U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-13-2015, 12:49 PM
 
6,968 posts, read 14,097,897 times
Reputation: 4553

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SyraBrian View Post
Can the person from Mississippi ever afford to move to California. Can the person from California afford to move to Mississippi? It would seem that the person from Mississippi is trapped in a bubble.
Chances are the person from California might also be trapped. No car. Can't find a job elsewhere. No way to ship everything to Mississippi. No way to even get themselves to Mississippi.

It's all relevant to where you live. The people living in LA, according to this, are monetarily worse off than those living in other parts of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2015, 12:53 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,254,190 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by SyraBrian View Post
Can the person from Mississippi ever afford to move to California. Can the person from California afford to move to Mississippi? It would seem that the person from Mississippi is trapped in a bubble.
This is what I don't understand from these "studies". You get richer from investing in high-cost markets. The idea that households allegedly grow poorer if their primary investments have greater yields is so divorced from reality, not sure what else to say.

Makes more sense to buy a 500k home in LA than a 100k home in Indiana. You will end up richer with the first purchase, in most cases, because that 500k home will become a 2 million home, while the 100k home will become a 150k home. It's like saying that KMart stock is a better buy than Apple stock because the buy-in costs are lower. Huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 12:55 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,254,190 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
It's all relevant to where you live. The people living in LA, according to this, are monetarily worse off than those living in other parts of the country.
But they're not. They have greater equity in the homes, meaning more wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 12:55 PM
 
6,968 posts, read 14,097,897 times
Reputation: 4553
You're under the assumption that someone living paycheck to paycheck on minimum wage with no benefits and possibly either no or crap credit can purchase a home...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 12:57 PM
 
6,968 posts, read 14,097,897 times
Reputation: 4553
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
But they're not. They have greater equity in the homes, meaning more wealth.
LA is full of renters, not homeowners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 01:05 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,254,190 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Except the discussion of the article is on poverty not relative wealth; poverty is defined by the amount of poor people. The article is comparing the poverty rate, not relative wealth, did you read the article? It's not technical it's accurate to measure poverty by umm, poverty. Talking about relative wealth tells you nothing about poverty.
You're arguing a technical definition that is essentially useless in the real world. It makes "poverty" meaningless, and makes the wealthiest places "poorer" than working class places depending on housing typology and family type.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That's only a benefit if you already own a house.
And most Americans are already homeowners. Therefore, most Americans benefit from property value increases. 70% of Americans are homeowners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Most old people. No household making 70k/year can afford a $1 million home.
I can. I can afford a $1 million home on 0 salary. It isn't the norm, but I doubt it's unusual.

You really think that typical 30 year old bearded hipsters buying $1 million homes in Brooklyn are all making 400k+? They aren't working on Wall Street. They aren't superstar radiologists or law firm partners or successful business owners.

They aren't buying based on annual salaries; they're buying based on investment wealth and passed-down wealth. Aunt Mary in Syosset passes away, and her 1 million home is split between two kids. Those two kids are now potential cash buyers of homes. The high costs cited in this article made Aunt Mary's family richer, not poorer. If she lived in Fort Wayne or Flint there would be no such inherited wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 01:11 PM
 
6,968 posts, read 14,097,897 times
Reputation: 4553
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
And most Americans are already homeowners. Therefore, most Americans benefit from property value increases. 70% of Americans are homeowners.

I can. I can afford a $1 million home on 0 salary. It isn't the norm, but I doubt it's unusual.

You really think that typical 30 year old bearded hipsters buying $1 million homes in Brooklyn are all making 400k+? They aren't working on Wall Street. They aren't superstar radiologists or law firm partners or successful business owners.

They aren't buying based on annual salaries; they're buying based on investment wealth and passed-down wealth. Aunt Mary in Syosset passes away, and her 1 million home is split between two kids. Those two kids are now potential cash buyers of homes. The high costs cited in this article made Aunt Mary's family richer, not poorer. If she lived in Fort Wayne or Flint there would be no such inherited wealth.
Los Angeles Has The Highest Percentage Of Renters In The US - State O' the Market - Curbed LA
LA is mostly renters, not homeowners.

People purchasing homes are going into debt and taking out huge loans, not living off investments and parents' wealth. You realize a vast majority of these people living in that 26.1% poverty in LA are probably either immigrants or children of immigrants? Even people that aren't immigrants...not everyone comes from money. So many people in LA come from middle or even lower class families from all over America and try to "make it" in LA and realize they can't. Or even families who have been there for a long time who just can't make it by anymore with the lagging economy. It's no secret that LA's economic growth has been mostly in low paying jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Syracuse, New York
3,114 posts, read 2,525,978 times
Reputation: 2276
What about millennials still living out home? I don't think the parents of the California millennials are making them pay five times the rent of the Mississippi stay at home milllenials. Even though both types of milleninals may claim to reside in their own household?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 01:23 PM
 
6,968 posts, read 14,097,897 times
Reputation: 4553
A major factor everyone's neglecting is that LA has a huge population of generally poor Latin American immigrants. No, I'm not trying to stereotype, because there are also plenty of well-off Latinos high up in society living in multi-million dollar mansions. But a large portion of LA is poor recent immigrants. They often work minimum wage jobs and have many people or generations living under one roof.

I know the next argument. Well if they're so poor they shouldn't have immigrated or whatever. Something like that. Would you rather live in South Central with access to running water and electricity and all that the US offers? Or would you rather stay in poverty-stricken villages with little access to utilities or employment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 01:41 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,254,190 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
LA is full of renters, not homeowners.
Not true. A (slim) majority of LA households are homeowners, not renters. LA residents generally benefit from the high cost of housing.

Housing Vacancies and Homeownership (CPS/HVS) - Quarterly Vacancy and Homeownership Rates by State and MSA - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top