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 |
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 |
Is this a reflection of migration only, or just a stat on the general increase in the number of households earning above $100,000?
|
I believe it is simply the change in households making those incomes.
|
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. |
Quote:
I should've made that apparent Any mods wanna modify the title and replace the word "Flows" with "Increases"? |
Quote:
|
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
How can the >$100k number be below the >$200k figure? |
It would be cool to see this as a percentage.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 9:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.