are poor people in expensive cities richer than poor people in cheap small towns?

Question

I'm talking in absolute, not relative, terms here.

In other words, will the average poor person in an expensive city like New York or San Francisco have more money or income, in absolute terms, than their poor counterparts in small towns and places where the cost of living (and property) is much lower than in big cities?

Or are the poor always poor and thus comparable regardless of the average affordability of the city in which they live?

Answer 1

That's absolutely correct. It's all about relativity in a way.

The abjectly poor exist throughout all societies and cultures, and these folks are genuinely in trouble, being homeless, unable to feed or clothe themselves and with possible mental illness if not the stressors of daily life as a street-resident are enough to make that a reality , these are the abjectly poor, and life sucks pretty universally no matter what, no matter where.

For the lower income folks however, there is a DEFINITE difference, NYC , San Francisco, etc, are SO expensive that affording housing is out of reach, not just to the poor (under 40,000 per household) and lower middle class (under 100,000 per household), but the "upper" middle class. Those making less than 150,000/household+. In these metropolitan areas can have real problems paying taxes and buying houses in affordable areas, reasonably close to work/schools etc.

I knew a guy from a few years ago who made over 120,000 dollars a year as an engineer and lived in a 1/2 way house with his girlfriend because they couldn't find/rent/afford to buy an apartment in the San Francisco area. It was a "temporary" situation but nevertheless, not very cool.

In almost any other city in the country (save NY/Boston etc) that would have been a great salary and they could have afforded to buy a house outright.

NYC is the most expensive place I've lived, a SMALL apartment (400-600Sq/Ft) can be well over 1600/per month , and that's being charitable.

Answer 2

I think it balances out. A place like NY is expensive to live in but the wage is generally more than a small town or a suburb. The government subsidizes according to the cost of livingso in the end the poor family in the wealthy city has about the same amount of money no matter where they live. In the city there is public transportation which takes away from the cost of a car, insurance, gas etc. but people can still get to work rather easily. Housing is obviously more money though and groceries as well.

Answer 3

In cities where housing prices and rents are high everyone earns more than they would elsewhere doing the same job, not just the poor. A"poor" person in New York City might earn $10 an hour which would not be poor in central Pennsylvania , but in central Pennsylvania his job might only pay $6 an hour. Many people take advantage of this and retire to low cost areas.

Answer 4

Poor is obviously a subjective term. If you say a person who earn less than $6 dollars an how is poor, than you can figure it out. I think min-wage is higher in CA than were I live PA. However, it doesn't make them more wealthy in the sense of their purchasing power RELATIVE to the money. The amount of money is basically meaningless. It's what you can do with it.

Answer 5

Liberals.... anyway, the poverty rate is a national standard. So a person whose income falls below the poverty level is poor whether he lives in San Francisco or Tuscaloosa. Beyond that, you have to understand the cost of living in the area where a person resides to compare their standards of living.

Answer 6

I would think it is about 50-50. Some yes, some no. Just an opinion. Not fact.

Answer 7

"poor people" are rich in small towns, as they can have a garden and and grow fresh vegeatables and maybe keep chickens. There are people in the same situation, so all can help out..