The Affordable Housing Shortage Hits Dallas Almost As Hard As California Metros (rent, insurance)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Shooting Stars

You are kidding, right? If California is contributing the majority of newcomers to any given metro area, and the prices only then become uncoupled from local incomes, then YES, California's mess is distorting that market. That is the case for Austin.

Dallas and Houston's prices have not gone into the stratosphere as much as Austin because fewer Californians choose those cities.

This is not a new concept. As far back as I can remember, different places have complained about Californians discovering their town and jacking up prices.

I myself live in the mountains of North Georgia right now. Twenty or more years ago, prices here were lower before retirees and newcomers like myself jacked up prices. It's still a very reasonable place for real estate, as long as you aren't a local who was born here. What seems reasonable to us, is expensive historically for the area.

This scene is played out everywhere, but California's population size means that when a substantial number of Californians leave for a specific location, they really have a financial impact on that location.

You can go back 20 years and find articles talking about this. It's nothing new!

No, I’m not kdding. Yes, I’m completely aware of the Californication themes in Washington, Oregon, Texas, N. Carolina ... etc etc etc.

My point stands: each of those places have their own merits to attract new industry and residents ... from anywhere. And they do. Our culture is addicted to growth for its own sake. Which, as Edward Abbey so aptly noted years ago, is the ideology of the cancer cell. Growth for the love of growth is the culprit ... not California. California can only accommodate so many people. Overflow has to go someplace. It’s not California’s “fault” it is so popular that it has become as it is. It is human desire.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by sav858

Maybe they have more subsidized housing available or perhaps lots of areas that haven't really gentrified so there is a good supply of housing for low-income people. Vegas was the #1 for having the least amount of affordable housing for low income people even though it's also seen as a cheap, affordable alternative to coastal CA. That could be because much of it's housing is new so not a lot available on the lower end. I'm not really sure, some metro areas must just have different levels of available housing for different income levels but I'm curious to know why too.

Yea, it's really striking. Boston and the greater Boston area is among the most expensive in the country and it's a very high income area in the country. It's economically doing well and its population growth is pretty healthy. It's super weird that it's so high up there in those rankings.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Shooting Stars

How does IRS data not cover everyone?

Are you saying the people leaving are so poor they don't even pay taxes?

There are problems using IRS data:

• The AGI associated with a given migrant return is the total AGI for the filer after migration. It is not how much money they earned prior to departure, it is how much money they earned after arrival
• Non-filers will not show up in the data. This un-counted population is disproportionately likely to include the young, low-income, homeless, illegal residents, felons, students, and even some retirees. Because the IRS does not count these people, and makes no adjustment to try and represent the whole resident population, it is an incomplete and a biased sample.
• A tax return may list an address of the tax preparer, a business address, or a P.O. box that is different from the residence of the taxpayer. To the extent that the state from which the tax is filed is different than the state of residence, a false attribution of income migration would occur
• Because of the way IRS data is collected, to get a really representative taxpayer migrant, the only accurate data would be for someone filing in April-April, moving in June. That would result in 50% of income being pre and 50% post migration
• On average, between 2011 and 2014 for the typical county for which we have data, the IRS estimates of net cross-county migration were off from Census official estimates by 417 people, a median absolute percentage error rate of almost 60 percent. In general, users should rely on the Census Bureau’s official cross-county migration estimates as the most authoritative source for net population inflows

http://taxpolicyissues.com/whymigration.pdf
https://medium.com/migration-issues/...s-47b2fb6feb3c
https://www.zillow.com/research/comp...sources-13252/

[WizardOfRadical]

It is a nationwide issue.

It just happenend in CA first.

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

Wow, now words have tones. And yes, I can see by that chart how much harder living in Dallas would be. And at $49k vs $350k, I'd say it's like being hit with a feather compared to a sledge hammer.

Back to Bizarro World.

The minimum wage in Dallas is $7. In Sf it is $15. So somebody who leaves their $15 wage in SF because they cannot afford their $2k apartment will see their income drop by 50%, while having the same car payment (or they maybe didn't even have a car in SF) and a rent for $1000. Are you really that dense? Simple math is your friend

[WizardOfRadical]

Plus, you have to live in fly over country.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

IRS data has it's usefulness but Id rather rely on actual census data for this as it covers everyone...



https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/ca...136478098.html

Low-income folks moved out, high-income folks moved in

People making $55,000 or less a year were mostly moving out of California between 2007 and 2016, the report found, while people making more than $200,000 a year moved in.

More of those residents with lower income were moving to states like Texas, Nevada and Arizona. And more of those with higher incomes were coming into California from states like New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.

Leaving California: Here's who's moving out, who's moving in. - The San Diego Union-Tribune

The second article you chose doesn't disprove the point that people making anywhere between 100k-200k per year don't make up the majority of people leaving. The article goes from those making less than $55k and skips to those making over 200k.

Look at all the companies moving to Texas from CA or opening up offices there. If you're already living in CA and get the transfer / move with the company, the vast majority are keeping the very same salary, despite the COL decrease. What do you think that's going to do to the locals? Austin is really the worst with this. The Northern side of the Metroplex is getting there (some new businesses in North DFW have trouble hiring folks for minimum wage because it's too far from the lower income areas of DFW and there's no transit to get there). Houston escapes this for the most part as income is more evenly distributed across the metro.

Even with the increase in prices in Texas, it is way easier to live there on less than $18 per hour than in CA. It is the difference between living in a newer apartment complex versus an apartment built in the 60s with roommates. There are too many professionals in CA who have to rent because they can't afford to buy a home and the NIMBYs block new home construction (a very distasteful "I got mine" attitude in CA, especially the Bay and parts of LA).

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

The minimum wage in Dallas is $7. In Sf it is $15. So somebody who leaves their $15 wage in SF because they cannot afford their $2k apartment will see their income drop by 50%, while having the same car payment (or they maybe didn't even have a car in SF) and a rent for $1000. Are you really that dense? Simple math is your friend

Not as dense as someone that doesn't take the time to read and comprehend a comment fully. Do you understand the math that was supplied in my previous post (#36) that addressed your very statement? Obviously not. Good job Einstein! Next time, try reading the entire thread before you make an asinine comment

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

Not as dense as someone that doesn't take the time to read and comprehend a comment fully. Do you understand the math that was supplied in my previous post (#36) that addressed your very statement? Obviously not. Good job Einstein! Next time, try reading the entire thread before you make an asinine comment

Yes I saw that post and it makes no sense. What couple making minimum wage in SF is paying $3,400 for an apartment. (your assumption is $40k for annual rent). That's a total red herring. And in Dallas same couple will likely need two cars vs. 0 in SF. Throw in insurance, gas etc. all incremental costs.

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

Not as dense as someone that doesn't take the time to read and comprehend a comment fully. Do you understand the math that was supplied in my previous post (#36) that addressed your very statement? Obviously not. Good job Einstein! Next time, try reading the entire thread before you make an asinine comment

BTW, thanks for the rep, even though you cursed at me! hahahahaha. learn how rep works