U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > District of Columbia > Washington, DC
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-06-2009, 09:52 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,318,953 times
Reputation: 84

Advertisements

quote=cpterp;11515624]So in other words you can't come up with a better statistic than the median income. Moving on...

There are better statistics than median income, however in special circumstances different scenarios may be used, for instance average adjusted gross income may or may not say much about the wealth in an area, but in areas where the median is lower such as in parts of Manhattan it may play a role, in retirment communities such as in south Carolina coastal section, often times people leave enough money to servants or helpers in the areaand the high real estate prices may negate the median income, a similar situation exists in the hamptons where the median income may be low but the economic situation is tied to Manhattan and other parts of the country .

Surveys, high end market surveys, access to capital , and others may play a role.

Sometimes per capita income is relevant, and surveys of wealth, others use average incomes, and use census tracts to sort out the high end from the low end, sometimes personal and personal per capita income is used, in certain situations cost of living based on middle management housing and utilities but not necessarily the criteria used in the misused and inaccurate accra index which needs to be corrected is combined.

10% of the population is not the majority! Again I can't understand the rest of the paragraph since it's incoherent and jumbled.

My argument is that lobbyists, military contractors and the others drive up the COL for the majority who pays a lot for their home which is inflated especially int he suburbs and ordinary wouldn't carry that premium. Of course I am not going to use the majority. 11 years ago prices were not that high in the D.C. area, after 9/11 pricing became inflated not because of the area's amenties or attractiveness solely.

I hope you're not referring to me as "the other poster." I clearly said median income is not synonomus with wealth, but it is the best readily available measure of wealth, especially when comparing it between different areas. Please understand that I never said the median income was a perfect measure, but the best measure. There is no perfect statistic, all have some sort of caveat.

It isn't the best measure, using median income would make Manhattan look very poor and many other wealthy places including D.C. proper itself. Its not the best measure at all, many high net worth individuals live in areas where the median income may not be low but not very high either.

[/color][/quote]
Rate this post positively

 
Old 11-07-2009, 09:07 PM
 
Location: N/A
1,359 posts, read 3,432,165 times
Reputation: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech2enable View Post
Surveys, high end market surveys, access to capital , and others may play a role.


Yeah, but are these available for every mucipalitie or even county. No, so median income is still the best statistic. Per capita GDP isn't nearly the best way to measure a country's relative wealth either, but it is by far the easiest. Same thing for median income for localties within the United States, you just can't calculate everyones net worth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tech2enable View Post
My argument is that lobbyists, military contractors and the others drive up the COL for the majority who pays a lot for their home which is inflated especially int he suburbs and ordinary wouldn't carry that premium. Of course I am not going to use the majority. 11 years ago prices were not that high in the D.C. area, after 9/11 pricing became inflated not because of the area's amenties or attractiveness solely.
I've noticed that you keep bringing up defense contractors. I'd like to point out that the fed goverment is that largest employer in the DC Area by far, not the defense contractors. In the private sector BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, SAIC, etc. may be the largest employers, but not overall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tech2enable View Post
It isn't the best measure, using median income would make Manhattan look very poor and many other wealthy places including D.C. proper itself. Its not the best measure at all, many high net worth individuals live in areas where the median income may not be low but not very high either.



You're missing my point again. Yes, many high-income people live in Manhattan, but not nearly as much as poorer people. They're a tiny portion of the population. Basically what your proposing is that we ignore the majority of the population and compare the top 10% or so. If you want to compare which city's rich population is richer, then median income sucks, but for the income of the average person median income is a better measure.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-09-2009, 12:05 PM
 
583 posts, read 1,178,725 times
Reputation: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech2enable View Post
Not sure how I follow you, I said 20% of households make over 250k, so the other 80% is not counted.
You also said that 10% make over 500K. Below is your exact quote a few pages back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tech2enable View Post
Aaaah, they do , in mclean, va 10% of the folks have a household income of over 500k a year, and 20% over 250k.
Now, what do you mean exactly by this quote? You can read it both ways. One way to read it would be that 30% of population makes over 250K including those who make over 500K (which constitute 10% of overall population and 1/3 of population that makes over 250K). You also can read it that 20% make over 250K of which half makes over 500K. Regardless which way you read it it's obvious that a very large proportion makes incomes of 1-2% highest bracket in the country.

Here you say this yourself
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech2enable View Post
This is true in mclean, va , its very expensive and although the median is halfway between 100 and 200k there are a significant amount of people who are making 500k+ , while they may not be billionares they are maybe millionares but not super millionares
20% of millionaires? Hmm.. that's pretty wealthy area, isn't it?

And again, how expensive of a house can someone earning 500K qualify for? What about a household of 200K? what is the percentage of houses in Mclean that are over 2 million? what is the percentage over 1 million? If the median income is between 100-200K then what is the price of a home such household can afford? these are all factors you must consider and you tend to ignore.

I already told you that it is quite possible to buy a house in Mclean under 1 million and even under 600K. The typical middle management house for a median income family would be about 700K, which is as you said yourself a household with income 150K can afford. Now, some portion of housing stock are houses over 1 million and a certain percentage is over 2 million and even 3 million. this is a minority. If 20% of people make over 250K and can qualify for 1.5 mil house then wouldn't be expected that 20% of all housing stock is over 1 million?

In the area with low density suburban single family houses it's very easy to see if prices are out of touch with the incomes and wealth or not. that is why median income is useful. there aren't many multi-family dwellings or occupants that are willing to room together like they are in Manhattan or other dense urban areas (even district itself). Suburban families occupy their own houses, they don't share with other families or roommates, there aren't large numbers of singles living in group house situations either. so, why would median income not be a good metric to determine what majority of people can and cannot afford as far as RE prices go? Individual household incomes are reported, and houses are purchased by one household, not several, so incomes are more evenly distributed in proportion to the available housing. Is it not so?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-09-2009, 08:31 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,318,953 times
Reputation: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpterp View Post
[/color]

Yeah, but are these available for every mucipalitie or even county. No, so median income is still the best statistic. Per capita GDP isn't nearly the best way to measure a country's relative wealth either, but it is by far the easiest. Same thing for median income for localties within the United States, you just can't calculate everyones net worth.

Median income is not itself the best statistic, I pointed out an example of college students and retirees who may skew the figure


I've noticed that you keep bringing up defense contractors. I'd like to point out that the fed goverment is that largest employer in the DC Area by far, not the defense contractors. In the private sector BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, SAIC, etc. may be the largest employers, but not overall.


Federal salaries are not that high level to the housing costs and level of work, I haven't notice private sector salaries much higher either although they are a bit higher.

You're missing my point again. Yes, many high-income people live in Manhattan, but not nearly as much as poorer people. They're a tiny portion of the population. Basically what your proposing is that we ignore the majority of the population and compare the top 10% or so. If you want to compare which city's rich population is richer, then median income sucks, but for the income of the average person median income is a better measure.
Not sure which point you are trying to argue, getting back to the original topic, I argued that people in the washington DC suburbs are not the most wealthy and about confusing income/wealth and how a small minority of folks drive up the housing costs who may have high net worth but not extremely high net worth,this coupled with the media/exaggeration of D.C. and also the federal government pumping money and the recession that forces people to move to D.C. and take lower paying jobs because they have no choice contributes the cycle.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-09-2009, 08:37 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,318,953 times
Reputation: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by KT13 View Post
You also said that 10% make over 500K. Below is your exact quote a few pages back.



Now, what do you mean exactly by this quote? You can read it both ways. One way to read it would be that 30% of population makes over 250K including those who make over 500K (which constitute 10% of overall population and 1/3 of population that makes over 250K). You also can read it that 20% make over 250K of which half makes over 500K. Regardless which way you read it it's obvious that a very large proportion makes incomes of 1-2% highest bracket in the country.

Here you say this yourself


20% of millionaires? Hmm.. that's pretty wealthy area, isn't it?

And again, how expensive of a house can someone earning 500K qualify for? What about a household of 200K? what is the percentage of houses in Mclean that are over 2 million? what is the percentage over 1 million? If the median income is between 100-200K then what is the price of a home such household can afford? these are all factors you must consider and you tend to ignore.

Many higher income workers in the area tend to do contract work, and may have huge expenses, again the median income is not close to 500k or even 250k.


I already told you that it is quite possible to buy a house in Mclean under 1 million and even under 600K. The typical middle management house for a median income family would be about 700K, which is as you said yourself a household with income 150K can afford. Now, some portion of housing stock are houses over 1 million and a certain percentage is over 2 million and even 3 million. this is a minority. If 20% of people make over 250K and can qualify for 1.5 mil house then wouldn't be expected that 20% of all housing stock is over 1 million?

Half the folks/households make under 150k , house prices do not always correlate with median income.

In the area with low density suburban single family houses it's very easy to see if prices are out of touch with the incomes and wealth or not. that is why median income is useful. there aren't many multi-family dwellings or occupants that are willing to room together like they are in Manhattan or other dense urban areas (even district itself). Suburban families occupy their own houses, they don't share with other families or roommates, there aren't large numbers of singles living in group house situations either. so, why would median income not be a good metric to determine what majority of people can and cannot afford as far as RE prices go? Individual household incomes are reported, and houses are purchased by one household, not several, so incomes are more evenly distributed in proportion to the available housing. Is it not so?
Great question as for as mclean goes I am not sure which point you are trying to argue, we were not debating affordability as much as the comment that D.C. was the wealthiest area in the nation, in case you haven't noticed more people are living together , mothers, sons, even children who stay home with mom/dad , however getting back to your question the folks making 500k, 250k can more easily afford the home then half of those making below 150k for example, also note that a lot of workers are doing contract work which doesn't have benefits and is subject to firing at any time..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-09-2009, 10:52 PM
 
11,145 posts, read 14,551,383 times
Reputation: 4209
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech2enable View Post
Not sure which point you are trying to argue, getting back to the original topic, I argued that people in the washington DC suburbs are not the most wealthy and about confusing income/wealth and how a small minority of folks drive up the housing costs who may have high net worth but not extremely high net worth,this coupled with the media/exaggeration of D.C. and also the federal government pumping money and the recession that forces people to move to D.C. and take lower paying jobs because they have no choice contributes the cycle.
Wow. You're still harping on this one point. Unbelievable.

The wealth of DC is not as high as other cities, but it is much more broadly distributed. Makes for an expensive housing market. Thus is life and a lot of people, believe it or not, choose to move to DC for rewarding work and lifestyles. Can't really argue that it's that exaggerated when its correction has been somewhat minimal in the economic adjustment.

Perhaps people just see a value in the area that you don't and, seemingly, never will.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-10-2009, 11:01 AM
 
583 posts, read 1,178,725 times
Reputation: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech2enable View Post
Great question as for as mclean goes I am not sure which point you are trying to argue, we were not debating affordability as much as the comment that D.C. was the wealthiest area in the nation, in case you haven't noticed more people are living together , mothers, sons, even children who stay home with mom/dad , however getting back to your question the folks making 500k, 250k can more easily afford the home then half of those making below 150k for example, also note that a lot of workers are doing contract work which doesn't have benefits and is subject to firing at any time..
Not sure what post your are replying to, since I've never made a comment that DC is the 'wealthiest' area of the nation. I have stated based on your quote that if you have 20% of people making over 250K a year and half of them making over 500K a year then the area is definitely well-off as far as income levels are concerned and can support housing prices for certain proportion of properties being over 1 million and 2 million. I haven't said that it's the 'wealthiest' as I am not as silly as to suggest that making 500K a year would make you super rich or in any way comparable to multi, mega-millionaires or billionaires.

I also pointed out that even a household making 150K would be able to afford a house for 700K. I also stated that purchasing a house under 600K is not impossible, however you seem to ignore it. I suggest you go to zip realty and search for housing in Mclean before you make your comments.

Anyone is subject to firing anytime, have you been around for long? Having a permanent job nowadays is not a guarantee of perpetual employment. Contractors, overall make much more than employees even with extended periods of 'bench time'. Moreover, if you are a 'white collar' contractor your expenses are very minimal and not different than an employee except your insurance and minor business costs. travel expenses are the major part and are often compensated by the client or included into the rate anyway, but here we are talking about people actually residing in Mclean.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-10-2009, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Rockville, MD
3,547 posts, read 7,900,836 times
Reputation: 1367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
Wow. You're still harping on this one point. Unbelievable.
Feels like we've been enduring the same nonsense for two months now, doesn't it? Oy vey.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-10-2009, 02:03 PM
 
Location: N/A
1,359 posts, read 3,432,165 times
Reputation: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech2enable View Post
Median income is not itself the best statistic, I pointed out an example of college students and retirees who may skew the figure
...and you still haven't proposed a better, widely measured, statistic. For the millionth time, the median income is definitely not perfect but it's still the best. The authority on demographic statistics, the CB, uses it. I guess they're confused.

I've already adressed the rest of your post in my previous posts.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 11-10-2009, 03:07 PM
 
245 posts, read 1,104,459 times
Reputation: 182
:d
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnstockton View Post
as an owner of a condo in dc i hope gentrification never end. I need my property's value to keep rising. Now if you're a renter that stinks, but fro a dc homeowner's perspective gentrification = great!
Rate this post positively
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.


Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:15 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top