What's Wrong With These Figures?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed. ·
Jun 28, 2011 at 8:30am
What follows is a list of the 10 counties in America with the highest average compensation. Does anything concern you about this list?
1) New York, New York $109,028
2) Arlington, Virginia $102,373
3) Washington, District of Columbia $98,246
4) Santa Clara, California $98,165
5) San Mateo, California $94,291
6) Fairfield, Connecticut $92,435
7) San Francisco, California $91,130
8) Somerset, New Jersey $88,829
9) Suffolk, Massachusetts $88,092
10) Fairfax and Falls Church, Virginia $87,540
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
May '10
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
Affluence and urban sophistication are now synonymous with liberal politics. It's confounding but undeniable. The code is strong and transcends reason or generosity. The one caveat I would point out is that most Wall Street plutocrats pulling up the NY average are still reliably right of center. But the rest is genuinely curious. It's simply not cool to be conservative. And even the most radical left-leaning views are perfectly tolerated in polite society in big cities. Being conservative means you are either selfish, ignorant, or both. I don't know what could possibly break this aesthetic short of a full scale collapse of the state.
Jan '11
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
I would agree about the supposed affluence and left-leaning policies being predominate in these areas. I'm curious, though, if average were taken out of it and one were to see a frequency chart of income ranges. I bet that the relative equality of distributions of incomes is far less than in other areas of the country. This would not bother me if true, mind you. But, if true, it would show the hypocrisy -- the disconnect between signaled/stated preference and actual preference.
May '11
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
3 of the 10 are centered around the Federal Government. Since the government produces nothing what are all this high earners doing to warrant their salaries? Also, Washington is 3rd on the list with the worst school system in the country.
Dec '10
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
I'd like to see that list transposed against a list of the most charitable counties...
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
Exactly!
Sep '10
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
Could you point to evidence of this assertion? They are not right of center on soical issues. And they are in bed with big government.
Feb '11
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
Only 3 of 10 are in Fed Govt. hubs. All ten are in places with terrible traffic congestion.
Dec '10
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
Looks from those numbers like there is a strong correlation between a hefty state tax burden and a higher average income. Other than the two outliers from Virginia, all of the other places (New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Washington D.C., and Connecticut) are associated with large state and local tax burdens.
What is striking is the absence of high levels of compensation in places with low tax burdens like Texas, Florida, and North Dakota.
Perhaps that is why the Illinois legislature and Governor saw fit to raise Illinois income taxes by 66% this year: they hope to boost Illinois' average compensation to levels seen in New York and California.
Edited on Jun 28, 2011 at 9:52amJul '10
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
Median numbers would be more interesting. Most of those localities have a substantial number of very, very high earners - finance types in New York, Fairfield and Somerset, NJ; tech types in Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco.
My bet is that the median in DC and Northern Virginia would be at the top of the list.
Aug '10
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
I don't know how significant those numbers are, because those places also have much higher costs of living, including taxes. So in the end, I don't think the average standard of living in Fairfield or Santa Clara is any higher than it is in the wealthy suburbs of any city.
Dec '10
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
Kenneth: Median numbers would be more interesting. Most of those localities have a substantial number of very, very high earners - finance types in New York, Fairfield and Somerset, NJ; tech types in Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco.
My bet is that the median in DC and Northern Virginia would be at the top of the list. · Jun 28 at 9:54am
Ask, and you shall receive.
May '10
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
.
Edited on Jun 28, 2011 at 10:17amMay '10
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
Patrick in Albuquerque
Could you point to evidence of this assertion? They are not right of center on soical issues. And they are in bed with big government. · Jun 28 at 9:43am
I'd like to avoid a side debate about rent-seeking hypocrites. Suffice it to say that most professional investors at least think they believe in free markets. Remember the Tea Party's origins are credited to a CNBC rant.
Jul '10
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
The King Prawn
Kenneth: Median numbers would be more interesting. Most of those localities have a substantial number of very, very high earners - finance types in New York, Fairfield and Somerset, NJ; tech types in Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco.
My bet is that the median in DC and Northern Virginia would be at the top of the list. · Jun 28 at 9:54am
Ask, and you shall receive. · Jun 28 at 10:01am
Ah hah! Exactly as I suspected. But even worse.
May '10
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
All blue.
Jul '10
Re: What's Wrong With These Figures?
As a DC area resident, I note that the deep blue Maryland side suburbs have fallen out of the list while the purple Virginia side is still competitive. Subtract for taxes and the Connecticut and Virginia entries will likely go higher and the rest drop out altogether.
Maryland counties pop in looking at the median figures. Six of the top 10 counties by median are within 50 miles of DC.
Make that seven of the top 11. And they are the only counties at the top with a rising trend.
Edited on Jun 28, 2011 at 4:04pm