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.
Gini coefficient measures inequality of a country rather than a city, but they're pretty alike. London has huge wealth discrepancies just as NYC does. Anyway, before taxes and the welfare state, the US isn't really very different form Europe. After taxes and welfare state, we're pretty far down there.
Well I know about the gini coefficient, but even with before or after wealth transfers, the picture can still look different depending on the country. Americans for example might be able to take home more income, but if you're living in an expensive city then your after tax income could be swallowed in housing and food costs. In a place like Berlin, for example, you might be taxed more, but more relax land use laws and rent controls prevent low and middle income residents from being priced out. Rent stability there also means you don't have a ton of "high end" restaurants and services moving in to cater to those with more money.
And the reason I asked is because I often have friends who go places in Europe such as Paris or London as tourist or students abroad who kind of romanticize those cities(and Europe in general).
I thought smaller European cities get romanticized more. London and Paris are the two largest cities in Europe, much closer to megacity than cute city. London always struck as rather similar to New York City in many ways, more so than most American cities. London probably has the largest wealth disparity of any European city with Paris not far behind. Both of them probably have a high concentration of the nation's wealth, as being in a centralized country, the money tends to concentrate in the one big city.
Quote:
When I make it a point to illustrate that income disparities in cities aren't unique to the US(as in many developing and Asian countries), they'll retort something along the lines of many middle income people live there when I don't think that's true given how it is in other cities. I've known for a while that London has seen its disparities growing and that Germany is very renter friendly(though that's been changing in recent years with rents increasing),but I wasn't exactly sure about other cities. Though I think I need to emphasize that I mean cities that attract a ton of tourists which is where these people go. I wouldn't believe for a second that cities like Amsterdam or Stockholm, which are outrageously expensive, could have a high population of middle income earners.
Assuming these stats are correct, Germany has a low % of homeowners compared to much of Europe:
Spain does much "better" in home ownership, though they've had issues lately.
I get the impression that Europe doesn't have the dearth of middle-class families that the US has, but even there the city center areas tend to be more popular with childless adults. Amsterdam is nearly half immigrant in population, and it appeared that the ethnic dutch residents tended to be childless within the city. The demographics and a few other aspects of the city reminded me of San Francisco in a lot of ways.
Well I know about the gini coefficient, but even with before or after wealth transfers, the picture can still look different depending on the country. Americans for example might be able to take home more income, but if you're living in an expensive city then your after tax income could be swallowed in housing and food costs. In a place like Berlin, for example, you might be taxed more, but more relax land use laws and rent controls prevent low and middle income residents from being priced out. Rent stability there also means you don't have a ton of "high end" restaurants and services moving in to cater to those with more money.
But not in practice.
NYC isn't even particularly expensive on a global scale. Renting does open it up more, but considering we only have a few cities (New York, San Francisco) that are even globally expensive and even they are not as expensive as London or Paris. And like I said, about 25% of Londoners live in welfare housing versus 9% of New Yorkers. The larger welfare system there smooths out the income disparity.
London's pretty much quintessentially a place catering to those of high incomes. That doesn't mean that's all it caters to anymore than it's all NYC caters to.
I wouldn't believe for a second that cities like Amsterdam or Stockholm, which are outrageously expensive, could have a high population of middle income earners.
I was in Amsterdam a few months ago and talked to some of the locals about rental prices for apartments. I was surprised at how affordable the city is. It's not cheap, but nowhere near the stratospheric levels of New York and London. You can live alone in the city center for around US$ 1,500, which is similar to Chicago.
I thought smaller European cities get romanticized more. London and Paris are the two largest cities in Europe, much closer to megacity than cute city. London always struck as rather similar to New York City in many ways, more so than most American cities. London probably has the largest wealth disparity of any European city with Paris not far behind. Both of them probably have a high concentration of the nation's wealth, as being in a centralized country, the money tends to concentrate in the one big city.
Assuming these stats are correct, Germany has a low % of homeowners compared to much of Europe:
Spain does much "better" in home ownership, though they've had issues lately.
I get the impression that Europe doesn't have the dearth of middle-class families that the US has, but even there the city center areas tend to be more popular with childless adults. Amsterdam is nearly half immigrant in population, and it appeared that the ethnic dutch residents tended to be childless within the city. The demographics and a few other aspects of the city reminded me of San Francisco in a lot of ways.
Yeah I remember there being topic about a year where ago where homeownership rates came up. I think low homeownership rates can reflect a few things about that country namely 1) rents are probably affordable and 2) because rents are affordable, people don't see a mortgage as a way to build net worth. So in otherwords, they aren't having to choose between wasting money on rent vs buying into a mortgage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
But not in practice.
NYC isn't even particularly expensive on a global scale. Renting does open it up more, but considering we only have a few cities (New York, San Francisco) that are even globally expensive and even they are not as expensive as London or Paris. And like I said, about 25% of Londoners live in welfare housing versus 9% of New Yorkers. The larger welfare system there smooths out the income disparity.
London's pretty much quintessentially a place catering to those of high incomes. That doesn't mean that's all it caters to anymore than it's all NYC caters to.
That was a point I was going to make but didn't think we were going in that direction about taxes. Those residents in European cities might pay more in taxes, but they get back more in services to make up for it. Do you know how far up the income scale rental subsidies go? In the US, you pretty much have to be living below the poverty line to get any substantial assistance. I know in DC, some public workers like teachers, fire fighters, and police officers might get some of their rent knocked down if they're making around a salary around 40k. Otherwise those public workers couldn't afford to live there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc
I was in Amsterdam a few months ago and talked to some of the locals about rental prices for apartments. I was surprised at how affordable the city is. It's not cheap, but nowhere near the stratospheric levels of New York and London. You can live alone in the city center for around US$ 1,500, which is similar to Chicago.
Really? That's interesting. Did they say how that's able to happen?
NYC isn't even particularly expensive on a global scale. Renting does open it up more, but considering we only have a few cities (New York, San Francisco) that are even globally expensive and even they are not as expensive as London or Paris. And like I said, about 25% of Londoners live in welfare housing versus 9% of New Yorkers. The larger welfare system there smooths out the income disparity.
London's pretty much quintessentially a place catering to those of high incomes. That doesn't mean that's all it caters to anymore than it's all NYC caters to.
20 years ago, London wasn't that expensive (neither was NYC). Various economic trends made both much higher cost. 9% of New Yorkers live welfare housing is too low, there are many more that live in some of non-market housing (rent-stabilization, subsidies, etc.)
Apartment prices in Paris in the center look somewhat cheaper than NYC but it's hard to compare.
Really? That's interesting. Did they say how that's able to happen?
Why should Amsterdam be more expensive? It doesn't have the same amount of money at the high-end pouring into London or New York City. $1500/month isn't that cheap.
Why should Amsterdam be more expensive? It doesn't have the same amount of money at the high-end pouring into London or New York City. $1500/month isn't that cheap.
I would initially assume that Amsterdam to be more expensive than it is considering its economic importance to the region. I feel a bit silly implying that $1500 isn't expensive. I'm so used to living in a city and wanting to move to another one that I've grown accustomed to looking at rents that are much higher than what a lot of people pay per month for their mortgage haha.
That was a point I was going to make but didn't think we were going in that direction about taxes. Those residents in European cities might pay more in taxes, but they get back more in services to make up for it. Do you know how far up the income scale rental subsidies go? In the US, you pretty much have to be living below the poverty line to get any substantial assistance. I know in DC, some public workers like teachers, fire fighters, and police officers might get some of their rent knocked down if they're making around a salary around 40k. Otherwise those public workers couldn't afford to live there.
You qualify for welfare housing in the United States at up to 80% of area median income. So here in Sacramento that works out for a family of four to be 245% of the poverty level. No idea about London.
With Sacramento, it's pretty rare to actually see it be used since property values are so cheap. Since you still have to pay everything up to 30% of your income, most people in that $50,000 a year range just go for less expensive housing.
You qualify for welfare housing in the United States at up to 80% of area median income. So here in Sacramento that works out for a family of four to be 245% of the poverty level. No idea about London.
With Sacramento, it's pretty rare to actually see it be used since property values are so cheap. Since you still have to pay everything up to 30% of your income, most people in that $50,000 a year range just go for less expensive housing.
Gotcha.
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.
