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.
But that hasn't been working out well. A number of Republican run cities, such as Tulsa, are regarded as such highly undesirable cities to live in that they have to resort to bribing people to move there, if willing to take on a remote job or buy a home. If you want to live where the cost of living is likely to remain low and stable, it may be a good idea to take advantage of it. The main downsides are lack of good paying jobs and little or no scenery along with no beech nearby.
Wichita and Topeka are the same way. No one wants to move to those cities and lots of people leave, even if they have lower unemployment rates.
For years, Californians have been selling overinflated homes and moving to Boise for the much lower cost of living and for the mountain scenery they're use to. Cost of living in San Francisco is 205. In Boise, it's only 99. Boise is now one of the most fasting growing metros in population.
But that hasn't been working out well. A number of Republican run cities, such as Tulsa, are regarded as such highly undesirable cities to live in that they have to resort to bribing people to move there, if willing to take on a remote job or buy a home. If you want to live where the cost of living is likely to remain low and stable, it may be a good idea to take advantage of it. The main downsides are lack of good paying jobs and little or no scenery along with no beech nearby.
San Diego and Miami are also Republican run cities. low paying jobs that do not scale to the CoL of an area are present in just about every major city in the country and local politics hardly influence this matter as this is very much a corporate dilemma, not a local politics dilemma. Sure they may boost the minimum wage but a $15 Hr job in Seattle is not going to buy you a house there, nor will it even get you a decent apartment save for stuffing the place with room mates. The issue comes down to desirability which is less influenced by local politics than one might think. California for example used to be a red state but that by no means stopped people from flocking to it in droves. Tulsa by its location is just not in an area of the country where many people want to live. No offense to it, but competing with other fast growing contenders is going to be very difficult for it.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,599 posts, read 81,297,702 times
Reputation: 57846
The median annual income in Seattle is $102,486, median apartment rent is $2,190, easily affordable. The median home price however is $874,843, that would be tough on $102k.
In San Francisco the median income is $98,100, median rent is $3,230. While less affordable than Seattle, still very doable, but the median home price is not, at $1.3 million.
I would say that Major Metro areas on the West Coast are unaffordable for average earners to buy, but they can certainly afford to rent. There have always been people that couldn't afford to buy, and as long as they can afford to rent they won't go homeless or be forced to move.
The median annual income in Seattle is $102,486, median apartment rent is $2,190, easily affordable. The median home price however is $874,843, that would be tough on $102k.
In San Francisco the median income is $98,100, median rent is $3,230. While less affordable than Seattle, still very doable, but the median home price is not, at $1.3 million.
You have SFs wrong Median HH Income.
Median Household Income, 2019
San Francisco, CA $123,859
Seattle, CA $102,486
This is the latest single year data according to data.census.gov
Furthermore, simple Median HH Income covers everyone, there are subsets within the population that are just fine as far as affordability.
Median Income, Family of 2-Earners, 2019
San Francisco, CA $196,830
Seattle, WA $186,021
Families do better in Seattle...
Median Family Income, Family of 4, 2019
Seattle, WA $210,666
San Francisco, CA $161,405
Uncommited singles in SF living with others do better...
NonFamily Households:
Median Income, Male Householder Not Living Alone, 2019
San Francisco, CA $225,648
Seattle, WA $125,952
Median Income, Female Householder Not Living Alone, 2019
San Francisco, CA $201,247
Seattle, WA $101,928
Refugees from the failed state of California buying up homes all over the western US.
Sorry, having the intimate knowledge of the entire West I have, I wish you all well, but there is just no way I could live there, California Forever and Goodbye
Seattle is actually not as expensive to live as people make it out to be here. Rent is surprisingly cheap compared to cities like Boston or SF and the apartment stock is better quality. Given similar incomes to those places and NO STATE INCOME TAXES, the affordability is substantially higher in Seattle. That's because the city has very relaxed zoning (despite what the far left in the city would say) and there are apartment buildings going up all across the city and into suburbs dozens of miles away. It is not a nearly as NIMBY compared to California or New England. You just don't see the same amount of housing construction in the Bay Area or New England. Nearly every random parking lot in Seattle has an 8-10 floor apartment building permitted and starting construction.
What is extremely expensive in Seattle area is trying to own single family homes with some yard/garden. They simply aren't building more of them, and there is a firm urban growth boundary limiting further sprawl into the Cascades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Median Family Income, Family of 4, 2019
Seattle, WA $210,666
San Francisco, CA $161,405
No state income tax in WA state and it's not even close the difference in take home income.
Housing prices through the roof, rents rapidly increasing as well, especially in high immigration areas like the West Coast and Northeast. Then people leave these areas and spread out the problem to other parts of the West and South.
Well, I have been saying this for years - what do you think was going to happen folks when you keep increasing the population by 2 to 3 million a year for decades? In fact, the US population has grown by over 130 million people in just the last 50 years. We just keep growing without any planning for the environment, economic costs or regard to future generations.
No state income tax in WA state and it's not even close the difference in take home income.
Well, that's one stat for cities proper.
At Metro Level, the comparison is very different. Oh, and CA taxes 9.3% for this income bracket.
Median Income, Family of 4, 2019
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA $188,380
San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley MSA $165,745
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue MSA $136,058
Median Income, Married Couple Families with Own Children Under Age 18, 2019
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA $197,878
San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley MSA $175,559
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue MSA $142,050
Median Family Income, 2-Earners, 2019
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA $191,021
San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley MSA $170,133
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue MSA $136,189
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.
