metro Detroit vs metro San Francisco

**mwilbert** · February-25-10, 05:48 PM

Here is a graph comparing incomes in metro San Francisco to metro Detroit since 1967

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/20...it_vs_san.html

In my opinion, a very compact statement of why people might want to think about doing some things differently.

**Malcove Magnesia** · February-25-10, 07:41 PM

Lemme make sure I got that graph understood properly... for every dollar that one earns in San Francisco, one would be earning less than 65 cents in the Detroit metro area?

**tangerine** · February-25-10, 08:00 PM

It's not totally as bad as it looks because diring that same time period the cost of living in SF skyrocketted so that the income dispartity in real dollar terms is not quite so drastic.

**mwilbert** · February-25-10, 09:15 PM

Lemme make sure I got that graph understood properly... for every dollar that one earns in San Francisco, one would be earning less than 65 cents in the Detroit metro area?

Yes.

It's not totally as bad as it looks because diring that same time period the cost of living in SF skyrocketted so that the income dispartity in real dollar terms is not quite so drastic.

This is also true. The cost of living in SF is much higher. However I was able to find the CPI-U index [[fortuitously, the base was 1967=100) for Dec 2007 for both metros. Detroit was at 594, SF was 652. So the difference in the change in the cost of living hardly offset the relative income change at all. The CPI-U uses a rent measure for housing cost which possibly understates the increase in relative housing cost in San Francisco.

**R8RBOB** · February-25-10, 09:24 PM

This was a bad comparison. You can't compare Detroit to San Francisco. It is not even apples to oranges but more like a boulder to a pebble.

**mwilbert** · February-25-10, 09:45 PM

This was a bad comparison. You can't compare Detroit to San Francisco. It is not even apples to oranges but more like a boulder to a pebble.

I thought it was an interesting and relevant fact. I'm not claiming that metro Detroit should or could be metro San Francisco, but neither should it be expected that the residents of the Detroit area suffer a forty-year decline in income relative to the residents of the Bay area.

If people don't think it's interesting or relevant, OK. I'd like to think that Detroit can learn something from other places that have been more successful over the past half-century. There aren't any places so similar to Detroit that those lessons wouldn't need some interpretation and adaptation.

**ghettopalmetto** · February-25-10, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

This was a bad comparison. You can't compare Detroit to San Francisco. It is not even apples to oranges but more like a boulder to a pebble.

I think that was the point.

lilpup · February-25-10, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I thought it was an interesting and relevant fact. I'm not claiming that metro Detroit should or could be metro San Francisco, but neither should it be expected that the residents of the Detroit area suffer a forty-year decline in income relative to the residents of the Bay area.

If people don't think it's interesting or relevant, OK. I'd like to think that Detroit can learn something from other places that have been more successful over the past half-century. There aren't any places so similar to Detroit that those lessons wouldn't need some interpretation and adaptation.

It amazes me that people constantly look at Detroit as if it exists and functions in a vacuum and isn't affected by policies and practices beyond its control.

How, exactly, does San Francisco come by its wealth and is it sustainable long term or are we talking stupid finance and real estate games here?

**eno** · February-25-10, 10:35 PM

If you're going to Detroit City
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair
If you're going to Detroit City
You're gonna meet some gentle people there

**Don K** · February-25-10, 11:54 PM

This is an interesting data series, and it would be really good to see it expanded to other metro areas. Then you could see if there are any commonalities about the metro areas that have done relatively well, and any lessons for the metro areas that haven't.

Look, we all know metro Detroit [[suburbs as well as the city) hasn't done well relative to the rest of the country since about the 60's, and if we're honest with ourselves we'll admit it's because the metro area chained itself to the auto industry a long time ago and this industry has been growing slower than the rest of the economy for quite a while. I say that as a proud retiree from one of the local car companies who was nevertheless appalled at the area's dependence on one industry for its prosperity. Face it, auto employment ain't coming back to any substantial extent, so the area has to find new ways to support itself.

It's a good thing to look at other areas and see what they've done differently to recover after one industry has declined. San Francisco may not be the best example, because they have climate and scenery Detroit just can't match. How about the Twin Cities? They have crappier winter weather than we do, and no more exciting scenery [[I know, I lived there a while), and at least to outward appearances have a much more resilient economy than we do. What have they done differently to make this happen?

**kryptonite** · February-26-10, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by tangerine

It's not totally as bad as it looks because diring that same time period the cost of living in SF skyrocketted so that the income dispartity in real dollar terms is not quite so drastic.

You have a good point. A friend of mine recently was giving serious thought to moving back to San Francisco, so she visited SF for a long vacation last year and decided that the quality of life was better here. Specifically, the cost of housing here and the nightmare of trying to find parking in San Francisco.

Of course we don't have to worry about major earthquakes here, but San Francisco has a healthy economy, booming tourist business, and beautiful scenery.

Retroit · February-26-10, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

Here is a graph comparing incomes...

Not quite. This is a graph comparing income per capita. In other words, total income divided by total population, not just those working. So, if you have a population with a large percentage of single people or childless couples, like you would expect in a city with a significant gay population, then more of your total population is working and you would expect a higher per capita income.

Now, it may be true that the incomes of those working is higher in SF, but this chart doesn't prove that.

**iheartthed** · February-26-10, 02:01 PM

My critique of this comparison: you can't really conclude from it that San Francisco is doing something right or that Detroit is doing something wrong. The Bay Area is to U.S. during the tech era what Detroit was during the industrial era. I think you would need take several metropolitan areas and chart their levels of prosperity in relation to the Detroit area to make a point.

**iheartthed** · February-26-10, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

Not quite. This is a graph comparing income per capita. In other words, total income divided by total population, not just those working. So, if you have a population with a large percentage of single people or childless couples, like you would expect in a city with a significant gay population, then more of your total population is working and you would expect a higher per capita income.

Now, it may be true that the incomes of those working is higher in SF, but this chart doesn't prove that.

This is only relevant if indeed the San Francisco area does have significantly more unmarried people as a percentage of the population. I highly doubt this is the case.

**Danny** · February-26-10, 02:24 PM

Detroit: BIG BLACK GHETTO

San Francisco: BIG ASIAN AND HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY

Detroit: Downtown is a ghetto.

San Francisco: Downtown is like living in Emerald City.

Detroit: Neighborhoods are a ghetto and flat everywhere.

San Francisco: Neighborhoods are nice and hilly.

Buying a house in Detroit is like buying a 25 cent plastic fruit juice container at a local liquor store.

Buying a house in San Francisco is like buying a house in Beverly Hills, California.

Detroit has a first Black mayor named Coleman Young.

San Francisco has a first gay city councilman named Harvey Milk.

Detroit once had a Chinatown at Skid Row to Cass Corridor.

San Francisco once has a Hippie and Flowerchidren community on Haight and Ashbury Streets.

Detroit gets racial quakes.

San Francisco gets Earthqaukes.

Detroit has a nice green island Park called Belle Isle.

San Franciso has abandon Prison Island called Alcatraz.

Detroit has the Ambassdor Bridge to Canada.

San Francisco has the Golden Gate Bridge to nowhere.

How you all like that comparison?

**EMG** · February-26-10, 02:55 PM

You forgot:

Detroit has Coney Islands.

San Francisco has Rice-A-Roni.

**kryptonite** · February-26-10, 03:30 PM

My first trip ever to SF will be a four day work trip in April. I am looking forward to seeing the city for the first time. I don't expect to notice any similarities whatsoever other than both Detroit and SanFran are big cities. I wish we had many of SF's benefits such as diversified economy etc. But we get what we get and I didn't ask to be born here. Still it's always nice to visit someplace new and nice to return home.