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.
2. Tighten lobbying rules by so much that the legal/lobby shops will be hurting financially. Lots of unemployed counselors as a result. Pity.
Well, Obama and progressives would support it and its happening but with lobbyists cash and influence around the USA from non-dc areas and even overseas coming in , I would agree that lobbying would remain intact barring significant changes and reform and when I say significant its not just about the law changes because political influence can take many forms and turns.
3. Congress goes super liberal and decides to pursue every policy that destroys corporate profits. Sorry...no more money for the DC law firms. Young aspiring legal Eagles cross off DC from the relocation list. Take that back, smart law grads will work in public service and non-profits(GASP!) because private-sector law will be decimated. Boom times for the DOJ though.
I don't think it would be boom times for the government, government does not pay they would go elsewhere , but D.C. law firms would probably not get as hit, lobbyists and the link to drive up COL.
4. The World Bank and IMF bolt from DC. There have been rumors circulating that the Bretton Woods institutions are looking at real estate in NYC.
Not sure about that one.
5. A weapon of mass destruction is unleashed in downtown DC. Yeah, this will kinda reduce property values within a 10 mile radius of the city. Not to mention killing as many as 500,000 people.
The odds of 1 through 4 happening...let's say I have a better shot at hooking up with Megan Fox over many beers. Reason 5 is a scary possibility but we can't live like Chicken Little.
You failed to mention other reasons but the first reason is a very high possibility that contraction in the D.C. market can occur.
Last edited by FlyDrive100b; 11-02-2009 at 04:00 PM..
I don't find most residents in that region wealthier based on their income.
Well, it doesn't really matter what "you find". Highest median income means just that: we have a lot of wealthy people here. A whole lot. Some of the wealthiest areas in the country, actually. Simply because you "find" otherwise doesn't make it any less so.
Well, it doesn't really matter what "you find". Highest median income means just that: we have a lot of wealthy people here. A whole lot. Some of the wealthiest areas in the country, actually. Simply because you "find" otherwise doesn't make it any less so.
Didn't we go over this already? Income->wealth. The words aren't perfectly synonomous, but income is the primary source of wealth. If you're saying that the area doesn't have that much realtive wealth, because of cost-of-living, you would be wrong there as well. For instance Maryland ranks as the highest (or one of the highest) for consumer purchasing power, something that takes into account CoL.
I've been following this thread with great interest. I'm no urban scholar or anything, but can someone please help me? I would like to know if there is such a thing as a completely gentrified city?
I've been following this thread with great interest. I'm no urban scholar or anything, but can someone please help me? I would like to know if there is such a thing as a completely gentrified city?
Nope. San Francisco probably comes the closest, but it still has neighborhoods like Hunter's Point that are far from gentrified.
Didn't we go over this already? Income->wealth. The words aren't perfectly synonomous, but income is the primary source of wealth. If you're saying that the area doesn't have that much realtive wealth, because of cost-of-living, you would be wrong there as well. For instance Maryland ranks as the highest (or one of the highest) for consumer purchasing power, something that takes into account CoL.
Median income does not equate to wealth, the median income of king county may not be as high as certain counties in D.C. but I'm sure bill gates, paul allen and others have much more wealth than the median income would suggest.
Are there wealthy folks such as defense contractors , yes but its very misleading to say it follows wealth in many instances.
As for COL and purchasing power that's misleading in both in against that argument and in defense of Maryland, but we shouldn't use the median.
Median income does not equate to wealth, the median income of king county may not be as high as certain counties in D.C. but I'm sure bill gates, paul allen and others have much more wealth than the median income would suggest.
Are there wealthy folks such as defense contractors , yes but its very misleading to say it follows wealth in many instances.
As for COL and purchasing power that's misleading in both in against that argument and in defense of Maryland, but we shouldn't use the median.
So who do you think purchases your 'middle management housing'? Bill Gates or Paul Allen? Median income is a big influential factor as far as RE prices for what you call 'middle management housing' are concerned. So, how does this not matter?
Take two suburbs - one with lower median income and another one with higher median income, which one do you think will have higher RE prices?
Median income is usually not the best indicator of RE prices in places with mixed type of housing and mixed income. Like in Manhattan, there would be zip codes that are on the list of the wealthiest in the entire country but would have lower median income than some burbs in LE or DC. It is due to the fact that you have high density housing and more people per sq. ft making less money (e.g families occupying 1 bedroom apartments and people sharing with roommates). It's also due to the fact that even the wealthy area may still have lower income housing buildings in the area and the fact that some wealth (especially those who are truly rich) doesn't come from income (that's reported in the same manner as salaries in the upper middle class suburbs).
So, the median income in an upper middle class suburb full of predominantly single family homes and low density occupancy rates with the fairly socio-economically homogenous population (most of which derives their wealth from earned income) is likely to be higher than in places with high density and high diversity of population.
However, when you discuss prices in such predominantly single family communities, median income does matter because this is what's driving the costs of the RE in the area.
Median income does not equate to wealth, the median income of king county may not be as high as certain counties in D.C. but I'm sure bill gates, paul allen and others have much more wealth than the median income would suggest.
Are there wealthy folks such as defense contractors , yes but its very misleading to say it follows wealth in many instances.
As for COL and purchasing power that's misleading in both in against that argument and in defense of Maryland, but we shouldn't use the median.
I didn't say it did. Wealth is attained from income. A person's wealth is defined by their assets, and for the vast majority of Americans that would be income, as well as homes and automobiles. For a very tiny proportion of Americans the majority of their net worth is mostly in securities, and in most cases (not including compensation) these securities are attained by way of income.There's no perfect statistic, but Median income is the best indicator of wealth when comparing states or counties, or other localities in this country. That my friend is a generally accepted fact, and it's what the CB and most private and government organizations use. Trust me, I know. When comparing countries you use per capita GDP, since you obviously can't find, or even accurately estimate, the incomes of most people living in the world like you can for American residents.
In your first sentence you give the exact reason why per capita income is not the best measure of wealth. Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and "others" would skew the per capita statistic by a substantial degree. If you have 5 people making $1bil a year, and 15 making 100K a year you have a per capita income of $250,075,000, but a median income of $100K. Which makes more sense?
Cost-of-living and purchasing power definitely aren't "misleading," and they're directly related. In fact, factoring in COL would help your position.
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.
