Middle class heading for exit in LA (Los Angeles, San Diego: houses, buying)

[fastfilm]

The original citation for this study was from the Los Angeles Times. Let's be adult, okay?

[TheRealAngelion]

Originally Posted by fastfilm

The original citation for this study was from the Los Angeles Times. Let's be adult, okay?

Well, I certainly don't believe I am being uncivil. You believe most other U.S. cities with million plus populations have substantially more middle classs households than LA. All I am asking for is proof and you have yet to provide it.

[JackSparrow]

Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion

Well, I certainly don't believe I am being uncivil. You believe most other U.S. cities with million plus populations have substantially more middle classs households than LA. All I am asking for is proof and you have yet to provide it.

It is easier for people to cling to their ideas rather than examine reality.

[motoman]

This is from a report by the California Budget Project. Here is a link to the report.

California’s Job Growth Was Concentrated
in Low-Wage and High-Wage Jobs

In recent decades, California has added large shares of
both low-wage and high-wage jobs, but has experienced
considerably less growth in jobs with earnings in the middle of
the distribution. More than one in four jobs created between
1979 and 2005 (26.9 percent) had typical hourly earnings in
the bottom fifth of the distribution, and another 28.1 percent
of new jobs had earnings in the top fifth (Figure 1.3). If job
growth had been even across the earnings distribution, each
fifth would have contributed 20 percent of the state’s job
growth. Instead, more than half of the jobs added during this
period (55.0 percent) – approximately 3 million jobs – had
earnings in either the bottom or the top fifth of the distribution.
In contrast, the share of California’s job growth in the middle of
the earnings distribution was substantially weaker than growth
at each end of the distribution. California added fewer than
350,000 jobs in the second fifth of the earnings distribution
representing just 6.0 percent of the job growth during this
26-year period. In addition, just 14.0 percent of the job growth
occurred in the third fifth of the earnings distribution, where the
state added fewer than 800,000 jobs.

Strong Job Growth at Each End of the Earnings
Distribution Reflects Demand for Services

Service occupations that typically require at least a bachelor’s
degree drove California’s job growth at the top of the earnings
distribution between 1979 and 2005. Occupations in the
fifth of the wage distribution with the greatest job gains
primary and secondary school teachers as well as executives,
administrators, and managers in various sectors of the
economy. California also added tens of thousands of scientists,
lawyers and judges, engineers, and high-skill health-service
workers, such as physicians and dentists. The state also added
nearly 100,000 protective-service workers in the top fifth of the
earnings distribution, such as police and fire fighters.

Much of the job growth at the low end of the earnings
distribution in California between 1979 and 2005 occurred
in low-skill service occupations. The highest-growth
occupations with typical hourly earnings in the bottom fifth
of the distribution include sales persons and cashiers; food
preparation and service workers; health-service workers, such
as nurses’ aides; and farm workers. California also added
more than 100,000 personal service jobs, such as hair stylists,
ushers, baggage porters, and child care workers.

Weak Job Growth in the Middle of the Earnings
Distribution Reflects a Decline in Manufacturing

Weak job growth in the middle of the earnings distribution
between 1979 and 2005 largely reflects manufacturing
losses. California lost more than 100,000 durable and
nondurable goods production jobs with earnings in the second
and the third fifths of the distribution, including assembly
line workers, machine operators, and production helpers. In
addition, the state lost tens of thousands of nonproduction jobs
related to manufacturing, such as freight, stock, and material
handlers. Weak job growth in the middle of the earnings
distribution also reflects the fact that California lost tens
thousands of jobs in clerical support occupations during this 26-
year period, including secretaries, stenographers, and typists,
as well as record processors, such as bookkeepers.

[fastfilm]

Here's a cache of the source: within the 2/3 quote, bear in mind that most in that figure are poor, and the boldface is mine.
From the LA Times article:

Demographers at Wayne State University in Detroit recently found Greater Los Angeles to be the most economically segregated region in the country. The study found only about 28% of its neighborhoods to be middle-class or mixed income, compared with more than half of those in Nashville, Pittsburgh, Seattle and Portland, Ore.

More than two-thirds of L.A.-area residents live in neighborhoods that are solidly rich or poor, according to the analysis, which is based on 2000 census data. That share has been steadily growing for three decades, said one of the study's authors, George Galster, a professor of urban affairs at Wayne State.
"The situation in L.A. is certainly at the extreme of American cities," Galster said, adding that every one of the 100 metropolitan regions he looked at has grown more economically segregated over the last 30 years.

Thank you motoman for additional data for everyone reading this forum. This is a severely difficult locale for the middle-incomed to attain any reasonable quality of life. They most likely will be living in a poorer neighborhood, with our concomitant problems of gangs, vandalism, etc. People can pretend things are otherwise in L.A., but it's just not true. San Diegoans who proselytize about L.A. sure can be stubborn.

[TheRealAngelion]

Fastfilm, I am familiar with the Wayne State study which focuses on the proportion of middle class neighborhoods. However, I asked you about the number and proportion of middle class households in LA in comparison to other major cities. There is a difference. But let's take a look at the neighborhood data which I believe you are grossly misinterpreting when comparing LA to other major U.S. cities/metro areas. Here are the chain of comments that led to this discussion.

LP640 said...

Originally Posted by LP640

Well, if you add West Hollywood and Beverly Hills I highly doubt the statistics would change much. Los Angeles, in general, is a working class city.

I said in reponse...

Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion

Pretty much all major U.S. cities with a population of 1 million plus people are mostly working class.

In response to my post, you said...

Originally Posted by fastfilm

Not true, and Los Angeles is the exception to the prevalence of middle incomes otherwise found in American major cities.

You also said in an earlier post...

Originally Posted by fastfilm

My fact-check is buried somewhere in the 70 pages of L.A. threads, but I believe its original stats were 20% of Los Angeles would be considered middle class, 10% is wealthy, and 70% is low income. (with U.S. census guidelines of income.) This is VERY out of sync with the rest of the United States' major cities, wherein at least 50% of their residents were middle class or comfortably off, and the remainder evenly divided between rich and poor.

You further said...

Originally Posted by fastfilm

The original citation for this study was from the Los Angeles Times.

Now let's look at the facts and dump all of the commentary and opining. The LA Times article you alluded to was originally published on July 23, 2006 and it was republished in the attached link.

Rich, Poor Live Poles Apart in L.A. as Middle Class Keeps Shrinking (http://www.laane.org/newsletter/0609/content/060723lat.html - broken link)

The article was by the LA Times, therefore it was written to focus on LA, but the complete data from the Wayne State Study comparing the number of middle class neighborhoods in the top 10 U.S. metros is outlined. Although LA has the smallest proportion of middle class neighborhoods, the distinction between the proportion of middle, low and high income nieghborhoods among most of the metros listed is not that dramatic. This data does not show LA being that far "out of sync" as you stated. And clearly, your claim that "20% of Los Angeles would be considered middle class, 10% is wealthy, and 70% is low income" is totally unsubstantiated. To the contrary, the data shows that LA is 28% middle income, 37.3% low income, and 34.4% high income, the second most high number of high income residents after New York.

Your claim that 50% of the population of other major cities is middle class is also not supported. Not a single metro area on that list has a 50% percent middle class population.

Originally Posted by fastfilm

People can pretend things are otherwise in L.A., but it's just not true. San Diegoans who proselytize about L.A. sure can be stubborn.

The only pretending that's being done here is by you. Please stop spreading false and misleading information.

[fastfilm]

I live in Los Angeles, have done so for five decades, and can't wait to leave. The quality of life here for low-to-moderate income people has eroded for my household just as it has for countless others. I'm hardly the only voice about this here.
You live in San Diego and do much to claim Los Angeles is unequivocally wonderful for all.
Rather than quibble about semantics, let's make up and trade houses!

[TheRealAngelion]

Originally Posted by fastfilm

I live in Los Angeles, have done so for five decades, and can't wait to leave. The quality of life here for low-to-moderate income people has eroded for my household just as it has for countless others. I'm hardly the only voice about this here.
You live in San Diego and do much to claim Los Angeles is unequivocally wonderful for all.
Rather than quibble about semantics, let's make up and trade houses!

We are talking about more than semantics here. We're talking about taking a quote from an article out of context and not telling the full story or showing the data for the sole purpose to mislead and to distort the truth. Have you no shame?

I don't think LA is wonderful for all, and if you read my posts, which are numerous, I have said as much. I have recommended and encouraged people to leave and have supported and encouraged those who wish to make LA their home. I am sorry that life has deteriorated for you, but your life and personal circumstances are not representative of everyone else's. I live, witness, and experience a totally different LA from you as do others in this forum. So you don't hold a monopoly of knowledge about life in LA as much as you would like for people to think that you do.

And as far as trading houses go, I'm only interested in trading up, not down, so a house in Pacoima won't do. Sorry. But let me know if you hear of any good bargains in the Hollywood Hills (preferably in the Sunset Plaza area).

[LBguy562]

Originally Posted by fastfilm

I live in Los Angeles, have done so for five decades, and can't wait to leave. The quality of life here for low-to-moderate income people has eroded for my household just as it has for countless others. I'm hardly the only voice about this here.
You live in San Diego and do much to claim Los Angeles is unequivocally wonderful for all.
Rather than quibble about semantics, let's make up and trade houses!

This thread has gone on 8 pages, and I just thought I would give a general comment here: How DARE you people knock L.A. city and county! There are some negatives (Illegal aliens , extreme liberals etc..) but this is the 2nd largest city in the nation! Poeple are so down on this town? You will not have a Getty Center in San Diego! Granted San Diego is still better than Phoenix or Omaha but even still! L.A. is the home of the entertainment industry and a cultural hub that sets the tone for everywhere else. The Middle clas in this area hit a rough patch in the 90s because the Cold War was over and much of the defense industry dissapearred..and on top of that illegals have undercut many on certain trade jobs. Well, thanks to two guys yelling on AM 640 around here, we are on the way to recovery. And I for one thought this was a fine place to grow up. And when I procreate in the years to come, I would hate to raise my kids in some crappy city in the middle of the country that if you left town in any direction, there was no mountains, desert or beach. It is all boring farm land with uneducated people! Screw that! Do i want to live in a place where where the local Intain restaurant selection only consists of crappy chains? Even worse, The Olive Garden? All you people are ridulous! You actually want to give up on a great place because of some "Temporary" issues. Get over yourselves! Mar Vista is not a ghetto! South Central is a ghetto! Jesus, you guys see a few mexicans and you label the whole area "ghetto". Jeez!

[killer2021]

Originally Posted by greggd

What are you studying in college. 20k a year is like minimum wage. Not a very high ambition for a college grad.

accounting. I just say 20k/year because there is no guarantee that you will get anything from going to school. So 20k/year is a worse case scenario it is basically making 10$/hr working full time. I might end up making more but I will still leave because you need to make a ridiculously large amount of money to have a decent living out here. Also it is more about your standard of living. I believe that LA/OC doesn't offer a high standard of living compared to what you are paying. Housing is most people's largest expense so if I can move to another location that has housing for 1/5th the price compared to in LA/OC without taking a substantial hit in pay then I will move. My money will go further in TX compared to LA/OC.