Austin's super zips

[787]

Originally Posted by riaelise

With dual incomes comes increased purchasing power. That can be a good and bad thing depending on the people involved. I personally don't really find fault with those who want to use their increased purchasing power to move into better neighborhoods with better school districts.

The problem is that EVERYBODY is doing this, and the end result is a society full of people that end up in the same neighborhood to begin with, but now with a 75% markup.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

This study, like many others, conflates income and wealth. Makes it not very reliable.

Your fault is with the KUT headline writer -- not the study. The researchers at the WaPo were quire clear on what their analysis was based on. The study is quite reliable -- the numbers are what they are.

[riaelise]

Originally Posted by 787

The problem is that society won't allow responsible home ownership.

When a couple with 120K income buys a 250K house, they've basically alienated themselves from their Tribe. Many times they're looked down upon, and ostracized or excluded from social functions because the neighborhood they live in isn't "good enough" to the other people of their Tribe.

If you have a mortgage 2X your income, you're practically guarenteed to be the richest people in your neighborhood. The perception that 3.5X income is "normal" for a mortgage is a problem that is pushed by existing homeowners and realtors tryign to upsale and push up prices.

answer me this: why do SELLERS pay closing costs only?

While I do think that people shouldn't overextend themselves, who are we to tell people that they can't spend X% chunk of their money on housing? For some, they'd rather skip dining out, newer cars, etc. but splurge on their house. And that's my point..there's nothing wrong with that. Of course, a line has to be drawn..people making 125 should NOT be living in half million dollar homes. But I see nothing wrong with people making that same salary living in a $350K home. Also, I think it is folly for people to buy homes based upon trying to fit in with their "tribe". If that's how the people (who by the way aren't paying your mortgage) think, then one needs to find a new tribe...that's just silly. I live in a neighborhood of homes ranging from hi-100s to lower 300s and frankly I don't give a beep about what some person assumes about me because I don't live in an elite neighborhood. I like my bank account far more.

People who want to spend more of their salary on housing because they want a prime location or prime schools, nothing wrong with that at all. I came from a high COL city where it would be impossible for anyone to own anything on just twice their income these days, so yeah..3.5 times income is normal in such states.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Your fault is with the KUT headline writer -- not the study. The researchers at the WaPo were quire clear on what their analysis was based on. The study is quite reliable -- the numbers are what they are.

No, from the Post article:
"Clarksville sits in one of the nation’s “Super Zips” — a term coined by American Enterprise Institute scholar and author Charles Murray to describe the country’s most prosperous, highly educated demographic clusters. On average, they have a median household income of $120,000, and 7 in 10 adults have college degrees."

prosperous = rich/wealthy

Which they measure using household income. Which doesn't measure wealth.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

prosperous = rich/wealthy

Which they measure using household income. Which doesn't measure wealth.

According to who? You?

According to Merriam-Webster:

2
a : marked by success or economic well-being

Which has nothing to do with wealth -- as much as you wish it did.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

According to who? You?

According to Merriam-Webster:



Which has nothing to do with wealth -- as much as you wish it did.

Prosperous | Define Prosperous at Dictionary.com
Synonyms
1. thriving. 2. wealthy, rich. 3. fortunate, lucky, auspicious.


economic well-being = wealth. Having high yearly income, but equally high expenses (which happens to many, and this study didn't account for), is not economic well-being.

Or how about (also from the Post) "As the affluent become more isolated, the working class and the poor become confined".
Poor = lack of wealth. But they measured income, not wealth.

Or "Yet many who live in these rapidly evolving communities do not think of themselves as rich or elite. "
Duh, because they didn't actually measure if they're rich.



Or "Although the wealthiest Americans have always lived in their own islands of privilege"

"A recent analysis of census data by sociologists Sean Reardon of Stanford and Kendra Bischoff of Cornell highlighted how middle-income neighborhoods have been fading away as more people live in areas that are either poor or affluent."

"Meanwhile, the share of families living in affluent neighborhoods doubled, from 7 percent to 15 percent, as did families living in poor neighborhoods, from 8 percent to 18 percent."

"Some sociologists think the trend is isolating well-to-do Americans from the problems of the poor and the working poor,"

"As the affluent become more isolated, the working class and the poor become confined "

“Will they be less empathetic? Do they understand what it’s like to grow up poor?”

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Prosperous | Define Prosperous at Dictionary.com
Synonyms
1. thriving. 2. wealthy, rich. 3. fortunate, lucky, auspicious.

Did you sleep through class where they explained that synonyms aren't definitions? Nice try, however.

The Super Zips were just a tool - created by Charles Murray - that the WaPo used in their article. All of the bleating about what was in that article had absolutely nothing to do with what was used with creating Murray's list - % of college grads AND median HHI. The article used the list, not the other way around.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by atxcio

You've also got a whole lot of very high-net worth people in those areas who may not have an annual salary/income in the traditional sense. It would depend on what they used to come up with that number.

And then you've got apartments, condos, duplexes etc. in a place like 78746. So not everyone owns a $650K house.

Exactly, many wealthy people have their money invested in ways that require they report no income taxes on the earnings they receive from it, such as treasury bonds. And I'm sure there are many other clever ways to tax shelter income. As a result that income is not reportable and does not show up on maps such as those for median house hold income. In addition many of the wealthy probably paid cash for or inherited their homes so they do not have to make mortgage payments and can get by on lower cash flow each month then all of the working class people who are mortgaged in order to have the homes they live in.

[355spider]

I'm surprised at how low those incomes are. My income is far higher and I can't live in some of those areas.