50 Largest US Cities By Median Household Income, Under Age 25, 2016

[mhays]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I take it you (and anyone else on this forum taking issue with my post) haven't been to Atlanta since 2010.

Yes there's been a lot of infill. But the numbers don't necessarily refer to that at all. Prices could have risen even without any infill, given the desirability of the core.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by mhays

Yes there's been a lot of infill. But the numbers don't necessarily refer to that at all. Prices could have risen even without any infill, given the desirability of the core.

But the point is, as you stated, there *has* been a ton of infill that correlates with the rise in median income.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Just going to insert my typical comment here about how misleading income data is without any sort of adjustment for cost of living. That $40,000 in NYC compared to $37,000 in Nashville or $35,000 in Atlanta for instance. I can't even imagine trying to live in NYC for $40,000.

Due to the ridiculous rents in the Bay Area many college grads live with roommates long after their college years and sometimes into their 30s. In a city like S.F. you'll have numerous roommates cramming into tiny apartments just to pay their $4500/mo rent.

3 roommates each making 40K will have a household income of 120K.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Due to the ridiculous rents in the Bay Area many college grads live with roommates long after their college years and sometimes into their 30s. In a city like S.F. you'll have numerous roommates cramming into tiny apartments just to pay their $4500/mo rent.

3 roommates each making 40K will have a household income of 120K.

Yeah, there really needs to be a better breakdown of the numbers here for it to mean anything. It also really shows me how lucky I was to get a good job in a cheap place right out of college. I was working in a small town where my rent was $400/mo, but I had an income of $115,000. Don't get me wrong, I love NYC. But I just don't understand how someone can really fully experience it making only $40,000 a year. I'm making several times that currently and live in New Jersey and still feel like I'm a small fish in a big pond.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Just going to insert my typical comment here about how misleading income data is without any sort of adjustment for cost of living. That $40,000 in NYC compared to $37,000 in Nashville or $35,000 in Atlanta for instance. I can't even imagine trying to live in NYC for $40,000.

Income is income. From your employer's perspective, $40k is $40k, whether they pay it in NYC or Nashville. Now, they may be more willing to pay it in NYC rather than Nashville if you're more useful to them in NYC than Nashville. But it's still $40k that could've been used for other things.

I've seen people report such data with "adjustments"--in quotes because it's very unclear how and why these adjustments should be made--for local COL in contexts where it's totally irrelevant, like about where Amazon should locate their HQ2. But they miss the point that Amazon shouldn't be concerned with the adjusted figures! They're concerned about the actual amount they have to pay. It's *workers* who need to consider COL.

And even for workers these COL adjustments are misleading. Is the same salary in an amenity-rich place that has twice the COL of an amenity-poor place really worth 50% as much as the salary in the poor place? It’s like moving to the beach where prices are twice as high and thinking you must be worse off unless your salary doubles. Is the view worth nothing?

[AviationGuy]

Without an adjustment for cost of living, these figures don't mean much.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Yeah, there really needs to be a better breakdown of the numbers here for it to mean anything. It also really shows me how lucky I was to get a good job in a cheap place right out of college. I was working in a small town where my rent was $400/mo, but I had an income of $115,000. Don't get me wrong, I love NYC. But I just don't understand how someone can really fully experience it making only $40,000 a year. I'm making several times that currently and live in New Jersey and still feel like I'm a small fish in a big pond.

Yup. I've posted a few L.A. Times articles that address your point. Once you factor in things like living costs, California has the highest poverty rate in the nation. L.A. has a poverty rate of about 25% -- and this is in the 6th largest economy in the world!

[dave8721]

So Miami's median household income of people under 25 is actually higher than its median household income over all?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dave8721

So Miami's median household income of people under 25 is actually higher than its median household income over all?

Probably very small sample size/and or living with lots of other under-25's.

Most under 25 are probably living with family or in school, and not counted.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Yup. I've posted a few L.A. Times articles that address your point. Once you factor in things like living costs, California has the highest poverty rate in the nation. L.A. has a poverty rate of about 25% -- and this is in the 6th largest economy in the world!

I will never get this mindset.

Beverly Hills is poor and Detroit is rich "factoring in things like living costs". I mean, really. Probably 99 out of 100 people will take 100k in BH over Detroit.

Anywhere in the U.S. where you're being paid in USD, money is the same. Living costs means housing values. You aren't poorer if you home is worth more. You don't need to feel sorry for anyone with the misfortune to live in BH because their home is worth too much.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I will never get this mindset.

Beverly Hills is poor and Detroit is rich "factoring in things like living costs". I mean, really. Probably 99 out of 100 people will take 100k in BH over Detroit.

Anywhere in the U.S. where you're being paid in USD, money is the same. Living costs means housing values. You aren't poorer if you home is worth more. You don't need to feel sorry for anyone with the misfortune to live in BH because their home is worth too much.

it's about first time home buyers, or renters. a renting environmental professional is transferring to my office in st. louis from orange county. i suggested he look in clayton, and after looking he was complaining that rents were no different than southern california, there, which he then told me is part of the reason why he was transferring. obviously he just needs to sidestep a few blocks here but it's a thing.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I will never get this mindset.

Beverly Hills is poor and Detroit is rich "factoring in things like living costs". I mean, really. Probably 99 out of 100 people will take 100k in BH over Detroit.

Anywhere in the U.S. where you're being paid in USD, money is the same. Living costs means housing values. You aren't poorer if you home is worth more. You don't need to feel sorry for anyone with the misfortune to live in BH because their home is worth too much.

Yeah, it shouldn't be compared to cost of living. It should be compared to overall median household income in the respective regions.

Quick comparison of some cherry-picked locales:
SF city (<25) vs Bay Area: $69,023/$96,677 - 71% of overall
NYC (<25) vs NY Metro: $40,714/$71,897 - 57% of overall
Chicago city (<25) vs Chicago MSA: $27,280/$66,020 - 41% of overall
Detroit city (<25) vs Detroit MSA: $18,894/$56,142 - 34% of overall

SF's 25 and under are doing well by however you measure it.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I will never get this mindset.

Beverly Hills is poor and Detroit is rich "factoring in things like living costs". I mean, really. Probably 99 out of 100 people will take 100k in BH over Detroit.
.

"Quality of life" is not the same as "Cost of Living."

Originally Posted by Crawford

Anywhere in the U.S. where you're being paid in USD, money is the same. Living costs means housing values. You aren't poorer if you home is worth more. You don't need to feel sorry for anyone with the misfortune to live in BH because their home is worth too much.

You can't just arbitrarily ignore things such as housing costs or taxes when discussing COL. The reality is, for people who want to buy a home or rent property in a place like California *NOW* (obviously, we're not talking about people who aren't house poor or whose homes are paid off), it takes a much larger proportion of their income to do so than it would in a place like Detroit.

Given that housing is the biggest single expense anyone takes on (besides maybe health care and education), that's not something to just be dismissed.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

You can't just arbitrarily ignore things such as housing costs or taxes when discussing COL.

Yes, you can. We know that market rate housing costs are generally adjusted to meet local housing conditions. People don't spend a meaningfully higher proportion of income, they adjust housing type.

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

The reality is, for people who want to buy a home or rent property in a place like California *NOW,* it takes a much larger proportion of their income to do so than it would in a place like Detroit.

Actually the opposite is true. SF households spend a lower proportion of income on housing than Detroiters per Census.

And areas with high housing costs almost always have extensive non-market housing, so it makes no sense to compare market rents/home prices.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Crawford

SF households spend a lower proportion of income on housing than Detroiters per Census.

Can you please provide your source for that? I'm curious to see it.

[skyscraperpage17]

BTW, below is an actual study that shows the strong correlation that housing affordability has with cost of living.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/...es-cost-living

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Once you factor in things like living costs, California has the highest poverty rate in the nation.

The only living cost where CA is exceedingly higher than the nation on average is housing(people are strained but they choose to make it work) and maybe gas, otherwise as far as actual poverty rates are concerned, California is nowhere near the poorest.

and this is in the 6th largest economy in the world!

California is now the 5th largest economy.

Originally Posted by The Guardian

California's economy passes UK's to become world's fifth biggest
Aided by tech, entertainment and agriculture, state’s GDP rose between 2016 and 2017, while UK’s has fallen since 2014

Guardian staff and agencies
Fri 4 May 2018 17.22 EDT Last modified on Tue 8 May 2018 05.23 EDT

This article is over 3 months old
California’s economy has surpassed that of the United Kingdom to become the world’s fifth largest, according to new federal data made public on Friday.

Despite having a population of only 40 million compared with the UK’s 65 million people, California’s gross domestic product of $2.7tn has overtaken the UK’s $2.6tn.

The so-called Golden State’s GDP rose by $127bn in the period from 2016 to 2017, while the UK’s economic output fell slightly over that time when measured in US dollars, due in part to exchange rate fluctuations. British GDP has fallen steadily from $3tn in 2014, according to World Bank figures.

The release of Friday’s data demonstrated the sheer immensity of California’s economy, home to a thriving technology sector in Silicon Valley, the world’s entertainment capital in Hollywood and America’s “salad bowl” in its agricultural heartland. It also reflects a substantial turnaround since the recession that followed the financial crisis of 2008...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-fifth-largest

[Trae]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The only living cost where CA is exceedingly higher than the nation on average is housing(people are strained but they choose to make it work) and maybe gas, otherwise as far as actual poverty rates are concerned, California is nowhere near the poorest.

California is now the 5th largest economy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-fifth-largest

Housing and maybe gas? It's for sure housing AND gas. And by the way, housing is easily the biggest expense, so just because it's "only" one of two things that are much higher than elsewhere doesn't mean it's insignificant.

California has the 5th largest economy, but it's easily the most have-have not state in the Union and only getting worse.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, you can. We know that market rate housing costs are generally adjusted to meet local housing conditions. People don't spend a meaningfully higher proportion of income, they adjust housing type.

or adjust geography...e.g. dallas instead of irvine, or whatever. i don't think you can infinitely adjust housing type...this geographical adjustment is clearly happening.

[tdawg]

Very impressive numbers for Atlanta.