East vs West (Phoenix, Mesa, Glendale: house prices, theater, school districts)

[asufan]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

Household income, not per capita income. Per capita income between Gilbert and Scottsdale isn't even close. Gilbert's household income is artificially inflated because the Mormons have a ton kids who don't move out until they marry, after they're already in the workforce. The "image" is accurate in this case.

Look at Utah's stats. They have the 13th highest household income but only the 43rd highest per capita income. Household income doesn't mean too much.

LOL I'm not sure that's the reason. Gilbert is not nearly as mormon as people will lead you to believe (mormons in power however). I know several people from Gilbert in my group of friends and none of them are mormon, in fact one of the females could drink anyone on this board under the table . The people I know are not religious in any way, some are liberal, some moderate, but they all have bachelors or masters degrees and very solid careers. It may have more to do with Scottsdale residents being retired and already made their money. Although there's some areas of Gilbert you can't get into with a $100,000 income, it's a typical upper middle class community with a higher than average mormon population, but not dominant. I think the areas with the most mormons are in the far SE parts near Queen Creek, and in contrast the NW parts of Gilbert where all the bars are and the houses are smaller is probably very few.

[asufan]

Originally Posted by ibarrio

And now we know why certain areas of the East Valley has the 30K millionaire stereotype

Not directed at DetroitN8V, just the overall attitude of this thread. And misconception that the westside is a ghetto. Yes, people choose to live in the West Valley even when they can afford to live in the East Valley

It seems to be the opposite to me. There's a guy from Surprise going on and on about how he is wiser because he chose to move to Surprise and has all this free time because he doesn't have to work "maybe it's just me" (implying that no one else is living below their means). Living below ones means varies dependent on one's income, people like to create scenarios in their heads about others financial situations without having a clue. Like the people in the personal finance forum here that say they see someone in a $60K BMW and figure they must really be broke, whereas I look at the car and think "nice car" rather than making up a story in my head about the driver.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by asufan

LOL I'm not sure that's the reason. Gilbert is not nearly as mormon as people will lead you to believe (mormons in power however). I know several people from Gilbert in my group of friends and none of them are mormon, in fact one of the females could drink anyone on this board under the table . It may have more to do with Scottsdale residents being retired and already made their money. Although there's some areas of Gilbert you can't get into with a $100,000 income, it's a typical upper middle class community with a higher than average mormon population, but not dominant. I think the areas with the most mormons are in the far SE parts near Queen Creek, and the NW parts of Gilbert where all the bars are and the houses are smaller is probably very few.

The only reason that household income would be disproportionately higher than per capita income is because of larger than average household sizes. We can speculate whatever reasoning behind it that we want, but the similar income demographics in UT paint a correlation to Gilbert IMO.

Either way, to say that Gilbert has a higher income than Scottsdale is simply incorrect.

Gilbert has an average household size of 3.09, Chandler 2.83 and Scottsdale 2.23.

[asufan]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

The only reason that household income would be disproportionately higher than per capita income is because of larger than average household sizes. We can speculate whatever reasoning behind it that we want, but the similar income demographics in UT paint a correlation to Gilbert IMO.

Either way, to say that Gilbert has a higher income than Scottsdale is simply incorrect.

Gilbert has an average household size of 3.09, Chandler 2.83 and Scottsdale 2.23.

Right there's other reasons, I just dont agree that it has much at all to do with kids living at home. BTW I think mormons get married really early so they can begin having fun. We're not talking about people deep in careers here. But I agree, there's more empty nesters and smaller households in Scottsdale, but I also think people in Scottsdale have already built their wealth (similar to Sun City with a high number of millionaires but low household income).

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by asufan

Right there's other reasons, I just dont agree that it has much at all to do with kids living at home. BTW I think mormons get married really early so they can begin having fun. We're not talking about people deep in careers here. But I agree, there's more empty nesters and smaller households in Scottsdale, but I also think people in Scottsdale have already built their wealth (similar to Sun City with a high number of millionaires but low household income).

For your theory to work, Scottsdale's per capita income would also have to be lower that Gilbert's. It's almost double. On average, individuals in Scottsdale earn almost double what individuals in Gilbert earn.

More income earners per household is the only explanation as to why household income could be higher when per capita isn't even close.

[asufan]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

For your theory to work, Scottsdale's per capita income would also have to be lower that Gilbert's. It's almost double. On average, individuals in Scottsdale earn almost double what individuals in Gilbert earn.

More income earners per household is the only explanation as to why household income could be higher when per capita isn't even close.

Per capita income includes children whether they are working or not. It is based on total population (my 6 and 2 year old's are included in per capita income). This makes the cities with higher numbers of children have artificially low per capita incomes, it's not the household incomes that are artificially high. I doubt high school kids working 15 hours a week as a barista make much of a dent in the household stats.

[asufan]

To make this more clear (I know it's not):

If my household income is $100,000, and we have a family of 4, the per capita is $25,000.

If your household income is $100,000, and you have a family of 2, the per capita is $50,000.


Obviously the stats you quoted as family size is more 3 to 2, not 4 to 2 like my example above, so a 3rd income earner may also play a small part. I still think household incomes in Scottsdale are lower because they are done earning and now just enjoying their money.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by asufan

To make this more clear (I know it's not):

If my household income is $100,000, and we have a family of 4, the per capita is $25,000.

If your household income is $100,000, and you have a family of 2, the per capita is $50,000.


Obviously the stats you quoted as family size is more 3 to 2, not 4 to 2 like my example above, so a 3rd income earner may also play a small part. I still think household incomes in Scottsdale are lower because they are done earning and now just enjoying their money.

Interesting. I thought per capita only included those over 18. So Scottsdale has more mega-rich that drive up the per capita income, it would appear.

[asufan]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

Interesting. I thought per capita only included those over 18. So Scottsdale has more mega-rich that drive up the per capita income, it would appear.

Some income stats only include people who actually have income, per capita does not and just divides GDP by Total Population so it's misleading.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by asufan

It seems to be the opposite to me. There's a guy from Surprise going on and on about how he is wiser because he chose to move to Surprise and has all this free time because he doesn't have to work "maybe it's just me" (implying that no one else is living below their means). Living below ones means varies dependent on one's income, people like to create scenarios in their heads about others financial situations without having a clue. Like the people in the personal finance forum here that say they see someone in a $60K BMW and figure they must really be broke, whereas I look at the car and think "nice car" rather than making up a story in my head about the driver.

Sometimes the translation gets lost with typed words so I will be clearer. You said you live below your means. I believe you. I said most American's are in hawk as they live paycheck to paycheck. In my noggin, I assumed you saved plenty.

To me at least if someone wants to drive a big dollar car, their house should be paid for and they should be paying cash for the car. If not on both accounts, I judge as I wonder why...

I sell luxury widgets for a living to people with thick(er) wallets. Some people live larger than they should. They pull down in a good deal of $$'s and they spend it like water. Other spend a lot of $$'s that they do not have. Many California residence fit this profile (while many others really do have deep pockets).

I simply explained my mindset. I value my time more than money. More money didn't make me happy. My wife walked away from a disturbing amount of money with her career in 1994 dollars. Her exclusive reason was to raise our kids. That doesn't make me smarter or better. It was our priorities.

What I have noticed is the more money someone has, the less flashy they are. There are exceptions but that is the trend. I propose hundreds of SSW and SSG neighbors are millionaires with zero flash.

The only place where we disagree is that you somehow live in a far superior town. It seems you took offense to it. At the end of the day, we simply have a different priorities and values.