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.
And california property taxes are nearly as high when you factor in mello roos and voter approved parcel taxes.
I still don't think it's as high even with those things, if it is then provide a source backing that up.
Quote:
Your first source is a survey based on 'participating areas'
And luckily NY and SF happen to be on those areas participating, so not sure what your point is here.
Quote:
Your second source is going by individual cities, not metros. So manhattan is going to play a role in tilting those stats.
No, it says right there in the first sentence "Here are the 367 U.S. metropolitan areas"
Quote:
Your third source is based on data from 2001, when california and the bay had a lower unemployment and a lower cost of housing.
Then show me more recent data that backs up your claim, or ANY data for that matter.
Quote:
Your fourth link shows people in fairfield county, (ie the county that borders new york) with the most disposable income.
Yes it does but that's not part of the NY MSA, it is part of the CSA though. I don't think that 900K people out of a CSA of 22 million puts the entire NYC CSA ahead of the Bay Area.
Quote:
You can belive new york is not more affordable all you want, but it is not going to change the fact that a house cost considerably less in Long Island, Jersey, ct, etc, as opposed to the bay area.
And you can believe what you want as well, it's just too bad you don't have any sources or data to back it up. I get that you might be able to find some better deals and get more for your money in some parts of the NY metro area compared to the Bay Area, but as far as I can tell, overall the NY metro area has a higher cost of living and not as much disposable income OVERALL when compared to the Bay Area. They are both very expensive places to live overall, probably the most comparable places in terms of COL. Trying to say one is significantly cheaper than the other seems pretty ridiculous considering they both are very expensive.
You can belive new york is not more affordable all you want, but it is not going to change the fact that a house cost considerably less in Long Island, Jersey, ct, etc, as opposed to the bay area.
I have to agree on this one. The Bay is really expensive across all price points, after the top. Living in SF is cheaper than living in Manhattan for sure. But if you were to look for let's say a moderately family friendly area with average schools and had a budget of $400K, in NYC you could be in Manhattan with in a 30 minute train ride. In the Bay you'd need to up that to 45 minutes. If your budget is $200k, you have about a 60 minute train ride in NYC vs. 90 minutes-2 hours in the Bay.
You can find excellent schools in a neighborhood of $400K homes in the NYC metro. You can't find that here. You can get OK schools, decent schools for under $400k, but if you want really good schools you need to leave the metro, or pay $800K.
but as far as I can tell, overall the NY metro area has a higher cost of living and not as much disposable income OVERALL when compared to the Bay Area. They are both very expensive places to live overall, probably the most comparable places in terms of COL. Trying to say one is significantly cheaper than the other seems pretty ridiculous considering they both are very expensive.
The average Bay Area resident has a higher income than the average NYer so it makes perfect sense that Bay Areans have more disposoible income. There are just so many 100-250K housesolds. (The Bay, obviously, has was fewer people with 10s of millions of assets. We do not have the sort of corporations where 3 guys get $300M bonues, the bonus are spread further around the entire company)
Yes it does but that's not part of the NY MSA, it is part of the CSA though. I don't think that 900K people out of a CSA of 22 million puts the entire NYC CSA ahead of the Bay Area.
And san jose is not a part of sf's msa yet in pretty much all the links you provide they link sj with sf.How would the actual wealth of the sf msa measure up if you took the san jose msa (silicon valley) out of the picture??
Quote:
And you can believe what you want as well, it's just too bad you don't have any sources or data to back it up. I get that you might be able to find some better deals and get more for your money in some parts of the NY metro area compared to the Bay Area, but as far as I can tell, overall the NY metro area has a higher cost of living and not as much disposable income OVERALL when compared to the Bay Area. They are both very expensive places to live overall, probably the most comparable places in terms of COL. Trying to say one is significantly cheaper than the other seems pretty ridiculous considering they both are very expensive.
I agree both places have a high cost of living, but ny has something to show for it. I was essentially pointing out that when you measure Cost of Living vs quality of life NYC WINS easily. You pay those prices in ny and you have a lot to show for it. You pay those prices in the bay, you still get crappy schools for everyone whos not rich, no 24 hour public transit, limited sports and entertainment venues, spare the air days, etc.
This discussion wasn't about unemployment or home prices, it was about the overall COST OF LIVING and DISPOSABLE INCOME. So why don't you stick to data that specifically shows those two things instead of going off on a tangent to try to prove your point? Show me data where it shows NY metro having an overall lower cost of living and more disposable income. Depending on the methodology used, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some report that would show that.
Quote:
And san jose is not a part of sf's msa yet in pretty much all the links you provide they link sj with sf.How would the actual wealth of the sf msa measure up if you took the san jose msa (silicon valley) out of the picture??
Did you even take more than two seconds to look at those links? Three out of the four of them show the seperate SJ and SF MSA's and they rank right next to each other essentially. Both of which rank ahead of the NY MSA.
Quote:
I agree both places have a high cost of living, but ny has something to show for it. I was essentially pointing out that when you measure Cost of Living vs quality of life NYC WINS easily. You pay those prices in ny and you have a lot to show for it. You pay those prices in the bay, you still get crappy schools for everyone whos not rich, no 24 hour public transit, limited sports and entertainment venues, spare the air days, etc.
I don't think it wins "easily" overall, depending on one's income, where they live, lifestyle, etc..I think an argument could be made for either one being better overall.
No, that is simply not true. I guess you're not aware of property taxes people in the NYC metro area pay. I did a quick google search and the several websites I looked at showed the Bay Area having a lower cost of living and ranking higher on the disposable income list. People in the Bay Area seem to do very well in managing their assets and wealth.
Another dubious list from an unnamed source, in this case (RIABiz), whoever they are.
According an actual firm anyone has heard of, Capemini (the standard source used for measuring HNWI worldwide), 677,000 New Yorkers hold disposable income exceeding $1,000,000 (which places it above San Francisco). Far above a paltry $200,000 in disposable income cited from "RAIBiz".
1. New York: 3.6%
2. San Francisco: 3.4%
And in raw numbers -- take in the fact that NYC has more HNWI than Los Angeles Chicago and DC metros combined.
For being the alleged most expensive metro, New Yorkers do have tons of disposable income.
And when it comes to cost of living, I very highly doubt San Francisco metro is that much ahead of New York's metro. If I felt like it, I could counter with a source saying otherwise.
Another dumb list from an unnamed source, in this case (RIABiz), whoever they are.
According an actual firm anyone has heard of, Capemini (the standard source used for measuring HNWI worldwide), 677,000 New Yorkers hold disposable income exceeding $1,000,000 (which places it above San Francisco). Far above a paltry $200,000 in disposable income cited from "RAIBiz".
1. New York: 3.6%
2. San Francisco: 3.4%
For being the alleged most expensive metro, New Yorkers do have tons of disposable income.
And when it comes to cost of living, I very highly doubt San Francisco metro is that much ahead of New York's metro. If I felt like it, I could counter with a source saying otherwise.
Great, what about the other 96.5% of the population in these areas? I'm not talking about just the super wealthy, but the overall picture. Also I had two sources for disposable income, one of which is provided from a federal agency. So if you don't like that one report then look at the BEA's, which includes everyone not just the wealthy.
What does this have to do with the question anyway?
If the OP is pretty well educated and was looking for somewhere where he could be best off as a middle class worker, he would move to Washington DC (because Washington DC is richer than the Bay Area in median income/median family incomes)
If the OP is rich and is looking to go someplace to be with his kind, the OP should move to New York because nowhere compares to New York when it comes to levels of wealth and rich populace.
If the OP is none of the above and is looking for somewhere affordable where his money will get him far, the OP would be better off living in Houston.
These regions ae so vast and cover thousands of square miles so he could self segregate in either of them and be around rich people (excpet he will be around much more in a NYC community)
But as a city, San Francisco just doesn't offer as much in terms of amentities when compared to NYC. San Francisco isn't on NYC's level wen it comes to "stuff" and "stuff to do" (unless you camp and all that)
Great, what about the other 96.5% of the population in these areas? I'm not talking about just the super wealthy, but the overall picture. Also I had two sources for disposable income, one of which is provided from a federal agency. So if you don't like that one report then look at the BEA's, which includes everyone not just the wealthy.
Who cares about them.
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.
