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.
Except there isn' t less money in Philadlephia and I'll use Chicago for emphasis compared to Boston.
Not true. There is somewhat less money in Philly compared to Boston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock
But I think we all agree there are alot more Poor people in Chicago and Philadlephia,like millions more , than Boston. Which is the reason Bostons per capita stats are so high.
I wouldn't agree with that. Chicago and Philly have somewhat more poor people than Boston, but we aren't talking enormous differences.
Philadelphia area has 1 M more african americans then the Boston region. How can you not see that Philadlephias per capita income is going to be lower than Boston's?
Why do you focus on just African-Americans but not hispanics?
rainrock If it matters so much to you, why dont you pull the non-Hispanic white per capita income. Someone probably already has.
Here's median household income by MSA
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
The impact of the federal government becomes even more pronounced when you isolate non-Hispanic White income.
Washington - $108,254
San Francisco - $95,285
New York - $83,457
Baltimore - $80,573
Boston - $79,700
Los Angeles - $77,133
Houston - $76,775 Philadelphia - $71,916
Seattle - $71,699
Dallas - $71,415
Raleigh - $71,462
New Haven - $70,365
Chicago - $69,901
Providence - $60,975
Pittsburgh - $53,227
And here it continues. More "Philly is poorer because of the blacks" arguments.
Philly is poorer than Boston because there's less money in Philly. It isn't because of "the blacks". If that were true then Philly would be richer than NYC and DC, but it isn't.
Using your logic NYC should be basically the poorest city anywhere, because there are tons of nonwhites, tons of immigrants, and a majority of the MSA and CSA consists of nonwhites, many originally from dirt poor third world countries. In contrast, Philly is much whiter, much more native-born, fewer minorities overall. Yet the NYC region is significantly richer than the Philly region. Same goes for DC.
The Bay Area is one of the least white metros anywhere, yet is much richer than most metros. In much of the Bay Area you can barely find a white person. Stop blaming ethnic groups and look at the particulars of each metro.
Boston is boosted by being a center for education and finance within 48 square miles. That's why it punches above its weight economically. The rest of the city can be argued to punch under its weight regarding other subjective things such as cost of living, food, entertainment, climate, etc.
The very first part though, is a massive part of it. Top 3 in Finance and #1 in education in 48 square miles. Its one third the size of Philadelphia. Statistically, it will score high in certain criteria.
Boston is boosted by being a center for education and finance within 48 square miles. That's why it punches above its weight economically. The rest of the city can be argued to punch under its weight regarding other subjective things such as cost of living, food, entertainment, climate, etc.
The very first part though, is a massive part of it. Top 3 in Finance and #1 in education in 48 square miles. Its one third the size of Philadelphia. Statistically, it will score high in certain criteria.
So if we narrowed Philly down to ~50 sq mi, would it produce the same statistics as Boston? I still think not.
Also, it can be argued that Boston burbs still punch above their weight relative to burbs of other cities.
Finally, I can agree with other subjective things, such as food and entertainment, I think Philly comes out ahead in those categories based on my own experiences, but it doesn't disguise the fact that Philly as a city and metro punches below its weight no matter how you slice and dice *when you compare against the big cities of this country*. If you were to compare against Atlanta or Phoenix, then Philly punches above its weight, but the pool is larger than that and in fact includes Boston, DC, SF, Chicago, Seattle, etc.
Not true. There is somewhat less money in Philly compared to Boston.
Not really. They're about equal on wealth statistics. In fact, their Median income and # of millionaires are so close, it would really be impossible to call one city wealthier than the other. You're confusing stereotypes and media hyperbole with ACTUAL facts. The metro areas are very close in Median Household income, however, adjusting for cost of living would likely put Philadelphia ahead of Boston in this metric.
Adjusting for cost of living, Philadelphia median income of $47,528 would be equivalent to $57,288 in Boston.
On the other hand, Boston's median income is $52,792 and the equivalent in Philadelphia $43,797.
Therefore, adjusting for cost of living, Philadelphia is a tiny bit wealthier, as your dollar will take you further in the Philadelphia metro area and people here have more of an disposable income.
So if we narrowed Philly down to ~50 sq mi, would it produce the same statistics as Boston? I still think not.
Also, it can be argued that Boston burbs still punch above their weight relative to burbs of other cities.
Finally, I can agree with other subjective things, such as food and entertainment, I think Philly comes out ahead in those categories based on my own experiences, but it doesn't disguise the fact that Philly as a city and metro punches below its weight no matter how you slice and dice *when you compare against the big cities of this country*. If you were to compare against Atlanta or Phoenix, then Philly punches above its weight, but the pool is larger than that and in fact includes Boston, DC, SF, Chicago, Seattle, etc.
I think if you took the best parts of both cities (Harvard, MIT, UPenn, center cores and neighborhoods, etc.) and subtracted the worst at about 75 square miles (made up obviously) it would be pretty close to be honest.
I also think metro Philadelphia boosts city Philadelphia more than metro Boston boosts city Boston.
Things that most people take at face value are food, nightlife, cost of living, etc. so that could be a reason for some to view it as punching below its weight. Even as a non-resident of Boston, I am personally grateful for its status in education and biotech, because that's something that benefits everyone. Same goes for Philadelphia. I don't care for finance. Its all crooks, so anyone boosting a city over its position in finance I can do without. Government and finance are the reason this country peaked 60 years ago. We can talk all we want about how wealthy DC and Boston are, but these cities more or less put me off these days, and especially SF. They're virtually unattainable for the majority of Americans and are pockets of celebrated wealth and corruption.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,179,323 times
Reputation: 2925
Seems it was Chicago's month a few months back, then LA's, and now it seems it's Philly's turn for "lively" debate lol
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.
