<p>btw, just going by the links you provided me with...the wiki link says...</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
In August of 2005, the median price of an average one family, two bedroom, one bath, home in the San Fernando Valley reached over $600,000.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>the nytimes article you sent me to says the following:</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
''Amazingly enough, what is often considered an average house price on Long Island today is between $300,000 and $500,000, because upscale has increased to $750,000 to over a million,'' she said. ''Many of those buying for $400,000 and $500,000 are first-time buyers in a category once reserved for second-time home buyers who were moving up.''
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>There's one major problem with your argument... the nytimes article you cite for your evidence is over 4 years old. </p>
<p>Your evidence still really doesn't prove much because you're comparing the whole strip of long island to an up-scale small residential area of 200 square miles...</p>
<p>huge difference...that's why the averages are skewed in your favor... because it includes the poorer surrounding areas within the average...</p>
<p>if you want to make a comparison...do some research on the hamptons and compare it...</p>
<p>you're taking out one small piece of the pie (one small area)... and comparing it to the entire strip of long island...and as i said... your data and your argument based on these numbers is flawed...</p>
<p>You made a strong assertion (cost of living in area x is much higher than area y.) You then provided NO evidence for this assertion.</p>
<p>I gave an example (the San Fernando Valley) of typical housing costs in Los Angeles. In fact, I bet that costs in the Valley are fairly high-middle or middle-of-the-road for most of the Los Angeles area. I then compared it to an average area of Long Island (Queens, Suffolk, Nassau).</p>
<p>However, the funny part? I didn't make the assertion. YOU did. And you're upset with me for at least attempting to offer a rough comparison of housing costs? Funny.</p>
<p>Scom: The only point you have made is that NYC is expensive which I am sure everyone will agree with. Then you try to lump in "surrounding areas" and say they are expensive. Your logic definately seems off. Just because NYC is ranked 13th does not also mean that New Jersey is...</p>
<p>I agree. I have lived in both places and they are both expensive. New Jersey and NYC however are not the same place. Even if you live in Brooklyn or Queens the price drops significantly from Manhattan.</p>
<p>NYC and the surrounding area is expensive.. LA and its surround area is expensive.... I do not think there is a clear "winner" so to speak if indeed the goal is to figure out the most expensive place to live... </p>
<p>California is FILLED with HIGH priced real estate. From Norcal to Socal. </p>
<p>NYC is the biggest/the best/the most expensive/the this the that blah blah blah, NOBODY CARES. we've been to nyc...and we all know living there is extremely expensive.....</p>
<p>but any idiots should know that california is LOADED with expensive real estate...from san diego to la to san francisco, san jose, and tons of cities in between. PLEASE do not bother comparing NYC and its surrounding cities.......to a state with the population and economic strength of california. california the state vs the new york city area?...is this a joke lol dont let NYC's charm and size and overpopulation fool you. just because it has a ton of rich folks/tall office buildings/expensive restaurants. does not mean its more powerful than the most populated state in the us.</p>