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 really don't think we should be looking at housing prices, as that's not going to get you a true picture of wealth.
Many areas have housing prices of $800,000...........which are houses full of people who obviously can not afford an $800,000 house.
Just because housing in some areas of the country is COMPLETELY out of control, doesn't mean the people who live there are rich. I can get a house for $800,000 with the ridiculous "no money down, low introductory interest" or 5% or whatever and get a mortgage for $750,000. That doesn't mean I'm rich, it just means I'm sitting on a time-bomb.
Not to mention the people who bought those houses cheaper and are now sitting on them since they're worth 3 times as much. On the flip side...how much negative equity is sitting out there?
The thread's list is interesting because it's talking about non-real estate wealth.
Chicago–Naperville–Joliet IL 7,990,248 Lake County–Kenosha County IL–WI 876,918
Gary IN 702,458
This list is looking at the #'s in the first subsection of the Chicago area, Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, and many of the richest areas of the metro lie in the Lake Couny area.
You are mistaken.
The Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI MSA has 3 Metropolitan Divisions.
Chicago–Naperville–Joliet IL 7,990,248 Lake County–Kenosha County IL–WI 876,918
Gary IN 702,458
Not to mention the people who bought those houses cheaper and are now sitting on them since they're worth 3 times as much. On the flip side...how much negative equity is sitting out there?
A lot. Especially in California.
I just moved here from Connecticut and am surprised at the state of the economy in California. People here are not as "steady" as those in the Northeast. This is probably why the NE hasn't been hit hard in the housing crisis. I visited Vegas recently and noticed the same thing, especially in the suburbs. Lots of municipalities deep in the red. Scary.
1. NYC has 8.4 million residents; SF has 800.000. It makes more sense to compare similar sized areas. Manhattan and SF would be a better comparison. Though even Manhattan has 1.7 million residents, so it isn't a perfect comparison.
2. NYC is overwhelmingly small apartments, while SF is mostly larger single family homes. Obviously most larger single family homes will have a higher list price than most small apartments.
Now if you compare on a per-square foot basis, you will see that NYC prices are comparable to SF.
3. NYC has much higher property taxes, transfer taxes and utility bills than anything in CA. The property taxes in CA are absurdly low and boost the sales price.
My aunt in wealthy Corona Del Mar has a much lower tax rate on her $2 million dollar home than my parents in a $300,000 home in the Midwest.
The end result is that a $600,000 home in NYC isn't cheaper than an $800,000 home in SF. Depending on where you bought it, and the housing type (taxation varies on type of residential property), it might well be considerably more.
4. The most common type of ownership housing in NYC is the coop. Coops CANNOT be compared to condos or single family homes in terms of sales price. You do not own a coop; rather you own shares in the cooperative, and have the right to use a physical space within the coop.
Coops have much higher monthly assessments than condos. In fact, often a majority of the monthly costs are not the mortgage + interest, but the monthly coop charges. Therefore, condos are usually more expensive than coops.
In SF, almost 100% of owner multifamily housing is condos. In NYC, about 85% of owner multifamily housing is coops. Not comparable at all.
Condo rules weren't even allowed in NYC until about 35 years ago. Only coops.
I just moved here from Connecticut and am surprised at the state of the economy in California. People here are not as "steady" as those in the Northeast. This is probably why the NE hasn't been hit hard in the housing crisis. I visited Vegas recently and noticed the same thing, especially in the suburbs.
I see your point, but the Bay Area is very different from the rest of California.
2007 Nest Egg Index-Cities with the most savings
In the third annual Nest Egg Index, we ranked the 500 top-performing communities based on their residents' personal savings and investing behavior. By measuring a dozen statistical factors - including participation in retirement savings plans, personal debt levels and home ownership - the Nest Egg Index shows the geographic regions where people are succeeding and facing difficulty with their nest eggs.
1 Los Alamos, NM
2 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
3 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT
4 Torrington, CT
5 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA
6 Barnstable Town, MA
7 Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington, MN
8 Holland-Grand Haven, MI
9 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA
10 Edwards, CO
11 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-MD-VA
12 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA
13 Gardnerville-Ranchos, NV
14 Rochester, MN
15 Red Wing, MN
16 Appleton, WI
17 Faribault-Northfield, MN
18 Trenton-Ewing, NJ
19 Naples-Marco Island, FL
20 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT
21 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA
22 Norwich-New London, CT
23 Lexington Park, MD
24 Boulder, CO
25 Juneau, AK
I really don't think we should be looking at housing prices, as that's not going to get you a true picture of wealth.
Many areas have housing prices of $800,000...........which are houses full of people who obviously can not afford an $800,000 house.
Just because housing in some areas of the country is COMPLETELY out of control, doesn't mean the people who live there are rich. I can get a house for $800,000 with the ridiculous "no money down, low introductory interest" or 5% or whatever and get a mortgage for $750,000. That doesn't mean I'm rich, it just means I'm sitting on a time-bomb.
Not to mention the people who bought those houses cheaper and are now sitting on them since they're worth 3 times as much. On the flip side...how much negative equity is sitting out there?
The thread's list is interesting because it's talking about non-real estate wealth.
I agree that is often the case.. especially some resort areas import outrageous high selling prices...there are many wealthy people especially New Yorkers,Angelino's that buy second homes in other places example ..San Fran,Newport Beach,Aspen,Palm Beach.. I saw a lot of New Yorkers buying those California trophy multi-- million dollar beach homes as just weekend retreats..same with wealthy Texans..One of the most expensive homes in Newport Beach..72 million is owned by some Manhattan Financial dude..his
tax return was more than likely filed in New York...
I really don't think we should be looking at housing prices, as that's not going to get you a true picture of wealth.
Many areas have housing prices of $800,000...........which are houses full of people who obviously can not afford an $800,000 house.
Just because housing in some areas of the country is COMPLETELY out of control, doesn't mean the people who live there are rich. I can get a house for $800,000 with the ridiculous "no money down, low introductory interest" or 5% or whatever and get a mortgage for $750,000. That doesn't mean I'm rich, it just means I'm sitting on a time-bomb.
Not to mention the people who bought those houses cheaper and are now sitting on them since they're worth 3 times as much. On the flip side...how much negative equity is sitting out there?
The thread's list is interesting because it's talking about non-real estate wealth.
You are correct. This is the true picture of wealth:
1. New York City ~ Population: 15,198,600 ~ Millionaires: 561,800
2. Los Angeles ~ Population: 10,130,700 ~ Millionaires: 208,200
3. Chicago ~ Population: 7,542,000 ~ Millionaires: 172,200
4. Washington DC ~ Population: 4,298,600 ~ Millionaires: 127,700
5. San Francisco ~ Population: 3,449,500 ~ Millionaires: 120,800
6. Boston ~ Population: 3,672,500 ~ Millionaires: 89,400
7. Philadelphia ~ Population: 4,174,400 ~ Millionaires: 87,600
8. Detroit ~ Population: 3,562,400 ~ Millionaires: 79,500
9. San Jose ~ Population: 1,434,000 ~ Millionaires: 69,500
10. Houston ~ Population: 4,393,000 ~ Millionaires: 68,400
Home values have absolutely nothing to do with wealth or wealthy areas. Look at LA. I am currently living in the Bay Area and moving to Manhattan and the NYC vs SF comparison is quite silly; one has a population of 8.5 million and the other 800k. One is 42 square miles the other is 302 square miles. One is mostly single family homes and the other one is mostly smaller apartments (which by ppsf is more expensive than San Francisco, or anywhere in CA for that matter). There is far more wealth in New York anyway, so I really don't see the point of this drawn out thread.
What I will say is that the "San Francisco is very different from California" assessment is correct. The Bay Area/San Francisco is much wealthier than Southern California but very quiet and conservative with its wealth. We save more, rate of foreclosure is much lower than Southern California and the home values are steadier. Prices are already beginning to pick up and foreclosures slowing dramatically while prices in LA continue to drop like bricks (the millionaire count dropping like bricks too compared to other cities). This imaginary real-estate wealth phenomenon is a thing of the past and is being corrected at a very fast pace and I don't think 2006 bubble will be back for decades.
Last edited by Americanboy; 08-10-2009 at 02:30 PM..
San Jose isn't San Francisco. Washington's MSA is wealthier than SF's MSA. Sorry.
San Jose and Oakland are Metro s.F. sorry to burst your bubble bro. San Francisco is the dominate city of the San Francisco Bay Area and a World Class City , however San Jose and Oakland are satellite cities of the more important city of San Francisco CA...
Oh, I forgot to add that the cities with largest declines in millionaires are Orlando (42%) Las Vegas (38%), Phoenix (34%).
And why is Los Angeles so low in proportion when compared to like NYC, SF, DC ? LA MSA has only 4 million less people than NYC MSA population, but NYC's millionaire population is nearly triple LA's?
ALL CITIES Perform BAD compared against NYC , like LONDON PARIS ROME....Los Angeles What's The Big Deal..There's ONE CITY IN AMERICA WITH MORE MILLIONAIRE THAN " LOS ANGELES" And It's Not LOCATED IN "TEXAS" Null That Over A Little Bit.....
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.
You Have To Factor In Metro San Jose And Oakland For S.F.
Yeah laugh to hard you have to factor in San Jose and Oakland for
San Jose and Oakland are Metro s.F. sorry to burst your bubble bro.
