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.
Eh, It’s unfair to compare a multi-nodal MSA to one with the core city does all of the lifting. Wealth is spread throughout the Bay, but the most of the Pittsburgh MSA is incredibly poor and depressed.
That's quite an exaggeration, though. Not discounting that Pittsburgh's wealth is much more concentrated than in the Bay Area, but regionally, the Pittsburgh metro poverty rate is actually below the national average (11% versus the national 12.3% rate): https://www.post-gazette.com/local/r...s/201809130052
The Pittsburgh area arguably has more pockets of what you'd refer to as acute poverty, very heavily concentrated in the old "mill towns" of region, but keep in mind that these old little, depressed boroughs aren't very populous to begin with nowadays (they did lose much of their industry, after all). So they've become less and less representative of the region demographically over time (although ironically, they still produce hugely outsized influence in terms of their imagery and connotation for the region's economy).
It's not "unfair." It's simply that the Bay Area is a lot wealthier.
"Unfair" would be comparing Los Angeles' 468 sq. miles to DC's 61 sq. miles. That's a case where a reasonable person would say "Yep, we need to account for the size disparity, so let's look at LA's densest 61 sq. miles." But it makes no sense to say "Let's not compare Pittsburgh's metro to SF's metro because it's poor and depressed." That's sort of like racing Usain Bolt in the 100 meters but getting to start 50 meters ahead. That's not "fair."
Crying "unfair" defeats the purpose of most of the threads on CvC. All homers could just scream "unfair" in any unfavorable matchup against another metro. But I guess a lot of them do that already, so...
It's intellectually dishonest to pretend there's one metric to rule them, all and median income across MSA is incredibly misleading. You posited that the difference of COL between the Pittsburgh Metro does not offset the difference in income as compared to the San Francisco metro, but it simply isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. An individual teacher/doctor/actuary/ux developer/social worker is going to enjoy a MUCH higher standard of living in a city like Pittsburgh than San Francisco, and that does not change simply because SF has more high income workers spread throughout the metro.
It's intellectually dishonest to pretend there's one metric to rule them, all and median income across MSA is incredibly misleading.
Let's stop here and spell this out a bit more. What makes this misleading and why would a direct comparison of the city propers be any less misleading?
There will still be a large gap even if we compared city limits. The only difference is that the gap will be smaller because Pittsburgh itself is more affluent than its MSA at large. But that doesn't make the comparison any less "misleading." It's just a different way of comparing Pittsburgh to San Francisco that makes the former not look as bad.
This may be the first time I've ever heard someone make the argument that a straight MSA-to-MSA comparison was "intellectually dishonest."
Let's stop here and spell this out a bit more. What makes this misleading and why would a direct comparison of the city propers be any less misleading?
There will still be a large gap even if we compared city limits. The only difference is that the gap will be smaller because Pittsburgh itself is more affluent than its MSA at large. But that doesn't make the comparison any less "misleading." It's just a different way of comparing Pittsburgh to San Francisco that makes the former not look as bad.
This may be the first time I've ever heard someone make the argument that a straight MSA-to-MSA comparison was "intellectually dishonest."
It’s not that MSA-to-MSA comparisons are intellectually dishonest, it’s that your specific argument about the relative affordability of SF and Pittsburgh, using MSA income and housing prices is intellectually dishonest, based on the fact that SF has more high-paying jobs spread throughout the metro. If you compared the salaries of most Pittsburgh jobs to equivalent positions in SF, Pittsburgh is inarguably more affordable.
The average front end dev makes 77k in Pittsburgh, and 128k in SF.
The average teacher salary is 20k more in SF.
The average social worker makes 20k more in SF.
The average staff accountant makes 10k more in SF.
The average bus driver makes the same in both cities.
Depending on medical specialty, some doctors earn more in Pittsburgh than SF. Others earn more in SF.
It’s not that MSA-to-MSA comparisons are intellectually dishonest, it’s that your specific argument about the relative affordability of SF and Pittsburgh, using MSA income and housing prices is intellectually dishonest, based on the fact that SF has more high-paying jobs spread throughout the metro. If you compared the salaries of most Pittsburgh jobs to equivalent positions in SF, Pittsburgh is inarguably more affordable.
That still doesn't explain how using MSA income and housing prices is intellectually dishonest. Yes, there are more good jobs in San Francisco, which is why it's wealthier. Sure, a physician in Bumblecrap is technically better off than a physician in San Francisco, but that completely misses the point that a high paying job in Bumblecrap is more of the exception than the rule. You just can't choose a small segment of the working population (cherrypicking!) and say "See, this 1% is better off than similar people in X city."
The median income stats reflect ALL income earners. That's a better approach than picking and choosing which income earners to compare to other income earners in a different city.
That still doesn't explain how using MSA income and housing prices is intellectually dishonest. Yes, there are more good jobs in San Francisco, which is why it's wealthier. Sure, a physician in Bumblecrap is technically better off than a physician in San Francisco, but that completely misses the point that a high paying job in Bumblecrap is more of the exception than the rule. You just can't choose a small segment of the working population (cherrypicking!) and say "See, this 1% is better off than similar people in X city."
The median income stats reflect ALL income earners. That's a better approach than picking and choosing which income earners to compare to other income earners in a different city.
But you have to acknowledge that certain cities have a higher median income because a larger portion of their workforce is employed in high-paying fields. That doesn’t make a difference for people outside of those fields. Moving to SF will not make you a software engineer any more than moving to Pittsburgh will make you an unemployed steelworker. Most people in most professions will have a higher standard of living in Pittsburgh or Philly or Dallas or Atlanta than DC, Boston, Seattle or San Francisco, regardless of average wages.
On a more granular level, it’s like saying that the financial district in Manhattan is one of the more affordable neighborhoods in the country because the jobs located there pay high wages, and the people living there or high wage earners.
Last edited by gladhands; 08-15-2019 at 10:40 AM..
But you have to acknowledge that certain cities have a higher median income because a larger portion of their workforce is employed in high-paying fields.
Consider it acknowledged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
That doesn’t make a difference for people outside of those fields. Moving to SF will not make you a software engineer any more than moving to Pittsburgh will make you an unemployed steelworker. Most people in most professions will have a higher standard of living in Pittsburgh or Philly or Dallas or Atlanta than DC, Boston, Seattle or San Francisco, regardless of average wages.
Only that's not true. First, let's take a look at how broad the census data is. Median household income stats are derived from a total of 1,684,081 households in the SF MSA. In total, there are 1,655,361 full-time workers with earnings. Yet you're saying that somehow the median, or midpoint, of this population that is literally in the millions is somehow unrepresentative of how "most" people live?
The other reality is that most people in the Bay Area are paying nowhere close to 4K in month rent due to municipal codes that subject all multi-unit buildings constructed prior to 1979 to rent control.
On a more granular level, it’s like saying that the financial district in Manhattan is one of the more affordable neighborhoods in the country because the jobs located there pay high wages, and the people living there or high wage earners.
You're mixing two different things together here. "Wealthy" and "affordable" are not the same thing. We were talking about who was wealthier based on median household income and median gross rent data courtesy of the U.S. Census Bureau. "Affordable" is something entirely different with thousands of places across the country falling into that category. If "wealthy" or "better off" is simply the difference between median incomes and median rents, then there are a whole lot of places that are "wealthier" than Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago, etc.
You're mixing two different things together here. "Wealthy" and "affordable" are not the same thing. We were talking about who was wealthier based on median household income and median gross rent data courtesy of the U.S. Census Bureau. "Affordable" is something entirely different with thousands of places across the country falling into that category. If "wealthy" or "better off" is simply the difference between median incomes and median rents, then there are a whole lot of places that are "wealthier" than Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago, etc.
I’m not arguing that a Pittsburgh is “wealthy”. I’m pointing out the fallacy of this particular argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I also question the "higher COL wipes out the income disparity" argument. It's hard to say whether someone living in a 1-BR apartment in Manhattan is "wealthier" or "better off" than someone living in a McMansion outside of Nashville, but we can say who has more money left over after accounting for housing expenses. I did a few quick calculations based on Census data. It's simply gross median household income less annual median housing expenses.
San Francisco - $70,034
Boston - $62,578
Philadelphia - $51,405
Pittsburgh - $46,125
Detroit - $44,879
Cleveland - $41,826
Of course, this is a simple calculation that doesn't account for federal income taxes, payroll taxes, state and local taxes, benefits, food, etc. But tossing those things into the equation is not going to help Pittsburgh achieve parity with San Francisco.
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.
