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.
You sound like you’re just parroting incorrect propaganda. Drugs do not come from single people sneaking in, they come through legit border crossings in cars and trucks, and shipping ports. It is also well documented that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than others because they know theyll be deported.
Again I think illegal cheap labor did far more damage to wages and small businesses than illegal immigration could ever do. I think it helps the economy. Ask farmers and meat processing plant owners. And as I said, it is hardly the threat to wages and small business than cheap imports and big box stores.
Of course they come from many places. Do you ignore illegals brining in more because others also smuggle or make other drugs? You keep coming up with excuses for illegal immigration and avoid saying that it is illegal. What do you call somebody that came into our Country illegally; a 'criminal' would be a good choice. So if they are all criminals how can you say they commit fewer crimes?
You want different laws; write Congress. Until that time we need to enforce the laws they gave us.
When I relocated to Tucson last June, I wanted to rent an apartment for 6 months, first time renting in 35 years of home ownership. My only income was social security of 1217, minus $121 for Medicare, leaving me 1077. I couldn't find any place to rent as they wanted 2-3 times income of the rent. I had $25k in the bank, and I faxed them my bank account, but they still wouldn't rent to me. As to the $25k in the bank: How do we know you're not going to go out and buy a car tomorrow!
I was in the midst of selling my house @$125k, so, in a panic, I just bought a low end mobile home for temporary living, and put it up for sale a week later after I moved there.
Homelessness is expensive for taxpayers, it's estimated that it costs taxpayers $42.5k a year to have one homeless person on our streets.
In some cities, like San Francisco and L.A., they have an addition problem of Nimbyism. In San Francisco the "Kings" and "Queens" of the Hills don't want anything built which will mar their precious views of the Bay, so no building higher than 3 stories. L.A. isn't much better, particularly the western part. Santa Monica hasn't seen a new high rise since 1970.
Excellent example, thanks for sharing it. In a tight housing market landlords get real picky. When we moved from Reno to Sacramento we needed a place for a few months while we looked for a house to buy. We couldn't find a month to month rental that would accept our two dogs, even extended stay would only accept one. Money wasn't an issue and neither was income, landlords just wouldn't take two dogs unless we signed a 12 month lease. We ended up spending 3 months in a nasty a$$ La Quinta motel, and that cost us over $1500 a month
This should come as no surprise considering the absurd cost of housing in places such as those cited in the article (i.e. NYC, Seattle, LA) mixed with paltry salaries, including those in "professional" occupations.
No one's talking about the craze for "house flipping" that's been raging for the last 20 years or more. That kind of RE speculation used to be considered unethical and shameful. Now, people brag about it.
You shouldn't need to earn over $4,500/month to live in a standard apartment. Someone making $1,000 less than that should be able to afford a $1,500 apartment fairly comfortably. That's an extra $2,000 for car, insurance, food, etc. That's a lot.
Odd jobs are not a "reliable, consistent" source of income, regardless of whether or not they are claimed on taxes. They don't count.
The funny thing is, the way housing is set up in this country, if someone is making over a certain amount (I think it's around $32,000) they can't live in certain income-restricted complexes where rent is anywhere from $700-$1,200. But then if they make under $4,500, they can't live in a standard complex either. So people earning low wages can live comfortably in decent complexes. People making over $4,500/month can also. But the people in between? That's the crowd earning $15-$22/hr. Where do they go? They have to live with roommates?
I ran into this bizarre situation when I moved from Tennessee to Des Moines, IA back in 2012. I was working downtown, very close to the Capitol building. I had never been to Iowa, so naturally wanted a place close to work.
At the time, most of the downtown units that I saw were actually income restricted to somewhere in the low-mid $30k range. I was making $45k. I think rents, even for the income restricted units, were in the $600/month range. These weren't typical "government housing" either, many were nice than the relative handful of units on the private market in the immediate area.
I was bamboozled by this. Granted, I had never lived in a major city or anywhere outside of small towns in TN, VA, and SC then, but I had never heard of this practice.
If you're making too much for income restricted housing, but not enough for the private market, you're kind of in the lurch.
I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but I'll take a pass at it.
If you're an average wage earner trying to reside in a city with studios/1BRs starting at $1,500, you need to move. The fact of the matter is that the elite (mostly coastal) markets with extremely high rents are basically for two groups of people - 1) the subsidized poor 2) the top 10%, maybe 20% or so, who can afford the market rate for rent.
If you're in the middle, the higher wages in those areas are likely not going to offset the housing costs, and you'd be better off in relative terms in a different market.
No one's talking about the craze for "house flipping" that's been raging for the last 20 years or more. That kind of RE speculation used to be considered unethical and shameful.
Really? I remember people doing this as far back as the early 1970s, and no one ever considered it unethical or shameful. Just the opposite: taking a dump in disrepair, fixing it and making it habitable, has always been positive thing for a community.
Excellent example, thanks for sharing it. In a tight housing market landlords get real picky. When we moved from Reno to Sacramento we needed a place for a few months while we looked for a house to buy. We couldn't find a month to month rental that would accept our two dogs, even extended stay would only accept one. Money wasn't an issue and neither was income, landlords just wouldn't take two dogs unless we signed a 12 month lease. We ended up spending 3 months in a nasty a$$ La Quinta motel, and that cost us over $1500 a month
When I moved to Denver, I spent a month trying to find a single place that would let me have two big dogs. Despite much input from locals, who assured me there were many places that "allowed pets," exceptional credit rating and an ability to put down insane deposits, every one basically hung up on me at "...two Great Danes."
I had to buy a house, more or less blind, to complete the move. Most renters can't even stretch to such an alternative.
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.
