Number of Wealthy Households in Oakland jumps 80% in 2 years. (Los Angeles: middle-class, renting)

[18Montclair]

This definitely won't make the front page of the Chron but from a demographic standpoint, this is very fascinating.

So I was pouring over data from the Census Bureau and came across this very interesting fact which I am at a loss to explain. Anyone care to offer up a plausible explanation?

Anyway, here is the number of households earning $200,000+ annually.

Cities, 2007, Growth Rate 2005-2007
Los Angeles 78,427, +32%
San Francisco 35,748, +52%
San Diego 29,223, +26%
San Jose 27,055, +41%
Newport Beach 10,372, +22%
Oakland 8,985, +80%
Irvine 8,534, +25%
Huntington Beach 7,263, +22%
Fremont 7,147, +27%
Thousand Oaks 6,492, +33%
Long Beach 6,255, +51%
Santa Monica 5,845, +20%
Sunnyvale 5,473, +9%
Mountain View 4,814, +16%
Sacramento 4,733, +62%
Pleasanton 4,440, +47%
Pasadena 4,275,+34%
Anaheim 4,126, +61%
Redondo Beach 4,052, +42%
Glendale 3,976, -0.10%

American FactFinder

[sav858]

I'm gonna guess people from SF or other wealthy enclaves who want a little more bang for their buck moving to Oakland's nice, trendy areas. And when you don't have a huge # of $200K+ earners to begin it's easier to have a large % increase. But good for Oakland, it really does have some nice parts to it.

[sliverbox]

I'm going to agree with Sav858. The reality these days is that 200k doesn't get you more than a crap-shack in SF. It might buy you an OK middle class looking home in Oakland. Thus the influx of more richy-rich type folks. I definitely notice more of the nuevo rich baby-stroller mom's in Oakland these days.

[18Montclair]

$200,000 annual income is quite comfortable in San Francisco. Of course, youre more comfortable with that much money in Oakland, but that's hardly a pittance in SF.

[hsw]

Census data is fairly worthless, self-reported data...

True affluent tend to under-report and avoid many surveys, so much sampling error...

More reliable are tax return data...and, even then, affluent (esp business owners, etc) tend to have various, legal tax approaches to report most "efficient" (i.e., lowest) income possible....

Agree, $250K/yr for a family is decidedly middle-class in nearly any of US' ?20 biggest urban regions, let alone SF region....however, $250K/yr for a young, single guy can provide a decent lifestyle...perhaps aspirational middle-class, but laughable to claim "wealthy"....

[sonarrat]

I don't see how anyone could live on $200K a year and not be able to afford "more than a crapshack".. I spend $600 a month on my car, insurance and fuel, $300 on (good) food for two, maybe $200 on entertainment, maybe $200 if I need to replace something, buy new clothes, etc. That's everything I need, aside from housing, and I've only spent $1300. And you're telling me people who take home over $15K a month can't save up to buy a nice house - outright - in the matter of just a few years, even in the Bay Area?

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

I don't see how anyone could live on $200K a year and not be able to afford "more than a crapshack".. I spend $600 a month on my car, insurance and fuel, $300 on (good) food for two, maybe $200 on entertainment, maybe $200 if I need to replace something, buy new clothes, etc. That's everything I need, aside from housing, and I've only spent $1300. And you're telling me people who take home over $15K a month can't save up to buy a nice house - outright - in the matter of just a few years, even in the Bay Area?

The numbers can be mind boggling...

I work with people that say they need 10k per month just to make it... and I also know people that live quite well on half that in the East Bay.

Definitely more younger urban pioneers settling in Oakland the last 5 years from my perspective.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

The numbers can be mind boggling...

I work with people that say they need 10k per month just to make it... and I also know people that live quite well on half that in the East Bay.

Definitely more younger urban pioneers settling in Oakland the last 5 years from my perspective.

If "make it" means "buy a new S-class for me and a new Range Rover for my wife every other year," then yes, it does take $10K a month to make it..

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

If "make it" means "buy a new S-class for me and a new Range Rover for my wife every other year," then yes, it does take $10K a month to make it..

Funny you should say that... one family that comes to mind DOES have a new Range Rover

[mdwstrnkid]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

I don't see how anyone could live on $200K a year and not be able to afford "more than a crapshack".. I spend $600 a month on my car, insurance and fuel, $300 on (good) food for two, maybe $200 on entertainment, maybe $200 if I need to replace something, buy new clothes, etc. That's everything I need, aside from housing, and I've only spent $1300. And you're telling me people who take home over $15K a month can't save up to buy a nice house - outright - in the matter of just a few years, even in the Bay Area?

Keep in mind though that $200K does not translate to a take home of over $15K/month (unless you are skirting the IRS and FTB). After taxes, you are looking at something around $9-$10K. If you are living it up renting a 2BR loft in SOMA and driving around in a new CLK, that money will go quickly. That said, if you are making that kind of money and have a mind to save up to buy a house, you should not have any problems doing so in a few years. I make a bit less than that, live a very nice lifestyle, and am still able to save a significant amount of money each year. In eight years, I have put away enough to buy a reasonable place in the Bay Area (if I wanted to do so).