And this data is old, it’s much worse now.
Not only that, but it’s clearly using accumulation of dollars and not taking into account the effectiveness of that dollar in different markets. $1 in Omaha is worth $0.50 in SF money. This seems like a weird “coastal elites” angle for some reason, but HCOL areas need to pay people more money, so they technically do have more money, but it’s worth less in that same market vs a LCOL area.
Example: $1m dollars in NYC can’t even get you a condo, but in Kentucky you could buy an estate.
People in HCOL are “buying” more by choosing to live in big cities.
HCOL cities have more economic opportunities, access to amenities and events, and more development of parks and services.
Also, most purchases are online now. It costs the same to get a new computer shipped to a HCOL area or a less expensive rural area. So someone making 50% more, with 50% higher COL is still wealthier than those living in cheaper areas because they can get more goods for each extra hour they work.
But this data is about dollar amounts accumulated by population without spending power. All it’s showing is that HCOL population has more accumulated wealth. It doesn’t make sense. It’s not like people from the coasts are gathering cash and moving to the Midwest.
They don’t need to, they have more purchasing power.
Living in a high COL area doesn’t just cancel our the higher income, because it takes marginally less work to buy any given product.
This video is available on Tournesol:
- politizane: Wealth Inequality in America, +42🌻 (163 comparisons by 48 contributors)
