Thinking of leaving LA (Los Angeles, London: middle-class, rental, insurance)

[iama30something]

Originally Posted by phoenixmike11

Leaving Los Angeles - Los Angeles Magazine

There was a good article about this in LA magazine (people leaving LA due to the high cost of living)
like a lot of people I like LA- but it is a very expensive place to live and making there without a high paying job is not easy

Interesting read, however, statistics show us that LA is the 2nd fastest growing city in the US. Despite the high cost of living, the city of LA grows an average of 35,000 people per year. Due to demand, the cost of living increases as well, as our city isn't building fast enough accommodate everyone who wants to live here.

What is your part time job in OC that pays $500 per shift and are they hiring?

Source: City Mayors: Fastest growing US cities

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

"Here's the troubling equation: As my house soars in market value, my daughter gets incrementally poorer and priced out of the town she grew up in.

No different really in Chicago or New York ... or even podunk places like Denver and Atlanta."
Two angels: One a city, the other a daughter - LA Times

Housing Chicago and Atlanta is cheaper overall . So I'm not sure how it's the same thing .

The issue is being house rich and cash poor .

He could sell the house and use that money to make a lot more money. If he knows what he's doing .
One way would be to leverage it and invest in high cash flow real estate markets .

This won't help his daughter much though unless he gives her money .

Another option would be to start or buy a business .

If buying property his $1million could probably buy 4million worth of property .

He could also keep the house to live in and use the equity for investment purposes .

When you reach a certain level of assets or savings .
It makes sense to look into the best use of your money .
Transitioning from working for money to having money work for you .

lots of people working that have assets like this -- paid off homes in la worth $1 million they could retire if they are invested in the right things .

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by brrabbit

LA is big, I lived in SFV. It's tripple digits every day in summer.

You're embellishing big time. I have lived in the SFV at two different locations. While it does get hotter than other parts of LA, it has NEVER been triple digits every day in the summer.

Not true.

It's 72 right now in Van Nuys. Forecast going into next week shows the warmest day at 90.

While it does get into the triple digits in the Valley, it's for a few days in a row at best. And usually August/Sept.

[brrabbit]

Originally Posted by seain dublin

You're embellishing big time. I have lived in the SFV at two different locations. While it does get hotter than other parts of LA, it has NEVER been triple digits every day in the summer.

Not true.

It's 72 right now in Van Nuys. Forecast going into next week shows the warmest day at 90.

While it does get into the triple digits in the Valley, it's for a few days in a row at best. And usually August/Sept.

Temperature reported by weather station is taken outside in the shadows. But when you drive your car, or simply walking the street - you're getting these triple digits very consistently. And yes, I probably exaggerated a little bit, it maybe short of 100 some days by a few degrees, or might be one of those rare days when it's not so hot.

Here's some historic data with average Highs/Lows by month. 3rd column is our Average High.
June 53° 89° 36° (1950) 113° (1990) 0.07" 0"
July 57° 95° 42° (1952) 115° (1985) 0.01" 0"
August 58° 96° 42° (1950) 116° (1985) 0.15" 0"
September 55° 92° 38° (1954) 115° (1979) 0.24" 0"

So, using a little bit of deduction, if it's average 90+ in the shadow, would you get 100+ when exposed to sun? Does it mean, _every_ day? Of course not, I exaggerated a little for sake of simplicity, just most of the days.

[HyperionGap]

Originally Posted by brrabbit

Temperature reported by weather station is taken outside in the shadows. But when you drive your car, or simply walking the street - you're getting these triple digits very consistently. And yes, I probably exaggerated a little bit, it maybe short of 100 some days by a few degrees, or might be one of those rare days when it's not so hot.

Here's some historic data with average Highs/Lows by month. 3rd column is our Average High.
June 53° 89° 36° (1950) 113° (1990) 0.07" 0"
July 57° 95° 42° (1952) 115° (1985) 0.01" 0"
August 58° 96° 42° (1950) 116° (1985) 0.15" 0"
September 55° 92° 38° (1954) 115° (1979) 0.24" 0"

So, using a little bit of deduction, if it's average 90+ in the shadow, would you get 100+ when exposed to sun? Does it mean, _every_ day? Of course not, I exaggerated a little for sake of simplicity, just most of the days.

So do you always add on 5-10 degrees when you're talking about the weather to make sure you account for "not being in the shadow"?

If EVERYONE ELSE is referring to what the meteorologists say the temperature is, and 1 guy is adding on an extra 5-10 degrees, that's pretty dumb.

[brrabbit]

I was telling my experiences, and mine were that it's in the hundreds most of the days. I remember driving by gas station and it would show what is current temperature now. I actually spent a number of days working in a grocery store across that gas station display and it was visible right out of the window. I am telling you what I saw, not what history reports say.

There were also other thermometers, such as built-in my car, or at a Chase bank, as I drove by. So, no, it's not one bad thermometer at some stupid gas station.

Now, I see that meteorologists say "high" numbers are lower than what I saw them on the thermometer. Well, I provided you and seain dublin an explanation of this phenomenon. Call me a liar, if you live in SFV and don't see 100F on your thermometer quite often.

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by brrabbit

Temperature reported by weather station is taken outside in the shadows. But when you drive your car, or simply walking the street - you're getting these triple digits very consistently. And yes, I probably exaggerated a little bit, it maybe short of 100 some days by a few degrees, or might be one of those rare days when it's not so hot.

Here's some historic data with average Highs/Lows by month. 3rd column is our Average High.
June 53° 89° 36° (1950) 113° (1990) 0.07" 0"
July 57° 95° 42° (1952) 115° (1985) 0.01" 0"
August 58° 96° 42° (1950) 116° (1985) 0.15" 0"
September 55° 92° 38° (1954) 115° (1979) 0.24" 0"

So, using a little bit of deduction, if it's average 90+ in the shadow, would you get 100+ when exposed to sun? Does it mean, _every_ day? Of course not, I exaggerated a little for sake of simplicity, just most of the days.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but as long time Southern CA resident, who as I said earlier lived in the SFV twice and worked also in Woodland Hills, I never saw temps of over 110 degrees.

Yes, 103 maybe up to 106 for a few days and a big deal was made out of it, because it wasn't the norm.

You exaggerated more than a little bit.

I can't remember weeks and weeks of 100 plus temps in the summer. I lived in the Valley for about 3 years in the early 90s, and than again from 2000 to 2003. As someone who isn't a fan of the heat I would remember seeing 113 degrees.

Yes, the Valley is definitely hot in the summer, hotter than other parts of LA, but not you're not seeing 100 plus and certainly not over 110 constantly.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Housing Chicago and Atlanta is cheaper overall . So I'm not sure how it's the same thing .

It's the same concept, though. He's saying that his generation could afford these cities--including L.A.--but can't now.

The issue is being house rich and cash poor . He could sell the house and use that money to make a lot more money. If he knows what he's doing . One way would be to leverage it and invest in high cash flow real estate markets .

He's simply making a comment about his oldest child's inability to afford a home here in the way her parents could, when they were her age. Erskine himself is a transplant from IL.

[jm1982]

It's definitely true that things are less affordable .

It is an issue because rents continue to go up too and most people rely on their home equity for their retirement .

If many people don't have home equity what is going to make up the difference ?

Unlikely it will be the stock market and we keep hearing social security might not be there for today's younger generation.

[brrabbit]

Originally Posted by seain dublin

I don't know where you're getting your information, but as long time Southern CA resident, who as I said earlier lived in the SFV twice and worked also in Woodland Hills, I never saw temps of over 110 degrees.

Yes, 103 maybe up to 106 for a few days and a big deal was made out of it, because it wasn't the norm.

You exaggerated more than a little bit.

I can't remember weeks and weeks of 100 plus temps in the summer. I lived in the Valley for about 3 years in the early 90s, and than again from 2000 to 2003. As someone who isn't a fan of the heat I would remember seeing 113 degrees.

Yes, the Valley is definitely hot in the summer, hotter than other parts of LA, but not you're not seeing 100 plus and certainly not over 110 constantly.

Over 110 (average) was record high, I never said it is _that_ hot. 103-106 is more reasonable