San Francisco is officially America's wealthiest urban area

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I doubt very much SF's median is lower than Hayward's. San Francisco County's median income is some $5000 a year higher than Alameda County's and Alameda has, besides the blue collar areas like Hayward, some pretty wealthy enclaves like Piedmont, Berkeley and the whole eastern part of the county ("Tri-Valleys") pushing up its median.

Fremont is becoming quite affluent too.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

As for the "crime, corruption and other things", as I said I doubt you know much abut the Bay Area. Oakland, the city of Richmond and a few nearby areas are relatively high crime zones by American standards. The rest of the Bay Area, including San Francisco, is safer than most comparable American locations. As for corruption, we have some but not a lot. San Francisco is one of the oldest cities in the West and in some ways resembles cities of the east more than its fellows on the left coast. That means it is a union town and has some corruption like eastern cities, but by the standards of many of them, again, not that much. The rest of the Bay Area, especially the suburban counties, are not noted for corruption or crime.

Speaking of people who dont know much about the Bay Area, you are very ignorant of SF's crime rate and where it stands in relation to other cities, as you've demonstrated in multiple threads. It is not "safer than most comparable American locations". Where do you get such an incorrect idea? If you were to actually compare stats you would know that SF has a higher than average violent crime rate for a big US city (and is one of the worst on the west coast, often second only to Oakland), and also has one of the highest property crime rates of a big US city. SF has some seriously rough areas, and some of the public housing is literally among the most run down and crime ridden in the nation, as rated multiple times by HUD over the past couple decades. Take off those rose colored glasses, dude...

As for corruption, are you sure there isnt as much as an east coast city? Do you have a study to share? I can share lots of corruption stories if you want, from the SFPD, to politics, to the housing authority, etc. It seems to me like you're simply assuming that east coast cities (and other cities in general) arent as nice as SF when it comes to things like safety and morals (lol).

And since this thread is about wealth, I'll just remind everyone trying to categorize SF as a city of the wealthy, that most residents have rent control, there are thousands of public housing and SRO units, and most people are middle class or poor. SF has 200,000 people living below the poverty line once you adjust for cost of living (up from 100k when using the federal threshold, which is nothing to sneeze at either), which is roughly the same as LA after adjustment. There's tons of wealth obviously, and it is growing, but SF city proper isn't exactly monaco...

[The North One]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I'm in the 20-35 range, and own a house here in the Bay Area that I bought myself. Quality of life/standards of living is much more complex than how much you earn vs how much you spend in terms of cost of living. Therefore it is completely subjective. I could argue my quality of life here is higher (for reasons I won't list to prevent from getting into a city vs city debate) than if I had to move to Omaha but could live in a mansion. You might prefer to live in Omaha in a big house with a big yard. But that's your opinion. There's nothing objective about it.

Quality of life is NOT a subjective measure. Denmark doesn't have the same standard of living as Colombia just because you feel like it does...

Same goes with SF and Austin. There is a factual difference, the only thing that's subjective is what you feel something is worth.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by tech12

Speaking of people who dont know much about the Bay Area, you are very ignorant of SF's crime rate and where it stands in relation to other cities, as you've demonstrated in multiple threads. It is not "safer than most comparable American locations". Where do you get such an incorrect idea? If you were to actually compare stats you would know that SF has a higher than average violent crime rate for a big US city (and is one of the worst on the west coast, often second only to Oakland), and also has one of the highest property crime rates of a big US city. SF has some seriously rough areas, and some of the public housing is literally among the most run down and crime ridden in the nation, as rated multiple times by HUD over the past couple decades. Take off those rose colored glasses, dude...

As for corruption, are you sure there isnt as much as an east coast city? Do you have a study to share? I can share lots of corruption stories if you want, from the SFPD, to politics, to the housing authority, etc. It seems to me like you're simply assuming that east coast cities (and other cities in general) arent as nice as SF when it comes to things like safety and morals (lol).

And since this thread is about wealth, I'll just remind everyone trying to categorize SF as a city of the wealthy, that most residents have rent control, there are thousands of public housing and SRO units, and most people are middle class or poor. SF has 200,000 people living below the poverty line once you adjust for cost of living (up from 100k when using the federal threshold, which is nothing to sneeze at either), which is roughly the same as LA after adjustment. There's tons of wealth obviously, and it is growing, but SF city proper isn't exactly monaco...

Uh huh:

SF: "Violent crime" (rate): 776.8
Oakland: 1442.5
Chicago: 903.8
New York (noted as one of America's safest cities: 585.8
Detroit: 1759.6
Denver: 673.9
Los Angeles: 634.8
Philadelphia: 1029.0
Washington DC: 1202.6
Boston: 706.8
Cincinnati: 925.0
Cleveland: 1334.3
Las Vegas: 925.7
Miami: 1021.3
Baltimore: 1535.9
Atlanta: 1119.6
Phoenix: 593.8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_crime_rate

I repeat: SF crime rate is in the lower tier of big American cities and close to half that of Oakland (whence come the perpetrators of a significant number of San Francisco's drug-related shootings). Crime is not a measure by which SF stands out as was suggested.

By the way, the facts on poverty statistics are one page back. Try looking at them and if you want to use some other measure (or "adjustment"), give the details and source.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

Quality of life is NOT a subjective measure. Denmark doesn't have the same standard of living as Colombia just because you feel like it does...

Same goes with SF and Austin. There is a factual difference, the only thing that's subjective is what you feel something is worth.

Standard of living has zero to do with quality of life.

Yes, Denmark has a higher standard of living than Denmark, because it's much richer. Whether or not it has higher "quality of life" would be subjective but I think most agree it does, despite super high housing costs and taxes (not unlike the Bay Area).

If you just wanted a big house and property, though, Colombia would be a much better choice than Denmark. In that case (using your Omaha vs. Bay Area example), it would be the "better value" if that's your primary consideration (also much better food and hotter women, but whatever).

[Docere]

Some stats for Manhattan, San Francisco, DC and selected suburban counties:

80th percentile HH income:

Fairfax VA $201,400
Marin CA $192,400
Montgomery MD $186,100
Westchester NY $179,100
Fairfield CT $178,900
San Mateo CA $178,000
Manhattan $177,700
San Francisco $163,400
DC $148,800

Top 20% Mean Income:

Manhattan $408,700
Fairfield CT $380,800
Marin CT $379,700
Westchester NY $370,800
Montgomery MD $327,500
San Mateo CA $325,100
Fairfax VA $322,700
San Francisco $296,800
DC $286,000

Top 5% Mean Income:

Manhattan $835,500
Fairfield CT $747,800
Westchester NY $723,100
Marin CA $716,100
San Mateo CA $593,000
Montgomery MD $584,400
Fairfax VA $538,100
San Francisco $529,000
DC $510,600

[mhays]

Originally Posted by tech12

Speaking of people who dont know much about the Bay Area, you are very ignorant of SF's crime rate and where it stands in relation to other cities, as you've demonstrated in multiple threads. It is not "safer than most comparable American locations". Where do you get such an incorrect idea? If you were to actually compare stats you would know that SF has a higher than average violent crime rate for a big US city (and is one of the worst on the west coast, often second only to Oakland), and also has one of the highest property crime rates of a big US city. SF has some seriously rough areas, and some of the public housing is literally among the most run down and crime ridden in the nation, as rated multiple times by HUD over the past couple decades. Take off those rose colored glasses, dude...

The "violent crime rate" is often higher in safer areas. Or that's the assumption by a lot of experts. The reason is that safer areas have relatively accurate reporting, while unsafe areas massively under-report anything short of murder.

Same with property crime. In the most crime-infested areas, who reports a smashed window?

[mhays]

Quality of life is absolutely subjective. Somebody is very confused.

Even "standard of living" isn't objective unless you preface it by specifying whose definition you're using.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by mhays

Quality of life is absolutely subjective. Somebody is very confused.

Even "standard of living" isn't objective unless you preface it by specifying whose definition you're using.

Nobody is confused.

Except anyone claiming cost is the only measure of a standard of living or that a detached home is somehow the pinnacle of high-quality living, that's totally not the point.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by mhays

Quality of life is absolutely subjective. Somebody is very confused.

Even "standard of living" isn't objective unless you preface it by specifying whose definition you're using.

Yep.

I like this definition by Dennis Revicki, PHD, one of the nation's experts in quality of life assessments. QOL is "a broad range of human experiences related to one's overall well-being. It implies value based on subjective functioning in comparison with personal expectations and is defined by subjective experiences, states and perceptions. Quality of life, by its very natures, is idiosyncratic to the individual, but intuitively meaningful and understandable to most people".

[The North One]

lol yes, let's start getting into philosophy...

[Pedestrian]

So does anybody have any thoughts about the OTHER cities on the list (and Census Bureau graphic)? I had hoped the discussion would be as much or more about them than the headliner--I just had to use the original headline of the article.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Docere

Some stats for Manhattan, San Francisco, DC and selected suburban counties:

80th percentile HH income:

Fairfax VA $201,400
Marin CA $192,400
Montgomery MD $186,100
Westchester NY $179,100
Fairfield CT $178,900
San Mateo CA $178,000
Manhattan $177,700
San Francisco $163,400
DC $148,800

Top 20% Mean Income:

Manhattan $408,700
Fairfield CT $380,800
Marin CT $379,700
Westchester NY $370,800
Montgomery MD $327,500
San Mateo CA $325,100
Fairfax VA $322,700
San Francisco $296,800
DC $286,000

Top 5% Mean Income:

Manhattan $835,500
Fairfield CT $747,800
Westchester NY $723,100
Marin CA $716,100
San Mateo CA $593,000
Montgomery MD $584,400
Fairfax VA $538,100
San Francisco $529,000
DC $510,600

Thanks, this is very helpful.

I think this, at least partially, explains why means are a bit more illustrative than medians when defining "wealthiest".

There are cultural differences too, of course (Miami rich aren't like Bay Area rich) but some of the richest metros (perhaps DC and SF) are defined by tons of upper middle class incomes, while others (perhaps NYC) are defined by a smaller cohort of wealthy.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

So does anybody have any thoughts about the OTHER cities on the list (and Census Bureau graphic)? I had hoped the discussion would be as much or more about them than the headliner--I just had to use the original headline of the article.

I think the data show that West Coast cities, generally speaking, have had impressive median income gains, perhaps due to tech. Portland, which does NOT feel wealthy, at all, had very impressive gains. San Diego too.

Charlotte also looks pretty impressive. The banks have been doing much better lately so that could be a reason. Florida has kinda pathetic income gains.

Also, Baltimore has much higher incomes than one would expect, though I'm guessing it's partially DC overflow. Howard County, in Baltimore's MSA, is kinda like Loudon County in DC's MSA- McMansion overflow from older, more expensive suburban counties.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Thanks, this is very helpful.

I think this, at least partially, explains why means are a bit more illustrative than medians when defining "wealthiest".

There are cultural differences too, of course (Miami rich aren't like Bay Area rich) but some of the richest metros (perhaps DC and SF) are defined by tons of upper middle class incomes, while others (perhaps NYC) are defined by a smaller cohort of wealthy.

Yeah medians can capture the affluent generally but misses the "out of sight" rich or "1%" in finance and so on (probably more like 0.5%).

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

So does anybody have any thoughts about the OTHER cities on the list (and Census Bureau graphic)? I had hoped the discussion would be as much or more about them than the headliner--I just had to use the original headline of the article.

I thought LA would be higher on the list.

[Docere]

L.A. has a lot of low income immigrants.

[dubu]

La has the most homeless people

[the urban politician]

How about we start a sticky thread called: "The wealth comparison/circle jerk thread" so that the same handful of people can do all of their dick-measuring there? Mods?

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I think your conclusion is largely correct. But the cost of housing also plays a part. Those "legions of upper middle class workers" are neary all complaining they can't afford to iive in the Bay Area and are, in fact, paying a huge chunk of their disposable income to do so (modestly), leaving not that much for conspicuous consumption.

You will find enclaves of the super-rich: Places like Los Altos Hills, Pacific Heights in SF and so on. But even most of these people are not flashy spenders for the most part. They are either old money types who don't believe in throwing their money around (they prefer donating it to the Opera or Museum of Modern Art) or they are lefty/environmentalist techie types, some of whom are almost embarrassed by their wealth.

Ha! Im by far the flashiest person on my block in Piedmont. One of my nannies told me the people in the neighborhood call me 'hollywood'(lol) I dont mind that nickname but people here are wayyyy too subdued. Admittedly I dont often see other men here in silk versace shirts and louboutin loafers. Oh well. First world problems.