US News: SF-Oakland Metro Area ranks 7th Best Place to Live (San Francisco: sales, 2013)

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Oh the evil Californians ... leading the nation economically and filling the United States Treasury with more revenue than any one else!

Do they actually? I think in 2017 California got back 99 cents for every dollar paid to the government. I think this year California actually gets back more than every dollar they send in.
Back in 2007 I think California was definitely a donor state.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

In Fayetteville, the renter population is almost certainly a much smaller % of the population. That means it's going to follow the pattern more typical of the general pattern in America: The slice of the population who rent is smaller and generally below average in income.

No. We have a higher home ownership rate than Fayetteville.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by JoeSmow

It's really not much different than saying people in San Francisco make so much more money without pointing out that according to the Economic Policy Institute, they are the #1 most expensive metro to raise a family in the country with a basic budget of $148,439 per year for a two-parent, two-child household, and a median family income of $108,822 per year.

No, the Census Bureau says that the median family income. In the SF Metro Area for married-couple families with children under age 18, is $154,030.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by JoeSmow

https://www.epi.org/resources/budget/

https://www.epi.org/press/epi-update...opolitan-area/

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...ica-2018-03-06

San Francisco topped the list of most expensive metro areas, with a basic budget of $148,439 a year for a two-parent, two-child household. However, with a median family income of $108,822, incomes in San Francisco are higher than most.

Feel free to argue all you like with them.

No you feel free to argue with the Census Bureau to your heart's content. Govt data trumps the 'Economic Policy Institute' which is a think tank.

[18Montclair]

And Im not arguing SF isnt the most expensive because it is, Im saying your source's data on the income for families is irrelevant to the 2-parent, 2-child budget becayse the census bureau has income data for exactly that group, married-couple families with children.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by JoeSmow

One of these days, you might actually take the time to read a comment despite being so hell bent on being right all the time. No need to go beyond that as it's clear you're not interested in having an honest discussion. The information you're pointing to is not the claim they're making (nor does it even relate to your original title)....DUH!

Spare me the bit about honest discussions. Your source is being intellectually dishonest in the first place.

1. You cant prop up the median income for ALL families as the reason that...

2. The region does not meet the required budget for 2-parent, 2-child budget requirement to be stable.

Because

3. The Median Family Income stat covers all kinds of groupings and familial combinations, many far smaller than 2 parents, 2 children.

This means it's inaccurate to apply the median family income stat specifically to 2-parent, 2-children families.

And this^ inaccuracy is what's found in your source.

4. The census bureau, does however have median family income data for married-couple families with children of their own. That figure at last count, is $154,030, for the SF Metro Area.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by JoeSmow

. Seriously, what is wrong with you?

Im allergic to the incorrect application of data.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by duke944

I'd like to see what California revenue would really generate if it paid workers the same as middle America. The first thing that would happen is rampant homelessness and real estate prices crashing. Thanks for cheapening the usd value, California. And btw, wtf cares about a few billionaires getting richer? that's what most of these profits are going towards. They obviously aren't paying enough taxes to slow down the national debt, as it keeps going up a trillion a year. Again, thanks for nothing.

and don't forget they already lead the country in homelessness. Boy is that a great standard of living. The one positive thing I can think of about CA when we talk finances would be: get rich by selling your overpriced house to some idiot that will pay for it. Then you have enough money to pay cash for a home in a state that offers good schools, good quality of life and people enjoy low crime rates, better tax breaks and fewer illegals living off the state.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

No. We have a higher home ownership rate than Fayetteville.

You are smarter than to think people will fall for that one: Fayetterville is college town. Of course there are more renters. Most, when they refer to Fayetteville are referring to the entire NWA region.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by nmnita

You are smarter than to think people will fall for that one:Fayetterville is college town. Of course there are more renters. Most, when they refer to Fayetteville are referring to the entire NWA region.

There is no intention on my part to fool people. I dont do that.

However in this case, thank you for making me look again because that in that chart, I mistakenly selected the Fayetteville, NC Metro Area instead of Fayetteville, AR.

So here is the correction:


So yes, the Fayetteville metro area has a home ownership rate of 61% vs 54% for the SF Metro Area. In this regard I stand corrected.

However, Contra Costa County(Pop 1.1 Million) by itself has a home ownership rate of 67% and San Mateo(Pop 720,000) has a home ownership rate of 59% even though the median home price there hovers at $1.4 million.

Also, you cant use the presence of a university as an excuse every time a stat doesnt go in your favor. There are some things the Bay Area just beats Fayetteville in outright. That's life.