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.
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)
These agencies should look into doing longer lists than top 12's. Capgemini used to only make top 10 lists before this year and unbelievably San Jose occupies an entire spot of it's own. Separate from San Francisco.
I think if it were to show the next three or four places it would be Miami, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Phoenix or Denver or San Diego. Probably that same order.
Because San Francisco and San Jose aren't the same metro area. MSA = Metro Area.
They're the same combined statistical area.
And it's strange how they don't rank the very rich Bridgeport-Stamford, CT metro area. No way it doesn't make the top 12. Well maybe they have population minimum? It's right below 1mm people and I bet it has more millionaires than a few of those metro areas on the list.
Yeah they have a population minimum. They used to only make lists for just the top ten cities, this year have included in Dallas and Seattle. Seattle representing their High-Net Worth cut off population.
Bridgeport probably would be very high, it's per capita income is indicative of a close second to San Jose. I would imagine it would be in the top 15-20 had the study included more cities. If it's virtually tied with San Jose on all income fronts, it's High- Net Worth would probably be around 60,000 (since it's half of San Jose's population).
The Bay Area has really cut into Los Angeles' lead, given that it has half the population they are practically neck in neck for the second spot.
funny in a way old and new money on the list Detroit is still very sizable (or even a Philly) and lots of new money in places like SJ and Seattle etc
Detroit is not synonomous with poverty the way people think it is. The suburbs of Detroit are some of the most wealthy in the country and its money thats been there for generations.
Detroit is not synonomous with poverty the way people think it is. The suburbs of Detroit are some of the most wealthy in the country and its money thats been there for generations.
Bridgeport-Stamford MSA would be #1 on this list by %. It's basically the wealthiest suburbs of NYC, but in a separate MSA (because of the huge job center in Stamford).
The Bay Area has really cut into Los Angeles' lead, given that it has half the population they are practically neck in neck for the second spot.
Well, there's just a much higher proportion of affluent households in the SF area.
Households Earning $200,000+ Annually, 2013
San Francisco MSA(Pop 4.6 million) 236,920
Los Angeles County(Pop. 10 million) 219,920
Households Earning $200,000+ Annually, 2013
Los Angeles city, CA(Pop 3.9 million) 90,877
San Francisco city(Pop 837,000) 58,235
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.