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.
That still isn't saying very much. Austin is a laid back very liberal tech-centric city with a fairly high CoL so it is reasonable to state it does mimic the West Coast in style. Also most of the cities you mention punch above their league and have per-capita GDP's greater than their larger peers.
Austin is competing fairly well against much larger peers surpassing quite a good number of them.
Austin's high COL is very, very overrated. All statistics show that the COL is on par with the like of Atlanta or Nashville, basically places that saw prices skyrocketed as more people move in, but still cheap compare to CA or Northeast (except maybe Philly, but nice areas around Philly is not cheap either).
Sure, it is more expensive than DFW or Houston, but overall it is not to the point of unaffordable, not even close.
======
Bottom line for Austin - yes, economy is booming, people keep moving there, it definitely has wealth, and is definitely on par with DFW or Houston or Atlanta when you do per capita calculation. ATX will be behind if you use raw number, of course, as Houston/DFW/Atlanta are simply much larger. What Austin doesn't quite have is actually a large swath of areas with relatively low income population - be it southern Atlanta metro or southern Dallas (or even some of the older suburbs) or Houston outside of I-10 west corridor (and part of Heights) and of course suburbs like Woodlands/southern Katy/Sugar Land/part of Clear Lake area. The last part does make Austin seems wealthier overall.
(Yes, I know about East Austin or areas near 183/Lamar...those areas are paradise compare to the worst part of Houston/Atlanta/DFW)
Austin's high COL is very, very overrated. All statistics show that the COL is on par with the like of Atlanta or Nashville, basically places that saw prices skyrocketed as more people move in, but still cheap compare to CA or Northeast (except maybe Philly, but nice areas around Philly is not cheap either).
Sure, it is more expensive than DFW or Houston, but overall it is not to the point of unaffordable, not even close.
The price of real estate in the central parts of the city is definitely higher in Austin than Nashville or Atlanta.. Look at sold homes on Redfin for two seconds and that will be obvious to you... But, if you go towards the far-out suburbs there is plenty of land and isn't more expensive to build on empty land in Central Texas than it is anywhere else. And no, it isn't close to the Bay Area or LA. It's about equal to Denver and Portland and a bit cheaper than San Diego. I think I'd generally disagree that it's "cheap compared to the Northeast", but there is a lot of variance within the northeast. Cheaper than NYC, Boston, or DC, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ion475
Bottom line for Austin - yes, economy is booming, people keep moving there, it definitely has wealth, and is definitely on par with DFW or Houston or Atlanta when you do per capita calculation. ATX will be behind if you use raw number, of course, as Houston/DFW/Atlanta are simply much larger. What Austin doesn't quite have is actually a large swath of areas with relatively low income population - be it southern Atlanta metro or southern Dallas (or even some of the older suburbs) or Houston outside of I-10 west corridor (and part of Heights) and of course suburbs like Woodlands/southern Katy/Sugar Land/part of Clear Lake area. The last part does make Austin seems wealthier overall.
(Yes, I know about East Austin or areas near 183/Lamar...those areas are paradise compare to the worst part of Houston/Atlanta/DFW)
Yeah, I mean I think that is the entire difference. Houston and DFW both have a lot more old money, mega generational wealth than Austin. There isn't a Highland Park or River Oaks in Austin. What Austin does have is a higher median and no truly impoverished large areas.
The price of real estate in the central parts of the city is definitely higher in Austin than Nashville or Atlanta.. Look at sold homes on Redfin for two seconds and that will be obvious to you... But, if you go towards the far-out suburbs there is plenty of land and isn't more expensive to build on empty land in Central Texas than it is anywhere else.
For real. I can’t think of a southern city more expensive than Austin that’s not Miami.
I’ve been arguing that for years on here….some cities have a much higher percentage of self employed small or medium sized businesses than corporate W-2 wage earners that do not report all their income (not just waiters, business owners). How do you measure the wealth of people taking money out of their countries and parking it in multimillion dollar real estate properties in the US?…how do you account for sunbelt retirees who are no longer earning incomes but are spending their previously accumulated wealth? Many on CD seem fixated solely on reported income to the exclusion of other factors.
True, there are many factors to consider but we can look at what we think is the typical, not the exception, yet at the same time, numbers don't always tell the whole story, especially when considering cost of living.
Also, there is the matter of per capita, average, and median.
Lately I've liked using this metric because I think it more or less tells us what typical working families are earning.
MSAs by Median Income, 2-Earner Families, 2021
San Jose $213,340
San Francisco $190,872
Washington $165,392
Boston $156,057
Seattle $150,268
Baltimore $141,281
New York $136,239
Denver $135,156
Minneapolis $134,006
Philadelphia $133,834 Austin $133,371
Hartford $131,696
Raleigh $130,372
San Diego $129,991
Portland $128,022
Sacramento $125,860
Chicago $124,454
Richmond $122,158
Providence $121,385
Los Angeles $119,795
Atlanta $116,260
Cincinnati $116,087
Milwaukee $117,765
Dallas 115,970
Pittsburgh $115,923
Columbus $115,343
St Louis $114,022
Detroit $113,936
Kansas City $112,436
Columbus $111,997
Houston $110,597
Cleveland $109,905
Buffalo $109,479
Rochester $109,403
Indianapolis $109,187
Virginia Beach $108,962
Phoenix $108,542
Nashville $107,085
Jacksonville $106,002
Tampa $105,502
Salt Lake City $104,975
Louisville $104,588
Birmingham $104,575
Grand Rapids $104,296
Riverside $103,405
New Orleans $102,395
San Antonio $102,208
Memphis $101,910
Tulsa $100,500
Oklahoma City $99,235
Orlando $97,996
Tucson $97,037
Fresno $95,119
Miami $94,297
Las Vegas $93,649
Losfrisco has this running thing where he gets oddly worked up by Austin being described as similar to California in any way. In his eyes it's actually much more alike Indianapolis or Columbus, Ohio. Mind you that he has never set foot in Austin in his life; that fact doesn't make him any less certain of this take.
What's funny is he lives in one of America's favorite cities, a city with many inherent advantages and he's worried about Austin. I don't get it.
I'm also not understanding why pound for pound is being ignored here. Nobody is saying there's more wealth in Austin than in Dallas or Atlanta. There's some crossover between SD/Austin residents and most people prefer SD, all things being equal. Haven't really heard that disputed. If I lived in SD, Austin would be the furthest thing from my mind, just like, if you'll notice, residents in LA and NYC don't care nor worry about Austin. "oh, that's a cute little city in Texas that I like to visit." It's just per capita, it seems to be higher.
Again, I'm probably the lone sports fan here, but at some point Julio Cesar Chavez was considered the best pfp boxer in the world. Does that mean he could kick Mike Tyson's rear? Of course not. Different weight classes.
GDP per capita is another one of those sneaky stats that we abuse on here.
For example a classroom consisting of 30 students with 5 of them being 'A' students has a lower per capita 'A' student ratio than a classroom with 10 students with 2 A students. Does the classroom with the higher average necessarily mean the students are better? Not necessarily.
The thing we continually ignore on here is that per capita is only relevant when you are comparing similar sized things.
In the example above the stats are not relevant because the size difference of the classes have verifiable variables that we can't ignore.
Classroom size has been shown to be directly correlated to performance, so who is to say that if that class of 10 was extended to 30, will it still have a higher average than the one already at 30?
Everyone is making a big deal of a smaller city's per capita income being comparable to bigger city incomes when the relevance is negligible at best.
Any small city within a boom cycle will have a high per capita income. It's just common sense. Let's see if Austin can maintain enough high paying jobs to keep its per capita income on Houston's level when/if it gets to be as big as Houston.
Austin should be compared with metros it's size to showcase how is doing. And in its size bracket it is doing extremely well. But we can't put Austin on 7M plus level metros yet. And the OP is premature in implying that Seattle was already in that level.
Austin has 5M less people than the cities is being compared to. Seattle has 3M less. High paying tech Jobs alone is not going to get either to 7M plus people. When you get that big, the Tech talent is going to be puny in comparison. So it is VERY doubtful that either would as high on per capita lists if their population was 7M plus.
New York is our Great Dame City because despite the size it still kicks butt on per capita lists. San Francisco Bay is good example. The CSA is bigger than the Southern metros and yet it's per capita income is higher so you can legitimately draw the conclusion that they are making more money up there.
Austin is a middle sized fish in a small pond. It stands out.
Put it in a big pond with big fish and you will barely notice it.
Austin's per capita income has been above Houston's for years. I don't remember when Austin wasn't more expensive TBH. This isn't a flash in the pan deal. Austin has been growing for 20+ years.
What's funny is he lives in one of America's favorite cities, a city with many inherent advantages and he's worried about Austin. I don't get it.
I'm also not understanding why pound for pound is being ignored here. Nobody is saying there's more wealth in Austin than in Dallas or Atlanta. There's some crossover between SD/Austin residents and most people prefer SD, all things being equal. Haven't really heard that disputed. If I lived in SD, Austin would be the furthest thing from my mind, just like, if you'll notice, residents in LA and NYC don't care nor worry about Austin. "oh, that's a cute little city in Texas that I like to visit." It's just per capita, it seems to be higher.
Again, I'm probably the lone sports fan here, but at some point Julio Cesar Chavez was considered the best pfp boxer in the world. Does that mean he could kick Mike Tyson's rear? Of course not. Different weight classes.
I notice that some California people are a bit too sensitive about the barrage of Fox News stories talking about how the state is supposedly falling apart. In Texas, you are very conditioned to hearing ignorant takes about the state from outsiders so it's a lot easier to understand that it's a load of BS and not take it seriously.
Austin's per capita income has been above Houston's for years. I don't remember when Austin wasn't more expensive TBH. This isn't a flash in the pan deal. Austin has been growing for 20+ years.
I think OP is a little weird because I've never thought about Austin having a lot of "wealth" in particular. Wealth to me means old money and Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, even Nashville have that in spades. It's in the middle where Austin outperforms those cities just because it has an (on average) more educated workforce and more/better white collar jobs. True wealth doesn't need to work for a living, though.
I think OP is a little weird because I've never thought about Austin having a lot of "wealth" in particular. Wealth to me means old money and Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, even Nashville have that in spades. It's in the middle where Austin outperforms those cities just because it has an (on average) more educated workforce and more/better white collar jobs. True wealth doesn't need to work for a living, though.
I get what you're saying. Austin definitely doesn't have the Vanderbilts or Rockerfellers per se, just a larger (per capita) upper middle class. And I believe it's the second most educated sun belt city, per capita (depends how you want to break the REsearch Triangle down)
I live in California. Most Californians I know like Austin and think of it as "that's the place I'd live if I had to move to Texas."
GDP per capita is another one of those sneaky stats that we abuse on here.
For example a classroom consisting of 30 students with 5 of them being 'A' students has a lower per capita 'A' student ratio than a classroom with 10 students with 2 A students. Does the classroom with the higher average necessarily mean the students are better? Not necessarily.
The thing we continually ignore on here is that per capita is only relevant when you are comparing similar sized things.
In the example above the stats are not relevant because the size difference of the classes have verifiable variables that we can't ignore.
Classroom size has been shown to be directly correlated to performance, so who is to say that if that class of 10 was extended to 30, will it still have a higher average than the one already at 30?
Everyone is making a big deal of a smaller city's per capita income being comparable to bigger city incomes when the relevance is negligible at best.
Any small city within a boom cycle will have a high per capita income. It's just common sense. Let's see if Austin can maintain enough high paying jobs to keep its per capita income on Houston's level when/if it gets to be as big as Houston.
Austin should be compared with metros it's size to showcase how is doing. And in its size bracket it is doing extremely well. But we can't put Austin on 7M plus level metros yet. And the OP is premature in implying that Seattle was already in that level.
Austin has 5M less people than the cities is being compared to. Seattle has 3M less. High paying tech Jobs alone is not going to get either to 7M plus people. When you get that big, the Tech talent is going to be puny in comparison. So it is VERY doubtful that either would as high on per capita lists if their population was 7M plus.
New York is our Great Dame City because despite the size it still kicks butt on per capita lists. San Francisco Bay is good example. The CSA is bigger than the Southern metros and yet it's per capita income is higher so you can legitimately draw the conclusion that they are making more money up there.
Austin is a middle sized fish in a small pond. It stands out.
Put it in a big pond with big fish and you will barely notice it.
Thank you for articulating what I was thinking much better than I would have been able to.
San Jose is the runaway train in per capita wealth, but its at the bottom end of large metro area status. Seattle is expanding from mid to large metro status so I think it along with metro SF are the most impressive examples of maintaining an unusually high GDP per capita across a large population.
San Jose is in the same MSA size group as Austin and has double the per capita GDP (in a much smaller geographic area). They also more than doubled their population since 1970, installed a full light rail system in the 80's....all with almost zero hype or horn-tooting.
This goes back to being "middle sized fish in a small pond." San Jose (and Seattle) are swimming in the big pool where you don't get any atta boys for success, and if you take too long of a nap the other guy won't hesitate to grab your milk money.
If Austin were on the west coast, like so many are fond of imagining because its such a natural, obvious, not contrived scenario to contemplate, its attention spectrum would likely be several levels above Fresno and several levels below Sacramento.
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.
