This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Mapping The Divergence Of America's Wealth: Median Income In Newport Beach, CA Is $123,958; In Reading, PA: $28,098

Tyler Durden's picture


Portfolio has prepared a useful interactive map highlighting America's increasing split between the haves and the have nots based on city of residence. Case in point: the wealthiest city in the US according to Portfolio, Newport Beach, has more than a quarter of its residentshouseholds making over $200,000. On the other end of the spectrum is Reading, PA, whose 80,000 households  have an average per capita income of $14,120 (of half the national
average), and none makes over $200,000. And a stab at New Yorkers - with a median household income of just $31,245, and "just" 6.9% of households making $200,000, Mike Bloomberg's city ranks a distant 60th in the list of wealthiest cities.

Some other characteristics of uberwealthy Newport Beach, which is home to $1+ trillion bond manager PIMCO, situated conveniently about 13.5 seconds away from the Newport Beach Country Club: 

  • Newport Beach’s per capita income (PCI) of $86,586 easily leads
    the 420 U.S. communities with populations above 75,000, and it triples
    the national PCI of $27,589. (Per capita income is the average amount
    of money earned by each resident of a community in a given year.)
  • More
    than a quarter of Newport Beach’s households (28.6 percent, to be
    exact) have annual incomes of more than $200,000. Just two other cities
    in the study group are above 17 percent—Newton, Massachusetts, and
    Pleasanton, California—though neither does any better than 24 percent.
  • The
    median value for homes in Newport Beach exceeds $1 million. Another
    California city, Santa Barbara, is the only other place analyzed by that can make that claim. (A median is a
    midpoint, with half of all homes being worth more and half worth less.)

One thing is certain: if you live in any of the 5 poorest cities, which in addition to Reading include Camden, New Jersey; Flint,
Michigan; Brownsville, Texas; and Gary, Indiana (and Detroit, which is sixth from the bottom), the last thing you care about it the prevailing home price around Fashion Island, or level of the S&P -  you are likely much more concerned about the amount of ammunition in your garage. 

Full interactive presentation at and for those who just want the pdf listing, see attached.






- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 22:29 | 248365 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Mr. Treehorn draws a lot of water in this town, Lebowski. You don't draw shit. We got a nice quiet beach community here, and I aim to keep it nice and quiet. So let me make something plain. I don't like you sucking around bothering our citizens, Lebowski. I don't like your jerk-off name, I don't like your jerk-off face and I don't like you, jerk-off.

Do I make myself clear?

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:27 | 248451 junkyard dog
junkyard dog's picture

Anon, your taking this post a little too personal.

We are talking about median income. Basically, 1/2 the residents make more than $ 123,000, 1/2 make less. It does not say how much more or how much less. So, if there are 10,000 residents in your town, 5000 make more than 123K and 5000 make less.

I bet less than 200 make more than 150K, and, less than 300 make under 27K.

You cannot compare median incomes of a city to another city without stratifying the population of the listed cities into a minimum of a 20 stratification. Then you must stratify the populations in the stratification.

For example, I live in Gainesville, Florida. The list shows a population of 120,849. It does not tell you that 49,000 of the people living there are students of the U of F,  spouses and kids. Every 39 months this portion of the population turns over. They have very little income if any at all during that period, but they are in the numbers for this post.

You can only compare your city to similar cities.

The post is nonsense. Your comment makes it even more nonsensical.

 It is called chartporn for a reason.


Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:53 | 248508 Spiro
Spiro's picture

That hook is set deep.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 01:25 | 248537 Rusty_Shackleford
Rusty_Shackleford's picture

In case you're curious, it's a line from The Big Lebowski.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 09:32 | 248641 wackyquacker
wackyquacker's picture

there's lies, damned lies, and then there's the junkyard dawg

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 10:13 | 248652 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

gainesville sucks. they wear jeans shorts and the girls or morbidly obese

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 18:20 | 248965 Yardfarmer
Yardfarmer's picture

Economic inequality and the myth of Reagan trickle down logic are shown by new data from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston . The report noted: "What has been missing from the public debate over the labor market crisis is an honest and detailed analysis of which American workers have been most adversely affected by the deep deterioration in labor markets." The researchers found a correlation between household income and unemployment rate in the last quarter of 2009: Look carefully at these numbers and see how unemployment rises as income drops:
$150,000 or more, 3.2 percent

$100,000 to 149,999, 8 percent
$75,000 to $99,999, 5 percent
$60,000 to $75,000, 6.4 percent
$50,000 to $59,000, 7.8 percent
$40,000 to $49,000, 9 percent
$30,000 to $39,999, 12.2 percent
$20,000 to $29,999, 19.7 percent
$12,500 to $20,000, 19.1 percent
$12,499 or less, 30.8 percent
Ten times worse unemployment in the lowest class than in the highest class! Truly amazing and disheartening, don't you think? And you can also infer that in some hard hit geographical areas the poorest people and people of color are being even more adversely impacted. And don't think for a minute that things have really improved in 2010.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 21:56 | 249098 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Most of the "People of color" in those lower brackets are of post 1965 immigrant stock. They are free to leave at any time.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:30 | 248488 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

The Dude abides.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 01:24 | 248535 Rusty_Shackleford
Rusty_Shackleford's picture

I'm sorry, I wasn't listening.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 13:38 | 248772 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture


Sun, 02/28/2010 - 11:33 | 248683 Anonymous
Sun, 02/28/2010 - 15:16 | 248860 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Strange how the RW believe that rules designed to equalize the wealth patterns somehow create the discrepencies. Either they are very, very stupid or rationalize the rule sets which leads to their accumulation of wealth.

It has been well known since the days of Adam Smith that a government's failure to regulate leads to monopolies and accummulation of wealth into small groups or people. Even Mr. Hayek, in the book right loves to misquote The Road to Serfdom, points out that rules against monopolies are good rules which are necessary to prevent unfair advantages in the economy. That is, the anti-trust rules which the Right have gutted. According to the Right, those institutions are too big to fail.

Its kinds of funny watching the Fox talking heads claim the taxation of wealth transfers amounts to a........ wealth transfer! And so the 2nd transfer is very, very, very bad and if the 2nd transfer occurs and the wealth accumulator hs to pay for, say roads or the war they started, then the loyal fox nation should blow up some building. And by the way, anyone who points out they are idiots must be biased liberal elites.

In short, its the stupid right whose policies are the direct cause the problem of increasing numbers of inequities between the haves and have nots in the US as well as numerous other problems in the US economy.

Not the other side who in general want rules which require a more level playing field. See, Buffet, Warren.

One specific example is the current tax code put in the Bush II reign which taxes capital gains at 15% and income at 30% or higher. A huge boon to folk like Mozillo of Countryide and the WS f'ups whose dumb moves bankrupted the economy and lead to TARP and numerous bailouts. Another was the tax incentives for the rich to buy things like Hummers. How'd that work for ya, buddies? Personally, I'd say you are bunch of selfish idiots prone to 4 year old temper tantrums, even if they are thrown in the foyer of your tastefully decorated mansions while you smoke cuban cigars.

The angry right rails against deficits, put the US into stupid wars, yet claims a 2% rise in the tax rate gave them a right to rebel? Too bad George Washington is not here to go all Shays on your asses.

Kindly spare the rest of us your claims about lack of judgment. According to your mantras, since your policies have been enacted and followed, there should be less problems because the US has removed the rules designed to prevent them from occurring.

Mon, 03/01/2010 - 08:02 | 249303 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Someone has been drinking to much of the Pelosi flavored Kool-Aid. But you make some excellent points anon--in between name calling like a 3 year old. What's your plan? You obviously got us "righties" figured out! In our neck of the woods we are planning a take over of all voting precincts within the next 8 years. We are pounding the streets getting good conservative, constitution loving candidates the signatures they need to get on the ballots. Signatures that are gathered by freedom loving volunteers--not paid hacks like like the minority left has to use. (at our precinct we helped the homeless and the drunks cast their vote for Obama and read their paperwork to them so they knew where to go get their money/cigarettes/who knows what else---way to mobilize your base!! God bless them.) I'm fucking exhausted and it's 8 months to go till Novemeber but when I read letters like yours I am filled with the Holy Spirit and renewed. I'm not hardcore pro-life but did you know 50% of abortions are performed on African American women? Thats half on 17% of the population? Who pays for that? It's ok to fund genocide? Fuck you. We are coming asshole--we are getting educated--working our butt's off for the love of everything good about this country and 2010 is gonna deliver an Tea-bagged ass-pounding like the left has never seen. (PS--while you were reading this and framing your shitty little response I e-mailed the 10,000 + on our data-base your diatribe--keep up the good work!)

Mon, 03/01/2010 - 09:14 | 249318 blindfaith
blindfaith's picture

I'll second the motion. Please explain how members of the Ocean Reef Club( a housing community on Key Largo Florida where you have to have a net wealth of 60 million to even apply) have the despicable nerve to take the "green car for clunkers promotion" and buy $8,365.00 golf carts with the credit!!! ONE HUNDRED of them to boot, and don't you know those folks in Reading PA will be getting a ride but one a hard pole not a golf cart. How can they do this? well, it a matter of power isn't it... who will stop such behavior, the people in Reading, Obama, Jonh Bonner, John McCain, or how about Sara? Or, how about all these CEO and executives who take a part of their "PAY" as stock or delayed payments so they can avoid Social Security and Mecdicare taxes not to mention the 30% vs 15% ordinary income tax. Level playing field, not a chance and never will be. The world observed and moved on....

Mon, 03/01/2010 - 08:44 | 249311 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

I'm sorry, I wasn't listening.

Sat, 02/27/2010 - 22:55 | 248397 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

this touches on one of the structural problems with capitalism/free markets (dating from the mid seventeenth century and the agricultural revolution):  it makes the rich richer/the poor poorer and since only the poor can buy the products made by the rich in sufficient quantity to support the producers, the system has a bias to cyclical deflationary depressions.

Sat, 02/27/2010 - 23:05 | 248412 zerofaith
zerofaith's picture

free markets? haha at best the US economy is mixed.

Sat, 02/27/2010 - 23:09 | 248417 Judge
Judge's picture

Actually, it doesn't.  It points out how increasing gov't size and interference in the market can stifle progess and upward mobility.

Prior to the 60's, we had a very upwardly mobile society for the previous 150 years...  the fastest rising middle class were blacks for example.  Since the 60's the upward progression slowed and has almost come to a halt.  We now have 5th and 6th generations on welfare, with no hope or ambition of leaving the system.

It's not capitalism that is the problem, it's the creeping socialism - which has failed everywhere it's been tried.  We've seen the labs - perfect labs - set up after WWII.  China/Tawain, E/W Germany, N/S Korea.  Each lab had the same manufacturing capability, equally educated population and natural resources.  The only difference in each lab was one chose a centrally controlled economy and one chose a free market/capitalist economy.

In each lab, there is no argument - one system delivered better prosperity for the average citizen, better healthcare and more freedom.  It is no contest.

But libs are determined to repeat the same problems over and over.





Sat, 02/27/2010 - 23:35 | 248437 Neophiliac
Neophiliac's picture

Facts are stubborn things. If you think that "prior to 1960s" were the heydays of government NON-interference in the economy, you might want to take a look at the marginal income tax rates on top incomes in the 1950s, 1940s and the 1930s. The data is conveniently compiled here 90%+ tax on top income - now THAT was a big equalizer. Not capitalism. On the other hand, before 1930s (i.e., before the Great Depression demonstrated what a pile of shit laizzes faire capitalism was), income disparity was something like what we have today if not worse.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:10 | 248476 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

yeah, if only the government would take more of my money and spend a couple orders of ten more than it took in...I'll keep my fingers crossed, it looks like we'll soon see it. Then, once the taxes and the gov't spending (and debt) send us rocketing back to prosperity, I will look forward to reading the "I told you so" that you will so gleefully share with us all.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:58 | 248517 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Free markets, capitalists, and corporations do not tax me into social immobility and throw up roadblocks to productive ventures. They do not take from me to reward those who simply don't feel like working for themselves.

Governments and their assorted busybodies do this.

The socialists can sit around and wank inside their heads all day long, but none of it will change that.

In retrospect, I'd have been much better off if I had not bothered with years of education and hard work - work that has since been irreparably and directly ruined by a government that no longer heeds the rule of law.

This is what socialism and excessive government intervention has wrought. I only hope I live long enough to see them up against the wall.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 02:15 | 248566 Neophiliac
Neophiliac's picture

I neither endorsed nor denounced the high tax levels of yore in my post. I merely pointed out that beliefs that (i) government's excessive meddling in the economy led to the income disparity that we see today and (ii) the alleged upward mobility of the pre 1960s occurred in the absence of such meddling are both completely and utterly divorced from reality.

As for what awaits us in the future - I agree that higher taxes are inevitable, with the only question being when. I disagree that it will necessarily mean a lack of prosperous future or economic growth. U.S. did not do so badly before 1980s in terms of either overall growth or growth of real wages and real prosperity, all in a regime of basically confiscatory top income tax rates. 

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 07:29 | 248612 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

He was responding to Judge's post, which was a bit nonsensical and displayed some advanced symptoms of partisan brainwashing, including a variant of the "slippery slope to socialism" line.

I don't think he's necessarily advocating a return to 90% marginal tax rates or anything else for that matter.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:57 | 248516 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Your not going to be able to get enough money out of the high income individuals to pay for everything.

tax exemptions
The high income tax rates in the 1950's were paired with a corporate tax system that allowed companies much more generous deductions for things like business lunches, business-travel-with-spouse, and so forth. Right now you pay Rick Wagoner a squillion dollars, and he entertains important people on his own dime; in 1955, you paid him less, but he expensed all his entertaining to the company. Descriptions of 1960's expense account procedures for even entry-level management are enough to make this journalist rather faint with envy.

In 1948, as the baby boom was starting up, the tax exemption for one dependent amounted to 42 percent of the nation's per capita personal income. A family of four -- a father, mother and two children -- would have little or no tax liability.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 19:44 | 249028 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

"Right now you pay Rick Wagoner a squillion dollars, and he entertains important people on his own dime"

evidently you have no idea what you are talking about

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 02:53 | 248580 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

You do realize the the Great Depression was caused by government meddling in the economy, right?

Remember the depression of 1920? The one where the government didn't do anything? And it was over in 6 months?

What the Grandparent was saying is that we were relatively free until the 60's. We became relatively unfree when we went off the gold standard. Prior to Hoover the US was in it's heyday, caused 100% by free markets. If you think otherwise, then enjoy your communist dictatorship, goon.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 20:38 | 249060 Neophiliac
Neophiliac's picture

That's a Glen Beck talking point, almost verbatim. I don't take heed economic advice from an anti-government crusader who's sole education consists of books proudly borrowed from a PUBLIC library. 

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 03:40 | 248585 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

While there is no problem with the first half of your comment, if you're being serious that "the Great Depression demonstrated what a pile of shit laizzes [sic] faire capitalism was" then your knowledge of history is a pile of shit or your definition of "laissez faire" is as wrong as your spelling of it. I guess you believe the myth that Hoover took a laissez faire, non-interventionist approach to the crash and then FDR came and made everything better.

In fact, comparing the depressions of 1920 and 1929, the responses to them and the results of those responses showed what a pile of shit government intervention was. Neither depression happened in a laissez faire economy (both had central banks) but the depression that the government tried to fix lasted about 12 extra years.

For starters, I suggest you read:

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 08:39 | 248629 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Not that's it's an uncommon event, but it displays a fair amount of ignorance to trot out "top marginal tax rates" without appreciating that (1) the corresponding income brackets were qualitatively different than today and (2) the US was involved in WWII.

For example, the $5M bracket in 1940 [1] (81% rate) would correspond to $77M in 2010 dollars [2]. I can't imagine that more than a handful people were exposed to those rates.

Your argument is further undermined by the fact that WWI-era (top marginal) tax rates were nearly as high as those in the era you hold dear.

Income tax rates are a crude an ineffective mechanism to create an equitable society.

Personally, I think income disparities reflect the relative value of marginal workers at the time, and not the degree of government re-distribution of wealth. When manufacturing produced a larger part of America's wealth, such workers had a much stronger negotiating position.

In the absence of a new technology that makes labor more relevant I expect the Brazilification of the US to continue unabated.

Ultimately I am sympathetic to your cause. I just don't see any evidence that higher tax rates have a redistributive effect.


Sun, 02/28/2010 - 20:58 | 249071 Neophiliac
Neophiliac's picture

That last statement of yours - that income tax rates have no redistributive effect - makes your entire post a bit vacuous. If your point is about a collections and enforcement regime, that's a practical point and one that can obviously be addressed with varying degrees of success by changing the enforcement regime. 

If your point is more a general principle, then take that argument a bit futher and you'll end up at a point where government activity of any kind has no effect.

Also, I the link I posted has not just the top marginal rates, but all income tax brackets. They were higher almost accross the board, and it's not just people who make $77m in today's money who were affected. In 1940, those making over $250,000 ($3.85m in today's money by your calculation) paid 66% marginal rate - which would be quite a hit on today's bankers salaries. And in 1942 the top marginal rate of 81% affected incomes over a mere $200,000.  If that doesn't have an effect on wealth distribution, I don't know what will!

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 12:34 | 248717 Judge
Judge's picture

Facts aren't stubborn, people are, especially those who won't read or who can't comprehend.  No where do I describe that as the first time there was gov't interference.  I simply addressed it as the start of the "Great State" welfare mentality.  It's when Medicare/Medicaid and most social welfare programs got started.

I also never stated there wasn't disparity - but if you look at the facts, the 'disparity' was due to new immigrants.  By the second or third generation most immigrants/poor had moved up a social class or two.  Again, before the 60's there was great upward mobility - and it came to a grinding halt. I was simply pointing out why - now, for the first time in our nations history - we have 4th and 5th generations being raised on welfare.

The facts don't lie.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 13:06 | 248740 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

I find people who deal with fixed ideology to be rather limited. this goes for you and the pundit you fight with.
anyone can tailor the data set to sahow what it believes.

I could go further back to the victorian era, or perhaps periods in the untied states which showed capitalism without regulations produced the greatest wealth disparity. do you think that the financial crisis happening at the time of greatest ealth disparity since the great depression was a fluke. It wasn't. the conditions of excessive credit/leverage which create the wealth disparity also create the systemic instability.

One could easily make the statement that because of the restrictions placed on wall street via the pecora commission and not allowing excessive leverage in the system the middle class was allowed to thrive on a period of enhanced stability over the exact period you mention. The great wealth disparity actually started during the80's when credit grew much faster than nominal gdp due to securitization. the effectws grew the most pronounced after reagan, and the destruction of the rules and regulations that limited the unlimited growth of money (under clinton further destruction of the limits on finance). This in effect could be called less rules and regulations.

may I suggest some reading:

first is this tie is different:

the doom loop:





Sun, 02/28/2010 - 16:23 | 248904 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Free markets do NOT EXIST, so long as there are money printing monopoly central banks. Like it or not, they control 1/2 of the component of ever transaction that takes place. This is significant. Free markets are not perfect, but are more egalitarian than the command economy, where it's welfare for the oligarchs.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:47 | 248505 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Having lived in Reading for years... I'll chime in on that.

The place really is that bad. Poor governance, extremely high percentage of criminals and mooches in the population. High crime, little effective law enforcement. There are also some demographic issues going on there that people don't like talking about, since the place turned into a magnet for certain groups. Somewhat similar to another place on the list - Flint - although a different group in question.

I have rarely seen a place within the continental U.S. that was as dysfunctional as Reading.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 13:32 | 248767 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

The demographics are most certainly driving or contributing in a big way to what is happening in Reading. Yes, it is not to be discussed, but everyone knows it.

At one time, Reading was the main operating point of the largest corporation (the Reading RR) in the world (the headquarters were actually in Philadelphia). It is now a complete disaster.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 22:51 | 249120 Lou629
Lou629's picture

"I have rarely seen a place within the continental U.S. that was as dysfunctional as Reading."

+1, but based on my own personal experience with the place, i'd express it a little differently:

I have never seen a place within the continental U.S. that is as dysfunctional as Reading. 

There simply isn't anywhere else within the US that is as dysfunctional as berks county Pa. in general, and Reading in particular.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 13:01 | 248729 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

After world war II the rest of the western world was destroyed, and as a result the US was artificially until 1974 or so. It is natural that things have not gone as well since.

And in all those "perfect labs", the US pumped in tons of money.

Mon, 03/01/2010 - 11:08 | 249397 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Good point. Also, US lower 48 oil production peaked in 1970 at about 10 Million BPD. It's now about half that, including Alaskan oil, but we consume about 19 million BPD. Going on about socialism versus capitalism does not address resource depletion, the real basis of wealth and economic grwoth. World oil production appears to have peaked in 2005, that's what we have to accept before we recover. And a recovery will mean a lower level of resource consumption.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 14:55 | 248847 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

What a complete utter load of bullsh*t. In the 60's, we had far higher tax rates, and a more equal society.

It's been the systematic dismantling of this structure since the Ronald Reagan revolution which has destroyed the middle class. The fraudulent notion of trickle down economics, which has transferred wealth from the middle class to the Elites.

We need to bring back the social structures necessary to reverse this trend, as we can't have a successful society without a strong middle class.

You, sir, haven't a friggin clue of what's been going on. Or perhaps you do, and want to continue the destruction. In either case, your words are a total lie.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 16:31 | 248907 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

As long as the Fed wields the power that it does....EVERYTHING is trickle down.

Sat, 02/27/2010 - 22:56 | 248399 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

A quarter of the residents do not make 200K - a quarter of households do.

This is a huge difference. I guarantee most of those 200K households are dual-income families with sky-high child-care expenses.

Sat, 02/27/2010 - 22:56 | 248401 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Keep it up Newport Beach residents! We've got a lot of current Mexican residents who will be here if Obamacare passes, and they need your tax dollars. The entire undeground economy depends on you forking over your cash at your marginal 50% bracket. Get some sleep, work hard.

Sat, 02/27/2010 - 23:00 | 248406 JR
JR's picture

DOONESBURY  by Garry Trudeau | February 27-28 funnies







Commencement speaker at alma mater: ALWAYS HOLD ON TO YOUR VALUES!

Sat, 02/27/2010 - 23:06 | 248410 moneymutt
moneymutt's picture

I'm surprised given the state of economy in California how many CA cities they have in top 100, top 50. Besides a few outliers like Helmet and Merced, even some Cali cities I think of armpits are still ranked as high if not higher than my local Mpls, St. Paul, MN cities, which seem reasonably solid, if not great right now. I guess Cali real estate, while even now after crash being certainly far from reasonably affordable, does reflect Cali incomes more than I realized. Among all the doom a gloom of Cali talk, towns like SF, Mountain View, LA are still doing pretty well in the national and international scheme of things. 

But man, the rust belt is rusty.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:05 | 248469 velobabe
velobabe's picture

nice to see you again, you little muttface

local st. paul, got your time zone now, central.

all this is just bs WMD weapons of mass distraction.

phuck these rich communities i come from the richest and it isn't even listed.

aspen colorado, capital of the white collar crime mafia elite.

ZH i think you are throwing red meat to the lions

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 01:00 | 248519 35Pete
35Pete's picture

Palm Beach FL is 30 miles north. It's not on the list. 

In Palm Beach, they call banking VP's "the help". 

This study doesn't add up. 

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 05:10 | 248597 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Must be a population size limit in the thing. Stamford and Norwalk listed in Ct. where waht we reffered to as the slums when I as a kid, and New Canaan (where I grew up) and Grenich aren't even listed...

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 15:03 | 248851 moneymutt
moneymutt's picture

velobabe...think I've mentioned my no-coast locale a number of times, but flattered you care about the origins of a midwest mutt like me...

being from aspen would piss me off too....seems like a very fake suburb of LA. I know someone that lives around there and she told me all the rich/celeb guys have a second trophy wife, and even tho said trophy wife is chosen for being a young beauty/model type, the guys have their woman cherried out like custom additions to a new luxury car model, send her in for all kinds of cosmetic surgery... 

agree about the limitations of this articles data, as many other comments detail also, however, it  does show some interesting general trends, some of which are counter intuitive.

and yes, as other commentators note, MSP is middle of road, but a few years ago I heard 25 percent of our mortgages were interest only...not a good sign when a "non-bubble" state had that much non-sense going on...we're all in trouble...were all in a boat together, if leaks are small, only lower decks are bothered, but if leak is big enough to sink boat, everyone will suffer, if the lower decks get it first and longest...not sure there is much of the way of life boats


Sun, 02/28/2010 - 09:44 | 248644 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

MSP is unremarkably middle of the road in just about all respects including wealth.

Sat, 02/27/2010 - 23:43 | 248448 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

What about Beverly Hills?  Scarsdale?  Greenwich?  I want a recount!

Seriously, people make different amounts of money.  Big deal.  The market will determine relative values for various professions and those that work hard and make the most of their circumstances will have the best chances for success.  Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

Also, what about cost of living?

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 07:38 | 248614 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

The city has to have a population of 80,000 or more to be included. By definition this would mean that a lot of the small, very wealthy suburbs and small towns around NYC, Boston, and DC won't make the list. In CA by contrast, the suburban towns tend to cover quite a bit more land (allowing them to grow quickly since the 1950s) and as a result, often have larger populations.

There are a lot of different ways to measure how wealthy a city or town is, but generally speaking Greenwich comes out as the richest.

Mon, 03/01/2010 - 04:42 | 249264 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

I don't think any of the expensive towns in the Bay Area (CA) made the list either. E.g., Los Altos Hills, Hillsborough, Tiburon.

Pleasanton? Mountain View? Sunnyvale? Fremont? Berkeley? Those are not expensive towns. The Bay Area towns that made the list are ok; they generally have a mix of fairly sketchy areas as well as some nice areas but not the high end. I would guess that's probably true for the areas that made the list in the rest of the country as well.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:03 | 248462 Comrade de Chaos
Comrade de Chaos's picture

Newport B does feel like a different UNIVERSE. It's x 10 cleaner than Beverly Hills and has much better roads. 

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:04 | 248468 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

As a current Newport Beach resident, I can vouch for this chart...I'm not entirely proud of our behavior though.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 15:29 | 248868 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

As a current Cleveland resident, I can vouch for this chart as well.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:07 | 248472 dondonsurvelo
dondonsurvelo's picture

Newport at any time over the past 40 years would top incomes across the nation.  The wealthy have always lived there.  John Wayne moved there in during his career along with many others with plenty of dough.  Using Newport Beach is unfair in this comparison.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:35 | 248493 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Wages, housing,or rent are so different in the regions. I wonder how much in common a worker in Kansas now has with a worker in California or New England. It is beginning to seem like we live in different worlds.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 17:44 | 248946 baserunr
baserunr's picture

Workers in and around Newport Beach don't wake up in the morning and shovel snow so they can drive to work.

Mon, 03/01/2010 - 10:04 | 249344 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

That is a true statement. Average wages in Joplin Missouri are about 8-12 per hour, the average house costs 80-100K (3bd/2ba), gas is 2.47 gal and milk 3.29. I can assure you that prices on the coast are much higher. A homeowner in Cali (2bd2ba bungalow) with a carport can sell and retire to Missouri in a 3200 sqft, 5bd/3ba home with two car garage for about 160K and have plenty to live on

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:55 | 248497 Going Down
Going Down's picture


Portfolio has it wrong, at least in terms of California. The wealthiest city is actually...Fresno.



Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:45 | 248504 sethstorm
sethstorm's picture

Naturally, they take another pot-shot at Ohio.

The only concern isn't just ammunition, it's whether the politicians will have enough influence to keep businesses in the state.


Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:54 | 248511 Gromit
Gromit's picture

Rancho Santa Fe is not a city. It is administratively part of San Diego, just like La Jolla. And Beverly Hills is part of LA, so it's easy to get confusing information from surveys like these.

And yes, the Ranch is very nice!,_California

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:56 | 248515 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Yeah, there's a difference in income. Always has been. So what. Socialism is your answer, the gardener and janitor should live next to the entenpreur and the medical doctor?

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 01:12 | 248527 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

to Gromit

No disrepect, but you are wrong regarding beverly hills. It actually has no affiliation with Los Angeles. Check your facts.


Sun, 02/28/2010 - 01:15 | 248529 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

cool. then these california people can pay off their own debt, eh?

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 01:20 | 248533 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

You all need to read "Democracy, the god that failed." The problem is caused by the federal level. Free the states from federal tyranny and let them compete to attract businesses, capital, and population....

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 14:47 | 248840 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

I bet your from one of those red states that gets way money from the feds than they pay in taxes. I would LOVE the states to be free. We would be free from the fly over parasites. We invent the high tech stuff so our taxes can go pay and keep those crappy family farms in biz. Time to cut the meth heads loose.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 01:36 | 248548 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Some of the median home value to median household income multiples are scary. Glendale, CA is almost 12 to 1.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 19:48 | 249030 moneymutt
moneymutt's picture

good point, its strange how regions have such huge differentials in affordability...sure, a suddenly growing  or shrinking area mught distort housing affordability for a time, but you would think over several years, incomes and house prices would start to line up more across regions at similar ratios, we have same interest rates, same national banks/resid mortgage options, why do some place get so unaffordable?

And I wonder about median incomes in places with lots of illegal immigrants, how are they counted...they may be working under several SecSoc numbers or workign for cash a lot...

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 03:07 | 248582 QuantumCat
QuantumCat's picture

So what happens when $60k Texans are asked to bailout $123k Californians?  Not good...  a rigged system is not sustainable.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 05:22 | 248598 Glen
Glen's picture

I'd like to know how the Chinese who earn a third of ave Reading wage is suppose to bail out the global economy.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 07:48 | 248617 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

The obvious problem is that the $123K Californians are not paying anywhere near enough in property taxes.

The property tax rates in CA are basically about 1/4th to 1/5th of what they are in the (obviously extremely wealthy) NYC suburbs for example. The income taxes are a little bit higher than the east coast, but still less than NYC.

Obviously there may very well be some state funded programs that can be cut to improve the balance sheet, but nothing will really change until proposition 13 is repealed.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 12:33 | 248714 Howard_Beale
Howard_Beale's picture

Additionally, as the real estate bubble has burst, property owners like Larry Ellison of Oracle, have jumped right on their right to revise their proprerty taxes lower. I think Ellison reduced his bill by over $1 million last year. You sure don't see that happening in other states by those amounts.

On Newport Beach, one word: PIMCO.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 18:06 | 248957 baserunr
baserunr's picture


I am so tired of hearing this crap about Prop. 13.  That was 32 years ago!  The problem with the state of CA is it's spending and State employee unions, not revenue.  Does the State really need a Department of Veterans Affairs?  How about The Department of Aging? The Rural Health Policy Council? The Board of Barbering and Cosmetology?  There are dozens and dozens of these fiefdoms, all with staffs and related expenses.  Are they all vital?  And do we need to pay the employees at levels that exceed similar compensation in the private sector?  With lifetime retirement and  health benefits that the private sector does not get?  The problem is spending.  Since 1950, only 3 times has the state collected less revenue than the year before, most recently in 2008. The problem is not, and never has been, the revenue side.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 20:07 | 249044 moneymutt
moneymutt's picture

depends when you bought..if you bought in 2005, paying alot, but if you've had house along time paying way less than other in other states...

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 04:10 | 248592 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

This study is absurd. A majority of the towns in southern Fairfield County, CT have median home prices above $1mm.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 04:46 | 248596 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Why is it that a family that makes 4x the median income in Newport Beach would still have a hard time buying a house in Newport Beach (other than a 2BR condo)?

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 07:13 | 248610 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

I, too question the data.

Wilmington, NC has over 200,000 population, not 103,160. Also, Cary, NC is often referred to as Can't Afford Raleigh Yet and Cary is Ranked 25 vs Raleigh is ranked 145.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 08:44 | 248630 chindit13
chindit13's picture

99.9% of all Chinese earn less than half of the median wage of the good folks of Reading, PA.  In renminbi the figure is 99.9%<40K RMB.

On the other hand, the Chinese money goes a long way.  For example, I can buy Photoshop for 40 cents.  Avatar on DVD is also 40 cents, down from the 80 cents it cost a week before it hit the big screens in the USA.  I can get every Bruce Willis or Leo DiCaprio or AH-NOLD movie ever made, all on one DVD, for the astonishing price of 80 cents.  A season's worth of Shark or Bones (TV) for the ubiquitous 80 cents.  I saw a copy of a professional architectural design program for 40 cents that looked really outstanding, and out of curiosity I checked its non-Pacific Century Family Values Price:  $3600.

So I guess on a PPP basis (Purloining Power Parity), the folks of the Middle Kingdom are living higher off the hog than the Quaker Staters.

Sure glad to have those good folks in the WTO.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 09:20 | 248634 Thoreau
Thoreau's picture

Awesome; thank you. You validated just how rich & poor I really am. A $100-millionaire!

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 09:25 | 248637 Thoreau
Thoreau's picture

Looks like a new gold rush coming to CA via hungry, vengeful survivalists! Thanks for the treasure map!

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 11:13 | 248672 fuu
fuu's picture

<golf clap>

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 09:26 | 248639 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Would be curious to know the timeframe from which these data points were compiled - my feeling is that such numbers are more in flux than ever. I practice as a CPA in the S.E. - I've noticed a continuation of a trend from last year - incomes (and associated tax revenues) are falling off the cliff - again. '08 returns were rather unprecedented. '09 returns are horrific with few exceptions. Retirees are getting creamed income wise. As an example, was looking back over one yesterday - a retired single teacher - total taxes in 07 where around $7,700. In '08 - $1,897. In '09 - $791 - those changes in tax purely reflect total disintigration of income, in this case mostly equity exposure via mutuals. Taking another case - married retired couple - '07 tax $18,047. '08 - $16,422. '09 - $7,404. In this case, the nest egg was entirely CD based and the maturities of older instruments finally caught up. This is simply data pulled from returns prepared yesterday - but they are representative of the median of what I've seen so far this year - many cases are far worse - precious few are better. All to say, their is much more flux than most are aware of - and look for an announcement from the Treasury soon that tax revenues are FAR below projections, again. After the season, I'll try to prepare a table from a much larger random sample and post it.

Raymond K Hassel (pending ZH approval)
1320 SE Benning, apartment A

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 12:15 | 248706 Rainman
Rainman's picture

I too was curious about the timing of the above analysis. There's been a sea change in valuations and median incomes in Newport Beach over the past 2 years.....specifically because so many incomes were associated with development, crooked mortgage brokers and their mega-commissions and various other white collar real estate jobs. Many of them were feeding off the development frenzy in the Inland areas.


Orange and LA County residential real estate hotspots are just now turning downward in fair market value. Banks have stuffed a lot of their delinquent jumbos into the shadow inventory stats. The belief in a pricing resurgence is fading. The release in shadow inventory will kick many asses.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 13:01 | 248730 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Just spent the better part of this beautiful Sunday morning on another prime example - AGI in '06 - 383K, '07 - 658K, '08 222K, '09 - $165,530 - another retired single taxpayer. I pretty know where the worst numbers will come from - though I've not yet done the return - '05 - 12M, '06 - 9.03M, '07 - 1.505M, '08 - (15,483)k - '09 will be a huge NOL and it will be carried back; not yet retired, construction related industry. Measuring medians in 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - could all lead to very different pictures as the mean is most likely more skewed by the high end. I would have to guess this data would come from IRS data, which means its probably measuring '07 data.,,id=217542,00.html

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 19:53 | 249034 moneymutt
moneymutt's picture many like that...I heard there were 25 yr old realtors and mortgage brokers making bi six figures in 05ish....seems like a lot of way educated folks that might have been in aerospace manufacturing jobs 20 years ago were surviving off their wits in white collar jobs like real estate, mortgages, or blue collar construction all the middle to upper middle class stuff gone, gone,

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 09:39 | 248642 john_connor
john_connor's picture

This data is puzzling to me.  Being from the Chicago area originally, I know there are areas more wealthy than Naperville, in terms of Net Worth or median income.  Places like Winnetka, Highland Park, Barrington, Burr Ridge, and Hinsdale come to mind.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 14:22 | 248808 VampireSquirrel
VampireSquirrel's picture

They don't have the population (over 80,000) to be included. Hinsdale & Lake Forest, for example, have populations around 20,000.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 14:39 | 248832 john_connor
john_connor's picture

Nice catch; it makes sense then.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 10:53 | 248666 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

They will be plundered by the poor masses that live just a stones throw away. When the next big leg down gets going and the division of labor falls apart, where will these rich people get food when the trucks have stopped rolling through L.A. because of mass unrest. The future "rich" cities will be in the hinterlands, are easily protected from roving, hungry gangs, and have established local food production. The division of labor in an "advanced society" is very fragile. The future "wealthy" will have guns, ground and gold.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 20:09 | 249046 moneymutt
moneymutt's picture

I say it will just look like a poor third world country with lots of poor and a few rich elites....kinda like what you describe...

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 10:58 | 248667 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Grew up in Reading, PA through the 60's and 70's. Worked in cardboard mill, sock factory, food factory, etc. Factories all over the place, quit today...start tomorrow. They. are .all.gone. Mt dad retired from a truck frame factory. One day the union decided to strike in the 80's. The plant closed, they all lost thier jobs over $2 an hour, company took down 6 city blocks of buildings and sent it to China. Still has a nice Pagoda on the hill, tho.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 10:59 | 248668 chuckscharf
chuckscharf's picture

Interesting data, but the study goes along with the incessant populist/liberal/statist/"tax the rich" intentional misrepresentation of income as wealth.  Income is not wealth; NET WORTH is wealth.  A heavily progressive tax system, as advocated by the most outspoken of the truly affluent, serves as a very effective barrier to unwanted competition from the upper middle classes.  Most of those who break through the barrier, at least temporarily, tend to be entertainers or sports figures, people far too stupid to pose any threat to the real elite.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 11:02 | 248669 Neophiliac
Neophiliac's picture

Well, France has an answer for that too - a wealth tax. Apples: how do you like 'em?

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 13:12 | 248748 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

I guess that means they won't be having many rich people move there, kind of a bonehead move.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 14:41 | 248834 john_connor
john_connor's picture

So true.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 11:19 | 248673 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

the only things i know about newport is what nik tells me

they like to party over there for sure. ha ha

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 12:01 | 248698 Rick64
Rick64's picture

Data, polls, and statistics we can make them say whatever you want.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 12:35 | 248720 foxmuldar
foxmuldar's picture

I can vouch for the article, I live 8 miles outside of Reading Pa. Reading used to be a nice American city, where you could walk the streets of downtown at 10:00 PM in the evening, stop in at a coffeeshop for some entertainment, and chat with your friends.

That was many years ago. Since then the city has become a beacon for Illegal aliens, Hispanics from Pueto Rico and the Dominican Republic. Many of Readings citizens migrated from NY. Reading was know as a city where it was easy to get on the public dole.

The City public school, Reading High has a large population of Dominicans. Not long ago the students were rioting in the streets celebrating their dominican independance. Of course there were cars being trashed, and when the police were called to calm the crowd, the students accused the police of brutality.

Reading is now being run by the hispanics and liberals. Unemployment continues to rise. Voters continues to vote heavily for Democrats at each election.

Crime is rampant in Reading, like those other cities mentioned above. Drug dealing, shooting taking place in the middle of the day. Try walking downtown Reading at 10:00 pm these days and your asking to be mugged.

Its a sad situation. And like so many other cities, Readings broke. The city is taking some hard steps that had to be taken. Cutting the citys work force. But the teachers still got their big pay raises recently. Seems that no matter how bad things get, some sectors such as teachers are immune from taking a hit in pay and benefits. Till that changes, the whole country is fucked.


Sun, 02/28/2010 - 13:34 | 248770 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture


It's surprising, though, that Harrisburg is going to beat us to Chapter 9.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 14:22 | 248807 CEOoftheSOFA
CEOoftheSOFA's picture

I guess this explains it.  I would have thought Reading would have had higher income since a Harley Davidson plant is located there.  Maybe all the Harley workers commute from Blue Ball. 

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 12:44 | 248724 lawton
lawton's picture

You have to look at cost of living in an area also. I remember a friend making 50k in a relatively inexpensive part of Florida going to a new job in DC where he was living in Maryland and he couldnt believe how his new 75k salary was not getting him as much as the 50k in Florida.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 13:09 | 248744 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Liberals are idiots. It costs double and triple for everything in Calif so median incomes are at parity. Which by the way proves the idiocy of obama and Dems assault n the so called over $200,000 incomes. Class warfare and the promotion of the fake middle class is socialism which is communism and dictatorship in disguise. While they are pretending to help the middle class they are strealing your liberties and funding their fat political agenda to keep themselves in office- greatest ponzi scheme of all. Get informed.

Sun, 02/28/2010 - 13:09 | 248745 foxmuldar
foxmuldar's picture

A quick example of why Pennsylvania is in deep shit and why many other states are in just as bad or worse condition.

Pennsylvania faces a projected General Fund tax revenue shortfall of at least $500 million.  Governor Rendell proposed a $29 billion General Fund budget for 2010-11, that increases businesses taxes.

 A great way to save jobs is to raise business taxes. Well isn't it?

  • Pennsylvania is on the edge of a fiscal cliff.
    • Gov. Rendell's FY 2010-11 budget relies on $2.8 billion in one-time federal stimulus funding, which includes about $850 million that has not yet been approved by Congress.  Even if approved, this funding vanishes in FY 2011-12.
    • In FY 2012-13, state pension contributions are projected to skyrocket seven-fold, a $3.5 billion increase, from $551 million in FY 2009-10 to $4.1 billion in FY 2012-13 (increasing in future years).
    • Last year's budget deal exhausted the state's Rainy Day Fund and other one-time sources of revenue.
  • Despite declining revenues, Gov. Rendell's FY 2010-11 budget increases spending by $1.1 billion, or 4.1%.
  • During Gov. Ed Rendell's tenure (2003-2009), General Fund spending has increased by 42%, more than double the rate of inflation (19.5%).  Total state spending has grown by an even higher rate, over 47%.

    As you can see, Rendell is a big tax and spender. And that pension funding is going to be the death of Pa, and other states.

    Sun, 02/28/2010 - 14:26 | 248812 Rainman
    Rainman's picture

    PA looks like an East Coast version of the People's Republik of Kalifornia. There is certainly one thing in common that is stunning : the horrifying surge in public sector pension costs.

    One area not in common with CA is that PA actually had a " Rainy Day Fund " at one time. Unheard of in CA.

    Personally, I found the PA State Liquor Control system outrageous......selling hard booze and wine from State-run stores. The prices were insanely high compared to CA, where you can buy any manner of alcohol in a grocery or drug store at a competitive price.

    So in PA, you can't even buy yourself a cheap bender to forget the pain of all those taxes.  

    Sun, 02/28/2010 - 20:05 | 249042 moneymutt
    moneymutt's picture

    if this craptastic economy keeps up, and I think it will, somebody needs to have a come to Jesus with govt employees about denfined pensions regardless of how state economy and citizens are doing....

    Sun, 02/28/2010 - 13:36 | 248771 Anonymous
    Anonymous's picture

    Now where are more public jobs?

    Sun, 02/28/2010 - 14:02 | 248791 Gimp
    Gimp's picture

    This data does not compute. Been to Newport Beach many times and I would say as a casual observer for every one person driving around in a new Benz S500 - 600 there are at least twenty driving old model Toyota's and Fords. If you did a quick statistical analysis that is a 1:20 ratio of high income earners to the worker bees, which makes sense top 5% = high income earners.

    Where is Palm Beach, FL? Not even mentioned which makes no sense as it has long been in the top 5 wealthiest cities in the nation for almost 100 years??

    Sun, 02/28/2010 - 15:27 | 248867 Anonymous
    Anonymous's picture

    The only possible source I can think of for this data would be published IRS statistics, which report incomes by counties - Yeah!
    Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
    Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
    But when the taxman comes to the door,
    Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

    Sun, 02/28/2010 - 17:06 | 248928 ozziindaus
    ozziindaus's picture

    Have you ever noticed? no matter how extravagant and prestigious the suburb, there's always a shit heap parked in every driveway. 

    Sun, 02/28/2010 - 20:11 | 249049 moneymutt
    moneymutt's picture

    trash is trash

    Sun, 02/28/2010 - 15:27 | 248866 Anonymous
    Anonymous's picture

    "Free Trade" has destroyed the flow of income to the bottom. The credit bubble hid the effects of "Free Trade". Now the game is over. I went on a little shopping binge. Nothing I bought was made in USA. A few items were from Japan, one from Mexico, and most from China. So the banks made a fee when I used credit. The retailers took a cut. All the rest of the money went overseas. There will never be an economy recovery here as long as the "Free Trade" continues. Banks and retailers are all we need and we have too many already. It's sad that we look to the government for solutions, but government created the problems. And the rich control the government... for the moment.
    "Free Trade" was a big mistake. Labor standards and environmental standards should never have been ignored. It was quick easy money for those at the top, but the parasites have killed the host.

    Sun, 02/28/2010 - 17:02 | 248926 ozziindaus
    ozziindaus's picture

    The problem is not free trade but rather the governments hand in making domestic manufacturing less competitive. For instance. Manufacturing in the US is subject to income taxes, payroll taxes (2x in Michigan), property taxes (yes a tax on office furnishings and equipment) etc. This may add up to approximately 30-50% taxes on gross earnings. Imports are subject to 2-3% import taxes ONLY. 

    Government's job, through the FR, is to curb inflation and therefore reduce real wages. Corporate mandate is to raise profits and therefore reduce labour expenditure. Both point to outsourcing. 

    I say to the administration, reduce regulation (only helps large corps), reduce taxes and get the fuck out of our way. 

    Sun, 02/28/2010 - 19:41 | 249026 Mr Lennon Hendrix
    Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

    Singing "Jumpdown, turn around, pick a bail of cotton!  Jump down, turn around, pick a bail of hay!"

    Sun, 02/28/2010 - 20:15 | 249050 Anonymous
    Anonymous's picture

    I'll second that Reading being a shithole.

    PA is have some hard times.

    Sun, 02/28/2010 - 20:17 | 249051 anarkst
    anarkst's picture

    I think it's quite nice that the wealthy herd themselves into particular towns.  That way they can rip each other off for all their "necessities."

    Sun, 02/28/2010 - 22:12 | 249105 Anonymous
    Anonymous's picture

    what happened what caused this ?

    1976 top 1 % share of wealth was 19.9 % bottom 99 % held 80.1 % of wealth

    2007 top 1 % held 34.6 % bottom 99 % held 65.4 % why did the top 1 % get my 14.7 %

    i want it back

    Mon, 03/01/2010 - 00:58 | 249214 Anonymous
    Anonymous's picture

    The numbers need to be corrected. The top 1% of the caucasian population probably hasnt changed much over the decades. Remember we have about 150 million illiterate africans and hispanics in the US. Also, in 1976 you didnt have a large female population in workforce; this skews the numbers downwards. So these breakdowns presented here are very misleading and compares apples to oranges. With globalization we have hundreds of millions of ChIndians that have entered the middle class.

    Mon, 03/01/2010 - 03:03 | 249251 Quantum Nucleonics
    Quantum Nucleonics's picture

    So what?  Of course people of like incomes will tend to cluster.  Of course the value of the best real estate would get bid up.  Duh.  How many people in Newport Beach spent six figures in grad school, how many are entrepreneurs that employ thousands?  A lot!  How many people in Redding dropped out of high school?  Yea, I'm sure their schools suck, but you can't blame the system for dropping out.  Stupid is as stupid does.

    Oh, and $1 million doesn't gets you much less than you might think in NB.  If you really want a nice crib, your budget better be at least $5 million.

    Fri, 04/16/2010 - 10:40 | 303888 Tom123456
    Tom123456's picture

    ucvhost is a leading web site hosting service provider that is known to provide reliable and affordable hosting packages to customers. The company believes in providing absolute and superior control to the customer as well as complete security and flexibility through its many packages. windows vps Moreover, the company provides technical support as well as customer service 24x7, in order to enable its customers to easily upgrade their software, install it or even solve their problems. ucvhost offers the following different packages to its customers.

    Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!