Richest neighborhoods in the United States

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

What matters is standard of living or cost of living. You have to make a lot more in NYC or places like CA (for example) to have the same standard of living as in many other areas of the country.

No, you don't. This is basically the "Gospel of Cheap Areas", but it's obviously untrue.

The only thing that costs more in NYC compared to Dallas is real estate. Everything else costs about the same. You aren't paying more for jeans or a toothbrush. But given that real estate is an investment, the idea that you're poorer if your real estate is worth more, is quite odd.

And it doesn't even make any sense. The idea that a wealthy person would prefer a cheaper area because they can save $3 on a pair of jeans, is bizarre.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But given that real estate is an investment, the idea that you're poorer if your real estate is worth more, is quite odd.

well, there is such a thing as being "house poor", ie. people who buy more house than they probably should and then find they are cash-strapped due to their burdensome mortgage payments. they aren't actually poor, but it can make day-to-day budgeting more challenging.

the "house poor" phenomenon can happen in any market, but i would hazard a guess that it's probably more common in the nation's red-hot real estate markets.

but as long as one is wise with their finances and procures a housing situation that is in alignment with their ability to pay for it, then that shouldn't be a problem anywhere.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, you don't. This is basically the "Gospel of Cheap Areas", but it's obviously untrue.

The only thing that costs more in NYC compared to Dallas is real estate. Everything else costs about the same. You aren't paying more for jeans or a toothbrush. But given that real estate is an investment, the idea that you're poorer if your real estate is worth more, is quite odd.

And it doesn't even make any sense. The idea that a wealthy person would prefer a cheaper area because they can save $3 on a pair of jeans, is bizarre.

I disagree. NY is an expensive city in just about every imaginable way. Some of it is direct costs and some of it is social/cultural norms that steer people to purchase expensive goods and dine at ridiculously expensive restaurants that only a city like NY would be able to support these types of establishments.

Wealthy New Yorkers are likely going to buy designer jeans running $300+ and shop at overpriced boutique craft stores for many things. A wealthy New Yorker's wardrobe is significantly more expensive than a Texan's. It just is.

Even little things like a gallon of milk or a cup of coffee is going to be more expensive in NY. Public transportation is more costly in NY.

Then there's the tax issue. Everybody and their mother knows that the Tri-State region is a high tax zone and a lot of that has to do with the high price of real estate. Then there is the transportation issues. It's significantly more expensive to own and operate a vehicle in NY than it is in Dallas.

New York is more expensive than Dallas in more ways than just real estate costs.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The only thing that costs more in NYC compared to Dallas is real estate.

That's only sort of true. Amazon is the great equalizer, but I expect you'll find a lot more Diesel in Manhattan and a lot more big box in even the wealthier areas of Texas. Everything is more expensive in Manhattan, and it adds up.

But...

The thing the cheap acres theory leaves out is the value that people derive from living in an expensive place. Square footage and the cost of a margarita are not the only things that matter. If they were, we could extend the cheap acres theory to say there's no good reason for anyone to live in Houston when they could live in cheaper Amarillo, or better yet Dalhart. People cluster because clustering has value that makes the costs worth it. On this forum we talk about how being able to walk and use transit affects quality of life, but there are also straight up economic benefits to proximity. For different people in different industries, the cost vs proximity balance results in different outcomes, ranging from Dalhart to Amarillo to Houston to Manhattan.

So yes, you can buy more house and more plastic stuff for your house in Houston than in Manhattan. But in Manhattan you're getting something that you can't get in Houston: Proximity to other people and things in Manhattan, which for people in certain niches has much more value than having a bigger house. In exactly the same way that proximity to other people and things in Houston is what makes buying a house in Houston more worthwhile to a certain niche of people than buying a larger house in Amarillo for the same money.

So it's *sort of* true that you can buy more stuff with your wealth in Texas, but it's also sort of not true, because the "stuff" you're buying with your wealth in Manhattan might not be physical stuff.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, you don't. This is basically the "Gospel of Cheap Areas", but it's obviously untrue.

The only thing that costs more in NYC compared to Dallas is real estate. Everything else costs about the same. You aren't paying more for jeans or a toothbrush. But given that real estate is an investment, the idea that you're poorer if your real estate is worth more, is quite odd.

And it doesn't even make any sense. The idea that a wealthy person would prefer a cheaper area because they can save $3 on a pair of jeans, is bizarre.

It's not just about wealthy people though. For working class folks, that $3 saved on jeans and the much lower barrier to home ownership (thus protection from spikes in rent) makes a big difference.

No one's knocking NYC, but just pointing out there are drawbacks to living there for some people (just as there are drawbacks in a city like Dallas for others).

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by dubu

I’ve been to Hawaii and seen the nicest neighborhoods there and that isn’t on the list?

why would it be? NYC, SF, etc. are where the highest paying jobs are. They are command centres of the global economy. Hawaii is beautiful, but it is not economically important.

[JManc]

No Seattle? The two richest people on the planet live there..

Originally Posted by Cirrus

That's only sort of true. Amazon is the great equalizer, but I expect you'll find a lot more Diesel in Manhattan and a lot more big box in even the wealthier areas of Texas. Everything is more expensive in Manhattan, and it adds up.

I noticed that too but is that from Manhattan's cost of living or because it's crawling with tourists and they will pay anything?

[mhays]

Gates and Bezos probably don't have much "income." Having $90 billion each doesn't matter on this list.

Though yes, put either in a room with 10,000 homeless people and the average wealth is $9,000,000.

[YSL]

Originally Posted by JManc

No Seattle? The two richest people on the planet live there..



I noticed that too but is that from Manhattan's cost of living or because it's crawling with tourists and they will pay anything?

There was one.. towards the bottom of the list.

Census Tract 63, King County, Washington $356,270. But still, Seattle doesn’t have very many super rich people. Seattle has about 7 billionaires, which is a pretty low number.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Outside of 9 tracts in chicagoland, and 7 tracts in Florida, everything else on the list is either bos-wash or california.

That's slightly concerning.

[dubu]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

why would it be? NYC, SF, etc. are where the highest paying jobs are. They are command centres of the global economy. Hawaii is beautiful, but it is not economically important.

That’s true, but there’s famous people that live there. They can live anywhere

[10023]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

That's only sort of true. Amazon is the great equalizer, but I expect you'll find a lot more Diesel in Manhattan and a lot more big box in even the wealthier areas of Texas. Everything is more expensive in Manhattan, and it adds up.

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, because you have to compare like with like. Does an Apple Watch cost more in Manhattan than in Dallas? I don't think so.

Transport is almost invariably cheaper, unless you are commuting solely by UberExec. Most other things (cell phone plans, home appliances, furniture, etc) cost exactly the same.

The only other major expense categories besides real estate that cost more in high cost markets than elsewhere are food (both restaurants and groceries) and labor, and the former is largely a product of the other two.

[iheartthed]

It makes more sense to use median income instead of average. The list might be a little less biased to New York then.

[10023]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It makes more sense to use median income instead of average. The list might be a little less biased to New York then.

That would give a list of the highest median income neighborhoods, not the richest. The fact that very wealthy people skew these numbers is a feature, not a bug.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by 10023

Metro NYC, SF Bay Area, Chicago, DC, LA and Boston are the only cities that appear.

miami, west palm beach and orlando make it on that list too.

[10023]

Originally Posted by cabasse

miami, west palm beach and orlando make it on that list too.

Whoops. That was an error, I thought I'd written Miami.

Where the hell are people living in Orlando? And why?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 10023

That would give a list of the highest median income neighborhoods, not the richest. The fact that very wealthy people skew these numbers is a feature, not a bug.

It is a more meaningful proxy for whether it is a neighborhood of rich people, or just a place where a few rich people happen to live (or in this case a census tract).

[10023]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It is a more meaningful proxy for whether it is a neighborhood of rich people, or just a place where a few rich people happen to live (or in this case a census tract).

Whatever it is it's working, because the top tracts are exactly where you'd expect them to be.

In fact, your approach is more likely to skew things by excluding urban neighborhoods, which have some public or affordable housing as a matter of public policy, in favor of less wealthy but more homogeneous suburban areas.

The average metric, combined with roughly equal population by census tract, makes this a measure of aggregate wealth.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 10023

In fact, your approach is more likely to skew things by excluding urban neighborhoods, which have some public or affordable housing as a matter of public policy, in favor of less wealthy but more homogeneous suburban areas.

Which is exactly my point. This method obscures cases where there may be a significant concentration of poor people living next to a concentration of very rich people.

[10023]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Which is exactly my point. This method obscures cases where there may be a significant concentration of poor people living next to a concentration of very rich people.

So what?