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.
Again that was only median family income, NY had over 75% of families with 109k. These are MSA numbers by the way.
actually only those with an asterisk are for the MSA if you look at the footnotes
MSA listed include LV, Colorado Springs, Omaha, Dallas, San Diego and an Jose - All others are city proper
make sense as the Philly MSA would be significantly higher than what is charted here as Philly has very large poor and even working class population, especially proportionally
As an example based on the chart
DC 50% make more than 71K or ~ 320K residents of DC
In Philly 25% make more than 83K or ~ 387K residents of Philly
Cities are harder to compare in some ways than MSAs.
DC is definitely proportionally more wealthy than Philly and Philly more impoverished proportionally within the cities - DC has made a huge turn-around really in the last 20 years in this regard
Also for NYC (was city not MSA) only 25% were > than 109K not 75%
Odd list. Wonder why they used El Paso but not Houston, San Antonio or Austin which are all larger. The headline is not very accurate. Even if you argue MSA I'm pretty sure Houston is bigger than many in the list of the "biggest cities". Pretty good COL in Houston and SA too. Austin not so much anymore...
No. Some of these Washington Post articles can be strangely out-of-whack.
You're not going to have a middle-class lifestyle in the Washington DC metro area on $71,000. Unless somebody thinks that a family living in an apartment is middle class.
A few years ago the NY Times said official middle class salary in NYC is 75K. That, at least to me, makes sense. Not 57K.
However, in LA (cheaper rent, food, utilities, etc) I would wager middle class is 45K-60K. The median income in some parts of Hollywood is around 30K. So if you live in those areas on a higher salary, you might have a savings account!
A few years ago the NY Times said official middle class salary in NYC is 75K. That, at least to me, makes sense. Not 57K.
However, in LA (cheaper rent, food, utilities, etc) I would wager middle class is 45K-60K.The median income in some parts of Hollywood is around 30K. So if you live in those areas on a higher salary, you might have a savings account!
Yeah except not really - we make six figures (though student loans take out a huge chunk, but leave us over 60k) and Pasadena is one of the only "nice" inner suburbs or core areas of Los Angeles that we can afford (besides the Valley which is impractical for wife's commute).
I think a lot of those people that are making so little are either sharing apartments or have been on rent control for quite some time. Or they are spending almost their entire salary on rent (which is very possible.) Studies usually show that Los Angeles is the most unaffordable metro when it comes to salaries vs. rent. Obviously SF + NYC are a lot more expensive but it seems salaries are a little higher on average in those metro areas.
But I do consider our family to be middle class, even upper middle class. In Los Angeles that usually means you are still an apartment-dweller though.
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.
