New York, Toronto, Houston, San Francisco are in the world's top 20 [cities in] millionaire as percentage of population (better, place)
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.
I agree with your post but Im not sure what a school teacher's salary is in the U.S but in Ontario starting salary is 45 and 55k per year and those with 10 years service earn between 76 to 92K per year - not chump change!
Teachers in NJ can retire with up to 115k. It's unreal - and a huge problem in our state, actually.
Perhaps the "CEO 1%" remark was a bit of an exaggeration, but I think you may have a skewed perception of "average joe" salary if you consider 120K to be "average." When national median household income is still around 52K, you're still talking about a fairly exclusive portion of the population when an individual is making a six-figure salary. Do you honestly believe the "average joe" is a doctor, lawyer or engineer?
There is a bit more to Red John's "Average Joe" idea than perhaps is immediately evident - at least that is my hypothesis.
New York is America's undisputed center of finance. The Bay Area is America's undisputed center of tech (by extension, I presume this tally includes San Francisco). Houston is America's undisputed center of energy. It can be argued fairly convincingly that in America, these are the three unique industries that generate the most "original wealth" in terms of produced good or services. (I do not think of retail as much more than the shifting of product, and places like DC are just empty cisterns where siphoned taxes support a nearly valueless administrative class, but that is another argument).
An "average Joe" here might be 20-year engineer, trader or even a master welder at the same company, someone without an "elite" education, but is attached to an industry that pays him well in the six-figures on account of his experience. Cities with a critical mass of these industry-specific jobs can see more mobility - both laterally and vertically - within these industries, allowing more people to build an experience set and "value" to consistently make six-figure incomes. I would love to see more clarifying statistics (and I realize this is a gross simplification of three places that have diverse economies) - but do you really think a place like Houston can have 100,000+ investable-asset millionaires that are all cookie-cutter CEOs, lawyers and doctors who simply "concentrate" themselves there to enjoy the stifling humidity?
I don't think it takes much insight to conclude that these three areas are spreading some astonishing wealth to hundreds of thousands of people who happen to be in the right industry at the right time - and that these cities are the right places for that. It says nothing about how they take care of their poor or the lower middle-class, but I would argue that is not terribly relevant in this case; you can only have numbers like this if the erstwhile middle class "Average Joe" is capturing some of this wealth. Nothing here, to me, screams exploitation or injustice - these places are just making a lot of something with tangible value, and the wealth is spread wide. To start talking about median incomes and "the 1% CEOs" is a bit of a non-sequitir and smacks of class warfare.
We are not talking about the demographics of 1780s Versailles - these are all large and wealthy metros with very healthy economies. It is just curious how they can generate so many millionaires while still having very healthy middle classes - and I think this is due to being the respective seats of important global industries. The "Average Joe" is getting his.
It's percentage of the total millionaires. Not percentage of that city 's population. It can't be because there's no way over 1 out of every 50 in Houston is a millionare.
The city limits of Houston are expansive and many of the Bay Area's millionaires don't live within the city limits of SF.
It's percentage of the total millionaires. Not percentage of that city 's population. It can't be because there's no way over 1 out of every 50 in Houston is a millionare.
The city limits of Houston are expansive and many of the Bay Area's millionaires don't live within the city limits of SF.
This may come as a shock, but I bet most of Houston's millionaires don't live within the city limits either. I think most are in the suburbs surrounding the city like the Villages, West University Place, and Bellaire that is surrounded by the city. You do have River Oaks though.
This may come as a shock, but I bet most of Houston's millionaires don't live within the city limits either. I think most are in the suburbs surrounding the city like the Villages, West University Place, and Bellaire that is surrounded by the city. You do have River Oaks though.
Houston actually has quite a collection of upper crust hoods inside the Loop 610 that could accommodate the average millioinaire or high-net worth individual. Naturally River Oaks is ground central, and the River Oaks area actually has smaller hoods surround it such as Avalon Place, Afton Oaks, Glen Cove to the north, and Upper Kirby to the south. Not to mention the Musuem District not too far south of River Oaks that has Boulevard Oaks, Southhampton, Southside Place, (city) West University Place,(city) and the uber rich, but small Shadyside. Bordering uptown and not far west of River Oaks and outside of Loop 610 is Tanglewood, which has it's fair share of millionaires, and the gated communities in and around that area. Memorial also includes Houston addresses such as the hoods of Bayou Place and Sandlewood. Obviously the villages and cities of Piney Point Village, Hedwig Village, Bunker Hill Village, Hilshire Village, and Hunters Creek Village. The city of Bellaire not too far south of uptown also shelters millionaires. The distant suburban communities and cities of Sugar Land, Clear Lake Area, Friendswood, The Woodlands, Katy, Kingwood, and the Champions/Northwest Willbowbrook area have a nice and large collection too.
Perhaps the "CEO 1%" remark was a bit of an exaggeration, but I think you may have a skewed perception of "average joe" salary if you consider 120K to be "average." When national median household income is still around 52K, you're still talking about a fairly exclusive portion of the population when an individual is making a six-figure salary. Do you honestly believe the "average joe" is a doctor, lawyer or engineer? These are considered high-achieving careers for a reason. Even in a large market city a la New York or Toronto, for every lawyer there are about 10 middle-to-lower income professions like housekeepers, school teachers and retail workers.
I simply took issue with the notion that these cities are generating widespread wealth, when it's pretty obvious that wealth has become more concentrated, and there are certain cities where people of considerable means will concentrate themselves -- those places being the cities on this list.
I don't follow, are you saying that $120,000 isn't an average salary? Because most of the people (not all though) I've been around in my life are making that much and I wouldn't ever hesitate to call them anything but middle class. Take my cousins in San Jose for example, two of them make between $120,000 - $140,000 annually and their respective spouses make about the same or slightly more. Yet the tiny shacks they live in is no indication of any sort of "rich" lifestyle, quite the opposite really. My mum individually makes even more than any of my cousins and my father makes more than my mum individually yet I wouldn't classify them as "rich" but instead solidly middle class. They live in a suburb of Houston, by no means do they stick out as "rich", where I went to high school, between myself and all my friends, I actually always left with the impression that we had the least and materially at least, that was probably true. Which was a ridiculous assertion at the time, we were quite well off but again, despite falling into that supposed 2-10% bracket off total net assets; we never felt like we weren't middle class. Always felt like there's way too many others that are even more well off.
Our family friends and my family, we come from a long line of doctors and engineers, multiple generations. I'm sorry but I don't know anything else, so I wouldn't be able to tell you in all honesty whether or not these jobs are "average or not" but the pay definitely is. I wouldn't ever stop and say the average computer engineer or the average physician is "rich". I wouldn't even say someone in Internal Medicine is rich and they make a couple million dollars a year.
The standards for "rich" are much higher than that. You're looking at the well off, well compensated, well educated segment of the middle class and it's creating a mirage of "rich" when that is just not the case. These jobs are attainable to anyone that is willing to put the effort into it (and for doctors; to go to school all your life). Honestly, it's not like it's unattainable for anyone. People go to college, people have the audacity to determine their future, to determine their pay grade, and for the most part they do.
The national average doesn't necessarily mean much to me, some metropolitan areas, like J_Treehorn mentioned are well ahead of the national trends.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 07-26-2014 at 02:50 PM..
I've lived in Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Austin, and Washington in the United States. The only one where I lived with my family (so eliminates Austin and Washington; since I live(d) in individually) where we felt that we had more than the society immediately around us was Chicago. Something culturally weird about the Midwest, even when people have the means, they're frugal on spending on material possessions or the like. We did stick out a bit there.
Everywhere else (Dallas, Houston, and Washington; especially the last two), we did not stick out what-so-ever in the immediate society around us, or even metropolitan wide, nothing out of the ordinary.
New York is America's undisputed center of finance. The Bay Area is America's undisputed center of tech (by extension, I presume this tally includes San Francisco). Houston is America's undisputed center of energy. It can be argued fairly convincingly that in America, these are the three unique industries that generate the most "original wealth" in terms of produced good or services. (I do not think of retail as much more than the shifting of product, and places like DC are just empty cisterns where siphoned taxes support a nearly valueless administrative class, but that is another argument).
LOL. Yes the finance and energy industry don't engage in any exploitative practices that create wealth, right? They're all earning an honest buck while those leaches in DC just steal everyone's money.
Sorry, but much of the worlds wealth is not "earned" or "created." Some people can just pad their fortunes by barely lifting a finger. Their money works for them via investments. A bit different than people who actually have to labor for a paycheck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Treehorn
Nothing here, to me, screams exploitation or injustice - these places are just making a lot of something with tangible value, and the wealth is spread wide. To start talking about median incomes and "the 1% CEOs" is a bit of a non-sequitir and smacks of class warfare.
I wholeheartedly disagree. It's clear to me, however, that further engaging in this debate is futile, considering the mere questioning of wealth and its distribution characterizes, to you, "class warfare," which couldn't be more absurd to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Treehorn
We are not talking about the demographics of 1780s Versailles - these are all large and wealthy metros with very healthy economies. It is just curious how they can generate so many millionaires while still having very healthy middle classes - and I think this is due to being the respective seats of important global industries. The "Average Joe" is getting his.
Uh huh. Yes, let's pretend that record levels of poverty and class stratification don't exist, even your very wealth laden metro. Sorry, but that's not good for the long-term health of our economy.
Well that's under two assumptions. First being that you consider $1 million dollars a lot of money. I, however, do not. I consider it squarely middle class,
If you consider a million dollars in the bank "squarely middle class", then you have no concept of "squarely middle class".
Obviously a million dollars doesn't really mean you're "rich", as people can have that after 30-40 years of careful investing, even with fairly normal salaries, but it's nowhere close to "squarely middle class". It's putting a household in the top 5% in rich countries, to say nothing of 90% of the world.
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.
