[blockbuster]

which major cities have the dinero compared to other major cities.

[GaryP]

[Aporkalypse]

I would've thought for sure that San Fran would be #1 and NYC #2. There are a variety of different ways to look at it. If you factor standard of living in none of the cities mentioned here would make it but places like Dallas and KC might.

[MadVlad]

I think you'd be surprised what cities are rich and what cities aren't...

[urbanvb]

Here is a link you may find helpful.

link

Virginia Beach made number 5!

This post has been edited by guynvb: 03 October 2005 - 10:17 PM

[Garris]

guynvb, on Oct 3 2005, 10:16 PM, said:

Here is a link you may find helpful.

link

Virginia Beach made number 5!

Judging from the areas on that list that I know (and some that aren't...), what matters sometimes far more than how much affluence an area has is how much poverty it lacks...

For example, on that list, Nassau County, NY on Long Island is the 6th wealthiest county in the US. In actuality, Putnam County, NY has the highest household income in NY state (but it doesn't make the list since its population is <250,000, but likely makes it one of the highest in the US).

Now, I grew up in Putnam, and there is no way in hell that Putnam, a tiny, sparsely populated, solidly middle class to slightly upper middle class county in the Hudson Valley, has remotely near as much wealth as is flaunted and paraded around every day in Nassau, Westchester, and Rockland. What's the difference? Putnam has very, very little (boardering on zero) poverty. We didn't have poor communities like Yonkers or New Rochelle in Westchester or Newburgh in Rockland to "pull down the average."

So very "average" areas can resultingly look stunningly wealthy.

Also, it matters where you draw borders for the city. In Providence, for example, the city looks quite poor if you just look at the municipal borders (teeny tiny). Add suburbs even 2-5 minutes drive outside of the downtown, and the picture changes dramatically...

- Garris
Providence, RI

This post has been edited by Garris: 03 October 2005 - 10:55 PM

[TheGerbil]

This is definitely a complicated issue. A lot of the cities on the "poorest" list have quite low costs of living, and many cities on the "richest" list have high costs of living. Of course the median income in San Jose is high, California is not a cheap place to live.

I think a more accurate list would definitely take into account cost of living. What constitutes rich or poor varies from one place to another.

[Garris]

TheGerbil, on Oct 4 2005, 07:00 AM, said:

I think a more accurate list would definitely take into account cost of living. What constitutes rich or poor varies from one place to another.

Absolutely. I know someone in San Francisco who is a professional making double what he'd make doing the same thing in Providence or Boston, but he's just barely getting by in San Fran on what would be a very generous salary for New England, and would be a princely ransom for the Midwest or Southeast.

Cost of living is an enormous factor...

- Garris
Providence, RI

[MrSmith]

Unless you adjust for the cost of living, it is difficult to say which city is richest. If i'm not mistaken Iowa has more millionaires per capita tha any other state --- adjust for the cost of living and they are really rich. Successful farmers make a lot more money than they let on

[Angelina]

I figured silicon valley would make tops, but didn't think San Jose would beat SF! surprising also to see Riverside in SoCal made the list at all! yes it's all about how you calculate these figures isn't it.. SoCal has a lot of wealth, but also has a lot of poverty, so ironically some of the places most famous for wealth like Beverly Hills for example don't even show up on the list.

[MadVlad]

Fairfield County would probably top out that "Richest County" list if it didn't have that anchor called Bridgeport.....