Wealthiest US Counties by Median Household Income, 2017

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by JManc

How many of these what's the richest city/ county lists do we need? We get it, there's a lot of rich tech bros in the Bay Area/ Silicon Valley and Seattle and finance bros in New York.

diamondpark just has a hard-on for this stuff

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

diamondpark just has a hard-on for this stuff

Yes Im geeky for income data. LOL🍆

[liat91]

Here are some per capita census stats for higher ranking median income counties.

1. New York: $69,529
2. Arlington, VA: $67,061
3. Marin, CA: $66,748
4. San Francisco: $59,508
5. Hunterdon, NJ: $54,200
6. San Mateo, CA: $53,516
7. Morris, NJ: $53,491
8. Fairfield, CT: $53,433
9. Fairfax, VA: $52,976
10. Westchester, NY: $52,049


Makes a little more sense imo.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

But he's right. California does not have the highest poverty rate.

California does when you go by the Census' Supplemental Poverty Measure.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...mo/p60-258.pdf

Politifact rated my statement as "True".TRUE: California has the nation’s highest poverty rate, when factoring in cost-of-living

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

A list that ranks nominal amounts just is not very informative and doesn't reflect one's level of 'wealth'.

There are a lot of California counties that rank high on the list, yet California has the highest poverty rate in the nation.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Except you made this up. Mississippi has the highest poverty rate in the nation. CA doesn't have particularly high poverty rates.

And what does a ranking of wealthiest counties have to do with a state's poverty rate?

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

California does when you go by the Census' Supplemental Poverty Measure.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...mo/p60-258.pdf

Politifact rated my statement as "True".TRUE: California has the nation’s highest poverty rate, when factoring in cost-of-living

Yes, when millions of incomes in the central valley are factored into Bay Area and coastal LA housing costs. Voila, skewed numbers.

Originally Posted by Mother Jones

California Is Doing Fine, Thank You Very Much

KEVIN DRUM
JANUARY 14, 2018 3:03 PM

Whenever I see an op-ed insisting that California is a total, um, shithole of a state, I always check the credit line at the bottom. Four times out of five it comes from City Journal, often by professional California scold Kerry Jackson. Sure enough, that’s where today’s piece in the LA Times is from:

...absolute poverty is average; labor force participation is average; and the state bureaucracy is under control...

...There’s a whole cottage industry on the right dedicated to the proposition that California is a hellhole. Why? Because California is the most liberal state in the nation, and the existence of a high-tax, high-service state that nonetheless has a great economy is an affront to their principles. And yet, California’s economy is doing fine...

God knows California has its problems, and obviously our location and weather allow us to attract high-value workers despite those problems. Nonetheless, the plain fact is that California has high taxes, good services, vigorous environmental regulations, and still has a strong economy. All the cherry picking in the world won’t change that...

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...you-very-much/

In absolute terms, California ranks 21st as far as poverty rate.

[Docere]

Loudoun may top the list, since it's almost all high income outer suburbs/exurbs with few renters, senior citizens etc. But in terms of "prestige" it's well below Fairfax and Montgomery which have a lot of wealth but also more of a mix. I suspect if you use percentage with incomes above 250 or 300K they would come out higher than Loudoun.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Yes, when millions of incomes in the central valley are factored into Bay Area and coastal LA housing costs. Voila, skewed numbers.



https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...you-very-much/

In absolute terms, California ranks 21st as far as poverty rate.

^That is meaningless and that's why I said I'm unimpressed with these type of stats.

If a family of 4 making 100k in S.F. can barely get by after rent/mortgage/transportation/education costs, they are in a worse financial situation than a family of 4 making 75k elsewhere in a city/region with a far lower cost of living, yet that family in S.F. appears to be better off.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

^That is meaningless and that's why I said I'm unimpressed with these type of stats.

If a family of 4 making 100k in S.F. can barely get by after rent/mortgage/transportation/education costs, they are in a worse financial situation than a family of 4 making 75k elsewhere in a city/region with a far lower cost of living, yet that family in S.F. appears to be better off.

Except $100K is well below the median income for families in SF:

Median Family Income, 2-Earners:
San Francisco $171,619
Los Angeles $91,352
Las Vegas $88,032
Phoenix $86,815
San Antonio $80,779
Dallas $77,648

Median Family Income, Married Couple with Children under 18:
San Francisco $160,614
Las Vegas $86,229
Los Angeles $83,166
Phoenix $79,190
San Antonio $74,284
Dallas, TX $64,711

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

If a family of 4 making 100k in S.F. can barely get by after rent/mortgage/transportation/education costs, they are in a worse financial situation than a family of 4 making 75k elsewhere in a city/region with a far lower cost of living, yet that family in S.F. appears to be better off.

For the millionth time, "lower cost of living" means cheaper housing prices. No, someone isn't richer living in Compton as opposed to Beverly Hills just because they have much cheaper housing prices. Using those idiotic COL calculators, though, the median household in Compton would be richer.

Of course that doesn't mean you can't hypothetically save money by moving somewhere with lower housing prices. But you generally aren't richer; housing burden is generally flat across jurisdictions (i.e. people generally adjust their housing type, not housing costs; so if you moved from Manhattan to Mississippi, you wouldn't seek out a tiny studio apartment with no parking like in Manhattan; you would generally pay about the same and get a big house and yard).

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Crawford

For the millionth time, "lower cost of living" means cheaper housing prices. No, someone isn't richer living in Compton as opposed to Beverly Hills just because they have much cheaper housing prices. Using those idiotic COL calculators, though, the median household in Compton would be richer.

You are strawmanning his argument.

I would need to make more than double what I earn in Arizona to live a compartive lifestyle in most of California.

Thats not imaginary. You are right in terms of raw numbers but I dont really care how many zeros I have on my check if I live like a college student at 35. If that were true then I guess we should all move to zimbabwe where we could be billionaires.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Obadno

You are strawmanning his argument.

No, that's his entire argument. Incomes are magically higher if you house is worth less.

Originally Posted by Obadno

I would need to make more than double what I earn in Arizona to live a compartive lifestyle in most of California.

But that makes no sense. Arizona is much less desirable than California, so obviously you pay less for housing in less desirable areas. That doesn't mean you're poorer. You have no ocean, no gorgeous coast, no nice climate, no progressive culture, no well funded schools, much worse job market, etc. so obviously you pay less.

You would need to make more than double what you earn in Glendale to live a comparative lifestyle in Scottsdale. That doesn't mean you're richer in Glendale. You need to make double to live in the exact same house in Corona del Mar as opposed to Irvine. That doesn't mean Irvine is richer; it just means CDM is more desirable.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, that's his entire argument. Incomes are magically higher if you house is worth less.

But that makes no sense. Arizona is much less desirable than California, so obviously you pay less for housing in less desirable areas. That doesn't mean you're poorer. You have no ocean, no gorgeous coast, no nice climate, no progressive culture, no well funded schools, much worse job market, etc. so obviously you pay less.

You would need to make more than double what you earn in Glendale to live a comparative lifestyle in Scottsdale. That doesn't mean you're richer in Glendale. You need to make double to live in the exact same house in Corona del Mar as opposed to Irvine. That doesn't mean Irvine is richer; it just means CDM is more desirable.

You are arguing something past his point. He isnt saying that you are literally richer becasue you have a cheaper house, he is saying that you can make a ton in an expensive area and much less in an inexpensive area but the people living in the inexpensive area live a better lifestyle and have a better quality of life.

This is eminantly true and why suburbs exist in the firstplace.

And as for the desirablity of CA, thats a personal oppinion and one I disagree with you on.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

You are arguing something past his point. He isnt saying that you are literally richer becasue you have a cheaper house, he is saying that you can make a ton in an expensive area and much less in an inexpensive area but the people living in the inexpensive area live a better lifestyle and have a better quality of life.

People get paid more to be in San Francisco. A 100K household income in Phoenix will put you in the 80th percentile, but you need a household income in of 190K to be 80th percentile in San Francisco. So yes, a family making 100K is doing worse in SF than Phoenix, but that family has the skills of a family that would be making 50K in Phoenix.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

People get paid more to be in San Francisco. A 100K household income in Phoenix will put you in the 80th percentile, but you need a household income in of 190K to be 80th percentile in San Francisco. So yes, a family making 100K is doing worse in SF than Phoenix, but that family has the skills of a family that would be making 50K in Phoenix.

And theyd be way better off in Phoenix for 50k than SF for 100k the higher cost of living is way more apparent the further down you go.

And there are still plenty of people in CA making well below 50k, I have no idea how they can afford to live but whatever.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

And theyd be way better off in Phoenix for 50k than SF for 100k the higher cost of living is way more apparent the further down you go.

And there are still plenty of people in CA making well below 50k, I have no idea how they can afford to live but whatever.

No, they'd be living the same life, relative to their fellow citizens, no matter which city.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by liat91

Here are some per capita census stats for higher ranking median income counties.

1. New York: $69,529
2. Arlington, VA: $67,061
3. Marin, CA: $66,748
4. San Francisco: $59,508
5. Hunterdon, NJ: $54,200
6. San Mateo, CA: $53,516
7. Morris, NJ: $53,491
8. Fairfield, CT: $53,433
9. Fairfax, VA: $52,976
10. Westchester, NY: $52,049


Makes a little more sense imo.

Interesting to see two NJ counties edge out the "favored quarter" counties Westchester and Fairfield even on per capita incomes, I assume that's because they have virtually no poverty, renters etc. I guess they're kinda like the "stockbroker belt" surrounding London?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Docere

Interesting to see two NJ counties edge out Westchester, I assume that's because they have virtually no poverty, renters etc. I guess they're kinda like the "stockbroker belt" surrounding London?

Westchester is about 35% multifamily units, has pretty large low income zones and has a much higher share of renters. Those NJ counties are uniformly upper middle class. Much of Southern Westchester is (demographically) an extension of the working class Bronx.

But Westchester is much more desirable and you get much less house for your money than anywhere in NJ (or anywhere in the region outside NYC, for that matter).

Very roughly speaking, Westchester is to Morris/Somerset/Hunterdon Counties as Montgomery County/NW DC are to Loudoun County. Older, more wealthy, far more snob appeal, but also more poor, young folks and renters.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

People get paid more to be in S̶a̶n̶ ̶F̶r̶a̶n̶c̶i̶s̶c̶o̶ California.

That is the point of my OP. People get paid more in California, yet California has the highest poverty rate in the nation. I don't find stats like these interesting that show nominal amounts, when we all know the astronomical cost of living in those same places. Looks great on paper, but doesn't come close to telling the story.





You can go back and forth with Crawford [it's not worth it] that tends to move goal posts and shift the discussion to make him appear correct when he's not.

[Shawn]

Sun Belt, I am confused on how you're using "poverty rate" here. Rate necessarily means percentage, and as a percentage of its population below the poverty line, California's rate is nowhere near the bottom of the list of states. It's ranked #35, with a poverty rate of 16.4%, as of year end 2017. Mississippi was at 21.9%, New Mexico 20.6%, Louisiana 19.9%, etc. etc. The entire Southeast ranks below California, unless you still count Virginia as Southeast.

Are you saying that in absolute numbers, California has more people living below the poverty line than any other state? Because that's definitely true. And in that sense, I can see where you're coming from: we define poverty-qualifying income levels federally. Only Hawaii and Alaska get seperate definitions. So, federally, a family of 3 sitting just below the 2017 line (let's say they made $20,000 and just slipped below the $20,420 line for a family of 3) living in Mississippi is in the exact same situation as a family of 3 making that same amount of money living in California.

But in 9 out of 10 cases, the family in MS is waaaay better off than the family in CA, because the MS family is paying MS prices for everything. $20,000 a year goes so much further in MS than in CA.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Sun Belt, I am confused on how you're using "poverty rate" here. Rate necessarily means percentage, and as a percentage of its population below the poverty line, California's rate is nowhere near the bottom of the list of states. It's ranked #35, with a poverty rate of 16.4%, as of year end 2017. Mississippi was at 21.9%, New Mexico 20.6%, Louisiana 19.9%, etc. etc. The entire Southeast ranks below California, unless you still count Virginia as Southeast.

Are you saying that in absolute numbers, California has more people living below the poverty line than any other state? Because that's definitely true. And in that sense, I can see where you're coming from: we define poverty-qualifying income levels federally. Only Hawaii and Alaska get seperate definitions. So, federally, a family of 3 sitting just below the 2017 line (let's say they made $20,000 and just slipped below the $20,420 line for a family of 3) living in Mississippi is in the exact same situation as a family of 3 making that same amount of money living in California.

But in 9 out of 10 cases, the family in MS is waaaay better off than the family in CA, because the MS family is paying MS prices for everything. $20,000 a year goes so much further in MS than in CA.

I'm not talking about absolute numbers. There is the poverty rate and then starting in 2011 there is the Supplemental Poverty Rate that takes into account of things like cost of housing, food, utilities and clothing [and which includes noncash government assistance as a form of income]. Using the census' SPM rate, California ranks as the state with the highest poverty rate [as of 2017].

Beginning in 2011, the U.S. Census
Bureau began publishing the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which extends the official poverty measure by taking account of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals that are not included in the official poverty measure. This is the eighth report describing the SPM, released by the Census Bureau, with support from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This report presents updated estimates of the prevalence of poverty in the United States using the official measure and the SPM based on information collected in 2018 and earlier Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplements (CPS ASEC).

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...mo/p60-265.pdf