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.
But the $100K+ earner percentages show that there's likely more of a critical concentration of upper-middle class wealth in Philly, even after adjusting for COL.
Or it could just mean a higher percentage earn six figures because the cost of living there is higher...
26.5% of income earners in the Boston metro earn six figures (gap is even larger when looking at 5-year data sets). Does Boston have a larger concentration of upper-middle class wealth than Philly? Or does this disparity only exist because the COL in Boston is higher?
It seems that both Philadelphia and Detroit generally drag the averages of their regions down a bit. But I do agree with your statements.
Yes, didn't have time to pull each county, but there's median annual earnings of approximately $60K in the Philly 'burbs, versus $44K in Philly proper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Or it could just mean a higher percentage earn six figures because the cost of living there is higher...
26.5% of income earners in the Boston metro earn six figures (gap is even larger when looking at 5-year data sets). Does Boston have a larger concentration of upper-middle class wealth than Philly? Or does this disparity only exist because the COL in Boston is higher?
Yes, I'd argue that Boston does at least somewhat, if only because of the demographic difference in cities proper (Philly v. Boston). Their suburbs are very similarly well-off.
Truth is it's hard to precisely quantify the loss/gain in earning power between cities, but it obviously exists to some degree. And the only way for employers in uber-expensive cities like Boston, NYC and SF to attract/retain employees is to pay them in a way that at least attempts to keep them ahead.
But as we know, rising COL and rising incomes interact to create a vicious cycle that has no end.
Yes, I'd argue that Boston does at least somewhat, if only because of the demographic difference in cities proper (Philly v. Boston). Their suburbs are very similarly well-off.
This can't be true. Norfolk ($69,405) and Middlesex ($67,449) have higher median incomes than Chester ($63,996) and Montgomery ($61,740), the wealthiest counties in the Philadelphia MSA. That's not the reason why median incomes are lower in Philly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
And the only way for employers in uber-expensive cities like Boston, NYC and SF can attract/retain employees is to pay them in a way that at least attempts to keep them ahead.
I feel that people on C-D often get the direction of causation wrong. It is true that, say, McDonald's will pay more in City X because it has a higher COL than City Y. But that doesn't explain how City X got a higher COL in the first place. And a higher COL is no guarantee of higher wages, which is how Honolulu can have exorbitant housing prices with a lower median wage than Raleigh. There is a relationship between the two, but it's typically higher wages leading to higher COL rather than the other way around.
This can't be true. Norfolk ($69,405) and Middlesex ($67,449) have higher median incomes than Chester ($63,996) and Montgomery ($61,740), the wealthiest counties in the Philadelphia MSA. That's not the reason why median incomes are lower in Philly.
I'm not sure that I follow. Yes, there are relatively nominal differences in median individual earnings between each city's respective suburbs (although COL/SOL provide essential parity). But the crux of the difference at the metro level can definitely be attributed to the much larger disparity at the city-level (with Philadelphia at $44,480 and Boston at $56,318).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I feel that people on C-D often get the direction of causation wrong. It is true that, say, McDonald's will pay more in City X because it has a higher COL than City Y. But that doesn't explain how City X got a higher COL in the first place. And a higher COL is no guarantee of higher wages, which is how Honolulu can have exorbitant housing prices with a lower median wage than Raleigh. There is a relationship between the two, but it's typically higher wages leading to higher COL rather than the other way around.
The variables behind higher costs-of-living are multi-fold. Population growth, levels of housing production, the types of housing being produced, costs of doing business/taxation, salary levels, inflation, etc. etc., all interplay with one another and reinforce each other.
This can't be true. Norfolk ($69,405) and Middlesex ($67,449) have higher median incomes than Chester ($63,996) and Montgomery ($61,740), the wealthiest counties in the Philadelphia MSA. That's not the reason why median incomes are lower in Philly.
I am having trouble tracking down those figures. The info I found on Chester County has slightly higher numbers, basically equal to Norfolk and Middlesex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
I'm not sure that I follow. Yes, there are relatively nominal differences in median individual earnings between each city's respective suburbs (although COL/SOL provide essential parity). But the crux of the difference at the metro level can definitely be attributed to the much larger disparity at the city-level (with Philadelphia at $44,480 and Boston at $56,318).
The variables behind higher costs-of-living are multi-fold. Population growth, levels of housing production, the types of housing being produced, costs of doing business/taxation, salary levels, inflation, etc. etc., all interplay with one another and reinforce each other.
That is what I was trying to point out before.
On a metro level, Philadelphia and Boston are essentially equal in all stats, (not factoring cost of living). Each city is anchored by a large area of affluent suburbs.
The difference is that Philadelphia (city) lowers the averages quite a bit as shown in the numbers you posted.
I'm not sure that I follow. Yes, there are relatively nominal differences in median individual earnings between each city's respective suburbs (although COL/SOL provide essential parity). But the crux of the difference at the metro level can definitely be attributed to the much larger disparity at the city-level (with Philadelphia at $44,480 and Boston at $56,318).
It's quite simple. Boston's suburban counties are wealthier than Philadelphia's suburban counties. In fact, the "relatively nominal difference" between their respective wealthiest counties ($5,409) is larger than the difference between the Philadelphia and Detroit metros ($4,323), which you said was a difference that put Philadelphia in a different tier from Detroit. How can a $4,323 difference be a big difference in one case while a $5,409 difference isn't in another?
Regarding the COL factor, it seems that you're trying to have it both ways here. If the stats show that Philadelphia has higher nominal incomes than Detroit/Pittsburgh, it confirms "a consensus that it's in a different tier." But if the stats show that Philadelphia has lower incomes than X city, then it doesn't mean it's really wealthier because COL differences even everything out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
The variables behind higher costs-of-living are multi-fold. Population growth, levels of housing production, the types of housing being produced, costs of doing business/taxation, salary levels, inflation, etc. etc., all interplay with one another and reinforce each other.
That's obvious, but not the point here. I've seen the argument made many times on C-D that certain cities like Boston, DC, or New York have higher wages than Philly because those cities have a higher COL. My point is that it's not the COL horse pulling the wage cart. Those cities have higher wages because they have big, lucrative industries (finance, tech, lobbying, etc.) that have a ripple effect on wages throughout the local economy.
I am having trouble tracking down those figures. The info I found on Chester County has slightly higher numbers, basically equal to Norfolk and Middlesex.
Are you looking at earnings or median household income? The conversation was about median earnings.
Edit: I misspoke in one of my earlier posts. I meant to say median earnings, not median incomes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpomp
The difference is that Philadelphia (city) lowers the averages quite a bit as shown in the numbers you posted.
Only that's not the reality. Excluding Philadelphia, the Philly suburbs aren't as wealthy as the Boston suburbs. Philadelphia only makes the gap bigger; removing Philadelphia from the equation doesn't eliminate the gap.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 08-14-2019 at 10:28 AM..
One way to account for demographic differences created by more or less expansive municipal boundaries is to focus exclusively on Non-Hispanic White earnings among full-time workers. That's pretty much apples-to-apples. Below is the number and percentage of Non-Hispanic Whites by MSA earning $100,000 or more. Data comes from the latest ACS 5-year data set.
New York - 1,103,543 (32.1%)
Washington, DC - 468,616 (39.2%)
Chicago - 455,222 (23.6%)
Los Angeles - 447,584 (31.8%)
Boston - 359,946 (27.5%)
Philadelphia - 314,428 (22.4%)
San Francisco - 311,048 (43.3%)
Detroit - 174,490 (17.9%)
Pittsburgh - 99,027 (13.7%)
Cleveland - 75,631 (14.5%)
As you can see, SF is in a different league here. DC is not too far behind. Philly is about right in the middle between Boston and Detroit, which is where we'd expect it to be.
One way to account for demographic differences created by more or less expansive municipal boundaries is to focus exclusively on Non-Hispanic White earnings among full-time workers. That's pretty much apples-to-apples. Below is the number and percentage of Non-Hispanic Whites by MSA earning $100,000 or more. Data comes from the latest ACS 5-year data set.
New York - 1,103,543 (32.1%)
Washington, DC - 468,616 (39.2%)
Chicago - 455,222 (23.6%)
Los Angeles - 447,584 (31.8%)
Boston - 359,946 (27.5%)
Philadelphia - 314,428 (22.4%)
San Francisco - 311,048 (43.3%)
Detroit - 174,490 (17.9%)
Pittsburgh - 99,027 (13.7%)
Cleveland - 75,631 (14.5%)
As you can see, SF is in a different league here. DC is not too far behind. Philly is about right in the middle between Boston and Detroit, which is where we'd expect it to be.
Boston and Detroit are both considerably lower than you'd expect. There doesn't really seem to be a massive gulf between Philly and the Rust Belt cities, and especially between the Rust Belt cities themselves.
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.
