" is really subjective; if it were up to the late film director John Hughs, it would be Chicago.
I think most people (not me, though) would prefer LA's dry 70F with a breeze year-round over Brazil's humid and hot weather all year. Though Brazil obviously has better beaches. ANYWAYS, the debate wasn't whether all places with nice weather and beaches are always rich. LA's suburbs are rich, have nice weather and good beaches nearby. Your argument doesn't really make sense.
My argument is that weather doesn't make a place more affluent.
Cleveland. Shaker Heights is one of the best suburbs in the USA. Hunting Valley is the 5th richest city per capita in the USA. Cleveland has some amazing Early 20th century art deco and neoclassical mansions. Remember, the titans of industry, such as Rockefeller, DuPont, Glidden, Sherwin and Williams, once lived here, and many of their homes are still standing.
Cleveland. Shaker Heights is one of the best suburbs in the USA. Hunting Valley is the 5th richest city per capita in the USA. Cleveland has some amazing Early 20th century art deco and neoclassical mansions. Remember, the titans of industry, such as Rockefeller, DuPont, Glidden, Sherwin and Williams, once lived here, and many of their homes are still standing.
My argument is that weather doesn't make a place more affluent.
Yes but nobody was making the argument that it did, so it doesn't make sense.
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.