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.
median incomes does not mean middle class lifestyle. all it means is this is all they have to live on like it or not.
True, but only to a point. What's considered a middle class lifestyle has become inflated. From the 1950s to the early 1970s, the oft considered glory days for the middle class people typically:
--got married and stayed married (much cheaper)
--didn't have kids out of wedlock (a financial disaster)
--had more people per household
--more often only had one car per houshold (instead of 2 or more).
The cost of living, especially housing, in places like NYC and California really has skyrocketed and a lot of low paid people probably should leave. They could work the same low paying jobs elsewhere and live better lifestyles.
But in most of the rest of America, expectations have gotten out of whack.
1) Most metro-areas are liberal to begin with.. because liberals tend to live in cities.
Wasn't always so (as documented by, I suspect, a left leaning author). There used to be much more of a mix of political orientations. Since 1965, liberal areas have become more liberal and conservative areas more conservatives, which explains why Americans have become so polarized from each other.
2) Politics and housing supply have nothing to do with each other. SF and NYC have high real estate prices because of geographic limitations. No matter how prosperous Houston, Dallas, or Chicago become, they will always be cheaper than the coasts... due to inland land availability.
Wrong. They have LOTS to do with each other. Zoning laws and regulations are inherently political.
And if you had bothered to read the article, the author did concede geographical limitations are part of the story...but the limits of geography are far from the whole story.
Thanks to overly strict rent control and tenants' rights laws, places like San Francisco are estimated to have 10,000 vacant units because landlords don't think tenants are worth the trouble:
As long as you're happy, you have shelter, food, and friends, that's all that matters.
I wouldn't quite go that far, but I'm in the same ballpark. Having an adequate income for the very basics, plus some extra to sock away in savings and investments helps. Having money contributes to happiness, but it is not happiness itself.
Wasn't always so (as documented by, I suspect, a left leaning author). There used to be much more of a mix of political orientations. Since 1965, liberal areas have become more liberal and conservative areas more conservatives, which explains why Americans have become so polarized from each other.
Wrong. They have LOTS to do with each other. Zoning laws and regulations are inherently political.
And if you had bothered to read the article, the author did concede geographical limitations are part of the story...but the limits of geography are far from the whole story.
Thanks to overly strict rent control and tenants' rights laws, places like San Francisco are estimated to have 10,000 vacant units because landlords don't think tenants are worth the trouble:
In the context of housing as a scarce resource, I would tax vacant units up the wazoo.
All they need to do is loosen up on the rent control and tenant's rights laws. I'm not saying get rid of these things entirely, but there needs to be balance.
In the context of housing as a scarce resource, I would tax vacant units up the wazoo.
blah blah blah I'm so sick of renters and liberals thinking people who own property need to be punished for doing as they please WITH THEIR PROPERTY they PAID for through their efforts. Housing is not a scarce resource. No one owes any starving artist or poor hipster moron with a minimum wage job a sweet pad in the center of San Francisco. They can go live in Kansas. Living in a great neighborhood in an expensive city is not a right, it's a choice!
I was making $437 every two weeks 13 years ago, I took a pay cut and a huge gamble to earn less than $16,000 a year after switching from a dead end job that paid $25k.
I will be a millionaire before 50. I just don't understand people who say it's not possible. In retrospect it was actually easy, and I kick myself everyday for the opportunities I passed over and advice I was to proud to take.
I almost got stuck in the dead end low wage doldrums too, but I decided I would do whatever it took to become comfortable even if it included the chance of dying on a battlefield in a third world crap hole over mineral rights. Then I took every opportunity that was afforded to me, and put tons of effort into it and considered any and all avenues regardless of how much pain it caused me. 16 hour days, weekends, full time school, full time work. Sacrificing $5,000 that took me an entire year to save here and there to pay into investments.
I'm so sick of hearing every jerk off these days complaining about being in low paying jobs, but then they tell you a long list of demands they have from prospective employment.
"I don't want to work weekends."
"I'd be on call, that sucks"
"I can't do that job because of a bad back"
"It's not near a bus route/it's too far to bike."
"It's dirty work, I have to clean other peoples crap"
"It only starts at x dollars."
"I don't like blue collar work"
In the context of housing as a scarce resource, I would tax vacant units up the wazoo.
blah blah blah I'm so sick of renters and liberals thinking people who own property need to be punished for doing as they please WITH THEIR PROPERTY they PAID for through their efforts. Housing is not a scarce resource. No one owes any starving artist or poor hipster moron with a minimum wage job a sweet pad in the center of San Francisco. They can go live in Kansas. Living in a great neighborhood in an expensive city is not a right, it's a choice!
I was making $437 every two weeks 13 years ago, I took a pay cut and a huge gamble to earn less than $16,000 a year after switching from a dead end job that paid $25k.
I will be a millionaire before 50. I just don't understand people who say it's not possible. In retrospect it was actually easy, and I kick myself everyday for the opportunities I passed over and advice I was to proud to take.
I almost got stuck in the dead end low wage doldrums too, but I decided I would do whatever it took to become comfortable even if it included the chance of dying on a battlefield in a third world crap hole over mineral rights. Then I took every opportunity that was afforded to me, and put tons of effort into it and considered any and all avenues regardless of how much pain it caused me. 16 hour days, weekends, full time school, full time work. Sacrificing $5,000 that took me an entire year to save here and there to pay into investments.
I'm so sick of hearing every jerk off these days complaining about being in low paying jobs, but then they tell you a long list of demands they have from prospective employment.
"I don't want to work weekends."
"I'd be on call, that sucks"
"I can't do that job because of a bad back"
"It's not near a bus route/it's too far to bike."
"It's dirty work, I have to clean other peoples crap"
"It only starts at x dollars."
"I don't like blue collar work"
Life is about opportunity and sacrifice.
In a truly free market for real estate and housing, you would be correct.
But the market is highly regulated, housing supply is artificially throttled by government, thereby tilting the playing field in favor of property owners.
I want to pay my friend to pitch a tent in his backyard. Shouldn't that be a choice?
Oh, and I *have* been on call in a minimum wage job, and yes, that did suck.
And I had a job (gas station) where I was the person who worked double shifts to keep the place open when flaky employees called in 'sick'. The manager gave me the inflated title of assistant manager and disappeared every weekend, leaving me to hold the bag when new hires called in (to quit) when they knew the manager would not be around.
All they need to do is loosen up on the rent control and tenant's rights laws. I'm not saying get rid of these things entirely, but there needs to be balance.
Once you're outside of NYC and California, I believe rent control is nonexistent in this country.
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.
