Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe employers should go in together on housing co-ops, for their employees. A few towns have done something like that, so that police, teachers and firefighters can afford to live in the communities they serve.
I think employers should push against all the zoning restrictions that limit new housing supply from coming onto the market. That way prices would be more affordable for everyone. It would add credibility if public agencies like UC Berkeley did this alongside the private sector.
What I want to know... How do people afford to live in California?
... (houses are expensive) ...
I've been to SF Bay area, LA/OC area and San Diego area a handful of times and liked it... but it didn't seem like the streets were paved with gold. I feel quite privileged with even being able to have these kinds of opportunities... makes me wonder how it is for people who make much less money. It must be terrible.
Its a paradigm shift which I don't think you are ready to make. Seriously, I've seen so many people who come to CA from other states and simply expect to be able to buy a house, like it's a birth right or something. Well, I sort of get that perspective because I've have lived in a state with lower cost housing. But just because it was that way there, doesn't mean its like that everywhere. Think of the game Monopoly. There are places on the board which simply cost more. The same is true for much of CA and other high demand locations like HI, NY, etc... It's simply supply and demand economics. So, back to the question. How do people afford it. Well, first of all they afford it by *not* expecting to purchase a home right out of the gate with a combined household income of $80k in coastal SoCal. That would be incredibly foolish to even attempt. Instead, they do one of two things:
1. Wait and save while their income increases over time. Lease/rent first instead.
2. Become dual income families.
That is how they afford it on those kinds of incomes. The biggest mental shift is you would have to sell your house and *not* buy a house. That is something many are not prepared to do. Therefore, the best solution would be to stay in OR, TX, etc... Or, move to the more affordable part of the state not right on the coast.
The only time it might be worth it (the paradigm shift) is if the career opportunity really helps you to grow professionally. You could move to CA for a season and lease a place. Then, after a period of time determine if you want to move back somewhere that housing is more affordable or not. Otherwise, just say no!
Its a paradigm shift which I don't think you are ready to make. Seriously, I've seen so many people who come to CA from other states and simply expect to be able to buy a house, like it's a birth right or something. Well, I sort of get that perspective because I've have lived in a state with lower cost housing. But just because it was that way there, doesn't mean its like that everywhere. Think of the game Monopoly. There are places on the board which simply cost more. The same is true for much of CA and other high demand locations like HI, NY, etc... It's simply supply and demand economics. So, back to the question. How do people afford it. Well, first of all they afford it by *not* expecting to purchase a home right out of the gate with a combined household income of $80k in coastal SoCal. That would be incredibly foolish to even attempt. Instead, they do one of two things:
1. Wait and save while their income increases over time. Lease/rent instead.
2. Become dual income families.
That is how they afford it on those kinds of incomes. The biggest mental shift is you would have to sell your house and *not* buy a house. That is something many are not prepared to do. Therefore, the best solution would be to stay in OR, TX, etc... Or, move to the more affordable part of the state not right on the coast.
The only time it might be worth it (the paradigm shift) is if the career opportunity really helps you to grow professionally. You could move to CA for a season and lease a place. Then, after a period of time determine if you want to move back somewhere that housing is more affordable or not. Otherwise, just say no!
Derek
Mt Surfer, that's good advice for people coming from parts of the US where housing is a lot cheaper. However, renting can also be problematic, depending on the region. In the Bay Area, there's no rent stability, for the most part. The market is so hot right now, that people get priced out of their rentals in fairly short order, and find themselves having to move farther and farther away from their work. That's not good, either. We had a couple posting here a year or two ago, who finally got pushed out of their rental home (they had kids, too), and they ended up buying out in the central valley, halfway to Fresno. One of them had to commute daily to San Jose from there, a 2-hr. drive each way.
I think in expensive areas, wanna-be transplants from out-of-state need to rethink all their priorities, lifestyle, house vs. condo, kids/no kids, how to pick up a 2nd income if they already have kids, like you said, --everything. That can be a radical process for some. For some, the best answer will be to not move to CA. Or to upgrade their skills so they can get a higher-paying job. It's tough.
Mt Surfer, that's good advice for people coming from parts of the US where housing is a lot cheaper. However, renting can also be problematic, depending on the region. In the Bay Area, there's no rent stability, for the most part. The market is so hot right now, that people get priced out of their rentals in fairly short order, and find themselves having to move farther and farther away from their work. That's not good, either. We had a couple posting here a year or two ago, who finally got pushed out of their rental home (they had kids, too), and they ended up buying out in the central valley, halfway to Fresno. One of them had to commute daily to San Jose from there, a 2-hr. drive each way.
I think in expensive areas, wanna-be transplants from out-of-state need to rethink all their priorities, lifestyle, house vs. condo, kids/no kids, how to pick up a 2nd income if they already have kids, like you said, --everything. That can be a radical process for some. For some, the best answer will be to not move to CA. Or to upgrade their skills so they can get a higher-paying job. It's tough.
Yes, and for many that cost is simply too high. So, in those cases its better to stay put or go somewhere more affordable. We have enough people who decide to do it anyway and they whine and complain the entire time while living here. Count the cost before you pay the boss!
The problem is, if they move somewhere very expensive like the Bay Area and end up liking it, they could wind up in a similar crazy commute situation you've described. A downsizing of some kind must occur first. And for some its just not practical if they have children, for example.
However, its also important to keep in mind not everywhere in CA is it as expensive as SF/LA/OC/SD. There are more affordable options.
How did the Inland Empire and Ventura country feel back in the 1980s? Did it have a rural feel? I know there were alot of cow farms and agricultual fields.
There still are.
Quote:
would Riverside or Ontario "feel" like a part of Greater Los Angeles?
No, which is why it isn't. And anyone commuting into L.A. could probably tell you how far away it feels.
Maybe employers should go in together on housing co-ops, for their employees. A few towns have done something like that, so that police, teachers and firefighters can afford to live in the communities they serve.
You know that in the terrible grand tradition of the Internet, this idea will get you called a Socialist or worse, right?
I've had similar thoughts (just as an exercise) about corporations providing housing as a way to counteract the cost of living and salary adjustments here. What I usually end up with is wondering, "What's the catch?" since worker barracks were something done back in the Industrial Revolution and it must've died out for good reason.
It also evokes thoughts about Chinese factory dorms like Foxconn, which obviously isn't the only way of implementing the idea, but will probably be the image that comes to mind when the average American first hears about it. That would make even totally different employer-managed housing concepts tough to sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnSurfer
Yes, and for many that cost is simply too high. So, in those cases its better to stay put or go somewhere more affordable. We have enough people who decide to do it anyway and they whine and complain the entire time while living here. Count the cost before you pay the boss!
The problem is, if they move somewhere very expensive like the Bay Area and end up liking it, they could wind up in a similar crazy commute situation you've described. A downsizing of some kind must occur first. And for some its just not practical if they have children, for example.
However, its also important to keep in mind not everywhere in CA is it as expensive as SF/LA/OC/SD. There are more affordable options.
Derek
Or the answer could be somewhere in-between.
At face value, your position seems to run on the premise that housing stock should remain static or at the current low-% growth and that the extremely high prices are therefore the new normal. The opposite then, would be a totally unregulated housing market where even structures of historical architectural significance gets knocked down by any developers who can afford to do so and housing supply explodes, slashing home prices across the board until they only appreciate at approximately the rate of inflation or a bit less.
In-between would still require increasing the housing supply. The details of such doesn't matter, the result would be that prices are better than what they are now even if it never falls as low as in less desirable places to live (which it shouldn't).
As for moving to affordable options in California, the problem is also in your own post: Jobs and commutes. No matter how tough someone is there is definitely a limit to what range someone can commute to work from.
Employers will only be willing to increase their cost-of-living adjustment by only so much before drawing a line and leaving it up to the employees to figure out how to make up the difference themselves. Which I can only see ending in either a shortage of high quality labor for mid- and lower- level positions, or a general decrease in the quality of life for everyone as people turn SFRs into virtual apartments with parked cars covering every inch of open street-curb space at night while jamming the streets during the day. Oh wait...
You know that in the terrible grand tradition of the Internet, this idea will get you called a Socialist or worse, right?
I've had similar thoughts (just as an exercise) about corporations providing housing as a way to counteract the cost of living and salary adjustments here. What I usually end up with is wondering, "What's the catch?" since worker barracks were something done back in the Industrial Revolution and it must've died out for good reason.
It also evokes thoughts about Chinese factory dorms like Foxconn, which obviously isn't the only way of implementing the idea, but will probably be the image that comes to mind when the average American first hears about it. That would make even totally different employer-managed housing concepts tough to sell.
Or the answer could be somewhere in-between.
One could jump to those hyperbolic extremes, or the company towns in the coal-mining districts, etc., but that's not the way it's worked out in the real-life examples we already have in the Bay Area and elsewhere. Apparently this has gone under the radar, but it's been around for quite awhile in the Bay Area and NYC, and it works great. A business or a municipality, or an organization or co-op buys a building, or gets some donated or subsidized land through a conservancy or some other mechanism, a non-profit partner, or whatever, and builds condos on it. People apply to rent there, applications are reviewed, criteria are applied, people are accepted, sometimes after being on a waiting list. Everyone's happy with their apartments, the municipality gets civil servants who can actually live there, city employees or employees of the business/property owner get affordable and well-maintained housing, everyone's happy. St. Francis Hospital in SF owns an apt. building for their employees, Mill Valley owns a couple of condo complexes for their police and teachers--a couple of local examples. I think these are along the lines of the "something in=between" you were talking about.
As to your concerns about people perhaps proposing that housing prices remain static (I don't think anyone was suggesting that), part of the problem is that there has been rampant real estate speculation. People have made a business of flipping housing, rather than letting values grow naturally. This has distorted the market. That sort of thing used to be considered unethical, its practitioners--shysters. Now, in a topsy-turvy world, it's considered "shrewd business practice", something to be lauded.
And what's wrong with that, you may ask, as long as there are buyers willing to pay the price? Well, that's a topic for a dissertation, and a whole other thread. But as you noted yourself, one of the downsides is that very quickly, common laborers are priced out of the market, and as in SF, families with kids are priced out. Where are these megalopolises going to get their labor, then? Truck construction workers in from the Central Valley, Sacramento, etc.? It leads to major dysfunction, and the kind of traffic nightmares that have become normalized in places like Seattle and the Bay Area.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 01-29-2016 at 11:46 AM..
Its a paradigm shift which I don't think you are ready to make. Seriously, I've seen so many people who come to CA from other states and simply expect to be able to buy a house, like it's a birth right or something. Well, I sort of get that perspective because I've have lived in a state with lower cost housing. But just because it was that way there, doesn't mean its like that everywhere. Think of the game Monopoly. There are places on the board which simply cost more. The same is true for much of CA and other high demand locations like HI, NY, etc... It's simply supply and demand economics. So, back to the question. How do people afford it. Well, first of all they afford it by *not* expecting to purchase a home right out of the gate with a combined household income of $80k in coastal SoCal. That would be incredibly foolish to even attempt. Instead, they do one of two things:
1. Wait and save while their income increases over time. Lease/rent first instead.
2. Become dual income families.
That is how they afford it on those kinds of incomes. The biggest mental shift is you would have to sell your house and *not* buy a house. That is something many are not prepared to do. Therefore, the best solution would be to stay in OR, TX, etc... Or, move to the more affordable part of the state not right on the coast.
The only time it might be worth it (the paradigm shift) is if the career opportunity really helps you to grow professionally. You could move to CA for a season and lease a place. Then, after a period of time determine if you want to move back somewhere that housing is more affordable or not. Otherwise, just say no!
Derek
Thanks, this is kind of what I was thinking too. The career upgrade would be nice, but it would not be a "paradigm shift" as you put it. These opportunities would be more prestigious positions than I've got. I'm getting to the interview stage in a lot of them so on the career side it seems like a good idea. However, it would not be 5 times better while my housing cost would be 4-6X higher. I can still "move up" in other places or internally where I'm at although perhaps more slowly.
What particularly disturbed me was that there are few commute options. I've done 50-55 minute one-way commutes before so can handle that. I've lived in OR, TX, AZ, SC and MA. Even with expensive Boston... you've got New Hampshire or Worcester if you're willing to drive an hour one way. In the Bay Area especially - but also LA and OC area, it seemed that even expanding an hour out was prohibitive. The jobs in question are mostly in the Los Angeles metro, Orange County, some in the Bay Area.
It's not like I want a mansion - what we've got is a 2/1 1000sf house now.
Yep. Where I live the median home price is $220K. If one wants to live in LA, San Diego or the Bay Area it will be expensive. The other 97% is not that expensive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
