Moved to the Bay for 1 year from out of state, moved back. My review of it. (Orange: home, gated communities)
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.
So it's the same situation, for the same reason. London is desirable. Salaries are high. So people who make a lot of money are willing to pay more than what the middle class can afford in order to get those rare single family homes in London.
Yeah, middle class housing is whatever the middle class can afford. Major cities don't have many SFHs -- at least not many available for sale at any given time -- so they are very expensive there. Whereas if you go to an area that is not desirable, the price is lower, but so is your salary. Some people are upset that a middle class income doesn't produce "the middle class lifestyle" everywhere in the world, but not everywhere in the world has enough SFHs available for that to be possible, especially not large, developed, desirable cities. This is a ridiculously expensive area because it is highly desirable, and people with high incomes desire to live here.
It has probably been centuries since the middle class owned their own single family homes in London. Most live in "flats".
Same here.
Social scientists calculate affordability directly by asking how close a person earning median income can come to affording the median home with 20% down.
Anika783's example above is telling (and, tellingly, ignored by Neutrino78x). If 1% of the people are uber-rich, and 99% are slumdwellers, Neutrino78x makes the slumdwellers middle class and the slum the middle class home. Mathematically Neutrino78x is dead-on correct. Social scientifically, Neutrino78x is fatally incorrect. The reason he is incorrect is that "middle class" is a poor name for the concept social scientists signify with the label. Non-social scientists often assume this means "someone in the middle" but what it really means is someone far enough above subsistence to be able to afford health care, retirement, improving lifestyles for any children, and some serious discretionary income left over. Since 1974 that has become harder and harder to attain in the U.S., but it is the social scientific meaning of "middle class."
The message about messaging in my note is this: There is a difference between math and science and a difference between "English" and "Technical scientific terms". Math is a tool for science, not the other way around. And things that look like English but are actually technical terms should be understood--in a scientific, public policy, or "what is the state of the world" discussion--in light of their technical meaning, or confusion and misunderstanding will reign.
Here's a link to affordability figures 2012-2015. 100 means the median earner can afford the median home. Above 200 means the median earner can afford more. Below 100 means the median earner can afford less.
Social scientists calculate affordability directly by asking how close a person earning median income can come to affording the median home with 20% down.
Anika783's example above is telling (and, tellingly, ignored by Neutrino78x). If 1% of the people are uber-rich, and 99% are slumdwellers, Neutrino78x makes the slumdwellers middle class and the slum the middle class home. Mathematically Neutrino78x is dead-on correct. Social scientifically, Neutrino78x is fatally incorrect. The reason he is incorrect is that "middle class" is a poor name for the concept social scientists signify with the label. Non-social scientists often assume this means "someone in the middle" but what it really means is someone far enough above subsistence to be able to afford health care, retirement, improving lifestyles for any children, and some serious discretionary income left over. Since 1974 that has become harder and harder to attain in the U.S., but it is the social scientific meaning of "middle class."
The message about messaging in my note is this: There is a difference between math and science and a difference between "EnFair enough. What'd you take?glish" and "Technical scientific terms". Math is a tool for science, not the other way around. And things that look like English but are actually technical terms should be understood--in a scientific, public policy, or "what is the state of the world" discussion--in light of their technical meaning, or confusion and misunderstanding will reign.
Here's a link to affordability figures 2012-2015. 100 means the median earner can afford the median home. Above 200 means the median earner can afford more. Below 100 means the median earner can afford less.
99% isn't correct, 20% consists of the real remaining middle class who bought in the 1940s-1980s so they live healthy lifestyles and can actually enjoy the good things the Bay Area has (except the 10 dollar coffee). About 2.5% on top of that is people who
Inherited from those people in the first category and so are able to live similar lifestyles.
Last edited by Perma Bear; 08-18-2016 at 09:27 AM..
It is just not sustainable to move A FAMILY there AND have a good home and normal middle class quality of life unless your family brings in $175k-$200k or more.
Pretty much this. For most of us living on the Peninsula, this is the case. If we didn't work in the sectors that pay the bigger money, we wouldn't live in the Bay area. It's just how it is here.
~120k and deep family roots has my brother hanging on by his fingernails in Livermore with a 3+ hour daily commute. All the family came from SF. None could afford to stay there. It's nice that Neutrino likes where he lives. But saying "you shouldn't want to try to have a middle-class lifestyle" isn't a valid answer to "it's a nice place but I can't have a middle-class lifestyle there."
Two within the last year, another within the last 3 months. Few (myself included) did so at the peak of the last real estate bubble (was able to hold on to their homes because they bought within their means). Most people buy the best (the amenities and location, needs vs. wants) that they can afford at the time, been that way forever and everywhere. They didn't do it hoping for a real estate jackpot. It's not unique to SF bay area.
Problem I have with some posters are that they deem people who chose to stay and raise families in the Bay Area as "foolish" (words of another poster, not my words).
People have different priorities, and values. There is no ONE RIGHT WAY to live and/or raise a family. It's not that hard to "get".
I will be the first to admit that I am bias towards raising families in cities. I was raise in cities (much bigger than SF) in working class neighborhoods. I am really glad that my parents DIDN'T choose to buy (and raise us) in the suburbs (bigger house, yard, more "safe" neighborhood, better schools).
It wasn't a weekend "event" to go to festivals, museums, art gallery, art films or even to the opera, it was "normal" activities for us. You don't need to spend hundreds of dollars to appreciate the opera (student pricing woohoo!), and frankly I probably wouldn't appreciate dining at Jardiniere as a teenager (the foodie thing didn't kick in till my twenties), but was able to appreciate all the diverse food options a city offered for a working class kid who didn't (could afford) have a car.
While my peers in the suburbs were going to movies at the mall, I was going out for pho and then to the opera after school with my friends (our parents didn't need to "expose" us to "culture" we found it ourselves) . Sure, there was a crack house across the street from my junior high, and it was not out of the ordinary to find drug needles in my high school's yard..but surprisingly we never got into trouble. The teenagers that were getting into/causing trouble in the city were always the one who came down from the suburbs looking for "adventure".
But I also know plenty of people who grew up in leafy priivleged suburbs who turned out perfectly fine...which goes to show perhaps where one lives and how much money isn't the most important thing when it comes raising a family.
To call people foolish for making the choice to live where they do, be it Arizona, Palo Alto, Hayward, Concord only reflects your own limited view of the world.
You make some good points. And I certainly agree there is no one right way to raise a family. But the OP is talking about suburbs an hour outside of urban San Francisco as being difficult to afford for the middle class. Even if you wanted to raise your family in a 2-bedroom apartment in San Francisco I'm not sure that would even be financially possible at this point for middle class families unless you already had a rent controlled apartment secured.
And to Neutrino's point on London being comparable. Londoners do tend to live more densely than folks in the bay area - especially in the more central areas. But London is more like New York in that you have far more options for places to live within an hour public transit commute of job centers. These include affordable middle class suburbs for those that want that lifestyle. I understand also that London has seen big housing cost increases in recent years - folks over there are having similar conversations to Californians. Namely what to do as populations continue to grow and housing stocks are very limited. And lots of issues around gentrification of traditional working class urban neighborhoods.
Social scientists calculate affordability directly by asking how close a person earning median income can come to affording the median home with 20% down.
Anika783's example above is telling (and, tellingly, ignored by Neutrino78x). If 1% of the people are uber-rich, and 99% are slumdwellers, Neutrino78x makes the slumdwellers middle class and the slum the middle class home. Mathematically Neutrino78x is dead-on correct. Social scientifically, Neutrino78x is fatally incorrect. The reason he is incorrect is that "middle class" is a poor name for the concept social scientists signify with the label. Non-social scientists often assume this means "someone in the middle" but what it really means is someone far enough above subsistence to be able to afford health care, retirement, improving lifestyles for any children, and some serious discretionary income left over. Since 1974 that has become harder and harder to attain in the U.S., but it is the social scientific meaning of "middle class."
The message about messaging in my note is this: There is a difference between math and science and a difference between "English" and "Technical scientific terms". Math is a tool for science, not the other way around. And things that look like English but are actually technical terms should be understood--in a scientific, public policy, or "what is the state of the world" discussion--in light of their technical meaning, or confusion and misunderstanding will reign.
Here's a link to affordability figures 2012-2015. 100 means the median earner can afford the median home. Above 200 means the median earner can afford more. Below 100 means the median earner can afford less.
You can explain the concept of middle class lifestyle as defined by economists and social scientists to neutrino78x until you are blue in the face. He is either unable or unwilling to comprehend. I don't know if he is obtuse or just revels in ignorance.
We are back in Phoenix now. Enjoying nice warm weather, dirt cheap housing that is 10X nicer than California, in top school districts, next to everything new and nice.
What area of Phoenix do you live in?
I was just there in July and it was unbearably hot and extremely uncomfortable everywhere not blasted by air conditioning.
As far as the desire to live where everything is 'new and nice', I get it but the Bay Area's economy is so much larger and inherently stronger than Phoenix and there is so much resistance to new home construction, we rarely see large scale development in great school districts( the Tri Valley area is really the only area I can think of), we've set ourselves up for failure as far as meeting our regional housing needs. Instead to find new housing in a great school district, you can expect to shell out at least $1 million.
You make some good points. And I certainly agree there is no one right way to raise a family. But the OP is talking about suburbs an hour outside of urban San Francisco as being difficult to afford for the middle class. Even if you wanted to raise your family in a 2-bedroom apartment in San Francisco I'm not sure that would even be financially possible at this point for middle class families unless you already had a rent controlled apartment secured.
And to Neutrino's point on London being comparable. Londoners do tend to live more densely than folks in the bay area - especially in the more central areas. But London is more like New York in that you have far more options for places to live within an hour public transit commute of job centers. These include affordable middle class suburbs for those that want that lifestyle. I understand also that London has seen big housing cost increases in recent years - folks over there are having similar conversations to Californians. Namely what to do as populations continue to grow and housing stocks are very limited. And lots of issues around gentrification of traditional working class urban neighborhoods.
neutrino has never set foot in London. I doubt he's spent much time in NYC either
I am curious where the Bay Area prices will ultimately end up. they seem insanely expensive, but if you compare them to other global cities, such as Hong Kong, London, Paris, Geneva, Tokyo, Singapore they have ways to go. One big difference is that most of those cities have lot of new developments and we don't.
I live in North Concord as well, your description sounded familiar except the neighborhood I'm in doesn't really have much crime. Pretty quiet but a fair amount of the houses are unkept and the some of the neighbors are definitely more working class types. We plan to upgrade after the kids start kindergarten or 1st grade and we've built some equity. I grew up in Walnut Creek and if it wasn't for all of my family and friends in the area I wouldn't pay to live here, I agree it's not worth it for what you get at all.
So you live in roughneck, gross Concord of all places and then you trash gorgeous south Orange County!
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.
