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.
Throwing more free money to lower income people and/or building more low-income housing will not solve the problem. Investors (mostly corporate investors) are buying out the homes and flipping them into rentals, thus creating even less 'affordable' housing. Neither middle-class working families nor lower income families on the dole can compete with cash-paying investors.
But we live in a capitalistic society and that is their choice if they want to buy up 10 houses on a city block. We may very well end up like Pottersville one day, though.
These investors may be doing this but there are people willing to pay the high prices for flips and the high rents of these investor owned homes.
There is money to be made and people are making it because others have the money to pay it out.
I don’t think it’s a good idea, but more so the post is directed at addressing some unanswered concerns for those who can’t afford housing.
Housing costs reflect the local market forces, and in the case of insane high housing costs, those market forces are well protected by the rich land owner and the politician they purchase to preserve their property value.
The best way to lower the price of anything is to increase supply and/or lower demand. Local land/home owners always block adding supply, and unless local employers get up and move, the demand remains unchanged or goes even higher.
All giving people money would do is allow those same rich land owners to jack prices/rents even more, giving their paid for politicians a bigger skim off the top. For more on that concept, please see "college tuition once the government started guaranteeing loans instead of normal underwriting."
No.. high COL areas are highly desirable and have "good" jobs. People just need to seek training and work harder to afford living in high COL areas. No additional handouts are needed.
No.. high COL areas are highly desirable and have "good" jobs. People just need to seek training and work harder to afford living in high COL areas. No additional handouts are needed.
I generally agree, the question for me comes to be, what happens to those highly educated individuals who have masters degrees but do not make 6 figures? I’m talking specifically about people in public or social services. The kind of people the city does need but do not make enough to comfortably live in a high CoL area…
I generally agree, the question for me comes to be, what happens to those highly educated individuals who have masters degrees but do not make 6 figures? I’m talking specifically about people in public or social services. The kind of people the city does need but do not make enough to comfortably live in a high CoL area…
Well those are government jobs. Vote for higher local taxes to pay higher salaries.
I generally agree, the question for me comes to be, what happens to those highly educated individuals who have masters degrees but do not make 6 figures? I’m talking specifically about people in public or social services. The kind of people the city does need but do not make enough to comfortably live in a high CoL area…
Maybe governments need to think outside the box. We have traveling nurses who fly in, work 4 days then fly home. There's no reason most public servants in HCoL areas can't do that. Or have remote workers.
Your $75k salary (average salary for a SF teacher) might barely get you above the poverty line in San Francisco but take that salary to Phoenix or Vegas and it's actually a decent living.
Weekly flights + hotel for e.g. teachers would probably cost less than paying them enough to live on in the Bay Area for ex.
Or in the alternative, since it's the government and its suffocating regulations and taxes making things cost too much, the government needs to keep its grubby, wasteful, unproductive hands off the economy.
Maybe governments need to think outside the box. We have traveling nurses who fly in, work 4 days then fly home. There's no reason most public servants in HCoL areas can't do that. Or have remote workers.
Your $75k salary (average salary for a SF teacher) might barely get you above the poverty line in San Francisco but take that salary to Phoenix or Vegas and it's actually a decent living.
Weekly flights + hotel for e.g. teachers would probably cost less than paying them enough to live on in the Bay Area for ex.
And when normal life comes to that you know we're circling the drain and it's just a matter of time before it blows up.
Remote social services … or remote schooling >_>
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.
… or remote schooling >_>
