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 if Monaco was the size of SF it's GDP would be bigger. What's your point? And The Bay Area has a higher per capita than NYC simply because there's less poor people there. NYC s wealthiest are wealthier than SFs.
I don't even entertain the wealth discussion with people from San Fransisco or "The Bay" (you know sometimes they alternate depending on the discussion).
They'll throw up some percentages not taking into account that 40% percent of 800k is still less than 10% of 8 Million when real numbers are concerned. Lol.
Lastly, wasn't there a recent thread (a few months ago) where it listed condo/home prices for the ultra luxury ($10 Million+) & San Francisco had about 9 and Brooklyn was ranked higher/had more? I even wonder when was the last public sale of a $10 Million+ home in SF. Anyone knows. . .? Serious inquiry
I'll start, Brooklyn had one last month at $15.5 Million in Cobble Hill (not even taking into consideration any Manhattan sales).
And if Monaco was the size of SF it's GDP would be bigger. What's your point? And The Bay Area has a higher per capita than NYC simply because there's less poor people there. NYC s wealthiest are wealthier than SFs.
Man, what are you talking about? All hail Zurich and Oslo! And also SJ is more wealthy than SF, so i guess SJ must be the alpha city in the bay area!
Man, what are you talking about? Did you even read my post in context? I was shutting down his hypothetical wealth per capita argument as silly, because it is. But if he's the type to only concern himself with arbitrary wealth statistics, then I guess he would hail Oslo and Zurich!
As far as SJ, according to his logic, it should be the alpha city in the Bay Area, if it is indeed wealthier "per capita". It already has a larger population! Lol there are people on here who already argue SJ as the alpha of the region, anyway. I don't agree with them, but let's not act like this is NYC and Newark. SJ is much closer to SF than Newark is to NYC...
Man, what are you talking about? Did you even read my post in context? I was shutting down his hypothetical wealth per capita argument as silly, because it is. But if he's the type to only concern himself with arbitrary wealth statistics, then I guess he would hail Oslo and Zurich!
As far as SJ, according to his logic, it should be the alpha city in the Bay Area, if it is indeed wealthier "per capita". It already has a larger population! Lol there are people on here who already argue SJ as the alpha of the region, anyway. I don't agree with them, but let's not act like this is NYC and Newark. SJ is much closer to SF than Newark is to NYC...
Hey no arguments from me! I actually agree with you and perhaps my sarcasm doesnt translate well onto the keyboard and screen. Per captita is a measure and thats it. Obviously some people will use this to bolster their argument. Lets not forget the 6 foot man who drowned crossing a lake that was on average 5 feet deep....
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by gichicago
Hey no arguments from me! I actually agree with you and perhaps my sarcasm doesnt translate well onto the keyboard and screen. Per captita is a measure and thats it. Obviously some people will use this to bolster their argument. Lets not forget the 6 foot man who drowned crossing a lake that was on average 5 feet deep....
Ah ok, got ya. And I've never heard that quote before--had to Google it lol. Seems appropriate in this situatuon, though!
Ah ok, got ya. And I've never heard that quote before--had to Google it lol. Seems appropriate in this situatuon, though!
have you heard the one about the man with his head in an oven and his feet in the freezer. when asked how he was doing he said on average everything is fine.
Manhattan is wealthier than San Francisco. Boroughs like Brooklyn are similar. Queens is slightly poorer. The Bronx and Staten Island are a lot of poorer. When you take this into consideration, NYC as a whole is poorer on a per capita basis but Manhattan is still larger than the entire San Francisco. And NYC is by herself larger than the Bay Area.
If things keep going this way for San Francisco and the Bay, I wouldn't put it past San Francisco becoming wealthier on a per capita basis than Manhattan. But that will be in a couple decades.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDPMiami
Manhattan is wealthier than San Francisco. Boroughs like Brooklyn are similar. Queens is slightly poorer. The Bronx and Staten Island are a lot of poorer. When you take this into consideration, NYC as a whole is poorer on a per capita basis but Manhattan is still larger than the entire San Francisco. And NYC is by herself larger than the Bay Area.
If things keep going this way for San Francisco and the Bay, I wouldn't put it past San Francisco becoming wealthier on a per capita basis than Manhattan. But that will be in a couple decades.
Staten Island, the unheralded, suburban, "forgotten" borough that is more populated than Oakland and is as dense as Los Angeles, is actually the wealthiest borough, if you go by median household income. Then it's Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn and The Bronx. Manhattan and Brooklyn have extremely wealthy people, but they also have tons of poor folks. SI in contrast, aside from the North Shore, doesn't have many poor people at all.
So as far as SF becoming wealthier per capita than Manhattan/SI in a couple of decades, it's probably inevitable if it keeps pricing out people who aren't wealthy whites/h1bs.
And if Monaco was the size of SF it's GDP would be bigger. What's your point? And The Bay Area has a higher per capita than NYC simply because there's less poor people there. NYC s wealthiest are wealthier than SFs.
I don't even know why there is even an argument on this. Its all about context, and San Francisco is TINY population wise compared to NYC, it is literally the size of just several neighborhoods... Bed-stuy alone has a population of 160,000 people, and its just a random as* neighborhood out of like 60 in Brooklyn by itself. Think about that for a second, the difference in population size between NYC and SF is the same as between SF and Cicero, Illinois. You don't see people whining about the fact that Cicero, Ill is not winning any city-data polls vs San Francisco...
And if Monaco was the size of SF it's GDP would be bigger. What's your point? And The Bay Area has a higher per capita than NYC simply because there's less poor people there. NYC s wealthiest are wealthier than SFs.
Lol Monaco isn't in the US so you failed bro. SF is richer than NYC, lol at ghetto bk more famous than SF. W/e helps you sleep at night.
Old Yorky is old news.
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.
