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.
Status:
"Worship the Earth, Worship Love, not Imaginary Gods"
(set 13 days ago)
Location: Houston, TX/Detroit, MI
8,418 posts, read 5,565,119 times
Reputation: 12392
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpdivola
Idk if this is supposed to be city or MSA? It includes The Bay Area which implies MSA. These numbers look a little suspect or at least use an inconsistent methodology.
That's why I won't take this study seriously. All metrics need to be the same in an objective study. Lumping the Bay Area into one thing negates that even if it is a huge center of wealth.
I don’t know why but I’m surprised to see the wealth in Chicago. The other surprises are no Atlanta and no Philadelphia, especially since the list seems to correlate to population.
I don’t know why but I’m surprised to see the wealth in Chicago. The other surprises are no Atlanta and no Philadelphia, especially since the list seems to correlate to population.
Id be really surprised if Philly were on the list.
That's why I won't take this study seriously. All metrics need to be the same in an objective study. Lumping the Bay Area into one thing negates that even if it is a huge center of wealth.
It is odd that other than SF and LA it’s straight city limits.
That's why I won't take this study seriously. All metrics need to be the same in an objective study. Lumping the Bay Area into one thing negates that even if it is a huge center of wealth.
How does one even calculate this? Millionaire households would make the most sense to think about, all persons belonging to which would technically be millionaires. Seems quite difficult to compute rigorously.
Total # of millionaires is like an old school statistic where it was a single household bread winner who did very well. Nowadays, anyone who owns a $1 MM value house is more likely than not a millionaire, since they'll tend to have significant home equity (I believe national average is around 30%, possibly more in markets with significant recent appreciation), and a 401K/IRA that under dual income probably rounds out the rest of a million, before even getting into other savings.
And...average home value in LA county (population 10 million) is nearly $1 million.
Thanks for the info. So they use the Bay Area but not DFW? Hmmm. Also surprised to see Austin but no Atlanta
The methodology they used is weird, city limits for most cities but not a few. Austin's city limits is 320 square miles and Atlanta's city limits is 136 square miles (Houston is at 671). This small area for Atlanta will include Buckhead but none of the wealthier parts just outside of it like in Brookhaven, Sandy Springs, and in the burbs like Milton, Alpharetta.
Chicago is a huge global economic center, the wealth in and around Chicago is no secret.
Not calling you out, but not sure why Chicago ranking high surprises people...
Of course I know this and I love Chicago. It’s just most of what we hear is the city is losing population and declining. It does have the slowest growth rate of all the cities listed, so perhaps that is a clue.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,143 posts, read 7,612,515 times
Reputation: 5796
I'm confused list says cities but then lists the "Bay Area", which is two combined metro areas. Should we assume this is just a global list of enlarged metro areas? I understand this is not a US specific organization.
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.