Businessweek's top ten cities in USA to live
 

Top Ten US cities to live

Hmm, no Chicago or Houston


10 - San Fran, Median household income: $90,640

9 - Seattle, Median household income: $90,303

8 - DC, Median household income: $72,110

7 - Boston, Median household income: $62,180

6 - Portland, Median household income: $65,554

5 - Denver, Median household income: $59,155

4 - NYC, Median household income: $58,608

3 - Austin, Median household income: $65,886

2 - San Diego, Median household income: $79,269

1 - St Paul, Median household income: $60,987

Wow, Seattle and San Francisco gotta be expensive! That's some impressive income.

I spend some time in San Francisco and the area north of there, to be honest, I have no clue how you could make it on 90k there.

Guessing they don't factor in density of libtards?

I think that NYC income is a bit low.

The gubmint, being you and me, make up the difference with no Federal taxes, food stamps and welfare.

Someones gotta help.:rofl:

lots of people commute in for work

SF is expensive to live. Single with no kids it would be fun on 90k. Married with a couple of kids with a single income it would be doable but not pleasant. I dont think I would live in SF with less than 300k a year. It would take closer to 500k to make it worthwhile. Plus if you bought a house with good parking and a backyard that wasn't a glorified alley you would need closer to a mil. Throw in close to work and have money for nice vacations and a mil is about the bottom end.

But when I was single and out of college with a good job up there I would have jumped at the chance to live in a studio near a club.

I used to live in Seattle, and have a lot of friends in San Francisco. $90,000 doesn't go that far in Seattle. $90,000 goes nowhere in San Francisco.

Im happy-as-hell living in Kentucky on $35K a year :)

screw those over-priced lib-tard cities!!!

Income numbers are way off. NYC and Boston, you clearly need more than that and not live in a dangerous neighborhood.

Double income family brings in 150-200 in Boston all day long.

I'd argue there is a lot more to do in SF, NYC and Boston than St Paul. Heck, I think, activity wise, I'd pick any of them over St Paul, no offense, eh?

In terms of money these lists are really stupid as they are never adjusted for local cost of living.

For example Dallas v. San Francisco.....

http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salar...city2=50667000

To be fair the original article did list things other than pay.

These lists are often silly anyway. This one I suspect it is talking about the metro areas. DC? Really?

Sure. But most of the other things are really dumb too. Like parks per 1000 people etc.

Editor: "We need a fluff piece about the top 10 good places to live. Use some data so we don't look stupid."

Writer: "Okay." Proceeds to pull stuff off of Wikipedia at random.

It probably took them all of a hour to write it up, maybe another hour to do his "research."

NYC isn't just the borough of Manhattan...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...rk_City#Income

They have to write something to get paid. I don't think they put much more thought into it than "Top ten Glock accessories" or "We test the top ten plunge routers" or whatever. Just filling up space and making ad revenue with whatever people will read.

Precisely right IMO.

Are you surprised? Chicago should not be apart of the US. Houston went way downhill after Katrina.

Weather should factor into the experience of living somewhere. From what I have heard (I've never been), San Francisco has a great climate.

What I don't like about KY is the weather, this past summer it was over 100 several days and just plain miserable. I remember the summer before that was really bad, but not as ridiculous as this year. Granted, last winter was incredibly mild. Some winters are just to the point of unreal, like an ice storm that pretty much disabled us for 3 weeks.

DC is a **** hole. I can't imagine being forced to live there.

One of the top ten in terms of what? Crime and drugs???