Income Inequality in US Metropolitan Areas (live, place, population, Los Angeles)
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.
Highest Inequality:
1. New York
2. Miami
3. Los Angeles
4. Houston
5. Memphis
6. New Orleans
7. San Francisco
8. Birmingham, AL
9. Chicago
10. Boston
Lowest Inequality:
1. Salt Lake City
2. Virginia Beach
3. Minneapolis
4. Las Vegas
5. Riverside, CA
6. Sacramento
7. Kansas City
8. Washington
9. Rochester, NY
10. Raleigh, NC
Minneapolis' ranking is very impressive especially considering it is one of the most prosperous regions in the country. Boston is higher up on the inequality scale than I would have thought. Having lived in NY, SF, and Chicago...I'm not at all surprised by their rankings.
Thoughts/comments on why you think your metropolitan or any others are ranked where they are?
Highest Inequality:
1. New York
2. Miami
3. Los Angeles
4. Houston
5. Memphis
6. New Orleans
7. San Francisco
8. Birmingham, AL
9. Chicago
10. Boston
Lowest Inequality:
1. Salt Lake City
2. Virginia Beach
3. Minneapolis
4. Las Vegas
5. Riverside, CA
6. Sacramento
7. Kansas City
8. Washington
9. Rochester, NY
10. Raleigh, NC
Minneapolis' ranking is very impressive especially considering it is one of the most prosperous regions in the country. Boston is higher up on the inequality scale than I would have thought. Having lived in NY, SF, and Chicago...I'm not at all surprised by their rankings.
Thoughts/comments on why you think your metropolitan or any others are ranked where they are?
I've always heard that Minneapolis has one of the highest income and education disparities between non-Hispanic whites and everybody else, though.
Looking at this study, I think I understand why. If the criteria is income inequality by neighborhood, they are comparing individual neighborhoods with one another, correct? In Minneapolis, you have neighborhoods and census tracts that encompass a wide array of different incomes (and races/ethnicities for that matter). The income and racial segregation in that city can be block-by-block in some parts of that city.
So, when you group, say, a low income, ten-block area with the very high income ten-block area right next door, what you end up with is an average. Not saying that that's what we're looking at here...just a hypothesis...
Plus, just an add-on: the vast majority of Twin Cities suburbs are pretty egalitarian in their income distributions, I suspect. Everybody is pretty much middle to upper-middle class. There are a few wildcards like Wayzata and Edina that are probably among the wealthiest suburbs anywhere, but they are the exception, and not the rule....
It's all about how many super rich people live in a place, that seems to be the only thing affecting the numbers. Throw in a handful of them and suddenly the whole ratio is unbalanced.
Every city out there is full of poor to middle class people, not all of them have very many super rich people. The income disparity between poor and middle class is only like 50k or so, but between middle class and rich is in the millions, that's where the disparity comes from.
I've always heard that Minneapolis has one of the highest income and education disparities between non-Hispanic whites and everybody else, though.
Looking at this study, I think I understand why. If the criteria is income inequality by neighborhood, they are comparing individual neighborhoods with one another, correct? In Minneapolis, you have neighborhoods and census tracts that encompass a wide array of different incomes (and races/ethnicities for that matter). The income and racial segregation in that city can be block-by-block in some parts of that city.
So, when you group, say, a low income, ten-block area with the very high income ten-block area right next door, what you end up with is an average. Not saying that that's what we're looking at here...just a hypothesis...
That could generally be said about most cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by srsmn
Plus, just an add-on: the vast majority of Twin Cities suburbs are pretty egalitarian in their income distributions, I suspect. Everybody is pretty much middle to upper-middle class. There are a few wildcards like Wayzata and Edina that are probably among the wealthiest suburbs anywhere, but they are the exception, and not the rule....
Well...isn't that the whole point of income equality? An extremely large middle/upper-middle class rather than an area where a small percent of the population is holding a HUGE percent of the area's wealth.
Probably could be. I was responding specifically to the query about Minneapolis, though.
Quote:
Well...isn't that the whole point of income equality? An extremely large middle/upper-middle class rather than an area where a small percent of the population is holding a HUGE percent of the area's wealth.
I'm not sure I follow. Either scenario represents relatively low income inequality, doesn't it? I mean, the level of disparity between the top 1-5% or whatever and everybody else might be greater in City #2, but the majority of people are around the same income bracket in either city, aren't they?
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.
