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.
Not that I disagree with you, but GDP growth doesn't necessarily mean an improvement on the ground for the average person.
In most cases the rich are getting richer while the middle class disappears.
This is a highly underrated comment. Thanks for bringing this up.
I'm not dismissing GDP as an important measure economic activity, but especially nowadays with monopolies increasing again within industries, wealth is more concentrated than ever before. It's kind of beyond the level of being unhealthy and disgusting, and it has the potential to get even worse despite alarm bells ringing for years.
GDP is a simple measure of economic value (also a moving target in the current economy in which company or product valuations can change very quickly), which means it absolutely does not speak much to how well an average employee is doing.
That's why I'm much more interested in actual wages/salaries being paid for workers within states/metro areas, and particularly at the middle 50% level. That's far more indicative of broader wealth of the average working person or household.
This is a highly underrated comment. Thanks for bringing this up.
I'm not dismissing GDP as an important measure economic activity, but especially nowadays with monopolization increasing again within industries, wealth is more concentrated than ever before. It's kind of beyond the level of being unhealthy and disgusting.
A simple measure of economic value (also a moving target in the current economy in which company or product valuations can change very quickly) absolutely does not speak much to how well an average employee is doing.
That's why I'm much more interested in actual wages/salaries being paid for states/metro areas, and particularly at the middle 50% level. That's far more indicative of broader wealth of the average working person or household.
Absolutely! While certain posters boost San Francisco, San Jose, New York, Boston and other coastal cities for having such high GDPs, it makes you wonder, who is it actually helping?
A few posters live in towns/cities where the lowest home is $4 million, bragging their metropolitan is constantly winning and exceeding expectations. Winning what? Who is this helping?
Are people really this tone deaf?
Last edited by masssachoicetts; 12-08-2023 at 09:16 AM..
This is a highly underrated comment. Thanks for bringing this up.
I'm not dismissing GDP as an important measure economic activity, but especially nowadays with monopolies increasing again within industries, wealth is more concentrated than ever before. It's kind of beyond the level of being unhealthy and disgusting, and it has the potential to get even worse despite alarm bells ringing for years.
GDP is a simple measure of economic value (also a moving target in the current economy in which company or product valuations can change very quickly), which means it absolutely does not speak much to how well an average employee is doing.
That's why I'm much more interested in actual wages/salaries being paid for workers within states/metro areas, and particularly at the middle 50% level. That's far more indicative of broader wealth of the average working person or household.
I mean median incomes and GDP per capita are very highly correlated. You really don’t have substantial differences between major cities. Cities within a couple % of each other might flip flop (like Washington vs Boston) but you’re not going to suddenly see Philly being wealthier than Seattle flipping from GDP to median income
Net commuter flows muddle GDP per capita a bit, but other than DC or NH and NJ it doesn’t make a huge change from incomes. (DC up, NH, NJ down)
Last edited by btownboss4; 12-08-2023 at 10:15 AM..
California still works. Plus we have a product like no other. We can sell money losing companies at tremendous prices to the rest of the world. 1849 never stopped.....there's gold in them thar hills. Get your pick axes here!!! If you happen to find it....well then we'll make you hire a bunch of us to keep you compliant with regulations. If not...too bad. Go get some more money and try again. And you want it....where else can you run around with the fanciest toys in the best weather and hob nob with all the brightest stars in the world while your kids go to school with the spawn of billionaires...
California still works. Plus we have a product like no other. We can sell money losing companies at tremendous prices to the rest of the world. 1849 never stopped.....there's gold in them thar hills. Get your pick axes here!!! If you happen to find it....well then we'll make you hire a bunch of us to keep you compliant with regulations. If not...too bad. Go get some more money and try again. And you want it....where else can you run around with the fanciest toys in the best weather and hob nob with all the brightest stars in the world while your kids go to school with the spawn of billionaires...
Keep on California Dreamin...
Ahh yes, $1mil dollar home prices are great for FTHB, especially when the median wage is $70k. Great points.
Absolutely! While certain posters boost San Francisco, San Jose, New York, Boston and other coastal cities for having such high GDPs, it makes you wonder, who is it actually helping?
A few posters live in towns/cities where the lowest home is $4 million, bragging their metropolitan is constantly winning and exceeding expectations. Winning what? Who is this helping?
Are people really this tone deaf?
You're on a forum where the majority skew very affluent and possess terminal degrees, so, yes, many on City-Data are, in fact, tone deaf to the socioeconomic plight the middle-class has still been experiencing despite our "booming" economy on paper.
This is why the majority still disapprove of President Biden's handling of the economy---nobody cares if GDP is soaring or if Wall Street is doing jumping jacks if their own wallets are leaner and leaner. The majority of the middle-class is being left behind by this "booming" economy. My real wages have decreased over the past couple of years, as have those of most in my social circle.
Last edited by SteelCityRising; 12-08-2023 at 10:24 AM..
I mean median incomes and GDP per capita are very highly correlated. You really don’t have substantial differences between major cities. Cities within a couple % of each other might flip flop (like Washington vs Boston) but you’re not going to suddenly see Philly being wealthier than Seattle flipping from GDP to median income
Net commuter flows muddle GDP per capita a bit, but other than DC or NH and NJ it doesn’t make a huge change from incomes. (DC up, NH, NJ down)
Yes, I recognize there's a correlation between GDP and incomes for sure. But it's definitely not a perfect one, especially in energy-producing states that are more prone to this kind of disparity (i.e., Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, etc.).
But generally, the gap between the top GDP per capita states and lower GDP per capita states is far larger than the gap of median household income, or even more telling, median wages/salaries for all employees, between states.
But this isn’t just unique to California… it’s happening in all of the major expensive metro areas, it’s definitely also happening in the DC area. The middle class is being priced and pushed out and going to Raleigh, Richmond, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, etc.
So that’s unfortunate but it doesn’t necessarily mean doomsday for California and its economy, it’s a new normal for all of the expensive metro areas. I think California will continue to dominate due to the amount of money, resources and capital there, at least for the foreseeable future.
You are reading things into my point that I didn't come even close to making.
I didn't express a doomsday scenario for California, I simply stated that California killing it on GDP isn't a good indicator of conditions for the everyday person.
America is at its best when the Average working age Joe can go out there work hard and improve life for him and his family. GDP busting at the seems is not a good indicator of that. Median Income isn't either if the average joe isn't making median income.
I focused on California because the post I was referencing focused on the notion that all the woes about Cali might be unwarranted because the GDP is booming. I simply pointed out that that conclusion is a poor one because a place can have a booming GDP and still talked about poorly because only a few may be feeling the benefits of the GDP boom.
I give Pennsylvania/ Philly props for having strong GDP growth last 5 years and still remaining affordable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
You're on a forum where the majority skew very affluent and possess terminal degrees, so, yes, many on City-Data are, in fact, tone deaf to the socioeconomic plight the middle-class has still been experiencing despite our "booming" economy on paper.
Totally agree. Every other thread is about most affluent this, or fancy shopping that, or most expensive zip codes or shopping districts.
Yes, I recognize there's a correlation between GDP and incomes for sure. But it's definitely not a perfect one, especially in energy-producing states that are more prone to this kind of disparity (i.e., Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, etc.).
But generally, the gap between the top GDP per capita states and lower GDP per capita states is far larger than the gap of median household income, or even more telling, median wages/salaries for all employees, between states.
Again slight deviations are mostly due to commuting and such. A couple tiny states too. But like Connecticut is just wealthier than Pennsylvania by live every measure.
You’re the one splitting hairs. You’re technically measuring different things but you end up with practically the same list.
Wages for all employees have a problem too because huge swaths of employees don’t care about their income. Something like 10% of American workers make under $5,000 a year. A state like Utah would have depressed median compensation vs Maine because a larger portion of jobs is High School kids working two shifts at the supermarket
Ahh yes, $1mil dollar home prices are great for FTHB, especially when the median wage is $70k. Great points.
Perhaps, but the average household income in Santa Clara County is $189,352 with a median of $168,500...for just under 6 years on a million dollar home at the median.
Cleveland's median household income is $33,678 whereas the median home sold is $150,000. That's a ratio of 4.45.
So Cleveland seems to be more affordable, but which situation is going to likely throw off more surplus cash flow after costs that don't vary as much like groceries, vehicles, insurance, gas, telephone etc.?
Then there's Boston with her $969.9K median home price and allows a household to earn a median income of $81,744. That's a massive 11.85 ratio. That's rough man.
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.
