Phoenix is one of the ten best cities to build wealth. (Scottsdale: transplants, real estate)

[Java Jolt]

Ninth in the nation, not bad at all. The 10 best U.S. cities to build wealth

[ShampooBanana]

This is not surprising. Relatively low cost of living and cost to do business. Strong population growth which means always growing customer/client base. High concentration of jobs related to real estate and construction/development so no surprise it ranks highly right now when the housing market and market for commercial/industrial construction is pretty good. Of course, the opposite is true when it's down. Phoenix is a boom-bust town.

[BIG CATS]

ShampooBanana said it best. Phoenix is a boom/bust town. When its down, its often the worst in the nation. When its up, its often amongst the best. Its not a stable foundation, which people fail to see when times are good. Then the rug gets pulled out from underneath 'em and BAM!

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by ShampooBanana

This is not surprising. Relatively low cost of living and cost to do business. Strong population growth which means always growing customer/client base. High concentration of jobs related to real estate and construction/development so no surprise it ranks highly right now when the housing market and market for commercial/industrial construction is pretty good. Of course, the opposite is true when it's down. Phoenix is a boom-bust town.

That logic isn't in line with the criteria that article used, nor does it explain why some notoriously expensive cities bested Phoenix on that list, including San Francisco, Boston and Washington. This looks to be more of a fluff piece, for example, using a numbered list to enhance readership, which is a marketing ploy.

In relation to what you wrote, I do agree that Phoenix is reliant on a feast-or-famine model. I do well now, but in 2-3 years it would be harder to do as well. That's because of rising cost of living without adequate compensation (a very real problem here) and the lack of competing jobs, meaning relevant positions don't need to pay as much to attract/retain workers.

[jimj]

Add in next years hike in ACA fees of 125%+ and let's see how well people build wealth... It kills the cost of living when your health insurance is as much or more than your rent/mortgage payments. Especially when wages have remained stagnant or gone down.

[ShampooBanana]

Originally Posted by dvxhd

That logic isn't in line with the criteria that article used, nor does it explain why some notoriously expensive cities bested Phoenix on that list, including San Francisco, Boston and Washington. This looks to be more of a fluff piece, for example, using a numbered list to enhance readership, which is a marketing ploy.

In relation to what you wrote, I do agree that Phoenix is reliant on a feast-or-famine model. I do well now, but in 2-3 years it would be harder to do as well. That's because of rising cost of living without adequate compensation (a very real problem here) and the lack of competing jobs, meaning relevant positions don't need to pay as much to attract/retain workers.

I'd say that the criteria used does relate to what I wrote. Savable income is very related to cost of living, as is the homeownership rate to some extent. San Fran, Boston, and Washington do well because of their very high salaries to help compensate for their higher cost of living, plus their high scores in "human capital", which is not surprising considering their very educated populace (though Phoenix scored very well in that category, as well).

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by ShampooBanana

I'd say that the criteria used does relate to what I wrote. Savable income is very related to cost of living, as is the homeownership rate to some extent. San Fran, Boston, and Washington do well because of their very high salaries to help compensate for their higher cost of living, plus their high scores in "human capital", which is not surprising considering their very educated populace (though Phoenix scored very well in that category, as well).

Why are you spinning it now when you first boasted the lower cost of living in Phoenix as contributing to growing wealth? By this new logic, there are other expensive cities that should've beat out Phoenix, especially when wages are unusually low here. Plain and simple, that article was designed to get people to read it, and mission accomplished.

You're also defining "human capital" differently than the source did. The original defines it as "Unemployment rate, educational opportunities, productivity", which makes more sense when Phoenix has a much lower ranking of people with college degrees. Still, whether this article claimed Phoenix is one of the ten best or ten worst cities to build wealth, I would think it's a fluff piece. I mean, curiously it appears you can accumulate wealth in only one of 21 cities

[Java Jolt]

Originally Posted by dvxhd

Why are you spinning it now when you first boasted the lower cost of living in Phoenix as contributing to growing wealth? By this new logic, there are other expensive cities that should've beat out Phoenix, especially when wages are unusually low here. Plain and simple, that article was designed to get people to read it, and mission accomplished.

You're also defining "human capital" differently than the source did. The original defines it as "Unemployment rate, educational opportunities, productivity", which makes more sense when Phoenix has a much lower ranking of people with college degrees. Still, whether this article claimed Phoenix is one of the ten best or ten worst cities to build wealth, I would think it's a fluff piece. I mean, curiously it appears you can accumulate wealth in only one of 21 cities

I don't disagree with some of your points, they are truthful but calling the report a fluff piece is going a little overboard.

There are upsides and downsides to a place with a lower cost of living but I really don't think the Phoenix area is inexpensive, especially when the costs to cool a home and maintain a vehicle are calculated.

[Arizona89A]

Originally Posted by ShampooBanana

This is not surprising. Relatively low cost of living and cost to do business. Strong population growth which means always growing customer/client base. High concentration of jobs related to real estate and construction/development so no surprise it ranks highly right now when the housing market and market for commercial/industrial construction is pretty good. Of course, the opposite is true when it's down. Phoenix is a boom-bust town.

I don't know how CNBC did that study and I usually don't think that studies from TV networks are reliable. As for population growth, that alone doesn't build wealth. Most people coming here are from the Midwest and never went to college. Employers are looking to relocate to areas with lots of college grads, like over in southern Cal, Denver, Salt Lake, and Seattle. Phoenix is a party town for Midwest transplants, until they settle down and have a family. Furthermore, the schools are horrible, and high school graduation rates are very low. The universities are not the best, the southern California universities turn out way more qualified graduates. The region is anti growth, anti business. Rental housing and homes are increasingly expensive, and grocers are setting prices much higher than New Mexico. Medical care, is horrible, with about 6 managed care companies from back east, who gobbled up all the private practises. Obama Care premiums are going up 110% compared to 25% nationwide. Watch out for Bob Littlefield, the anti growth Scottsdale mayor candidate. If you are single and reading this, hi, I'm single, too, and I'm going back to the west coast asap and advise the same, especially if you are on Obama Care or want a better paying job.

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by Java Jolt

I don't disagree with some of your points, they are truthful but calling the report a fluff piece is going a little overboard.

There are upsides and downsides to a place with a lower cost of living but I really don't think the Phoenix area is inexpensive, especially when the costs to cool a home and maintain a vehicle are calculated.

It is a fluff piece because first, as I mentioned, it includes a numbered list. From my experience in marketing, I know that numbered lists are one tactic used to attract an audience. For some reason, it just works, hence why they're pretty popular. Second, it's also far too limited in scope, featuring only 21 cities. While it's possible Albuquerque and New Orleans are technically easier for people to build wealth, neither one makes this limited list. Third, the actual criteria used aren't comprehensive.

I've found it relatively easy to build up wealth here, but if anyone is weighing this data in determining whether or not to move here, I have to admit that my situation comes with a lot of fine print. All of my circumstances would be too long of a list, but in sum: I'm more fortunate with my company because it pays well and has plenty of opportunities for overtime; likewise, if a localized recession hit Phoenix it wouldn't affect my job at all, because I'm much more reliant on economic health in California and the East Coast. I also have an advanced degree and several years of experience, which means I started at more than some people who've been at the company for a longer period (on a side note, I had a rough start to my move here, but was able to find a new job fairly quickly because of these aspects). I'm not married, and have no kids, no debt and no other payments aside from my car, all of which help.

I will echo your sentiment that it's not exactly inexpensive here, at least not to the degree it's often touted.