HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2019, 4:52 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
Increase of higher income households in US cities: 2017-2018

Thought this was interesting. I thank the forumer Marothisu for providing this data from the 2018 ACS.

Shows that many of our cities are fairing quite well in bringing in $100k+ and $200K+ households:

(City proper data)

Change in $100K-$200k Households 2017 to 2018
1. NYC: +60,844 households
2. Chicago: +28,073 households
3. Los Angeles: +23,310 households
4. Austin: +17,680 households
5. Seattle: +16,861 households
6. Portland: +16,011 households
7. Philadelphia: 14,498 households
8. San Diego: +12,401 households
9. Houston: +11,869 households
10. Phoenix: +11,492 households
11. Denver: +10,074 households
12. San Jose: +10,027 households
13. Dallas: +9702 households
14. Boston: +9244 households
15. Atlanta: +9105 households

Others:
19. DC: +6776 households
26. Minneapolis: +5155 households
29. Miami: +4104 households
30. Milwaukee: +4101 households
31. Charlotte: +3680 households
35. Baltimore: +2743 households
36. San Francisco: +2615 households
46. Detroit: +851 households
49. Indianapolis: +437 households


Change in $200K+ Households 2017 to 2018
1. NYC: +35,376 households
2. Chicago: +17,542 households
3. Los Angeles: +11,540 households
4. San Jose: +11,239 households
5. San Francisco: +11,210 households
6. Seattle; +10,891 households
7. Austin: +10,375 households
8. Portland: +5920 households
9. DC: +5915 households
10. Dallas: +5869 households
11. Boston: +5819 households
12. Raleigh: +5426 households
13. Jacksonville: +4705 households
14. Tampa: +3481 households
15. Philadelphia: +3400 households

Others:
16. Charlotte: +3375 households
17. Atlanta: +3318 households
20. Denver: +3017 households
22. Phoenix: +2822 households
23. Houston: +2327 households
25. Baltimore: +2213 households
31. San Diego: +1567 households
33. San Antonio: +1419 households
35. Miami: +1292 households
40. Detroit: +843 households
43. Minneapolis: +617 households
47. Milwaukee: -147 households
51. Indianapolis: -2259 households

Lets keep this discussion civil, please
__________________
Eat less

Last edited by the urban politician; Oct 2, 2019 at 12:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2019, 4:54 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
Also from 2018 ACS, the top 3 MSAs (Thanks to Marothisu, again!):

$100K-$200k households
1. NYC MSA: +156,812 households (+5.63%)
2. Los Angeles MSA: +86,126 households (+5.73%)
3. Chicago MSA: +85,294 households (+7.39%)

$200K+ households
1. NYC MSA: +90,338 households (+9.49%)
2. Los Angeles MSA: +50,163 households (+11.24%)
3. Chicago MSA: +45,989 households (+14.92%)


If you remove the main cities from those 3 MSAs (aka purely suburbs), then for $100K+ it's like this:
1. NYC MSA without NYC: +95,968 households
2. Los Angeles MSA without LA: +62,816 households
3. Chicago MSA without Chicago: +57,221 households
__________________
Eat less

Last edited by the urban politician; Oct 2, 2019 at 12:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2019, 4:59 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,992
Is this a reflection of migration only, or just a stat on the general increase in the number of households earning above $100,000?
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2019, 5:01 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,126
I believe it is simply the change in households making those incomes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2019, 5:02 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,103
Those aren't really "flows of higher incomes into cities". It's just how many households meet a given income threshold.

And yeah, barring recession, one would usually expect increases, which seems to be the case in most places. But there could be weird things going on, like fewer marriages or more divorces or more deaths, that could result in differing results.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2019, 5:11 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
Is this a reflection of migration only, or just a stat on the general increase in the number of households earning above $100,000?
Yes, this is a stat on the general increases.

I should've made that apparent

Any mods wanna modify the title and replace the word "Flows" with "Increases"?
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2019, 9:18 PM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Those aren't really "flows of higher incomes into cities". It's just how many households meet a given income threshold.

And yeah, barring recession, one would usually expect increases, which seems to be the case in most places. But there could be weird things going on, like fewer marriages or more divorces or more deaths, that could result in differing results.
How do you mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2019, 10:24 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 4,904
The numbers represent the net change from 2017 to 2018 for each city in those brackets. Doesn't matter how it happens - it's merely a net change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2019, 2:47 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
The relevance of this thread is that it tells a much deeper story than merely everyone’s little yearly look at ACS population estimates, with the typical oohs and aahs over the horse race of which cities are gaining more people the fastest.

There is much, much, much more to that discussion. Some stagnant or even slightly shrinking cities are gaining high income households at an impressive rate, while some booming cities aren’t. Tells a much more nuanced and fascinating story that coincides with the gentrification (or lack thereof) that is being seen on the ground in so many places.

It also tells a story about city propers and suburbs, and where wealthier households tend to be locating. It would be neat to see MSA data for more than just NYC, LA, and Chicago.
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2019, 2:58 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
The numbers represent the net change from 2017 to 2018 for each city in those brackets. Doesn't matter how it happens - it's merely a net change.
Your numbers for San Francisco seem off.

How can the >$100k number be below the >$200k figure?
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2019, 3:21 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 284
It would be cool to see this as a percentage.
__________________
I don't read. I apologize in advance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2019, 10:07 AM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 4,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Your numbers for San Francisco seem off.

How can the >$100k number be below the >$200k figure?
Because both places had net loss of $100K to $200k but net gain of $200K+
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2019, 12:44 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Because both places had net loss of $100K to $200k but net gain of $200K+
I adjusted the first two posts of this thread to say $100k-$200k instead of $100k+ to eliminate any confusion
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2019, 4:32 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
The relevance of this thread is that it tells a much deeper story than merely everyone’s little yearly look at ACS population estimates, with the typical oohs and aahs over the horse race of which cities are gaining more people the fastest.

There is much, much, much more to that discussion. Some stagnant or even slightly shrinking cities are gaining high income households at an impressive rate, while some booming cities aren’t. Tells a much more nuanced and fascinating story that coincides with the gentrification (or lack thereof) that is being seen on the ground in so many places.

It also tells a story about city propers and suburbs, and where wealthier households tend to be locating. It would be neat to see MSA data for more than just NYC, LA, and Chicago.

The issue I see is you want a balance of incomes ideally, a big bell curve with most people within a couple deviations of the mean and a good amount of wealthy people.

This gives you the labor force and capitol source for a well rounded robust economy.

Now when you have way too many rich people in your region it becomes outrageously expensive (see the bay area) where the rich "wall" themselves, sometimes literally, off from the rabble outside. It gives you places with a total split personality, one of Utopian paradise for the wealthy and a miserable nightmare for everyone else.

You also dont want too many low income residents as that drags on income growth and puts the whole region in a weird stagnant drag more prone to booms and busts and severely lacking in cultural amenities that are only possible with higher property values and the demand from a wealthier group of residents.

And thats not getting into aging populations vs young populations when it comes to consumer spending or the young being priced out of housing etc etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:26 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.