HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 7:11 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Diesel is a curious choice, but I assume you mean that Manhattanites are choosing to wear more expensive clothes? If so this has nothing to do with cost of living
Yes it absolutely does. Because the rate of demand affects the availability of supply. If everyone in Manhattan is buying Diesel, that means the market for Levi's lacks the critical mass for stores to carry Levi's. In turn, that results in people who might be willing to wear either buying more Diesel, because that's what's available. Even if there's enough demand for Levi's to find them when you want them, casual shoppers end up spending more on average. I have no idea if the jeans example is specifically true in NY or not, but it's an example of how luxury tastes can drive up average costs for an entire area, even among non-luxury buyers.

A better example might be groceries. The cost of food in my gentrifying neighborhood in DC is actively rising, because the cheapo indie grocery stores that used to supply the ghetto are all closing, and Whole Foods is moving in. You can still trek out to a cheap Aldi if you want, but if you're just walking down the sidewalk and you want to buy a loaf of bread, you are absolutely paying more to do it today than you were a couple of years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc
is that from Manhattan's cost of living or because it's crawling with tourists and they will pay anything?
It doesn't matter. Tourists willing to pay anything are part of why NY's cost of living is high. If the prices are driven up, they're driven up.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 7:31 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Yes it absolutely does. Because the rate of demand affects the availability of supply. If everyone in Manhattan is buying Diesel, that means the market for Levi's lacks the critical mass for stores to carry Levi's. In turn, that results in people who might be willing to wear either buying more Diesel, because that's what's available. Even if there's enough demand for Levi's to find them when you want them, casual shoppers end up spending more on average. I have no idea if the jeans example is specifically true in NY or not, but it's an example of how luxury tastes can drive up average costs for an entire area, even among non-luxury buyers.

A better example might be groceries. The cost of food in my gentrifying neighborhood in DC is actively rising, because the cheapo indie grocery stores that used to supply the ghetto are all closing, and Whole Foods is moving in. You can still trek out to a cheap Aldi if you want, but if you're just walking down the sidewalk and you want to buy a loaf of bread, you are absolutely paying more to do it today than you were a couple of years ago.

It doesn't matter. Tourists willing to pay anything are part of why NY's cost of living is high. If the prices are driven up, they're driven up.
I really don't think it works that way. Everything is "available" in NYC. The one area where you might have a point is food, which I already mentioned.

Although in your example, that's not like for like either... Whole Foods is more expensive, but is generally a higher quality product. Not all loaves of bread are created equal. In fact I actually compared when I lived in Manhattan, and Whole Foods was cheaper than Food Emporium on a like for like basis (comparing the exact same items), by a significant margin, probably due to being influenced by national pricing.

You can avoid paying a tourist markup for anything else by not being an idiot.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 7:40 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16,563
In any event, your argument only applies to so-called "victims of gentrification", if at all.

For someone looking at their options around the country, who is going to shop at Whole Foods (or whatever non-food stores) regardless of whether they live in NYC or Atlanta, these things are not a factor in cost of living.

If anything, the multitude of ethnic shops in major cities provide opportunities to save for anyone so inclined. I cook a lot, and I buy all of my spices (this one is obvious) and much of my fruit and veg from the Arab shops, for instance.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 8:15 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Registered Putz
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 22,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Yes it absolutely does. Because the rate of demand affects the availability of supply. If everyone in Manhattan is buying Diesel, that means the market for Levi's lacks the critical mass for stores to carry Levi's. In turn, that results in people who might be willing to wear either buying more Diesel, because that's what's available. Even if there's enough demand for Levi's to find them when you want them, casual shoppers end up spending more on average. I have no idea if the jeans example is specifically true in NY or not, but it's an example of how luxury tastes can drive up average costs for an entire area, even among non-luxury buyers.

A better example might be groceries. The cost of food in my gentrifying neighborhood in DC is actively rising, because the cheapo indie grocery stores that used to supply the ghetto are all closing, and Whole Foods is moving in. You can still trek out to a cheap Aldi if you want, but if you're just walking down the sidewalk and you want to buy a loaf of bread, you are absolutely paying more to do it today than you were a couple of years ago.

It doesn't matter. Tourists willing to pay anything are part of why NY's cost of living is high. If the prices are driven up, they're driven up.
That speaks more of opportunism and not because Manhattan is so expensive to function in. Reminds me of gas stations here, the ones near freeway entrances are almost always more expensive than those further away...even a block or two because they are typically frequented by motorists who are more concerned about not running of gas on their way to work. Captive audience. NY tourists aren't going to other parts of town to save but suck it up in Times Square and pay 5 bucks for a coke.
__________________
Castigat ridendo mores
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 9:12 PM
YSL YSL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Austin
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
It makes more sense to use median income instead of average. The list might be a little less biased to New York then.
Actually, no it does not. Census caps median incomes at $250k and the vast majority of these neighborhoods have median incomes of $250k. It wouldn't tell us much.

PS - Median incomes alone tend to mask actual rich people and simply tell us which places are overwhelmingly upper-middle-class, suburban, dual income, married. Average shows which places are filled with truly rich people. This list reads like how one would expect. I've been to some these places at the the feeling of wealth is palpable. In comparison, somewhere like Southlake, TX, which has a higher median income than Beverly Hills, does not feel rich because it is not.

Last edited by YSL; Jan 3, 2018 at 9:36 PM.
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 9:23 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,246
Suffolk County NY has a higher median HH income than Manhattan or Westchester, but it would be ludicrous to suggest that Suffolk is "where the wealth is."

The highest median HH income places are generally pretty homogeneous outer suburbs.
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 9:26 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by YSL View Post
Actually, no it does not. Census caps median incomes at $250k and the vast majority of these neighborhoods have median incomes of $250k. It wouldn't tell us much.

PS - Median incomes alone tend to mask actual rich people and simply tell us which places are overwhelmingly upper-middle-class, suburban, dual income and married. Average shows which places are filled with truly rich people. This list reads like how one would expect. I've been to some these places at the the feeling of wealth is palpable. In comparison, somewhere like Southlake, TX, which has a higher median income than Beverly Hills does not feel rich because it is not.
Correct.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 9:30 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 1,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by YSL View Post
Actually, no it does not. Median incomes alone tend to mask actual rich people and simply tell us which places are overwhelmingly upper-middle-class, suburban, dual income and married. Average shows which places are filled with truly rich people. This list reads like how one would expect. I've been to some these places at the to[ and the feeling of wealth is palpable. In comparison, somewhere like Southlake, TX, which has a higher median income than Beverly Hills does not feel rich because it is not.

Also, Census caps median income at "$250,000+" and the vast majority of these tracts have median incomes of at least $250,000. It would be a list of $250,000+ up and down.
Then Southlake, TX is richer than Beverly Hills. Or to say it another way, the residents of Southlake, TX are likely to be more affluent than the ones in Beverly Hills. Beverly Hills may have some residents who are richer than the richest of Southlake, but median income is representative of the entire community. Using averages would skew this takeaway.
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 9:39 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Then Southlake, TX is richer than Beverly Hills. Or to say it another way, the residents of Southlake, TX are likely to be more affluent than the ones in Beverly Hills. Beverly Hills may have some residents who are richer than the richest of Southlake, but median income is representative of the entire community. Using averages would skew this takeaway.
Median incomes measure homogeneity more than they do wealth.

"The poor will always be with us", except where exclusionary zoning is effectively utilized to keep them out of a small geographic area.

But the richest areas are the ones with the most rich people, not the ones where everyone is comfortably upper middle class.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 9:44 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 1,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Median incomes measure homogeneity more than they do wealth.

"The poor will always be with us", except where exclusionary zoning is effectively utilized to keep them out of a small geographic area.

But the richest areas are the ones with the most rich people, not the ones where everyone is comfortably upper middle class.
If the OP wants to re-word the title to say where the richest people live then I am perfectly fine with agreeing that average income is an appropriate proxy for it. But since they said the "richest neighborhoods" I interpret that to measure the entire community, which goes back to my point about Southlake vs. Beverly Hills.
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 9:47 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17,827
Guys, we're not reinventing the wheel here. This is all well-documented stuff. Go to any cost of living calculator, put in 2 cities, and scroll down. You can separate out housing, food, and other categories.

Houston vs Manhattan, for example, shows the following cost of living differences:
Housing: 350% higher in Manhattan
Transportation: 36% higher
Food: 46% higher
Entertainment: 47% higher
Healthcare: 27% higher

Go to another site and you'll see the same story.

I'm sure you could quibble with any particular detail, but if you're going to say none of that is even remotely accurate, that the entire industry of cost-of-living comparison is totally invalid, you need to provide some justification beyond anecdotes. And remember, cost of living is not about what's possible for people who are trying their hardest to save; it's about what's normal. Going out of your way to find a cheaper option inherently means the normal cost is high.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 10:00 PM
YSL YSL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Austin
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Then Southlake, TX is richer than Beverly Hills. Or to say it another way, the residents of Southlake, TX are likely to be more affluent than the ones in Beverly Hills. Beverly Hills may have some residents who are richer than the richest of Southlake, but median income is representative of the entire community. Using averages would skew this takeaway.
So by your metric of wealth, the city of E. Hempstead, NY is richer than New York, Monaco, London, Hong Kong, San Francisco, Geneva and Zurich. If that's what you want to believe, dream away.

By my metric of wealth, the former are the poorest bunch. Median Income is no more valid than average income, since they're both used as measures of wealth and are recorded by American Community Survey. I'd say average is more valid since the ACS does not even record median incomes surpassing $250k.

So no, Southlake, TX is not richer than Beverly Hills since one has an average income of $195k and the other an average income of $300,000.

Last edited by YSL; Jan 3, 2018 at 10:25 PM.
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 10:18 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 1,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by YSL View Post
So by your metric of wealth, the city of Hempstead, NY is richer than New York, Monaco, London, Hong Kong, San Francisco, Geneva and Zurich. If that's what you want to believe, dream away.

By my metric of wealth, Hempstead, NY is the poorest of the bunch. Median Income is no more valid than average income, since they're both used as measures of wealth and are recorded by American Community Survey. I'd say average is more valid since the ACS does not even record median incomes surpassing $250k.

So no, Southlake, TX is not richer than Beverly Hills since one has an average income of $195k and the other an average income of $300,000.
If I chose a random resident in Hempstead then he or she is likely to be more affluent than a random resident in all of those cities, since the median of Hempstead is higher than those cities.

The only time it would be appropriate to use the average/mean to do what you're trying to do is if the incomes are close to being normally distributed in every single neighborhood. That is not the case so it is pretty meaningless to measure a "rich neighborhood" by using the average.
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 10:48 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Registered Putz
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 22,785
Visited that cost of living comparison chart, much of that (transportation, alcohol, etc) is largely due to New York STATE taxing the crap out of everything. Sales tax in NYC and in most of NYS is almost 9%. 8.25% here. I just got back from Upstate NY a few days ago and gas was a good 30 cents higher up there than here. No doubt NYC is more expensive than Houston but I found New York state more is expensive on average than here in Texas. Only our property taxes are higher here than in NY.

NYC also seems to have less supermarkets than we do here (and in other parts of NY) and more corner places for things like bread and milk which jack up prices on everything as they don't buy in bulk like a grocery chain.
__________________
Castigat ridendo mores
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 10:56 PM
YSL YSL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Austin
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
If I chose a random resident in Hempstead then he or she is likely to be more affluent than a random resident in all of those cities, since the median of Hempstead is higher than those cities.

The only time it would be appropriate to use the average/mean to do what you're trying to do is if the incomes are close to being normally distributed in every single neighborhood. That is not the case so it is pretty meaningless to measure a "rich neighborhood" by using the average.
Except you might not find a single rich person in E. Hempstead. I think you need to revisit the definition of 'rich'. And while we're at it, there is a difference between income and wealth. I have a higher income than many people 10x richer than me. So if we're splitting hairs, using median income is also just as "flawed" as average, but at least average lists are more interesting since they show us where actual rich people live.

Quote:
The only time it would be appropriate to use the average/mean to do what you're trying to do is if the incomes are close to being normally distributed in every single neighborhood.
And they are. As I said previously, nearly all of those places have similar populations and have median incomes of "$250,000+" according to the Census, which caps median income at $250,000. Every single place in the top 20 (I stopped looking after that) reported the same "$250,000+" median.

So we're back to square one after a complete waste of time - a valid, accurate list that shows America's richest neighborhoods. And what do you know - they happen to be the places most associated with rich people.
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 11:01 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
If I chose a random resident in Hempstead then he or she is likely to be more affluent than a random resident in all of those cities, since the median of Hempstead is higher than those cities.

The only time it would be appropriate to use the average/mean to do what you're trying to do is if the incomes are close to being normally distributed in every single neighborhood. That is not the case so it is pretty meaningless to measure a "rich neighborhood" by using the average.
How would you define "rich"?

If you randomly select two people, one of whom has an income of $60k and the other of $40k, which one is richer?

The answer is - neither.

This is why median incomes are meaningless. What we're trying to measure here is aggregate wealth.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 11:28 PM
599GTO 599GTO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Then Southlake, TX is richer than Beverly Hills. Or to say it another way, the residents of Southlake, TX are likely to be more affluent than the ones in Beverly Hills. Beverly Hills may have some residents who are richer than the richest of Southlake, but median income is representative of the entire community. Using averages would skew this takeaway.
You seem to be analyzing this through the lense of someone from the middle-class. There are very few rich people in this country and they tend overwhelmingly prefer certain areas of the country. There are no billionaires or ultra-high net worth individuals in Southlake.

Having a few more pennies than your neighbor ($50k vs $60k), does not make either of you rich. Perhaps reading the title as "Neighborhoods most favored amongst America's gentry, glitterati or super-rich" would make it easier for you to understand.
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 11:32 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16,563
Yeah, I think it's definitional.

This is not meant to be "America's most upper middle class neighborhoods", but rather "where America's super rich like to live".

You need to capture the average-distorting effects of the long tail of the distribution for the data to show what you want it to show.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2018, 12:13 AM
599GTO 599GTO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Guys, we're not reinventing the wheel here. This is all well-documented stuff. Go to any cost of living calculator, put in 2 cities, and scroll down. You can separate out housing, food, and other categories.

Houston vs Manhattan, for example, shows the following cost of living differences:
Housing: 350% higher in Manhattan
Transportation: 36% higher
Food: 46% higher
Entertainment: 47% higher
Healthcare: 27% higher

Go to another site and you'll see the same story.

I'm sure you could quibble with any particular detail, but if you're going to say none of that is even remotely accurate, that the entire industry of cost-of-living comparison is totally invalid, you need to provide some justification beyond anecdotes. And remember, cost of living is not about what's possible for people who are trying their hardest to save; it's about what's normal. Going out of your way to find a cheaper option inherently means the normal cost is high.
Yes. General day-to-day expenses of living in New York is greater than Dallas. $600 parking, chauffeur/uber expenses, $20 tolls, entertainment, food, and for families, significantly more expensive nanny pay, day camp, private school. It all adds up.

...but one can easily recoup those funds via the ever rising values of your New York real estate versus the perpetually stagnant luxury real estate market in cities like Dallas. Upper-class New Yorkers have significantly more assets and investments, overall wealth, than their counterparts in low COL cities.
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2018, 12:48 AM
N90 N90 is offline
Voice of the Modern World
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Outside of 9 tracts in chicagoland, and 7 tracts in Florida, everything else on the list is either bos-wash or california.
What's the point of saying BosWash? LOL makes it sound like every city in the NEC is a key contributor. Cities like Baltimore and Philly actually failed to contribute to the list. They have 0 combined on the list. It's not cool that these cities get to dick ride off NYC metro's accomplishments for things like this.

Just say CA, NYC, and FL. That's what this list says, with CHI, BOS, DC picking up the little left on the table.

Last edited by N90; Jan 4, 2018 at 1:45 AM.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:52 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.