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.
California is great for the subsidized poor and the top 10% or so. The vast middle ground in between is basically squeezed out.
You hit the nail on the head. Once the middle class moved out in huge numbers they were replaced by poor illegals. So now you have the wealthy elite and their poorly paid servants making up a large percentage of the population.
The supplemental poverty rate is taken from a rolling three year average. California's rate will improve when next year's survey replaces 2014 with 2017.
I would bet good money that a survey of the homeless and the poor would reveal quite a few who moved to California from other places.
Those who have been there all along, would likely have purchased their homes when costs were more affordable.
Should California to be blamed because prices have gone up and the newcomers can't afford to live there?
Those who are unhappy with the situation in coastal California, could always move to the interior where costs are lower. Or move back to where they came from.
Yes, California is to blame because California voters are more anti-growth and anti-development than voters in any other state. This largely benefits the majority who are incumbent homeowners, as their housing costs are stabilized and largely fixed, while the rising costs are borne by newcomers and those unable to buy.
California is great for the subsidized poor and the top 10% or so. The vast middle ground in between is basically squeezed out.
I love these out-of-state posts from people who don't live here and have no clue what they are talking about.
I'm middle class and I'm surrounded by many square miles of middle class suburbs. Ain't nobody being squeezed out here. In fact, the real estate market is very tight (a shortage of listings) because no one wants to sell.
Y'all gotta at least pick something in a metro area, not a farm town 30 miles from even a small city. I randomly picked a suburb of KC Kansas and got 260K for a nice-ish if a bit dated 4BR colonial. Certainly LOTS less than CA but the previous examples are not indicative of realistic. Yes the 80K a year family lives FAR better in KS than CA.
What the heck is driving up CA prices to crazy multiples of local income?
Maybe foreign buyers and investors?
The growing number of wealthy Chinese are looking for convenient offshore places to park their cash, largely real estate esp California which for them is conveniently located.
Highest gas taxes which are supposed to fix the roads but California has the worst roads in America. Money siphoned off for politicians' and unions' pockets.
Sounds like capitalism to me. Supply and demand issues. As well as location, location, location.
Homelessness is also a problem because of many factors. Most not listed in this thread.
I am guessing that living in Cal. is nicer then in the other states listed.
Shouldn't capitalism be able to solve homelessness?
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.
