Here Are the 33 Richest Cities in the U.S. (http://places.findthehome.com/stories/3389/33-richest-cities-u-s?utm_medium=cm&utm_source=outbrain&utm_campaign=ao.cm.ob.dt.3389&utm_term=dt#Intro)

Still using old stock photos to represent Oklahoma City. Sad.

What a joke that list is. They use the percentage of incomes over $150,000 to determine the "richest" cities. The problem is that incomes don't determine squat when it comes to the richest cities. Not these days. These days, wealth is all important. Wealth & income are two very different things.

As for the stock image - I agree. But what about poor #25 Fresno? Here's the picture used (remember, this is a list of the 'richest' cities).

http://i.imgur.com/h2ANuuy.jpg

Touché. Poor Fresno. :(

I think that's the most upscale part of Fresno.

The last time I was in Fresno was about 40 years ago. It looks about the same based on that pic.

As ridiculous as all these lists are, one thing about them all is that OKC is at least considered as part of the discussion now. 20 years ago, we probably wouldn't even have been on their radar!!!!

Yeah I agree this a pretty silly way to measure how "rich" a city is. For example, of those families in Los Angeles making over 150k, what percentage of them are actually able to put anything away for savings? Probably a pretty low number considering how expensive it is to live out there. Can they even contribute much to their 401K or IRA? And something else that always baffles me when people put together these stupid lists, why the hell is this the Top 33? What city was at 34 that wasn't deserving enough to expand their ranking? Shouldnt they have cut it off at 20, 25, or 30? Or was the website based out of one the few lower tiered cities, or what other agenda was factored in.

The last time I was in Fresno was about 40 years ago. It looks about the same based on that pic.

That picture looks like it was taken 40 years ago.

Not only that, but it was apparently taken through a windshield. You can see what appears to be dirt on the glass.

In all fairness, up until a few years ago most views of downtown were through a windshield.

In all fairness, up until a few years ago most views of downtown were through a windshield.

:yeahthat:

I think it is the 33 largest cities in the USA (over 500,000 residents). So OKC would naturally be on this list 'somewhere' as would all of the other cities included - such as poor Fresno.

Notice no mention of Miami or Atlanta or KC or St Louis or Tampa or Salt Lake. ... Those are all under 500K but surely are quite 'rich' cities and are more known for their metropolitan population and scope.

OKC isn't really more known due to its metro area, other than making it into the larger than '1 million' club. OKC is really, Oklahoma City and a collection of bedroom suburbs that don't really add anything other than being close to the big city. OKC might likely be ranked lower if it were on metro raking and it would need to be the top 45 metros for OKC to even be considered.

I think it is the 33 largest cities in the USA (over 500,000 residents). So OKC would naturally be on this list 'somewhere' as would all of the other cities included - such as poor Fresno.

Notice no mention of Miami or Atlanta or KC or St Louis or Tampa or Salt Lake. ... Those are all under 500K but surely are quite 'rich' cities and are more known for their metropolitan population and scope.

OKC isn't really more known due to its metro area, other than making it into the larger than '1 million' club. OKC is really, Oklahoma City and a collection of bedroom suburbs that don't really add anything other than being close to the big city. OKC might likely be ranked lower if it were on metro raking and it would need to be the top 45 metros for OKC to even be considered.

Very good catch about Miami proper versus the metropolitan area. But it's also one of those cities I was thinking of when I said going by percent of incomes over $150,000 is ridiculous. Miami, even if it had been included, may not have ranked all that high. Yet, it's one of the richest cities in the entire country. Miami has an enormous amount of wealth.

Hot Rod, the only thing I'd say to that is that every major city is made larger by its suburbs. If for nothing else, it's more population base. Think what Chicago, LA, Houston, etc. would all be if only the city-proper was there. Heck, in Dallas, a "burb" (FTW) is a city in its own right. I mean the list is pretty silly because as pointed out, there are quite a few metro areas that speak directly to my point. The city-proper may even be under 500k, but the metro may be 3 times OKC's metro.

cheers! but still good to be on the list regardless of the wacky computation methodology. :)

Hot Rod, the only thing I'd say to that is that every major city is made larger by its suburbs. If for nothing else, it's more population base. Think what Chicago, LA, Houston, etc. would all be if only the city-proper was there. Heck, in Dallas, a "burb" (FTW) is a city in its own right. I mean the list is pretty silly because as pointed out, there are quite a few metro areas that speak directly to my point. The city-proper may even be under 500k, but the metro may be 3 times OKC's metro.

Agree with this. Metro area is always the more important population figure. Otherwise, El Paso would be much more important than Atlanta and we all know that isn't the case.