Living in a parking lot in Santa Barbara(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Living in a parking lot in Santa Barbara
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-safe-parking-20171224-story.html
208 comments
I'll be facing this soon as well, at least they've got RV's. After getting back from my third open house for the week, with double digit atendees, I think the bay area just isn't for me. A perfect credit score and a job making double the median wage is not enough to land a 1 bedroom apartment apparently. I'll probably end up sleeping on someones couch for a few months to finish my work contract, and get out of this hellscape for somewhere people can actually live.
I grew up in California. It's a beautiful place. But I fail to understand the point of living or doing business there in 2017. High state taxes, high crime rates (that will only get higher as more people are driven to homelessness), impossible housing market, etc. I now live in Nevada. I can easily drive or fly to California for vacation if I want, housing is relatively reasonable, and there are no state taxes.
If you are doing consulting that can be done remotely, live in Nevada and fly to California when you need. Flights are cheap and plentiful. If you're running or starting a web-based business, then you can run that from pretty much anywhere, and you'd be insane to do it in California with such a punitive tax system. There's just no point to living in California these days.
If you are doing consulting that can be done remotely, live in Nevada and fly to California when you need. Flights are cheap and plentiful. If you're running or starting a web-based business, then you can run that from pretty much anywhere, and you'd be insane to do it in California with such a punitive tax system. There's just no point to living in California these days.
> high crime rates (that will only get higher as more people are driven to homelessness), impossible housing market, etc. I now live in Nevada
What on earth are you talking about? You live in the state that is in the top 5 for violent crime rates. California doesn't even break the top 15.
What on earth are you talking about? You live in the state that is in the top 5 for violent crime rates. California doesn't even break the top 15.
This is why statistics never tell the full story. In California, ten people could be murdered outside your home every night versus one per week in Wyoming and Wyoming would still have the worse crime-rate.
Statistically sound, factually accurate, but still Wyoming would feel safer.
You also need to factor in the type of crime. If the only people getting shot are gang members then the crime-rate won't feel as close to home.
Statistically sound, factually accurate, but still Wyoming would feel safer.
You also need to factor in the type of crime. If the only people getting shot are gang members then the crime-rate won't feel as close to home.
You have to look at crime rates in the specific area where you live, because they are all over the place and sometimes vary from street to street. Certainly you wouldn’t say that all California neighborhoods are equal in this regard. The area I live in (in Nevada) is upscale and has a violent crime rate more than 50% below the national average.
If you think about it that way, Chicago and Orlando are probably OK if you choose the right area.
Some of us can't work remote, some people will pay extra for good weather, some people like the ocean a lot. Everyone is different.
> There's just no point to living in California these days.
There's an ocean, fantastic and constantly improving dining scene, beautiful people, the best national parks in the country, a gorgeous and diverse landscape, great weather that allows you to go skiing and surfing in the same day, arguably the best/tastiest crops and accompanying farmers markets in the nation, cultural attractions such as a top 5 symphony orchestra, iconic music venues, fully legalized marijuana, high quality illegal drugs from being right on the border, population diversity, high quality meetup groups (specifically thinking of BioCurious), and, most importantly, a high concentration of engineering talent.
That's not to mention the perks of living in a world class city. I get to demo things like Microsoft's HoloLens for free at a meetup at their Santa Monica campus, go to Hacker Nights at Riot Studios, attend a free presentation by Robert Sapolsky, watch SpaceX rocket launches and be a part of a very dense, helpful, and talented developer and entrepreneurial community.
The total compensation for the average engineer in LA is around $150k. I do this and work some side gigs. Maybe I can't afford private jets or a yacht, but I have very little material desires.
There is no amount of money that could convince me to spend the bulk of my time in the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, or any other place in the US that offers tax advantages outside of Florida. (No offense to anyone who lives there, it's just not for me).
I see and agree with your contention if you find most or all of the above meaningless. I did the whole big fish, small pond thing before in Michigan and didn't like it, but I see how others can appreciate the differences. It's downright arrogant to call anyone who chooses to live in California insane just because you're over it.
There's an ocean, fantastic and constantly improving dining scene, beautiful people, the best national parks in the country, a gorgeous and diverse landscape, great weather that allows you to go skiing and surfing in the same day, arguably the best/tastiest crops and accompanying farmers markets in the nation, cultural attractions such as a top 5 symphony orchestra, iconic music venues, fully legalized marijuana, high quality illegal drugs from being right on the border, population diversity, high quality meetup groups (specifically thinking of BioCurious), and, most importantly, a high concentration of engineering talent.
That's not to mention the perks of living in a world class city. I get to demo things like Microsoft's HoloLens for free at a meetup at their Santa Monica campus, go to Hacker Nights at Riot Studios, attend a free presentation by Robert Sapolsky, watch SpaceX rocket launches and be a part of a very dense, helpful, and talented developer and entrepreneurial community.
The total compensation for the average engineer in LA is around $150k. I do this and work some side gigs. Maybe I can't afford private jets or a yacht, but I have very little material desires.
There is no amount of money that could convince me to spend the bulk of my time in the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, or any other place in the US that offers tax advantages outside of Florida. (No offense to anyone who lives there, it's just not for me).
I see and agree with your contention if you find most or all of the above meaningless. I did the whole big fish, small pond thing before in Michigan and didn't like it, but I see how others can appreciate the differences. It's downright arrogant to call anyone who chooses to live in California insane just because you're over it.
Have you considered Washington state as a tax-advantaged state? No state or capital gains income tax. Portland and Seattle are both accessible.
Move outside the city. I lived in Pacifica. Pretty much anything along BART is easy to get into the city. I parked at Colma where fortunately the dead don't drive :-)
Pacifica was awesome because you're just a hill from the hustle and bustle but it felt like a detached town. So many nice people there. Hwy 1 is annoying at rush hour (or most hours) but it was a really nice community.
Pacifica was awesome because you're just a hill from the hustle and bustle but it felt like a detached town. So many nice people there. Hwy 1 is annoying at rush hour (or most hours) but it was a really nice community.
Same. Moved out to Oakland, I can easily get studios and 1Bdrm apt's (they cannot fill my condo). Takes me 20mins to get into work on BART.
I don't like the term "Fake News" because journalism is alive and strong today, but the media certainly has its narratives and loves picking and choosing stories. The reality is just a lot more boring.
I don't like the term "Fake News" because journalism is alive and strong today, but the media certainly has its narratives and loves picking and choosing stories. The reality is just a lot more boring.
I’m confused - what trouble are you having? I moved here 5 months ago and had no problem getting an apartment.
Same here, moved to the East Bay 18 months ago, have a great 1bdrm apartment.
How much do you two make vs the cost of your rent?
I suspect the person you're replying to may not have anywhere near the means you have.
I suspect the person you're replying to may not have anywhere near the means you have.
Since you asked our rent (1brdm in-law in Piedmont) is about 22% of our combined take home net pay. However the OP says he makes double the median income, so he should be fine. I've seen nice (but small) 1bdrm apartments in good neighborhoods in Oakland for under 2k/month, you can find cheaper if you are willing to live in less desirable areas.
Op said he makes double the median income. That is more than enough to find a place to rent.
You make $160k and cannot get a one bedroom apartment in SF? I don't think the prices are that high.
I was going to say. The rental market is way better now than 2 years ago. Many more "for rent" signs now and rents seemed to have come down a little.
Maybe the OP is only looking at the super low end of the market (will only rent a sub-$2000 per month 1-bed). No doubt those would be hard to lock down.
Maybe the OP is only looking at the super low end of the market (will only rent a sub-$2000 per month 1-bed). No doubt those would be hard to lock down.
Where are there open houses for 1 bedroom apartments?
Note: While I am in the bay area, I am not in the SF-specific market.
Note: While I am in the bay area, I am not in the SF-specific market.
I've seen open houses for 1bdrms in Oakland, not all apartments but some of them would have them. From my experience they tented to be smaller and cheaper units that would rent easily.
I don't think you're facing what they're facing. Sounds like you make quite a bit more than the people profiled in this article.
His anecdote is more powerful because of his income. You'd expect someone with low income to have trouble finding housing... that's a problem, but the situation makes sense. When someone struggles to find housing while making multiples of middle income, something is deeply fucked. That says a lot about how bad it is for everyone else.
>You'd expect someone with low income to have trouble finding housing... that's a problem, but the situation makes sense. When someone struggles to find housing while making multiples of middle income, something is deeply fucked. That says a lot about how bad it is for everyone else.
I... disagree that upper middle income immigrants having a hard time says anything definitive about the situation of the local poor, at least in the bay area. There are lots of laws and rules made to benefit the poor long term residents at the expense of those upper-middle income newer immigrants.
My least-employed little brother works in a hardware store in San Francisco. He's got a beautiful rent-controlled apartment with an ocean view. Sure I have a lot more freedom than he does, in that I could get into a apartment around here, but... paying market rate for his apartment would be difficult even on my income. I mean, I could do it, but it would necessitate lifestyle changes.
California mostly charges you property tax based on what you paid originally for your house, which means that of the lower income people I know around here? more of them own or live with friends/family who own than rent.
I mean, I'm not saying that the poor don't have it hard... I am just pointing out that we have laws that help people who have been here for a long time, laws that seem to make things easier for the lower income, and laws that actively make life difficult for the new arrivals.
I... disagree that upper middle income immigrants having a hard time says anything definitive about the situation of the local poor, at least in the bay area. There are lots of laws and rules made to benefit the poor long term residents at the expense of those upper-middle income newer immigrants.
My least-employed little brother works in a hardware store in San Francisco. He's got a beautiful rent-controlled apartment with an ocean view. Sure I have a lot more freedom than he does, in that I could get into a apartment around here, but... paying market rate for his apartment would be difficult even on my income. I mean, I could do it, but it would necessitate lifestyle changes.
California mostly charges you property tax based on what you paid originally for your house, which means that of the lower income people I know around here? more of them own or live with friends/family who own than rent.
I mean, I'm not saying that the poor don't have it hard... I am just pointing out that we have laws that help people who have been here for a long time, laws that seem to make things easier for the lower income, and laws that actively make life difficult for the new arrivals.
Just in case someone reads the above comment the wrong way: Rent control in San Francisco is not tied to a tenants income but rather the age of the building.
It’s entirely possible for someone who works in a wealthy person job (tech) to have a rent controlled apartment.
It’s entirely possible for someone who works in a wealthy person job (tech) to have a rent controlled apartment.
Same with prop 13, you can make 2million/yr and pay $5000 in property tax on your (current market rate) $3M house.
His anecdote is more powerful because of his income
Or more likely, his anecdote is made-up because of his income. Alternatively, his income is made-up because of his anecdote.
It's not hard to find accommodation in SF (let alone the East Bay) with a $150k/yr income. Something is being exaggerated.
Or more likely, his anecdote is made-up because of his income. Alternatively, his income is made-up because of his anecdote.
It's not hard to find accommodation in SF (let alone the East Bay) with a $150k/yr income. Something is being exaggerated.
There is a linguistic problem here - extending the term 'middle class' to hide prevailing poverty in the US.
You are not middle class if:
- you will lose home, car if you are out of job for 6-10 months;
- you don't take 30 days vacation a year;
- you cannot afford health services without going to debt;
- you cannot send your kids to university;
- your diet is mostly junk food because you can't afford fresh stuff.
If some of the above is true, you are poor.
You are not middle class if:
- you will lose home, car if you are out of job for 6-10 months;
- you don't take 30 days vacation a year;
- you cannot afford health services without going to debt;
- you cannot send your kids to university;
- your diet is mostly junk food because you can't afford fresh stuff.
If some of the above is true, you are poor.
I agree with you, though in the replies you are seeing the difference between how OECD countries define "poor" and how Americans defines "poor".
The vast majority of people in Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc. would be disgusted by how much "middle class" Americans work, how little vacation they get and how much they get for their tax dollars.
In the eyes of virtually every Developed Country, "middle class" Americans are poor.
Of course, Americans don't have this perspective, because they are in it, they can't see it.
The vast majority of people in Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc. would be disgusted by how much "middle class" Americans work, how little vacation they get and how much they get for their tax dollars.
In the eyes of virtually every Developed Country, "middle class" Americans are poor.
Of course, Americans don't have this perspective, because they are in it, they can't see it.
You seem to have left out the fact that Americans make much more than their Canadian, Western European, or Australian counterparts?
A developer that makes $160k in Seattle would top out at 55k euro in Berlin. But you can get a 1/bd flat for <600eu a month in Berlin, where as in Seattle, you'll be paying over $2k.
Not even taking into account that a Germany resident could get public health care, lower cost for transportation, and could live and work in most areas without ever needing a car.
There is considerably less income inequality. Because your specific profession makes less isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Not even taking into account that a Germany resident could get public health care, lower cost for transportation, and could live and work in most areas without ever needing a car.
There is considerably less income inequality. Because your specific profession makes less isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Income is only relevant when you factor in the cost of living.
Also, my point is exactly that many countries consider you "poor" if you have to work 70+ hours per week and get 2 weeks (or no) leave, even if you make $150k. That's why I said many OECD countries consider Americans "poor". (in quotes). Not poor in the sense of not much money, but "poor" in the broader sense.
Also, my point is exactly that many countries consider you "poor" if you have to work 70+ hours per week and get 2 weeks (or no) leave, even if you make $150k. That's why I said many OECD countries consider Americans "poor". (in quotes). Not poor in the sense of not much money, but "poor" in the broader sense.
Make much more money yes.
But how much of that gap is left if you factor in things like health care, access to education and infrastructure?
But how much of that gap is left if you factor in things like health care, access to education and infrastructure?
Just checked. Scandinavian countries, Australia and Luxembourg have higher median household income than the U.S.
This summer I worked at a startup in Luxembourg. I overheard a job interview my boss conducted, where an Australian with a PhD in machine learning asked for EUR60k as a salary. My boss decided to offer him EUR50k.
Costs of living in Luxembourg are about the same as in Santa Barbara (where I currently live).
I think median salaries in Luxembourg might be skewed by the presence of a large financial market (it's kind of a Wall St of Europe).
Costs of living in Luxembourg are about the same as in Santa Barbara (where I currently live).
I think median salaries in Luxembourg might be skewed by the presence of a large financial market (it's kind of a Wall St of Europe).
My impression is that it's the other way around; working in the computer industry carries a higher pay premium (vs. working in some other field) in Silicon Valley than it does anywhere else. So while a chef might be better off in Luxembourg, the software engineer is better off in silicon valley.
You might be right, but 50k is way too low for a software engineer anywhere in US.
What are you talking about?
The prevailing wage law of the H1B is only $60k, and these are for the best and brightest workers our mega corps need, due to a lack of qualified US workers.
So obviously, $50k is more than adequate. /s
The prevailing wage law of the H1B is only $60k, and these are for the best and brightest workers our mega corps need, due to a lack of qualified US workers.
So obviously, $50k is more than adequate. /s
So like 20 million people? What about the countries that make up the vast majority of Europe? Median income is much higher in the US than in UK, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy.
Not by much if you deduct retirement benefits, healthcare costs and education.
Those countries are small; the total population between them is less than any of UK, France, Japan or Germany, which indeed have a lower PPP per capita than the US. The nations you mentioned also have the advantage of being the "best" countries in their respective regions attracting lots of high skilled immigrants and FDI etc.
As someone who has lived in both the US and Canada as a middle class person, I'm way better off in the US.
> take 30 days vacation a year
If you're making 7 figures (i.e. >$1M/year) you can afford to save $0.5M/year. After ten years or so you can retire. I think that counts as being able to "afford" (an average of) 30 days off/year.
so, there's what, 11 standard paid holidays, so 30 days off would be 'four weeks of vacation' - The set of people who make more than a million dollars a year who can't negotiate four weeks of vacation... I think is small.
There's this persistent myth of the driven executive... I mean, I guess it's possible that other fields of endeavor are different? but everywhere I've worked? the more they pay you, the better they treat you, the more vacation you get, and ultimately the less you are expected to actually work.
There's this persistent myth of the driven executive... I mean, I guess it's possible that other fields of endeavor are different? but everywhere I've worked? the more they pay you, the better they treat you, the more vacation you get, and ultimately the less you are expected to actually work.
Would you please consider that not everyone works in the same field as you?
I worked on a trading floor with a trader, early 30s, very profitable and well respected. Took a week off to go to the Mediterranean with his girlfriend (from what I hear, he proposed to her on that trip). Had his mandatory two-week vacation the next month. While he was away on that two-week vacation, I heard several people, including the group head, criticizing him behind his back for taking so much time off -- despite every trader on that floor having four weeks of vacation, two contiguous weeks of which were mandatory.
Just because something hasn't happened in your own experience, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in other sectors. This guy was the right-hand man to his boss and he still got criticized for taking his mandatory vacation.
I once took a single day of vacation to finish moving into my new apartment, and I was made fun of publicly and criticized for it by a number of semi-senior people who weren't even in my chain of command.
Not every company has a culture of asynchronicity, and not every career path offers a healthy balance of work and life. There is also a difference between having vacation days, and being able to take them without hurting your reputation and compensation.
If people are depending on you to be perpetually present, prepared, and profitable -- whether as a trader, an executive, or any other role -- there's social pressure to minimize vacation. And that pressure is amplified in the culturally dog-eat-dog industries, I reckon.
I worked on a trading floor with a trader, early 30s, very profitable and well respected. Took a week off to go to the Mediterranean with his girlfriend (from what I hear, he proposed to her on that trip). Had his mandatory two-week vacation the next month. While he was away on that two-week vacation, I heard several people, including the group head, criticizing him behind his back for taking so much time off -- despite every trader on that floor having four weeks of vacation, two contiguous weeks of which were mandatory.
Just because something hasn't happened in your own experience, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in other sectors. This guy was the right-hand man to his boss and he still got criticized for taking his mandatory vacation.
I once took a single day of vacation to finish moving into my new apartment, and I was made fun of publicly and criticized for it by a number of semi-senior people who weren't even in my chain of command.
Not every company has a culture of asynchronicity, and not every career path offers a healthy balance of work and life. There is also a difference between having vacation days, and being able to take them without hurting your reputation and compensation.
If people are depending on you to be perpetually present, prepared, and profitable -- whether as a trader, an executive, or any other role -- there's social pressure to minimize vacation. And that pressure is amplified in the culturally dog-eat-dog industries, I reckon.
compare this to your average retail job, where not only do you get zero paid vacation, and you get your schedule, if you are lucky, a week ahead.
As far as I can tell, this holds in the middle, too; I do okay, but I don't get paid like a very profitable broker, and I don't get four weeks vacation (not usually, anyhow... it is pretty easy for me to quit and get another job, of course, but that usually results in less of a raise than going from having a job to having another job.)
My point is just that there's a pretty strong correlation between getting paid more and being treated better in other ways. It's not an absolute correlation, certainly; but the fact that the man had four weeks off and had a job to come back to, I think, supports my assertion more than the fact he got criticized for taking it all at once detracts from it.
As far as I can tell, this holds in the middle, too; I do okay, but I don't get paid like a very profitable broker, and I don't get four weeks vacation (not usually, anyhow... it is pretty easy for me to quit and get another job, of course, but that usually results in less of a raise than going from having a job to having another job.)
My point is just that there's a pretty strong correlation between getting paid more and being treated better in other ways. It's not an absolute correlation, certainly; but the fact that the man had four weeks off and had a job to come back to, I think, supports my assertion more than the fact he got criticized for taking it all at once detracts from it.
> the less you are expected to actually work.
if you're talking about actual time spent working, may be. But the output for an expensive person needs to be high. Granted, how does one measure the output of a typical multi-million dollar CEO on bottom line performance (vs just good general economic conditions)?
if you're talking about actual time spent working, may be. But the output for an expensive person needs to be high. Granted, how does one measure the output of a typical multi-million dollar CEO on bottom line performance (vs just good general economic conditions)?
Yes, time spent working is exactly what I meant.
"I know people who earn seven figures who don't, and honestly can't, do this."
Don't want to? Sure. Can't? Wrong. They absolutely could.
Don't want to? Sure. Can't? Wrong. They absolutely could.
So pretty much every scientist at my (US) company is poor? Even uppermanagement in r&d. None of us see 30 days off per year. At most of is 25 after 2 decades.
I'd say 15 days instead of 30 seems fair number for America and probably 30 for europe
I'd say 15 days instead of 30 seems fair number for America and probably 30 for europe
I feel sorry for you.. buy yes.
you've never been a scientist, have you? The experiments don't care about how much vacation you're legally entitled to.
Sure, if you’re a lab rat or a PhD student.
I believe the correct terms are ambitious or accomplished.
Ambitious. Sure, but accomplished? Oh if only hard work necessarily equates to that...
Not as good a scientist as possibe unless it is so.
That's why they call it a LABORatory . . .
That's why they call it a LABORatory . . .
[deleted]
It's cheaper to buy fresh food than junk food. If you're buying junk food it's because you don't have a place to cook or you're too lazy to cook.
It could also be that you are too overworked to cook or that you are so illiquid that you cannot afford needed repairs.
You don't need to cook in order to eat well.
Salads are a thing.
Salads are a thing.
You need to do the dishes when done. I am familiar with people who are saving money in order to have the sewer lateral fixed.
Eat it out of the package that the stuff came in instead if cleaning is an issue
Poor student tricks work past being a student.
Poor student tricks work past being a student.
We're talking a single bowl here, and fork. If you're that hard up that you can't even wash something out with water. Clean it out with a towel, and use it again. Shit, as a bachelor, I do that now, and I've got plenty of cash.
I cook stews in a rice cooker w/ slow cook setting, and I eat the stew right out of the cooker pan. Cheap, healthy, quick and one (nonstick) dish to deal with.
My metric for food price is calories per penny. For example, the 760 calorie slice of pizza for $1.99 at Costco works out to about 3.8 calories per penny, while the 500 calorie Caesar salad for $3.99 works out to about 1.3 calories per penny. In my worked example, the fresh food is more expensive than the junk food from the point of view of 'How much money do I need to spend to keep myself alive today?' Could you post some examples of the calories per penny of the fresh food and junk food costs you are referring to?
A pound of uncooked white rice is $0.69, and it has 1696 calories, which works out to 24.6 calories per penny. That's about 19x better by your metric.
Yep, and it doesn't take much to turn that rice into a full meal. If you've got a freezer and a microwave, fresh-frozen veggies are a good alternative to always buying fresh veggies for the time constrained. It's a little more expensive but you lose virtually none of the health benefits and gain ease of preparation.
Throw some veggies in with the rice and some soy or teriyaki sauce, and you've got a healthy meal that is compatible with most diets. If you're a meat eater, you can cook some chicken breast to go with it; if not, some tofu for protein will help make it more filling.
Throw some veggies in with the rice and some soy or teriyaki sauce, and you've got a healthy meal that is compatible with most diets. If you're a meat eater, you can cook some chicken breast to go with it; if not, some tofu for protein will help make it more filling.
You have to factor in the time it takes to cook. Let's say you cook all the rice at once and it takes 20 minutes. At minimum wage of $7.25, that's $2.42 in addition to the 0.69 for the bag of rice, yielding 5.4 calories per penny, within the same order of magnitude as the prepared foods I gave as an example.
I acknowledge that a person's time isn't always tradable for wages, and that home cooking is generally cheaper and more satisfying.
I acknowledge that a person's time isn't always tradable for wages, and that home cooking is generally cheaper and more satisfying.
I don't find the time argument very compelling. It takes just a minute or two to boil water, you throw in the rice, and simmer for another twenty. Sure, it takes twenty two minutes, but twenty of those are just waiting. Normally I start the rice and then prepare the rest of the meal while it's simmering. Maybe 20-30 minutes for the whole meal.
Time-wise fast food isn't as efficient as it would seem at first glance. If you go during a normal meal time (which you pretty much have to do if you have kids), between travel time and waiting at the register, it's going to end up taking as long as a home cooked meal.
Time-wise fast food isn't as efficient as it would seem at first glance. If you go during a normal meal time (which you pretty much have to do if you have kids), between travel time and waiting at the register, it's going to end up taking as long as a home cooked meal.
Ground beef, even at whole foods comes out to about 2 calories / penny. Getting it at a regular store would put it at 3 to 4 calories per penny. Rice is 3.2 beans even better.
You can mix all these things in endless ways with a little creativity.
You can mix all these things in endless ways with a little creativity.
You can buy an entire sackful of potatoes for around the cost of two slices of pizza, and it'll last for weeks. Or several pounds of flour which will likewise last for a while--you could make your pizza bases in a few minutes if you wanted to, then just add the toppings you want. These are all vastly better value for money than buying pre-made food.
I don't buy for a moment that processed food is cheaper than the raw ingredients. The processing has a significant cost. The main factor for many people is pure laziness--they can't be bothered to spend 10 minutes preparing stuff; they'd rather waste money on processed food.
I don't buy for a moment that processed food is cheaper than the raw ingredients. The processing has a significant cost. The main factor for many people is pure laziness--they can't be bothered to spend 10 minutes preparing stuff; they'd rather waste money on processed food.
"I don't buy for a moment that processed food is cheaper than the raw ingredients. The processing has a significant cost. The main factor for many people is pure laziness--they can't be bothered to spend 10 minutes preparing stuff; they'd rather waste money on processed food."
When was the last time you worked multiple jobs, and had to take care for kids? That 10 minutes is not readily available.
When was the last time you worked multiple jobs, and had to take care for kids? That 10 minutes is not readily available.
> entire sackful of potatoes
if you have a kitchen to cook them, yes. else you probably have just a sack of vegetables that nobody could eat in his raw form. living in a box means eating pre-made food and you can buy healthy pre-made food (like the cesars salad) it's just not affordable.
if you have a kitchen to cook them, yes. else you probably have just a sack of vegetables that nobody could eat in his raw form. living in a box means eating pre-made food and you can buy healthy pre-made food (like the cesars salad) it's just not affordable.
I don't think a majority of people who are poor are lacking access to basic cookware or some means to cook food. You can purchase a brand new Crock-Pot for $15.
I do think there's an under appreciation for how time-poor most people are (moreso the less money you have). Or how a lack of basic cooking skills or knowledge keep people buying fast food instead of buying and preparing fresh, healthier food at home. I've invested a whole lot of time choosing recipes and learning how to buy, prepare, and store food. A friend of mine complained that going to the grocery store cost him more money than eating out. Turns out, he was just buying frozen dinners. One of my recent favorite meals to make is dried black beans, rice, and a shredded rotisserie chicken. The chicken is optional, the source ingredients are dry, less than $1/lb, freeze well after preparing, and don't require any special tools or skills.
While I think food insecurity is a huge concern for kids, the cost of food and the percentage of income being spent on food has halved over the last 50 years [1]. (I wish they showed what the lowest quintile was spending over time)
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/02/389578089/yo...
I do think there's an under appreciation for how time-poor most people are (moreso the less money you have). Or how a lack of basic cooking skills or knowledge keep people buying fast food instead of buying and preparing fresh, healthier food at home. I've invested a whole lot of time choosing recipes and learning how to buy, prepare, and store food. A friend of mine complained that going to the grocery store cost him more money than eating out. Turns out, he was just buying frozen dinners. One of my recent favorite meals to make is dried black beans, rice, and a shredded rotisserie chicken. The chicken is optional, the source ingredients are dry, less than $1/lb, freeze well after preparing, and don't require any special tools or skills.
While I think food insecurity is a huge concern for kids, the cost of food and the percentage of income being spent on food has halved over the last 50 years [1]. (I wish they showed what the lowest quintile was spending over time)
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/02/389578089/yo...
Nowaday you don’t need a kitchen to cook. Pizza/toaster oven, sous vide machine/crock pot/instapot, hot plate/griddle or George foreman or a blow torch, microwave and a fridge.
I thought those George Foreman grills were a gimmick (come on, they were selling it on informercials!), but a buddy of mine bought one and he swears by it.
We bought one for a family member with Alzheimer's for fear they would burn the house down otherwise.
Works fine but the burgers come out a bit dry.
Works fine but the burgers come out a bit dry.
I think that was part of the point of the parent comment.
This is a ridiculous comparison where you're cherry picking data. You're comparing something that is loaded with fat to something that is mostly water (the salad bit). Compare the slice of pizza to a can of beans from Walmart (https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Black-Beans-15-25-oz/...), 385 calories for 50 cents, and its pretty easily beat costwise and healthwise.
You could free fat from the Costco meat dept and have an infinite metric.
I'm not sure why you're being down voted here but you're pretty close to correct. There have been many recent studies showing fast food really isn't cheaper than buying other types of healthier food. It is pretty close because there are an incredible amount of low cost high calorie foods like beans, nuts, rice, cheap cuts of meat, the list goes on. Here is one from the UK Economic Affairs: https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Cheap-as-Chips...
The conclusion to save you a click: Food in the UK has never been more affordable and healthy food is generally cheaper than unhealthy food. A day’s diet that meets the requirements of the Eatwell Guide can be purchased for less than the price of two cheap supermarket ready-meals and for much less than a single meal at a fast food chain. Switching to healthier versions of many staple products can be achieved at no extra cost, and a wide range of fruit, vegetables and carbohydrates can be bought in supermarkets for less than £1 per kilogram. Five portions of fruit and vegetables can be purchased for as little as 30p.
Some studies that have come to the opposite conclusion have used a cost-per-calorie measure of food pricing which makes high-energy food appear expensive regardless of the cost of a meal. Others have compared a small selection of food products which are classified as ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’ on the basis of relatively minor differences. By looking at the cost by edible weight and studying the price of typical food portions, this report has been able to make better comparisons between the cost of healthy and unhealthy diets in Britain today.
We conclude that the real question is not why unhealthy food is so cheap but why people consume unhealthy food despite it being more expensive. The answer, we suggest, is that taste and convenience often play a larger role in people’s food choices than price or nutritional quality.
The conclusion to save you a click: Food in the UK has never been more affordable and healthy food is generally cheaper than unhealthy food. A day’s diet that meets the requirements of the Eatwell Guide can be purchased for less than the price of two cheap supermarket ready-meals and for much less than a single meal at a fast food chain. Switching to healthier versions of many staple products can be achieved at no extra cost, and a wide range of fruit, vegetables and carbohydrates can be bought in supermarkets for less than £1 per kilogram. Five portions of fruit and vegetables can be purchased for as little as 30p.
Some studies that have come to the opposite conclusion have used a cost-per-calorie measure of food pricing which makes high-energy food appear expensive regardless of the cost of a meal. Others have compared a small selection of food products which are classified as ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’ on the basis of relatively minor differences. By looking at the cost by edible weight and studying the price of typical food portions, this report has been able to make better comparisons between the cost of healthy and unhealthy diets in Britain today.
We conclude that the real question is not why unhealthy food is so cheap but why people consume unhealthy food despite it being more expensive. The answer, we suggest, is that taste and convenience often play a larger role in people’s food choices than price or nutritional quality.
>We conclude that the real question is not why unhealthy food is so cheap but why people consume unhealthy food despite it being more expensive. The answer, we suggest, is that taste and convenience often play a larger role in people’s food choices than price or nutritional quality.
I suggest you consider the fact that many people in the US, especially in poor, urban areas live in "food deserts" where there are no supermarkets close by that sell healthy food at reasonable costs.
http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/usda-defi...
If you are poor and have no vehicle you depend on mass transit. This costs both money and time. If you are poor and lucky enough to have a job, its likely to be a low-paying job with a lengthy commute (in terms of time, bus and train transfers, if not in distance). This leaves you very little free time to spend half of a day for a lengthy trip outside of your food desert to get some fresh food. There is also the issue of bringing your groceries home. Have you ever tried to ride the bus or the train while carrying a bunch of packages, especially when it is crowded? How about transferring buses and trains while trying to carrying several packages? Do you have a proper kitchen? Many poor people don't. Proper storage facilities and equipment? Most poor people have roaches.
These are just some of the collective obstacles faced by many poor people in terms of their access to fresh food.
I suggest you consider the fact that many people in the US, especially in poor, urban areas live in "food deserts" where there are no supermarkets close by that sell healthy food at reasonable costs.
http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/usda-defi...
If you are poor and have no vehicle you depend on mass transit. This costs both money and time. If you are poor and lucky enough to have a job, its likely to be a low-paying job with a lengthy commute (in terms of time, bus and train transfers, if not in distance). This leaves you very little free time to spend half of a day for a lengthy trip outside of your food desert to get some fresh food. There is also the issue of bringing your groceries home. Have you ever tried to ride the bus or the train while carrying a bunch of packages, especially when it is crowded? How about transferring buses and trains while trying to carrying several packages? Do you have a proper kitchen? Many poor people don't. Proper storage facilities and equipment? Most poor people have roaches.
These are just some of the collective obstacles faced by many poor people in terms of their access to fresh food.
>Lee also notes in her study that, on closer inspection, food deserts don’t actually exist in the U.S., at least not as a national problem—on average, poor neighborhoods have more grocery stores than wealthier neighborhoods.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2014/02/food_deserts...
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2014/02/food_deserts...
It's more likely that unhealthy food is the one source of pleasure that a poor person can afford, and with all the troubles of their lives, they may find solice in eating the delicious junk. Healthy food either takes a bunch of effort, or don't taste very good (unless you couple it with some expensive condiments/spices).
This is basically Scott Adams's "Pleasure Unit Theory", which I find very plausible: http://pratie.blogspot.com/2006/04/scott-adams-pleasure-unit... . If it's true, then developing healthy food that's convenient and tasty will do a lot more good than hectoring people about their bad decisions.
We can't fix everyone's problems. Hectoring may be bad, but at the end of the day a lot of change has to come from the people making bad decisions. Sacrifice for ones children should be the norm, otherwise they shouldn't be bringing them into such a suffering existence.
Tasteful, healthy food doesn't take that much effort, but you do have to know a little bit about cooking.
Or have the time to cook. Which is a very important criteria, as someone who works two jobs likely does not have the luxury of that amount of time.
by your measure most people in the USA are poor
I would guess about 80%+
I would guess about 80%+
Perhaps that's indicative not of a problem with the measure but rather of a) a disconnect between our society's self-perception and its reality and/or b) a problem with our economic system, the opportunities available in it, and the saving/spending norms it propagates?
this video tells what the average american thinks of the wealth distribution, vs reality (vs ideal): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
it's very enlightening.
it's very enlightening.
One interesting factoid I know is that 50% of Americans represent 2% of the income in America.
“The shrinking middle class” is a phrase that is part of common discourse here for a reason - I wouldn’t be surprised if 80% of Americans fit the parent comment’s definition.
“The shrinking middle class” is a phrase that is part of common discourse here for a reason - I wouldn’t be surprised if 80% of Americans fit the parent comment’s definition.
One interesting factoid I know is that 50% of Americans represent 2% of the income in America.
More like 15%: https://www.statista.com/statistics/203247/shares-of-househo...
More like 15%: https://www.statista.com/statistics/203247/shares-of-househo...
> One interesting factoid I know is that 50% of Americans represent 2% of the income in America.
Reference?
This recent study[1] suggests the bottom 50% income represents 12.5% pre-tax, 19.3% post-tax based on 2014 data.
[1] http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/PSZ2018QJE.pdf see p. 39, Table I
Reference?
This recent study[1] suggests the bottom 50% income represents 12.5% pre-tax, 19.3% post-tax based on 2014 data.
[1] http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/PSZ2018QJE.pdf see p. 39, Table I
That’s probably 2% of the wealth, not income. I believe that the bottom 80% of Americans together have something like 7 or 8% of US wealth.
I would like to remind everyone that the trillions of US debt is financed by a global elite who LITERALLY own America.
Which bullet points - if not all- would you exclude from the list to make it relevant ?
The only one which is not a routine part of the middle class experience these days is eating strictly junk food because you can't afford anything better.
Every other part of that entire list is, sadly enough, "normal middle class" in the US.
Every other part of that entire list is, sadly enough, "normal middle class" in the US.
Do you mean 30 days total vacation, or 30 days of elective pto in addition to company wide vacation days?
I don't know how this matters.
Relatively few companies I'm aware of offer 6 weeks pto. That requirement would put a senior engineer at google or Facebook not in the middle class, despite being in the top 1% of incomes.
How doesn't it matter? It's, for most employers, an 10-11 day difference.
I’m a senior developer in the Washington DC area and 1) I definitely do not take 30 days vacation per year and 2) I can assure you that I would lose my house and probably more if I was out of a job for 6-10 months. So I guess regardless of the very good salary I make, I’m poor?
You can make a good salary and still live paycheck-to-paycheck. If you can't afford a good, strong cushion (regardless of how good or bad your salary is), I'd consider that a certain degree of poor.
Middle class definitions vary but one of the easier to remember metrics is between 2/3rds and 2x the national median per capita gross income. (Tax burden, geography, number of dependents, all skew this simplistic measure.)
I'd like to agree with the vacation value, but I don't know any Americans other than myself taking 30 days of vacation a year. The very idea of 30 days vacation makes my friends panic, what would they do?!
Also, poor diet is related to poverty due mainly to bad nutritional education and bad habits learned at home, not affordability. Processed foods with a lot of sugar, salt, MSG added, manipulate the brain into wanting disproportionately more of these foods, which are primarily empty calories.
I'd like to agree with the vacation value, but I don't know any Americans other than myself taking 30 days of vacation a year. The very idea of 30 days vacation makes my friends panic, what would they do?!
Also, poor diet is related to poverty due mainly to bad nutritional education and bad habits learned at home, not affordability. Processed foods with a lot of sugar, salt, MSG added, manipulate the brain into wanting disproportionately more of these foods, which are primarily empty calories.
[deleted]
Yes, and by that criteria, most Americans are poor.
30 Days of vacation a year?
That's insane.
That's insane.
Norwegian here. 20 days a year is the legal minimum, while 25 days is the norm. I get 30 days a year while working for an American company, which is a bit ironic.
Don’t forget all the inneklemt days. May next year is a inneklemt bonanza. I doubt there will be much done at all in the country in May.
(It’s common in Norway to take any day that is between two off days off. So May 1st is a national holiday, next year it falls on a Tuesday, so that means many will take the Monday off, a so called innneklemt day. There’s a lot of holidays in May, and next year all of them creates inneklemt days.)
(It’s common in Norway to take any day that is between two off days off. So May 1st is a national holiday, next year it falls on a Tuesday, so that means many will take the Monday off, a so called innneklemt day. There’s a lot of holidays in May, and next year all of them creates inneklemt days.)
NZ has a minimum 4 weeks annual leave (20 days not counting weekends) plus 11 statutory public holidays. Australia is basically the same.
For regular, full time employees, 28 is typical in Germany. 24 is the legal minimum.
LA really needs to work on providing restrooms. The RV convoys aren't really that much of a problem themselves (some individuals are, but so can be those with homes). Instead what they leave behind is a problem - feces, urine and trash.
I'm sure most people would rather not do this on a sidewalk or under an overpass, but if they have no other option it's hard to blame them. To add insult to injury, city has proven uninterested in increasing sanitation work to at least clean this up. Now LA and San Diego are facing diseases most developed countries only read about.
I'm sure the city could organize a service to place mobile restrooms at a reasonable cost. I'd be more than willing to pay extra sales tax for this and it would generate jobs for companies that maintain them.
EDIT: It's worse than I thought - in skid row (granted this might be an extreme) 9 toilets for roughly 1800 people!
Source: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bathroom-protest...
I'm sure most people would rather not do this on a sidewalk or under an overpass, but if they have no other option it's hard to blame them. To add insult to injury, city has proven uninterested in increasing sanitation work to at least clean this up. Now LA and San Diego are facing diseases most developed countries only read about.
I'm sure the city could organize a service to place mobile restrooms at a reasonable cost. I'd be more than willing to pay extra sales tax for this and it would generate jobs for companies that maintain them.
EDIT: It's worse than I thought - in skid row (granted this might be an extreme) 9 toilets for roughly 1800 people!
Source: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bathroom-protest...
San Diego has been suffering a hepatitis outbreak and city health workers have had to sterilize downtown streets. It's hard to believe this is happening in an affluent country.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/sd-me-hepati...
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/sd-me-hepati...
Its always sad to hear how people doing the right things getting caught up in circumstances that puts them on the wrong side of the power curve with respect to keeping their heads above water.
I looked into the safe parking initiatives a bit. I've noticed more folks living in RVs around town in various parking lots or on quiet side streets. It seems a bit like a no-brainer that if you have some extra land that isn't doing anything you should be able to just let people park on it without the fear of being hassled by the police or community members. But when you look at it closely what you are talking about are re-inventing the trailer park. Try to get a permit to build one of those in the bay area, not easy.
I looked into the safe parking initiatives a bit. I've noticed more folks living in RVs around town in various parking lots or on quiet side streets. It seems a bit like a no-brainer that if you have some extra land that isn't doing anything you should be able to just let people park on it without the fear of being hassled by the police or community members. But when you look at it closely what you are talking about are re-inventing the trailer park. Try to get a permit to build one of those in the bay area, not easy.
But when you look at it closely what you are talking about are re-inventing the trailer park.
I really feel it's a shame that this isn't more accepted. What is a trailer park but cheap high-density housing? We have people living in tents under bridges. Surely cheap temporary housing with proper sanitation would be a major improvement.
I really feel it's a shame that this isn't more accepted. What is a trailer park but cheap high-density housing? We have people living in tents under bridges. Surely cheap temporary housing with proper sanitation would be a major improvement.
California has the highest rate of poverty in the US, when you factor in cost of living:
http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty...
http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty...
I've met tenured computer science professors at UC Santa Barbara who couldn't afford to live in Santa Barbara. That place is nuts. Similar situation with Stanford and Palo Alto.
IIRC, planning commission members couldn't afford to live in Palo Alto.
The official poverty line is $250k household income in Palo Alto.
I believe this is a misinterpretation of a news story about Palo Alto considering subsidizing housing for households making under $250k. It is not the poverty threshold, it is just a hypothetical cutoff for qualifying for housing subsidization in one housing plan that Palo Alto considered.
Which is still nuts... a quarter million a year and you qualify for subsidized housing.. yet they won’t build condos.
You don't qualify for it. They considered it. They didn't actually enact that plan.
Makes sense if you let the locals control zoning decisions, if you have a house in your nice quaint suburb and are extremely selfish you probably would try to block condo developments.
I was an exchange student at UCSB for 1 year. The US government caused me a lot of visa issues because I didn't have $25,000 cash, which meant that I couldn't get a job and had to pay $900 in fees for a visa application that was eventually denied.
Due to family issues, I also wasn't getting support from my parents that year.
AS CAB (the Associated Students Community Affairs Board) gave out free hot dogs on Tuesday nights to people who attended a lecture. The Engineering department had companies coming to give careers talks, where they gave out free pizza. There were free concerts by Storke Tower on Thursday lunchtime where free ice cream was provided. CAB also organised a breakfast for homeless people (including the legendary Pirate) in the park on Wednesday mornings. KGCC is a Korean Christian group that has food at every event. The ISA International Student Association has cookies on Friday afternoon every week, and ISI (International Students Inc, a Christian group) has a proper meal once a month.
Two other people (one from Europe, one from Asia) were attending all these activities, so we soon became friends.
One of them heard about free pizza being given away at the store at Buchanan when it's closing time. So we went down there, and sure enough, there was food. Every day!
This went on for weeks. But one time, we came too late. All the pizza and daily sandwiches, each wrapped in plastic, were already put inside a black trash bag.
That was my introduction to dumpster diving, which continued for the rest of that year.
The weird thing was that because my rent was pre-paid, I wasn't homeless - just completely broke. Transport wasn't too much issue because hitchhiking up and down the coast was quite easy.
I slept outside in LA during one of those travels, but after that, my dumpster diving friend told me about CouchSurfing. I now host the weekly CouchSurfing meetup, and have a guest staying today. So short-term accommodation was free too.
Meeting people at the homeless breakfast made me realise how was to their situation, though. There's nothing like praying "Give us today our daily pizza" and "Thank you for this food", when God is really the only one taking care of you.
America is a land of extremes. There are some incredibly wealthy people, but there's also poverty right next door. I think that situation breeds crime. My situation now is much more comfortable - I earn much less, but I feel totally safe not locking my bike when I go into a convenience store.
Due to family issues, I also wasn't getting support from my parents that year.
AS CAB (the Associated Students Community Affairs Board) gave out free hot dogs on Tuesday nights to people who attended a lecture. The Engineering department had companies coming to give careers talks, where they gave out free pizza. There were free concerts by Storke Tower on Thursday lunchtime where free ice cream was provided. CAB also organised a breakfast for homeless people (including the legendary Pirate) in the park on Wednesday mornings. KGCC is a Korean Christian group that has food at every event. The ISA International Student Association has cookies on Friday afternoon every week, and ISI (International Students Inc, a Christian group) has a proper meal once a month.
Two other people (one from Europe, one from Asia) were attending all these activities, so we soon became friends.
One of them heard about free pizza being given away at the store at Buchanan when it's closing time. So we went down there, and sure enough, there was food. Every day!
This went on for weeks. But one time, we came too late. All the pizza and daily sandwiches, each wrapped in plastic, were already put inside a black trash bag.
That was my introduction to dumpster diving, which continued for the rest of that year.
The weird thing was that because my rent was pre-paid, I wasn't homeless - just completely broke. Transport wasn't too much issue because hitchhiking up and down the coast was quite easy.
I slept outside in LA during one of those travels, but after that, my dumpster diving friend told me about CouchSurfing. I now host the weekly CouchSurfing meetup, and have a guest staying today. So short-term accommodation was free too.
Meeting people at the homeless breakfast made me realise how was to their situation, though. There's nothing like praying "Give us today our daily pizza" and "Thank you for this food", when God is really the only one taking care of you.
America is a land of extremes. There are some incredibly wealthy people, but there's also poverty right next door. I think that situation breeds crime. My situation now is much more comfortable - I earn much less, but I feel totally safe not locking my bike when I go into a convenience store.
Your were a student at a major university and they didn't assist with your immigration documents? Granted, I'm from Canada but when I was in grad school I don't know anyone of the other international students who had visa issues like that, although we didn't try to get other jobs beyond school, maybe that is the issue.
The problem is that I'm too poor. A letter from my parents' bank guaranteeing $25,000 wasn't enough - the USCIS required me to have that much money in my bank account. When I was 19.
I'm now 28, and I've still never had that much money. America is only interested in welcoming rich people.
I'm now 28, and I've still never had that much money. America is only interested in welcoming rich people.
Where did you go for the situation to change so drastically?
Ten years ago I made an attempt to get a homeless person off the street and made a movie about it:
http://graceofgodmovie.com/
My main subject had a masters degree in psychology.
http://graceofgodmovie.com/
My main subject had a masters degree in psychology.
Reminds me of this: https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_sta...
> Why does her PhD make her more deserving that a welfare queen? Because to The Chronicle, the PhD has value. It doesn't. I'm not saying she isn't smart, I'm saying the PhD in no way communicates to me she knows medieval history better than any D&D player. She may know more, but how do I know? I don't even find "MD" particularly valid, but at least you can sue a doctor.
> But my reason for showing you her is to highlight the perverse logic of the university which will doom us all: since the only maniacs who would ever hire these PhDs are universities, then the solution to their unemployment is more money for universities:
> Why does her PhD make her more deserving that a welfare queen? Because to The Chronicle, the PhD has value. It doesn't. I'm not saying she isn't smart, I'm saying the PhD in no way communicates to me she knows medieval history better than any D&D player. She may know more, but how do I know? I don't even find "MD" particularly valid, but at least you can sue a doctor.
> But my reason for showing you her is to highlight the perverse logic of the university which will doom us all: since the only maniacs who would ever hire these PhDs are universities, then the solution to their unemployment is more money for universities:
i think reading about people suffering misfortunes like is naturally very frightening. my instinct is to scramble for reasons why this is abnormal, or the result of avoidable mistakes, or due to a unique situation that isn't likely to be repeated. the just-world fallacy in action.
the fact is, there are lots of stories like this. maybe you're immune because you live in a more reasonable place or your strong technical skills or whatever. then again, 30 years ago being a paralegal was a good job and working people could afford to live in places like Santa Barbara.
it's a fact that you could be next. we can't predict the future, there will only be more and more upheavals and disruption in the economy, unless things change drastically. employers and investors are working very, very hard all the time to devalue and deskill engineering. maybe your RV will be self-driving though.
the fact is, there are lots of stories like this. maybe you're immune because you live in a more reasonable place or your strong technical skills or whatever. then again, 30 years ago being a paralegal was a good job and working people could afford to live in places like Santa Barbara.
it's a fact that you could be next. we can't predict the future, there will only be more and more upheavals and disruption in the economy, unless things change drastically. employers and investors are working very, very hard all the time to devalue and deskill engineering. maybe your RV will be self-driving though.
>Phil said people may wonder why vehicle dwellers like himself don't move in with family. Well, good for those who are able, but easier said than done, said Phil. His son is already sharing space because of the high cost of housing.
Again, this just boggles my mind.
I understand there are people who are on bad terms with their family, but sans that, I cannot imagine a situation where my 60+ year old parents living alone in a van is in any way better than all of us sharing a studio apartment, even if we were sleeping on the floor.
Again, this just boggles my mind.
I understand there are people who are on bad terms with their family, but sans that, I cannot imagine a situation where my 60+ year old parents living alone in a van is in any way better than all of us sharing a studio apartment, even if we were sleeping on the floor.
Dealing with your parents' alcoholism, drug abuse and/or mental illness for 18 years and being none too enthusiastic to continue to do so is one situation.
It gets worse when they start stealing, destroying property and procuring drugs, and you find it's too late to get rid of them thanks to eviction/tenancy laws.
Not everybody's families are Rockwell portraits.
It gets worse when they start stealing, destroying property and procuring drugs, and you find it's too late to get rid of them thanks to eviction/tenancy laws.
Not everybody's families are Rockwell portraits.
I addressed those cases in my comment, but I'm specifically talking about stubborn boomers grasping on to shreds of independence and wanderlust when they don't have to.
It seems a significant number of the people featured in these articles fall into that category.
It seems a significant number of the people featured in these articles fall into that category.
This is a sad article with unfortunate subjects. However I'm not convinced that the movement of people from apartments to vehicles is always a "sort of homelessness." I personally know people who are planning to move into a van to work remote, and there's definitely no shortage of blogs and instagrams from those people. Many of them are doing it to save money, but could live in a home if they chose to.
The real issue, as always, is the absurdly inflated real estate market.
The real issue, as always, is the absurdly inflated real estate market.
> I personally know people who are planning to move into a van to work remote, and there's definitely no shortage of blogs and instagrams from those people.
This is a very small minority. Even 10 years ago this was a hot topic in the communities concerned. I lived in Venice Beach at that time: People being force out of their homes into their cars or RVs, police harassing them and finally even suicides were a daily topic within the local community.
This is a very small minority. Even 10 years ago this was a hot topic in the communities concerned. I lived in Venice Beach at that time: People being force out of their homes into their cars or RVs, police harassing them and finally even suicides were a daily topic within the local community.
Especially, the especially broken California housing market.
Always worth mentioning on these threads: http://www.sfyimby.org/ - these people are doing real work and getting stuff done. In San Francisco, Sonja Trauss is running for supervisor: http://www.sonja2018.org/ - well worth a donation if you care about housing in that area.
If you're interested in this topic I recommend you read Nomadland by Jessica Bruder.
Reminds me of the few months I lived in Santa Barbara, it took over two weeks to find an overpriced room, during that time we also slept in the car close to the beach... It's fun in the beginning then it gets really tough.
I can’t help but think of Snow Crash where Hiro Protagonist (and many others) lived in the U-Store-It former storage facility.
This is the the real cost of allowing (particularly foreign) capital to be parked in real estate in the developed world. In NYC for example most new developments are ultra-luxury not because building affordable apartments is uneconomic, it’s just that the ultra-luxury end is way more profitable.
But sure let’s just pass a massive tax cut for the wealthy instead at a time when corporations are making record profits.
This is the the real cost of allowing (particularly foreign) capital to be parked in real estate in the developed world. In NYC for example most new developments are ultra-luxury not because building affordable apartments is uneconomic, it’s just that the ultra-luxury end is way more profitable.
But sure let’s just pass a massive tax cut for the wealthy instead at a time when corporations are making record profits.
The thing is, this money being parked from overseas isn't even benefitting the local economies. It just props up property values for a select few homeowners.
The people buying these houses are just leaving them empty. There has been some private investigation of some of the homes being bought and built in BelAir right now. One home was found to be owned by a Nigerian politician through multiple layers of shell companies.
This politician has no business owning an $80 million home.
If we simply cut out the corrupt and stolen money flooding into these markets I think we would find it is making for a large chunk of it.
The people buying these houses are just leaving them empty. There has been some private investigation of some of the homes being bought and built in BelAir right now. One home was found to be owned by a Nigerian politician through multiple layers of shell companies.
This politician has no business owning an $80 million home.
If we simply cut out the corrupt and stolen money flooding into these markets I think we would find it is making for a large chunk of it.
It’s worse than that: they’re not even payin* their fair share of property taxes either. For example:
- 157 West 57th St #77, asking $49m, paying $4,200 in monthly taxes [1]
- 301 West 53rd St #3E, asking $1.85m, paying $1,681 in monthly taxes [2]
Why is an apartment asking 25 Times as much only paying 2.5x the property taxes?
You can largely blame Bloomberg and Andrew Cuomo for this.
[1] https://www.elliman.com/new-york-city/one57-157-west-57-stre...
[2] https://www.elliman.com/new-york-city/fifty-third-and-eighth...
- 157 West 57th St #77, asking $49m, paying $4,200 in monthly taxes [1]
- 301 West 53rd St #3E, asking $1.85m, paying $1,681 in monthly taxes [2]
Why is an apartment asking 25 Times as much only paying 2.5x the property taxes?
You can largely blame Bloomberg and Andrew Cuomo for this.
[1] https://www.elliman.com/new-york-city/one57-157-west-57-stre...
[2] https://www.elliman.com/new-york-city/fifty-third-and-eighth...
Those property taxes sound high!
I pay over $3500 to rent a house in Santa Cruz while my landlord only pays $2700 per year in property tax. The place is worth $1-2M depending on what website I'm checking.
I pay over $3500 to rent a house in Santa Cruz while my landlord only pays $2700 per year in property tax. The place is worth $1-2M depending on what website I'm checking.
[deleted]
I pay $4,500/year in property taxes on a house that's worth less than $250,000.
It varies wildly. Property taxes in Texas, for example, could easily be $15k for a $450k house.
I paid $3600 on $100k property in Detroit 10yrs ago. Property tax in most places is not based on the amount the house will sell for but based on what it original sold for and then it grows slowly. So Perhaps your landlord bought the property for $200k many years ago and the property tax was $1k and has now grown to $2.7k.
They are high. Apartment buildings in NYS are taxed so ARV (assessed rental value) so a $3M brownstone in Park Slope might only pay $700/month. A $3m condo might pay 3-4x that.
NYC can’t fix this and the state won’t because it’s beholden to SFH owners upstate who (now) don’t pay their fair share and don’t want to start now.
Additionally NYS doesn’t have Prop 13 but it has lots of things that look like it. Reduced increases, caps on rates, etc that greatly benefit incumbents.
Same as in California people raise the specter of evicting or bankrupting the elderly from their ancestral home if this was changed. It’s a false dilemma. You could easily relieve taxes because of hardship (or simply being over 65 for a principal residence) on a case by case basis.
NYC can’t fix this and the state won’t because it’s beholden to SFH owners upstate who (now) don’t pay their fair share and don’t want to start now.
Additionally NYS doesn’t have Prop 13 but it has lots of things that look like it. Reduced increases, caps on rates, etc that greatly benefit incumbents.
Same as in California people raise the specter of evicting or bankrupting the elderly from their ancestral home if this was changed. It’s a false dilemma. You could easily relieve taxes because of hardship (or simply being over 65 for a principal residence) on a case by case basis.
For those interested in the topic, NYTimes did a great article:
Towers of Secrecy Stream of Foreign Wealth Flows to Elite New York Real Estate By LOUISE STORY and STEPHANIE SAULFEB. 7, 2015 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/nyregion/stream-of-foreig...
Towers of Secrecy Stream of Foreign Wealth Flows to Elite New York Real Estate By LOUISE STORY and STEPHANIE SAULFEB. 7, 2015 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/nyregion/stream-of-foreig...
But who built the $80 million home? Such spending, as extravagant and wasteful as it may seem, is an exchange of capital for a product and creates jobs. Foreign investment is good for recipients of such investment, by spurring demand.
It creates fewer jobs, for a shorter period of time than you would think. You can only get so many people on a small property like that. And they still seem to get them done in less than a year.
Well it's that, plus low density zoning regulations
Part of the problem is that the real estate industry isn't subject to the same "know your customer" rules as other financial services. If a foreigner wants to invest in US stocks then the broker is required to do at least some basic validation that the customer's money is legitimate, and report suspicious transactions to the government. So a lot of the money laundering by corrupt foreign politicians and oligarchs now goes through real estate instead.
Republicans are just serving their true masters. [1] Studies show immigration has a net positive on the economy, whereas the foreign owned real estate equivalent shows it has a deleterious effect overall with a vertical plus for those selling and moving elsewhere.
But this is a function of too low taxes at the top end, and cheap borrowing costs. There's a glut of money that has to go somewhere. So it's getting stuffed into the stock, bond, and real estate markets, rather than into businesses and workers.
[1] Graham: 'Financial contributions will stop' if GOP doesn't pass tax reform http://thehill.com/policy/finance/359606-graham-financial-co...
It's all about financial contributions, and ensuring there isn't a level playing field with the competition in particular in primaries. Just imagine how difficult it would be to convince them to get money out of politics entirely.
But this is a function of too low taxes at the top end, and cheap borrowing costs. There's a glut of money that has to go somewhere. So it's getting stuffed into the stock, bond, and real estate markets, rather than into businesses and workers.
[1] Graham: 'Financial contributions will stop' if GOP doesn't pass tax reform http://thehill.com/policy/finance/359606-graham-financial-co...
It's all about financial contributions, and ensuring there isn't a level playing field with the competition in particular in primaries. Just imagine how difficult it would be to convince them to get money out of politics entirely.
Foreign capital is betting the locals will never ever allow real estate prices to fall.
> This is the the real cost of allowing (particularly foreign) capital to be parked in real estate in the developed world.
It's amazing to me that people don't recognize this as xenophobia when other forms ("Mexicans are taking our jobs!", "Migrants don't have the same values!") are so readily called out.
High housing prices are a self inflicted problem. When you mix supply restrictions with tax breaks explicitly designed to keep people from moving, you end up pricing people out. Not surprising.
It's amazing to me that people don't recognize this as xenophobia when other forms ("Mexicans are taking our jobs!", "Migrants don't have the same values!") are so readily called out.
High housing prices are a self inflicted problem. When you mix supply restrictions with tax breaks explicitly designed to keep people from moving, you end up pricing people out. Not surprising.
California Proposition 13, to me, has been a ticking time-bomb of a 'youth tax' over the past forty years. As much as I respect that it serves to protect the vulnerable and elderly from heightening costs, it has unduly shifted that burden onto everyone else.
I believe todays homelessness is surely in part being caused by this untouchable stick-in-the-mud legislation.
Property tax appraisals for neighboring houses are wildly variant, some times by a factor of 20x (eg, home market value of two million or more, but taxed on a state appraised value of 100-200k). So a young person buying their first home seemingly must always pay a significantly higher annual property tax when compared with the family next-door who've kept the property family owned for a generation.
I believe todays homelessness is surely in part being caused by this untouchable stick-in-the-mud legislation.
Property tax appraisals for neighboring houses are wildly variant, some times by a factor of 20x (eg, home market value of two million or more, but taxed on a state appraised value of 100-200k). So a young person buying their first home seemingly must always pay a significantly higher annual property tax when compared with the family next-door who've kept the property family owned for a generation.
If you want to see the most bi-partisan, passionate, and active opposition in the history of California, try taking on Prop 13. This will never get repealed because it's the one thing every politician knows will rally the vast majority of voters, regardless of ideology, and result in an immediate political death sentence.
As much as I respect that it serves to protect the vulnerable and elderly from heightening costs
And I would even question that. If your house has appreciated so much that you can't afford the property taxes, so you're "forced" to sell it for a huge profit...maybe in an ideal world that wouldn't happen, but it's nowhere near the top of my list of injustices that need to be fixed.
And I would even question that. If your house has appreciated so much that you can't afford the property taxes, so you're "forced" to sell it for a huge profit...maybe in an ideal world that wouldn't happen, but it's nowhere near the top of my list of injustices that need to be fixed.
When reading an article about New Zealand restricting foreign real estate investment, I found their reasoning compelling. Housing can be used to house people, or for speculation, like Bitcoin or gold. If you believe that providing shelter takes strict priority for the limited housing stock then it is moral and necessary to restrict the demand from investors.
Quantifying the scale of the problem is another issue, but I certainly think that if people are buying houses for purposes other than living in, allowing that is the, or a, "self-inflicted problem".
If someone wants to invest and grow the supply of something, they should be welcome, but bidding up a resource that cannot be increased is not something people have to accept merely because of some misguided slogans or epithets.
Quantifying the scale of the problem is another issue, but I certainly think that if people are buying houses for purposes other than living in, allowing that is the, or a, "self-inflicted problem".
If someone wants to invest and grow the supply of something, they should be welcome, but bidding up a resource that cannot be increased is not something people have to accept merely because of some misguided slogans or epithets.
In Australia non resident foreigners are, for the most part, only allowed to buy new builds. In Sydney some have called for an empty residential property tax, but it hasn't come about yet.
Exactly. Speculation and storing wealth are worthwhile activities but IMOP not when it comes to basic human needs. One of which is having a place to eat and sleep.
I think the reason people dislike foreign capital specifically is when the houses come just a piggybank and remain empty. It is bad enough when capital (local or foreign) drives up home prices, but it feels worse when the homes sit empty. Note, this affects everyone because people get knocked down the ladder incrementally.
> the houses come just a piggybank and remain empty
seems like a poor investment to me. You're just pissing it away on property taxes. So why not let the rich do this and basically redistribute their wealth?
seems like a poor investment to me. You're just pissing it away on property taxes. So why not let the rich do this and basically redistribute their wealth?
It makes sense if you want to exfiltrate your money from the Russian mob, or Chinese communist party.
You get the property appreciation, potentially leveraged; and you get what might be called the "option value" of being able to move into and sell it at a moment's notice.
Weirdly, many of the foreign moneyed people know that they and/or their family may have to drop everything and leave their country of origin at any point to flee a purge, and the property is a bolthole for that possibility and a financial reserve that is hard for China to seize.
Weirdly, many of the foreign moneyed people know that they and/or their family may have to drop everything and leave their country of origin at any point to flee a purge, and the property is a bolthole for that possibility and a financial reserve that is hard for China to seize.
When I lived in NYC, a famous celebrity had a condo in the same building as me. As far as I could tell, it never got used. Weirdly enough no one minded until it sold to someone from Saudi Arabia.
Bono lives in one of the towers of the San Remo building on CPW. He bought it from Steve Jobs who had owned it for ~20 years famously never having set foot in it.
The other tower was owned by Bruce Willis and Demi Moore bought in 1990.im not sure they ever lived there either. Eventually Demi Moore got it 8n the divorce and sold it recently.
And this is in a coop, which tend to be far more owner-occupied. Luckily for Manhattan the vast majority of hous8ng stock is coops. If it were nothing but the luxury piggy banks being built on 57th street the city would be a ghost town.
The other tower was owned by Bruce Willis and Demi Moore bought in 1990.im not sure they ever lived there either. Eventually Demi Moore got it 8n the divorce and sold it recently.
And this is in a coop, which tend to be far more owner-occupied. Luckily for Manhattan the vast majority of hous8ng stock is coops. If it were nothing but the luxury piggy banks being built on 57th street the city would be a ghost town.
Foreign investment is certainly a factor as much as the NIMBY-ism of the Bay Area. But people would still be griping about outside money if it were New York investors buying homes and leaving them empty. But it’s not.
Just because the outside investment is Chinese doesn’t make someone xenophobic.
Just because the outside investment is Chinese doesn’t make someone xenophobic.
It's entirely the NIMBYism because without that the supposed foreign real estate speculation would be almost completely pointless.
It is xenophobia and that's bad because it trains the reflex to waste time on stupid, lazy, self-satisfying thought blaming greedy, scheming outsiders instead of trying to think of any sane practicable solution.
It is xenophobia and that's bad because it trains the reflex to waste time on stupid, lazy, self-satisfying thought blaming greedy, scheming outsiders instead of trying to think of any sane practicable solution.
People downvoting this are missing the point, because you're absolutely right: the problem word is not foreign capital, but foreign capital and the extreme global inequality thereof.
I've written recently on this site about my difficulty in finding a job as a recent college grad, and was bombarded with comments suggesting I relocate. This is precisely why I won't. Income inequality means that those areas are incredibly risky to move to without a nice financial cushion, and with a child on the way, I'm not going to make that risk.
What can be done about regional inequality? Because such economic trends will do nothing but continue to destabilize our country in the future.
Edit: To those downvoting me, can you please explain? I don't understand.
What can be done about regional inequality? Because such economic trends will do nothing but continue to destabilize our country in the future.
Edit: To those downvoting me, can you please explain? I don't understand.
Serious question: why are you having children in such a financially precarious situation when it’s only going to increase your living costs?
EDIT: by “financially precarious” I mean that above you said you were a new grad having difficulty finding work. I assume it is your intent to work after the baby is born (rather than being the primary caregiver) or it wouldn’t matter so much about finding work.
If your wife returns to work and you work you’ll need to pay for care and/or rely on family support. If she doesn’t return to work and she’s the one with steady employment then that’s a problem (financially).
Hence my question.
EDIT: by “financially precarious” I mean that above you said you were a new grad having difficulty finding work. I assume it is your intent to work after the baby is born (rather than being the primary caregiver) or it wouldn’t matter so much about finding work.
If your wife returns to work and you work you’ll need to pay for care and/or rely on family support. If she doesn’t return to work and she’s the one with steady employment then that’s a problem (financially).
Hence my question.
Assuming I'm in a "financially precarious situation" is a bit presumptuous. My wife is an employed college grad, and we have much more saved than the average American. We have health insurance, and have already completely paid off the medical bills for her birth. We are fine.
It's still too risky and difficult for us to relocate, though. Our family all lives nearby, so we have a support structure here. My wife has an established career in a low cost of living area. Housing is incredibly cheap. We mesh with the culture here. When I get a job, we'll be able to buy a house pretty easily. It's just tough for me to get an IT job, because most low level positions have been outsourced in my area.
It's still too risky and difficult for us to relocate, though. Our family all lives nearby, so we have a support structure here. My wife has an established career in a low cost of living area. Housing is incredibly cheap. We mesh with the culture here. When I get a job, we'll be able to buy a house pretty easily. It's just tough for me to get an IT job, because most low level positions have been outsourced in my area.
The circumstances of your area are so individual that without specifying a specific city or town you're pretty much not going to get any useful advice.
And generalizing the Bay Area to all other higher salary + higher CoL places is also going to yield no useful insight. Or in other words - your parent comment about how articles like this are why you don't consider relocating neglects the fact that there are likely middle ground locations where you could be paid a higher wage while still paying a lower rent.
One simply can't extrapolate that much when looking at CoL or salary.
And generalizing the Bay Area to all other higher salary + higher CoL places is also going to yield no useful insight. Or in other words - your parent comment about how articles like this are why you don't consider relocating neglects the fact that there are likely middle ground locations where you could be paid a higher wage while still paying a lower rent.
One simply can't extrapolate that much when looking at CoL or salary.
I wish you the best, but you're just making a bunch of excuses.
You say it's risky and difficult to chase jobs elsewhere. Yet you claim to be better off than the average American while chasing entry level jobs.
If anything this makes you more mobile than the average American.
Use this to your advantage instead of holding out for one of a dwindling number of jobs in some rural town. Because even if you get one, what's your exit strategy if you lose it? By your own account your position seems to be ripe for elimination.
Holding out seems more risky than moving on. Don't move to the Bay area or manhattan. The rest of the country is not representative of this article.
But that's just my take on it. Best of luck to you.
You say it's risky and difficult to chase jobs elsewhere. Yet you claim to be better off than the average American while chasing entry level jobs.
If anything this makes you more mobile than the average American.
Use this to your advantage instead of holding out for one of a dwindling number of jobs in some rural town. Because even if you get one, what's your exit strategy if you lose it? By your own account your position seems to be ripe for elimination.
Holding out seems more risky than moving on. Don't move to the Bay area or manhattan. The rest of the country is not representative of this article.
But that's just my take on it. Best of luck to you.
Speaking as a recent parent and having known recent parents I can tell you that having family (your parents and in-laws) close by is worth tens of thousands of dollars a year in child care costs, and you should count your blessings if you can rely on it.
You don’t have to justify to anyone why you are having a child. (As a parent, I can see by you’re set up better than most)
If for no other reason having children is our biological raison d’être. Go tell a squirell it’s not rich enough to procreate!
Children are brought up with very little means everyday; they don’t need rich parents.
Children are seen by our rich society as a luxury good that only the well off are worthy of buying.
Instead what children need are strong loving parents. (I’m so anoyed at the parents of my kid’s spoiled friends, and she not even three)
I lived for three months in Cali (Santa Barbara) and it is one of the last places in N. America I would raise my daughter. Only the despair from the poorest, heroin addicted, countries in WV would rank lower.
A well employed parent, a well educated spouse and grandparents to help. We should all be so lucky!
If for no other reason having children is our biological raison d’être. Go tell a squirell it’s not rich enough to procreate!
Children are brought up with very little means everyday; they don’t need rich parents.
Children are seen by our rich society as a luxury good that only the well off are worthy of buying.
Instead what children need are strong loving parents. (I’m so anoyed at the parents of my kid’s spoiled friends, and she not even three)
I lived for three months in Cali (Santa Barbara) and it is one of the last places in N. America I would raise my daughter. Only the despair from the poorest, heroin addicted, countries in WV would rank lower.
A well employed parent, a well educated spouse and grandparents to help. We should all be so lucky!
Not everyone "decides" to have kids. Sometimes it just happens.
Everyone who has kids decided to do so, the only thing that varies is the amount of options considered.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Keep doing what you’re doing central banks! Your policies of persistent inflation have robbed us of our ability to save our wealth and accurately plan for the future. You’ve decided that devaluing our wages 2% per year is in our best interest meaning we must perpetually fight with our employers to keep our wages we fought for the previous year. Your policies of QE have driven asset prices so high we have no hope of ever owning them without becoming a debt slave. Congratulations.
This is a very weird view on inflation, given how hard central banks have fought to bring it down to manageable levels.
They’ve been fighting deflation, not inflation. Asset prices need to correct and they refuse to let them. There’s a reason young people are buying so few homes.
Over the last four decades, the slow and steady annual inflation looks very easy to plan for: http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/united-states/histor...
You’ve lost your mind if you really believe inflation has only been roughly 2% the last decade.
> You’ve lost your mind if you really believe inflation has only been roughly 2% the last decade.
Do you generally find that being insulting without providing evidence for, or even explaining, your position usually brings people around to your point of view?
Do you generally find that being insulting without providing evidence for, or even explaining, your position usually brings people around to your point of view?
The op is a bit bombastic.
That being said his point is true. They printed money and that money had to increase the price of something.
If you give printed money to state employees consumer goods go up.
If you give it to banks (QE) the price of financial assets goes up. The financial bubble we’re in is huge (pray, what great increase in productivity has occurred in the last ten years that the stock market has gone up so much).
If the CPI included financial instruments (ie my retirement) this inflation would be easily spotted.
QE is maybe the most pernicious inflationary policy yet since at least the previous inflationary spending gave money to normal people but now financial oligarchs are the only ones who make money!
That being said his point is true. They printed money and that money had to increase the price of something.
If you give printed money to state employees consumer goods go up.
If you give it to banks (QE) the price of financial assets goes up. The financial bubble we’re in is huge (pray, what great increase in productivity has occurred in the last ten years that the stock market has gone up so much).
If the CPI included financial instruments (ie my retirement) this inflation would be easily spotted.
QE is maybe the most pernicious inflationary policy yet since at least the previous inflationary spending gave money to normal people but now financial oligarchs are the only ones who make money!
You have no business being in #1 cities if you don't have monetary capital to go along your skills.
In London home prices (average) increases every year by more than average salary. If you've not bought in, you're being better off somewhere else. No point in earning $200k (gross) if $50k (net) is hoovered up by someone in rent.
In London home prices (average) increases every year by more than average salary. If you've not bought in, you're being better off somewhere else. No point in earning $200k (gross) if $50k (net) is hoovered up by someone in rent.
Land of opportunity, eh? I bet there are plenty of people arguing that if you ever want to make decent money you have to be in the #1 cities.
Yeah, doesn't mean they're correct in taking that position.
I hear a lot of people talking in raw dollars about what they make, or what someone else makes, or what differences are in what people make etc. and the arguments miss a lot of important context and the important motivators.
Most important is not what you make, but are you producing enough to be happy? And more important to that question is what purchasing power do you have on any given salary/location. If you make 6 figures, which I'm pretty sure still today is, on a U.S. national level, still making decent money... but can't afford even to rent your own apartment... then so what? If your low six figure income gives you a lesser standard of living in a #1 city than a mediocre five figure income in a lower tier city... to me the lower income city is more appealing.
What a #1 city can do for you is give you a much higher chance of a very, very good income: those #1 cities are where the movers and shakers and related money are.... but the number of people that will ultimately reap those benefits are small and the competition is very stiff because of the point you've made. I'd also wager that if you aren't already very clearly/obviously on the path to a mover and shaker role by the time you're getting out of college (because of who is in your sphere of solid relationships or what you've already accomplished, or both) you're very unlikely to ever get there even if you go to a #1 city. Or as they taught me in music school... if you ain't made it by thirty, you ain't gonna.
Me, I'd take the lesser city and work towards being the big fish in a little pond. I've done this with choice of companies to work for over my career and probably have done well because of it; more varied and interesting work for me individually, as well as more influence over what actually gets done... and not bad pay by any means. Just not prestigious. You still have to have something to offer even then, though, but the competition is much less stiff and so the odds for achieving happiness, the real goal vs. money, can be much better.
I hear a lot of people talking in raw dollars about what they make, or what someone else makes, or what differences are in what people make etc. and the arguments miss a lot of important context and the important motivators.
Most important is not what you make, but are you producing enough to be happy? And more important to that question is what purchasing power do you have on any given salary/location. If you make 6 figures, which I'm pretty sure still today is, on a U.S. national level, still making decent money... but can't afford even to rent your own apartment... then so what? If your low six figure income gives you a lesser standard of living in a #1 city than a mediocre five figure income in a lower tier city... to me the lower income city is more appealing.
What a #1 city can do for you is give you a much higher chance of a very, very good income: those #1 cities are where the movers and shakers and related money are.... but the number of people that will ultimately reap those benefits are small and the competition is very stiff because of the point you've made. I'd also wager that if you aren't already very clearly/obviously on the path to a mover and shaker role by the time you're getting out of college (because of who is in your sphere of solid relationships or what you've already accomplished, or both) you're very unlikely to ever get there even if you go to a #1 city. Or as they taught me in music school... if you ain't made it by thirty, you ain't gonna.
Me, I'd take the lesser city and work towards being the big fish in a little pond. I've done this with choice of companies to work for over my career and probably have done well because of it; more varied and interesting work for me individually, as well as more influence over what actually gets done... and not bad pay by any means. Just not prestigious. You still have to have something to offer even then, though, but the competition is much less stiff and so the odds for achieving happiness, the real goal vs. money, can be much better.
A good definition for middle class; is that you make a significant income from your capital investments.
In that case it doesn't matter if you stop working for a few months; your stocks and shares still pay dividends and your tenants still pay you rent; your capital still keeps on working for you.
A good clue is this: if your money all comes from working for someone else; and it all stops when you stop working; then you are working class.
Like most people in the world.
I don't think that's anyone's typical definition of the middle class. It usually refers to work autonomy and relying on expertise to sustain yourself (as opposed to menial labor).
Merely having liquid capital to begin with (i.e. not tied up in your primary residence or retirement vehicles) almost certainly puts you on the higher end of the middle class.
I don't think re-defining "middle class" to mean the top 10% (or less) of earners is helpful.
Merely having liquid capital to begin with (i.e. not tied up in your primary residence or retirement vehicles) almost certainly puts you on the higher end of the middle class.
I don't think re-defining "middle class" to mean the top 10% (or less) of earners is helpful.
While the definition of working class (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/working_class) does seem to include everyone who works, it points out that it is "especially in manual or industrial work". Wikipedia consensus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class) also disagrees with your definition in that the working class are engaged in manual labor and not in any wage generating employment.
Further, most people who have adequate capital to sustain them are basically financially independent and could effectively retire, unless they are 60-70 and have been saving for years this isn't an accurate representation of the middle class, upper middle class, possibly.
Further, most people who have adequate capital to sustain them are basically financially independent and could effectively retire, unless they are 60-70 and have been saving for years this isn't an accurate representation of the middle class, upper middle class, possibly.