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.
Minneapolis/St.Paul having a wealthier 1% than Houston is definitely a shock.
One reason is that Minneapolis is more homogenous. Lower rate of poverty. Low earners pull Houston's average down. 1% = top 1% of the entire pool. If you have too many poorer people, it drags the top down. Some cities overcome that with very wealthy industries (like finance, and tech). But despite the hype, Houston's oil executives don't make anywhere near as much money as finance and tech titans.
But yes, I'm sure when isolated, Houston's rich earn more than the rich of Minneapolis.
It's not the bottom earners that is pulling Seattle and Houston down, it's where the wealth is stacked.
Comparing Houston to DFW for example, There is more wealth in Houston overall and it has a higher per capita income than DFW, but DFW has more Billionaires.
Where Houston gains it's heft is in the multi millionaire range. Houston had tens of thousands more multi millionaires but the top of the pile in DFW is higher.
So the top say 10 to 20 percent in Houston should boost it higher because it's relatively lower numbers of billionaires would be even things out.
Saying that however, I would think that the top 1% of NY, SF and LA would be in the multi millions.
One reason is that Minneapolis is more homogenous. Lower rate of poverty. Low earners pull Houston's average down. 1% = top 1% of the entire pool. If you have too many poorer people, it drags the top down. Some cities overcome that with very wealthy industries (like finance, and tech). But despite the hype, Houston's oil executives don't make anywhere near as much money as finance and tech titans.
But yes, I'm sure when isolated, Houston's rich earn more than the rich of Minneapolis.
The rich are being isolated. Top 1% here usually means the top 1% of the population listed by income (family/household?). The lower 99% of Minneapolis could suddenly be living in poverty and Minneapolis would still rank above Houston. Well, until the reality of said hypothetical, unrealistic situation hits them and their income likely diminishes, or they move.
It might be easier to see with smaller numbers and a larger percentage, to help visualize it. Say we compared the income of the top 10% of two groups of people, both groups made up of ten people. A={51, 68, 60, 56, 77, 52, 35, 84, 78, 95} and B={73, 85, 90, 82, 62, 32, 64, 91, 79, 53}. A would have a top 10% income of 95, higher than the top 10% income for B, 91. However, it is evident that this is not because of the poor in B, since B has a higher average income than A, 71.1 to 65.6.
Of course, unless I, something I doubt, misinterpreted your post and you meant the low earners within Houston's 1% is bring down the average. I suppose that could possibly be what you meant, though I am unsure how anyone could make a casual observation and say that city X's top half of the 1% makes more than the same group for city Y while city Y's bottom half of the 1% make less than the same group for city X.
The rich are being isolated. Top 1% here usually means the top 1% of the population listed by income (family/household?). The lower 99% of Minneapolis could suddenly be living in poverty and Minneapolis would still rank above Houston. Well, until the reality of said hypothetical, unrealistic situation hits them and their income likely diminishes, or they move.
It might be easier to see with smaller numbers and a larger percentage, to help visualize it. Say we compared the income of the top 10% of two groups of people, both groups made up of ten people. A={51, 68, 60, 56, 77, 52, 35, 84, 78, 95} and B={73, 85, 90, 82, 62, 32, 64, 91, 79, 53}. A would have a top 10% income of 95, higher than the top 10% income for B, 91. However, it is evident that this is not because of the poor in B, since B has a higher average income than A, 71.1 to 65.6.
Of course, unless I, something I doubt, misinterpreted your post and you meant the low earners within Houston's 1% is bring down the average. I suppose that could possibly be what you meant, though I am unsure how anyone could make a casual observation and say that city X's top half of the 1% makes more than the same group for city Y while city Y's bottom half of the 1% make less than the same group for city X.
You put a lot of thought replying to a post that could be summarized as "Houston is poor bcuz blecks and messicans"
One reason is that Minneapolis is more homogenous. Lower rate of poverty. Low earners pull Houston's average down. 1% = top 1% of the entire pool. If you have too many poorer people, it drags the top down. Some cities overcome that with very wealthy industries (like finance, and tech). But despite the hype, Houston's oil executives don't make anywhere near as much money as finance and tech titans.
But yes, I'm sure when isolated, Houston's rich earn more than the rich of Minneapolis.
Wait how are the wages of the top 1% impacted by the bottom 10%? Makes no sense.
That's actually a much more important metric for determining a city's economic strength tham what the top 1% make.
Yet there seems to be an obsession with the ultra wealthy on this particular site for whatever reason.
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.
