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 think the perceived discrepancy with all of them probably lies in the fact that when you're dealing with any large set of data (all 263 or however many communities - and every household income within them) you are bound to come across anomalies. Things stack up oddly in certain instances - look at the example of that word "median" MikeyKid showed: It's the exact point in the data set where you split the top set from the bottom set. Sometimes, the way that breaks is gonna challenge what you expect...
Long Beach actually makes perfect sense to me. Plenty of money, but for every gazillionaire there are probably 10 salt-of-the-earth middle class families and broke college kids renting a bungalow together. In other words, there are probably a lot more incomes closer to the bottom than the top. Look at East Atlantic Beach - there's a community that is divided (geographically) almost perfectly between only the upper middle-class and beach bum/college rentals - and it falls in at #104 ($101k). Smaller sample size, but effectively the same exact place. All the waterfront condos, co-ops and apartments are definitely pricey, too - but they're still a LOT cheaper than home ownership and are full of "households" with only one person and one income. I knew people that rented on the water when I was in my freshman year of college.....expensive but it's not a Upper East Side penthouse. Also keep in mind that a lot of the major coin in that area is in either Atlantic Beach or Lido Beach. Not that the list even really reflects that, but while LB definitely has wealth, it's not the Don Corleone Atlantic Beach buku bucks.
I was thinking Oakdale might have something to do with the colleges, but A) I'm not sure if there are even dorms there and B) I'm pretty sure one of them is actually in West Bay Shore - which is #92, so toss that theory out the window.
I have no idea about Lynbrook. Seems really, really off. It's landlocked - so no extreme wealth near the bay like other South Shore locales, and it doesn't have the high-end housing like RVC or even Malverne for that matter....it's got some rentals, and LOTS of old Jews probably living off retirement savings. None of that really makes any sense though.
I'm sorry I'm being so lazy today, I could have looked all this stuff up but instead I'm just going off my really burnt out memory here.
For all I know, Newsday could have just typed it in wrong....I didn't double check.
I think the perceived discrepancy with all of them probably lies in the fact that when you're dealing with any large set of data (all 263 or however many communities - and every household income within them) you are bound to come across anomalies. Things stack up oddly in certain instances - look at the example of that word "median" MikeyKid showed: It's the exact point in the data set where you split the top set from the bottom set. Sometimes, the way that breaks is gonna challenge what you expect...
Long Beach actually makes perfect sense to me. Plenty of money, but for every gazillionaire there are probably 10 salt-of-the-earth middle class families and broke college kids renting a bungalow together. In other words, there are probably a lot more incomes closer to the bottom than the top. Look at East Atlantic Beach - there's a community that is divided (geographically) almost perfectly between only the upper middle-class and beach bum/college rentals - and it falls in at #104 ($101k). Smaller sample size, but effectively the same exact place. All the waterfront condos, co-ops and apartments are definitely pricey, too - but they're still a LOT cheaper than home ownership and are full of "households" with only one person and one income. I knew people that rented on the water when I was in my freshman year of college.....expensive but it's not a Upper East Side penthouse. Also keep in mind that a lot of the major coin in that area is in either Atlantic Beach or Lido Beach. Not that the list even really reflects that, but while LB definitely has wealth, it's not the Don Corleone Atlantic Beach buku bucks.
I was thinking Oakdale might have something to do with the colleges, but A) I'm not sure if there are even dorms there and B) I'm pretty sure one of them is actually in West Bay Shore - which is #92, so toss that theory out the window.
I have no idea about Lynbrook. Seems really, really off. It's landlocked - so no extreme wealth near the bay like other South Shore locales, and it doesn't have the high-end housing like RVC or even Malverne for that matter....it's got some rentals, and LOTS of old Jews probably living off retirement savings. None of that really makes any sense though.
I'm sorry I'm being so lazy today, I could have looked all this stuff up but instead I'm just going off my really burnt out memory here.
For all I know, Newsday could have just typed it in wrong....I didn't double check.
If you look a little further into past data, Lynbrook really doesn't look off. For example based off this data the median household income for Lynbrook is about $11,000 lower than the Nassau County median, in 2000 it was about $10,000 lower in Lynbrook than the Nassau median, so that looks to fall in line with the past.
As far as Oakdale goes, it did go from slightly higher than the Suffolk median in 2000 to a bit lower now, but one thing Oakdale did have was a fairly high margin of error. Also according to the census bureau in 2000 Oakdale had a senior population only slightly higher than Suffolk as a whole, but it is quite a bit higher now, so that may have something to do with it as well.
I think the perceived discrepancy with all of them probably lies in the fact that when you're dealing with any large set of data (all 263 or however many communities - and every household income within them) you are bound to come across anomalies. Things stack up oddly in certain instances - look at the example of that word "median" MikeyKid showed: It's the exact point in the data set where you split the top set from the bottom set. Sometimes, the way that breaks is gonna challenge what you expect...
Long Beach actually makes perfect sense to me. Plenty of money, but for every gazillionaire there are probably 10 salt-of-the-earth middle class families and broke college kids renting a bungalow together. In other words, there are probably a lot more incomes closer to the bottom than the top. Look at East Atlantic Beach - there's a community that is divided (geographically) almost perfectly between only the upper middle-class and beach bum/college rentals - and it falls in at #104 ($101k). Smaller sample size, but effectively the same exact place. All the waterfront condos, co-ops and apartments are definitely pricey, too - but they're still a LOT cheaper than home ownership and are full of "households" with only one person and one income. I knew people that rented on the water when I was in my freshman year of college.....expensive but it's not a Upper East Side penthouse. Also keep in mind that a lot of the major coin in that area is in either Atlantic Beach or Lido Beach. Not that the list even really reflects that, but while LB definitely has wealth, it's not the Don Corleone Atlantic Beach buku bucks.
I was thinking Oakdale might have something to do with the colleges, but A) I'm not sure if there are even dorms there and B) I'm pretty sure one of them is actually in West Bay Shore - which is #92, so toss that theory out the window.
I have no idea about Lynbrook. Seems really, really off. It's landlocked - so no extreme wealth near the bay like other South Shore locales, and it doesn't have the high-end housing like RVC or even Malverne for that matter....it's got some rentals, and LOTS of old Jews probably living off retirement savings. None of that really makes any sense though.
I'm sorry I'm being so lazy today, I could have looked all this stuff up but instead I'm just going off my really burnt out memory here.
For all I know, Newsday could have just typed it in wrong....I didn't double check.
Rentals are not factored in b/c they can't be proven.
If you look a little further into past data, Lynbrook really doesn't look off. For example based off this data the median household income for Lynbrook is about $11,000 lower than the Nassau County median, in 2000 it was about $10,000 lower in Lynbrook than the Nassau median, so that looks to fall in line with the past.
As far as Oakdale goes, it did go from slightly higher than the Suffolk median in 2000 to a bit lower now, but one thing Oakdale did have was a fairly high margin of error. Also according to the census bureau in 2000 Oakdale had a senior population only slightly higher than Suffolk as a whole, but it is quite a bit higher now, so that may have something to do with it as well.
Just went and checked that....sure enough, not much real difference from 2000-now. Per-capita was about "where it should be" in relation to median household for both as well.
That's just very strange to me and seriously challenges everything I know about Lynbrook and Oakdale. I've always considered (and still do, obviously) both to be a little more upscale than their place on that list. I don't think they would get the data "wrong" for two separate surveys ten years apart, so there has to be an explanation in there somewhere. Unfortunately, that explanation is not in my head right now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawg8181
Rentals are not factored in b/c they can't be proven.
....according to the fact you just completely made up and pulled out of your ass.
According to real life, yes... they are factored in
I don't even get it, what about them can't "be proven"? That people live there? That they exist? The fundamental concept of renting a property you do not own? That human beings reside in them, earn money and report it on their Census forms? All of that is very easily "provable"...
Just went and checked that....sure enough, not much real difference from 2000-now. Per-capita was about "where it should be" in relation to median household for both as well.
That's just very strange to me and seriously challenges everything I know about Lynbrook and Oakdale. I've always considered (and still do, obviously) both to be a little more upscale than their place on that list. I don't think they would get the data "wrong" for two separate surveys ten years apart, so there has to be an explanation in there somewhere. Unfortunately, that explanation is not in my head right now
....according to the fact you just completely made up and pulled out of your ass.
According to real life, yes... they are factored in
I don't even get it, what about them can't "be proven"? That people live there? That they exist? The fundamental concept of renting a property you do not own? That human beings reside in them, earn money and report it on their Census forms? All of that is very easily "provable"...
Wow...um no need to insult me for having a difference of opinion.
The reason I said what I said is b/c a lot of renters file taxes and receive mail @ different addresses. A friend of mine is constantly changing her apartment and so she has her parents address listed as a primary address for her- gets all her mail there and for tax purposes files there.
In addition anyone who works off the books, that would skew data as well. The other thing about Long Beach is that a lot of people bartend over the summer and so whatever tips they are making isn't being reported.
Wow...um no need to insult me for having a difference of opinion.
The reason I said what I said is b/c a lot of renters file taxes and receive mail @ different addresses. A friend of mine is constantly changing her apartment and so she has her parents address listed as a primary address for her- gets all her mail there and for tax purposes files there.
In addition anyone who works off the books, that would skew data as well. The other thing about Long Beach is that a lot of people bartend over the summer and so whatever tips they are making isn't being reported.
I'm not insulting you, I'm just completely amazed and intrigued by the thought process. I feel like my whole reality is being deconstructed right before my eyes. "It cannot be proven inside the parameters of an imaginary system I invented just now in my head, therefore in real life it cannot exist". Mind blowing.
And how is something like this possibly a matter of opinion?
If I decide one day that all trees in the world are now blue, that's not "my opinion". I don't even know what that is... the possibilities when you apply this form of logic positively instead of negatively are endless:
"Hey man, a shark is now the same thing as a frisbee!"
"Uh, no....it isn't..."
"Well whatever dude, that's your opinion!"
" ::EXPLODE::"
Ignore all of that - what's important here is that everything you are saying is based on an assumption about something else that is wrong. You think "they" can't include income for renters because whoever "they" are get your income information from a W2 or some other thing that is tied to the address on your driver's license. That's not how it works.
The IRS (or whatever unexplainable government entity you're thinking controls these things) has nothing to do with the data published in the Census. Every ten years, the Census Bureau sends people out to every single neighborhood in America to go look at houses, apartment buildings, duplexes, trailer parks, etc. and make a note of what they have reasonable cause to suspect is a residence. Then, they put all of those together and compare it with previous returns, known addresses, property lines, etc. and mail out a form to each suspected household in the country. People fill out information on them like their age, race, how many people live in their home, how much money they earn and it gets mailed back. For the ones that don't get mailed back, sometimes more Census Bureau employees will be sent out to knock on doors. It's never anywhere close to a 100% return, but based on the data they do get back, they can make a very accurate estimate about the remainder of households/people/etc.
That's why there is a margin of error listed next to the numbers, it's not coming from some huge nonexistent database of everyone's paycheck - it's whatever people fill out. Reported income or off the books, doesn't make a difference. Somebody lives in Albuquerque but has a driver's license that says Tuscaloosa, doesn't make a difference. Somebody isn't a legal citizen of this country and robs old ladies to buy crack rocks but fills it out anyway, doesn't make a difference.
I'm not insulting you, I'm just completely amazed and intrigued by the thought process. I feel like my whole reality is being deconstructed right before my eyes. "It cannot be proven inside the parameters of an imaginary system I invented just now in my head, therefore in real life it cannot exist". Mind blowing.
And how is something like this possibly a matter of opinion?
If I decide one day that all trees in the world are now blue, that's not "my opinion". I don't even know what that is... the possibilities when you apply this form of logic positively instead of negatively are endless:
"Hey man, a shark is now the same thing as a frisbee!"
"Uh, no....it isn't..."
"Well whatever dude, that's your opinion!"
" ::EXPLODE::"
Ignore all of that - what's important here is that everything you are saying is based on an assumption about something else that is wrong. You think "they" can't include income for renters because whoever "they" are get your income information from a W2 or some other thing that is tied to the address on your driver's license. That's not how it works.
The IRS (or whatever unexplainable government entity you're thinking controls these things) has nothing to do with the data published in the Census. Every ten years, the Census Bureau sends people out to every single neighborhood in America to go look at houses, apartment buildings, duplexes, trailer parks, etc. and make a note of what they have reasonable cause to suspect is a residence. Then, they put all of those together and compare it with previous returns, known addresses, property lines, etc. and mail out a form to each suspected household in the country. People fill out information on them like their age, race, how many people live in their home, how much money they earn and it gets mailed back. For the ones that don't get mailed back, sometimes more Census Bureau employees will be sent out to knock on doors. It's never anywhere close to a 100% return, but based on the data they do get back, they can make a very accurate estimate about the remainder of households/people/etc.
That's why there is a margin of error listed next to the numbers, it's not coming from some huge nonexistent database of everyone's paycheck - it's whatever people fill out. Reported income or off the books, doesn't make a difference. Somebody lives in Albuquerque but has a driver's license that says Tuscaloosa, doesn't make a difference. Somebody isn't a legal citizen of this country and robs old ladies to buy crack rocks but fills it out anyway, doesn't make a difference.
Do you see what I'm saying?
But if the #'s clearly aren't accurate why even bother posting them @ all? And yes I know how it works, I'm not a moron contrary to your belief. I can actually hold a job, have an intelligent conversation with someone and hold a relationship...wow, who knew!
My point is, not everyone fills those things out. And what people 'suspect' to be a residence, fine...what about illegal apartments?
There are too many variables to make a reasonable assessement on incomes of a community. Most renters barely stay a year anyway. The data is so skewed it's ridiculous.
As for the case of Long Beach, most people living in Long Beach are not poor. Most "renters" in Long Beach are working professionals. I don't see how Long Beach is #219 on the list. Long Beach being so far down on my list was my main point, not that rentals don't count.
And just b/c you say they do, doesn't mean they really do. That's what you think but unless you work for the census bureau or whatever other company handles these things, then you have no clue for sure.
Wow...um no need to insult me for having a difference of opinion.
The reason I said what I said is b/c a lot of renters file taxes and receive mail @ different addresses. A friend of mine is constantly changing her apartment and so she has her parents address listed as a primary address for her- gets all her mail there and for tax purposes files there.
In addition anyone who works off the books, that would skew data as well. The other thing about Long Beach is that a lot of people bartend over the summer and so whatever tips they are making isn't being reported.
He's not insulting you for having a difference of opinion. He's doing it because you are providing incorrect information. The question of whether renters are included is not an opinion. It's a fact that they are included in census data. Trust me, I know this as a fact. Census takers walk up to each door that is registered, so as long as the apartment has an address they will send it mail. Even illegal apartments get census mail, as long as the federal government knows someone lives there. Usually they gain this information through tax returns, social security statements, and other government documentation.
However, there are many systematic inaccuracies built into the census data. So, you can't really put much of a measure on small movements up and down the rankings. Much like college rankings, the top could all be easily interchanged within the acceptable margin of error.
I was thinking Oakdale might have something to do with the colleges, but A) I'm not sure if there are even dorms there
There are a bunch of apartment houses in Oakdale near the train station. North of Montauk is smaller houses, less affluent.
I don't know if there are dorms at Dowling, but if that was the case and it was bringing Oakdale's numbers down then Stony Brook should have been further down the list also.
I think the perceived discrepancy with all of them probably lies in the fact that when you're dealing with any large set of data (all 263 or however many communities - and every household income within them) you are bound to come across anomalies. Things stack up oddly in certain instances - look at the example of that word "median" MikeyKid showed: It's the exact point in the data set where you split the top set from the bottom set. Sometimes, the way that breaks is gonna challenge what you expect...
Long Beach actually makes perfect sense to me. Plenty of money, but for every gazillionaire there are probably 10 salt-of-the-earth middle class families and broke college kids renting a bungalow together. In other words, there are probably a lot more incomes closer to the bottom than the top. Look at East Atlantic Beach - there's a community that is divided (geographically) almost perfectly between only the upper middle-class and beach bum/college rentals - and it falls in at #104 ($101k). Smaller sample size, but effectively the same exact place. All the waterfront condos, co-ops and apartments are definitely pricey, too - but they're still a LOT cheaper than home ownership and are full of "households" with only one person and one income. I knew people that rented on the water when I was in my freshman year of college.....expensive but it's not a Upper East Side penthouse. Also keep in mind that a lot of the major coin in that area is in either Atlantic Beach or Lido Beach. Not that the list even really reflects that, but while LB definitely has wealth, it's not the Don Corleone Atlantic Beach buku bucks.
I was thinking Oakdale might have something to do with the colleges, but A) I'm not sure if there are even dorms there and B) I'm pretty sure one of them is actually in West Bay Shore - which is #92, so toss that theory out the window.
I have no idea about Lynbrook. Seems really, really off. It's landlocked - so no extreme wealth near the bay like other South Shore locales, and it doesn't have the high-end housing like RVC or even Malverne for that matter....it's got some rentals, and LOTS of old Jews probably living off retirement savings. None of that really makes any sense though.
I'm sorry I'm being so lazy today, I could have looked all this stuff up but instead I'm just going off my really burnt out memory here.
For all I know, Newsday could have just typed it in wrong....I didn't double check.
I assure you Idle Hour isnt hurtin by any stretch.
If the College/Dorms were the determinant then Stony Brook would be circling the bottom.
Lynbrook, even VS dont look right.
Something doesnt add up at all with this.
I think it my be rental stock
Crooks
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.
::EXPLODE::"
