Is California Similar to South Africa? Interesting op-ed.

[Ozoned]

And how are they living? And if you can please ignore those who already own homes bought back before they cost a million times income. Everyone knows the cost of living in California is ridiculous, it shouldn't really be in dispute.

I think 70K would be enough in the southern part of San Bernardino County.Heh.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

"The white workers who once filled 90% of California’s private-sector jobs have been largely displaced by lower-paid immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere."

That right there just ruins the authors entire argument.

The only reason why I am still here is because my line of work revolves around Hollywood.

What I don't understand is why so many poor families stay here when they clearly cannot afford it. They could make their life so much easier by moving to another state with a lower cost of living. The average salary in California is barely enough to get by, if that. To live comfortably in California (with a family) you need to be pulling in at least 200-300k a year. 200-300k a year in most other states grants you almost upper class.

Ummm....they live here because they know others will pick up the tab. California is the leader in welfare cases in the nation for this very reason alone along with the glut of social services, and tax-free "charity" organizations receiving money from the state whose founders make big bucks off poverty. That and liberals need votes because they can't honestly depending on tax paying individuals with families to always vote for their hair brained schemes in this state.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Median income for a Californian family of 4 is right around 70k a year. Are you suggesting that half of 4 person Californian families either cannot support themselves or live in terrible neighborhoods?

You have not proven anything other that 70k is the median according to some studies. You have not even provided data on the break down of wages vs income vs home owner ship vs population distrubution in regards to wages and home ownership, etc..

So with 70k a year can find you a nice home away from the major work areas (major cities) in Northern California but you will have a long commute everyday to work. 70k a year in a large city or in SF will not cover the expense of a home which can accommodate 4 kids a wife, car(s), and other expenses unless you like living heavily in debt, living pay check to pay check or you like the sound of gun shots in the middle of the night.

 

[Craig234]

Ummm....they live here because they know others will pick up the tab. California is the leader in welfare cases in the nation for this very reason alone along with the glut of social services, and tax-free "charity" organizations receiving money from the state whose founders make big bucks off poverty. That and liberals need votes because they can't honestly depending on tax paying individuals with families to always vote for their hair brained schemes in this state.

A fine bit of igorance and parroting.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Median income for a Californian family of 4 is right around 70k a year. Are you suggesting that half of 4 person Californian families either cannot support themselves or live in terrible neighborhoods?

Yes.

 

[Red Dawn]

Your definition of "living comfortably" must be pretty loose. 70k household income will allow you to live comfortably if you are single...definitely no way is that enough to support a family of four unless you don't mind living in some terrible neighborhoods.

A Family of 4 can live very comfortably on 70K in CA as long as it isn't in the main population centers like the Bay Area, Greater LA or San Diego.

 

[JSt0rm]

A Family of 4 can live very comfortably on 70K in CA as long as it isn't in the main population centers like the Bay Area, Greater LA or San Diego.

Right and if you work in one of those locations you make sacrifices to be there, i.e. I rent.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes.

Then you are wrong, there's not much else to it. Your conclusion cannot be supported by the numbers.

 

[JSt0rm]

Then you are wrong, there's not much else to it. Your conclusion cannot be supported by the numbers.

If you work in LA you must live in LA. In LA it would be very hard to buy a house and have a family of 4@70k (sherman oaks maybe MAYBE in this economy you could buy and be in a decent enough place but then you deal with the 405 everyday)

 

[fskimospy]

You have not proven anything other that 70k is the median according to some studies. You have not even provided data on the break down of wages vs income vs home owner ship vs population distrubution in regards to wages and home ownership, etc..

So with 70k a year can find you a nice home away from the major work areas (major cities) in Northern California but you will have a long commute everyday to work. 70k a year in a large city or in SF will not cover the expense of a home which can accommodate 4 kids a wife, car(s), and other expenses unless you like living heavily in debt, living pay check to pay check or you like the sound of gun shots in the middle of the night.

According to some studies? According to the US census bureau.

Why on earth would I provide data on the breakdown of wages vs. income vs. whatever? I know exactly what you can find in California for 70k, I know people who live all over the state and have been here myself for almost a decade. Zepplin stated that someone making the median income for a family of 4 in California would either have to live in a terrible neighborhood or be unable to support themselves. It is obviously false that someone earning the median income is unable to support themselves in California by simply sticking my head out my front door.

Do you live in California? Have you ever lived in California? You seem to speak of it quite often as if you're some sort of expert on the goings on, so I wonder.

 

[fskimospy]

If you work in LA you must live in LA. In LA it would be very hard to buy a house and have a family of 4@70k (sherman oaks maybe MAYBE in this economy you could buy and be in a decent enough place but then you deal with the 405 everyday)

Median income for the state means exactly that, median income for the state. Specific situations in LA or SF are irrelevant.

 

[JSt0rm]

just checked sherman oaks (via google maps real estate) is looking 300k to 500k

I found a 3 bed 1 bath in riverside for 130k go get it...and enjoy your 4 hour commute.

 

[JSt0rm]

Median income for the state means exactly that, median income for the state. Specific situations in LA or SF are irrelevant.

I guess I'm talking about people who live in the cities. Thats all that matters to me.

 

[fskimospy]

I guess I'm talking about people who live in the cities. Thats all that matters to me.

Well that's fine (it's all that matters to me too), my only point was that someone on here is claiming that people making the median income in CA cannot support themselves and that there is no evidence for that.

 

[IGBT]

the article fails to address baseline budgeting rackets on going through out calif.state gov. and the ruinous effect it continues to inflect.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

E

Well that's fine (it's all that matters to me too), my only point was that someone on here is claiming that people making the median income in CA cannot support themselves and that there is no evidence for that.

I too have been only considering the major cities. I know my arguement doesn't apply to those outside the major cities. Regardless, I don't see a point in living outside the major cities unless you are retired, a farmer, or don't mind 4 hour commutes.

 

[Red Dawn]

Right and if you work in one of those locations you make sacrifices to be there, i.e. I rent.

Well I don't see a downside plus you don't have to deal with all the self entitled yuppie scum

 

[First]

You can purchase a home about a half mile near the best part of the Westside of Los Angeles for about $650,000 at 10% down with good credit (really nice neighborhoods west of Sepulveda). I haven't checked that out in about 6 months, but that's the reality nonetheless. So getting a home in LA (as just one example) is hardly unattainable for someone who has worked for, say, 5 years making $70K each year and saving, say, $15K each of those 5 years combined. You don't have to be in your 30's either, because if you saved smartly and started working straight out of college you can eventually get a salary like that (starting at less than $70K obviously) with that $15K saved up each year if you keep your expenses down initially so you can pad your savings later with a higher salary (also depends on your tax deductions of course among a slew of other choices like purchasing a car or not. I personally opted not to). So you can have a house in a nice part of LA by your late 20's without anything more than a college degree.

EDIT: I would add that purchasing a home in your 20's in LA probably isn't a good idea unless you're breaking 6 figures easily (or unless it's a killer deal with huge upside). Renting or even just staying at a family/friend's place is simply far more economical in your 20's than owning or even outright renting by yourself with no roommates to reduce monthly costs. Especially in big cities, it's just too expensive. But cities like LA, NY, Chicago, etc. are where businesses go and where the jobs are.

 

[JSt0rm]

You can purchase a home about a half mile near the best part of the Westside of Los Angeles for about $650,000 at 10% down with good credit (really nice neighborhoods west of Sepulveda). I haven't checked that out in about 6 months, but that's the reality nonetheless. So getting a home in LA (as just one example) is hardly unattainable for someone who has worked for, say, 5 years making $70K each year and saving, say, $15K each of those 5 years combined. You don't have to be in your 30's either, because if you saved smartly and started working straight out of college you can eventually get a salary like that (starting at less than $70K obviously) if you keep your expenses down initially. So you can have a house in a nice part of LA by your late 20's without anything more than a college degree.

hey first never change your sig

 

[First]

^ Ha, the sig is golden and I never plan to. Conspiracy theorists are pure entertainment.

 

[StageLeft]

You can purchase a home about a half mile near the best part of the Westside of Los Angeles for about $650,000 at 10% down with good credit (really nice neighborhoods west of Sepulveda). I haven't checked that out in about 6 months, but that's the reality nonetheless. So getting a home in LA (as just one example) is hardly unattainable for someone who has worked for, say, 5 years making $70K each year and saving, say, $15K each of those 5 years combined. You don't have to be in your 30's either, because if you saved smartly and started working straight out of college you can eventually get a salary like that (starting at less than $70K obviously) with that $15K saved up each year if you keep your expenses down initially so you can pad your savings later with a higher salary (also depends on your tax deductions of course among a slew of other choices like purchasing a car or not. I personally opted not to). So you can have a house in a nice part of LA by your late 20's without anything more than a college degree.

EDIT: I would add that purchasing a home in your 20's in LA probably isn't a good idea unless you're breaking 6 figures easily (or unless it's a killer deal with huge upside). Renting or even just staying at a family/friend's place is simply far more economical in your 20's than owning or even outright renting by yourself with no roommates to reduce monthly costs. Especially in big cities, it's just too expensive. But cities like LA, NY, Chicago, etc. are where businesses go and where the jobs are.

I'm not sure if you're joking. Only a damned crack head would buy a $650k house on $70k/year even if had 10% money down. Or, maybe he just is ok with eating ramen noodles for the rest of his life and not ever having kids. Or ever buying new clothes or ever going on vacation etc,. Of course, this was possible four years ago but not now; you'd never get the loan. If you lost your income you'd be underwater immediately. A safe ballpark without extenuating circumstances is 3X your income or thereabouts spent on house.

 

[fskimospy]

E

I too have been only considering the major cities. I know my arguement doesn't apply to those outside the major cities. Regardless, I don't see a point in living outside the major cities unless you are retired, a farmer, or don't mind 4 hour commutes.

Well if you're only using the major cities than the median income of $70k no longer applies, as that is for the entire state... including the far less wealthy inland areas. The median household income for a family of 4 in San Francisco is certainly far higher than $70k, so once again those making the median income in those areas are doing just fine.

 

[First]

I'm not sure if you're joking. Only a damned crack head would buy a $650k house on $70k/year even if had 10% money down. Or, maybe he just is ok with eating ramen noodles for the rest of his life and not ever having kids. Or ever buying new clothes or ever going on vacation etc,. Of course, this was possible four years ago but not now; you'd never get the loan. If you lost your income you'd be underwater immediately. A safe ballpark without extenuating circumstances is 3X your income or thereabouts spent on house.

I didn't say I recommended it, in fact I said just the opposite. Nor did I say $70K was a fixed value or assumed the person in question would be single for eternity. That was all you. I wrote a response about being able to purchase affordable homes in nice neighborhoods in LA. I know of 3 people personally who paid for $700K-$1M houses in 1999-2000 and flipped them in 2006-2007 before the market went sour, and they were making $70K-$90K. It's a huge risk given the salary which is why I wouldn't do it unless you knew you were guaranteed to make 6 figures and/or had some other major form of savings/collateral.

And present circumstances with regards to being able to get a loan is almost entirely irrelevant, as cyclical loaning rates and standards are one of the only true constants in life.