HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2021, 11:24 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Are the jobs meaning salaries scaling to the home prices in CA? So would someone say starting out, a young folks, right out of college, how would they fair? Or say someone working 5 years for example, say mid career?

You'd probally have to have a husband and wife making like 120k each to afford some of those home prices.

Or a single guy making 120k a year.

Seems like it would be fine for folks in good sectors, but your blue collar worker or public worker must be in dire situations. I mean I get super commuters, but dam. Seems like hell if one isn't say mid career in a good sector or field or isn't in tech.

I use to bitch about NJ being expensive, but CA makes it seem like affordable housing, even with our 2.3-3.5% property taxes. Seems like a bargain, even the NYC metro in general.

My house in PA would be like 3 million in some of those areas, I have no doubt.
Quote:
San Francisco salaries jumped 7% last year, with the average tech worker pulling down $155,000 annually, followed closely by New York, where the average tech worker’s salary was $143,000 (up 8% from 2018); Seattle, where pay hit $142,000 (up 3%); and LA and Austin, where workers averaged $137,000. (In LA that represented an 8% bump from 2018; in Austin, it was 10%.)

In the U.S., project managers were paid the most, averaging $154,000. Software engineers were meanwhile paid on average $146,000; data scientists were paid $139,000; and designers were paid $134,000.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/23/a-...ees-go-remote/

As to the "husband and wife making like 120k each", they are called DINKs (double income, no kids) and they are common as dirt. Unsurprisingly in SF and suburbs, many are gay couples, married and not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2021, 11:31 PM
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAsam View Post
An astute point. Many people in those situations end up cramming in multi-generational and/or multiple family residences to be able to put a roof over their family's head. I suspect this had something to do with why Covid-19 ravaged Southern California so badly. The people who had jobs that didn't allow for the luxury of telecommuting had to go out and get exposed to Covid-19 risk, then bring the virus back to crowded housing environments with potentially high risk individuals (grandparents/great grandparents).
An idea just came to my head; maybe after the pandemic is over and people recognize that having fewer housing supply compared to demand leads to situations like you mentioned, the NIMBYs may then support more housing development. Or the state government can just use their authority and force the build anyway.
__________________
Working towards making American cities walkable again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2021, 11:36 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Are the jobs meaning salaries scaling to the home prices in CA? So would someone say starting out, a young folks, right out of college, how would they fair? Or say someone working 5 years for example, say mid career?

You'd probally have to have a husband and wife making like 120k each to afford some of those home prices.

Or a single guy making 120k a year.

Seems like it would be fine for folks in good sectors, but your blue collar worker or public worker must be in dire situations. I mean I get super commuters, but dam. Seems like hell if one isn't say mid career in a good sector or field or isn't in tech.

I use to bitch about NJ being expensive, but CA makes it seem like affordable housing, even with our 2.3-3.5% property taxes. Seems like a bargain, even the NYC metro in general.

My house in PA would be like 3 million in some of those areas, I have no doubt.
Because the incomes are so high there, the Bay Area isn't the problem in California, it's L.A.:



https://smartasset.com/checking-acco...ed-cities-2020
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2021, 12:06 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
An idea just came to my head; maybe after the pandemic is over and people recognize that having fewer housing supply compared to demand leads to situations like you mentioned, the NIMBYs may then support more housing development. Or the state government can just use their authority and force the build anyway.
State Sen. Scott Wiener, representing San Francisco, has been trying for several years now but without much success:

Quote:
Senator Wiener Introduces 2021 Housing Legislation to Address California’s Housing Crisis
February 18, 2021

SACRAMENTO - Today, Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced Senate Bill 478 and Senate Bill 477, which join previously introduced Senate Bill 10 and Senate Bill 234 to complete the Senator’s 2021 housing package.

SB 478, the Housing Opportunity Act, ensures that local zoned density and state housing laws are not undermined by hyper-restrictive lot requirements that make it practically impossible to build multifamily apartment buildings in areas zoned to allow them. Specifically, SB 478 sets minimum standards on floor area ratios (FAR) and minimum lot sizes, for land zoned for missing middle housing (from duplexes to ten unit buildings). Excessively low FAR and excessively large minimum lot sizes are tools that numerous cities use to undermine their own zoned density — in other words, a city can zone for multi-unit housing (or state law authorizes multi-unit housing) but extreme FAR or lot size requirements make that zoned density effectively impossible. As a result, cities are able to use this loophole to prohibit multi-unit housing otherwise authorized by local or state zoning law.

Current state law already preempts local FAR regulations from hindering the production of ADUs; when building an ADU, local FAR standards are void. SB 478 would simply require an FAR of 1.5 on multi-family zoned lots, rather than completely nullify them, as is the case with ADUs.

SB 477, the Housing Data Act, strengthens California’s housing data collection so the state and public can better understand the impact of state housing laws and determine the progress made by various cities and counties in meeting regional housing goals. Currently, the state’s data collection on state housing laws is sporadic and not comprehensive.

SB 478 and SB 477 are sponsored by California YIMBY, and SB 477 is also sponsored by SPUR.

Senator Wiener previously introduced SB 10, which creates a streamlined process for cities to zone for missing middle multi-unit housing, and SB 234, which allocates $100 million to build housing for our most at-risk youth, specifically, youth exiting homelessness, the foster care system, or the criminal justice system . . . .
https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/2021...housing-crisis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2021, 5:16 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAsam View Post
True. You can trade a longer commute for increased housing prospects. Based on my experience, though, an hour and a half commute in LA is so soul crushing that a lot of people end up throwing in the towel eventually. Telecommuting could be a game changer, but TBD with regards to how that sticks post-pandemic. Another game changer could be a truly effective grade-separated public transit system. The subway they are building from DTLA to West LA could be revolutionary for this city once it comes on-line.
If I can make such a commute via mass transit, I’ll just get up early and finish my sleep on the train, or study. This is something a lot of people don’t think about when weighing the costs of what mode to commute. There are some things you just can’t do behind a wheel.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2021, 6:38 AM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
Pay it Forward
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Piedmont, California
Posts: 7,889
Yeah incomes in the bay are a little higher than SoCal but most expensive metro areas in the country are pretty doable for dual family incomes.

MSA by Average Family Income, Both Spouses Work, 2019
$277,587 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
$241,824 San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley
$203,744 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria
$199,963 New York-Newark-Jersey City
$198,059 Boston-Cambridge-Newton
$185,465 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue
$172,809 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson
$170,998 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim
$168,782 Hartford-East Hartford-Middletown
$168,755 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin
$165,927 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington
$165,836 San Diego-Vista-Carlsbad
$163,212 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood
$162,041 Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown
$159,946 Raleigh-Cary
$158,091 Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington
$156,736 Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom
$154,406 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land
$153,186 Richmond
$152,740 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta
$151,600 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
$151,389 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro
$146,631 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia
$145,706 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn
$145,514 Providence-Warwick
$145,289 St Louis
$144,713 Cincinnati
$144,182 Milwaukee-Waukesha
$143,118 Pittsburgh
$141,105 Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin
$141,007 New Orleans-Metairie
$142,669 Columbus
$138,351 Jacksonville
$137,921 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach
$137,805 Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler
$137,424 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson
$136,943 Cleveland-Elyria
$136,755 Kansas City
$134,787 Tampa-St Petersburg-Clearwater
$134,747 Birmingham-Hoover
$133,030 Oklahoma City
$131,501 Rochester
$131,085 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
$130,714 Buffalo-Cheektowaga
$128,907 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise
$128,103 Memphis
$127,240 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News
$126,730 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford
$126,849 San Antonio-New Braunfels
$125,509 Tucson
$124,760 Salt Lake City
$123,700 Grand Rapids-Kentwood
$122,437 Fresno
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2021, 8:21 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,670
I must admit I'm confused. $122,437 is the average family income, with both spouses working, in Fresno? Like each spouse averages 61K annually?
__________________
Donald Trump is America's Hitler.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2021, 10:51 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,696
Even if someone brings in 40k a year, you are in the 1% of the world.



But seems about right. In places like NYC or Seattle or Boston, seems about right. Kind of what is needed in those areas, especially if they have kids.

$203,744 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria... this might be like Middle Class.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2021, 11:59 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Those are average incomes, not median incomes, so not terribly useful. Obviously mean incomes will be pulled upward by outliers on the high end. Medians will be lower. And these are family incomes, not household incomes. Household incomes will be lower, and better reflect the homeowner market.

And I don't think incomes are particularly useful for explaining home prices, given that most homebuyers are homeowners, or funded by homeowners. The price increases are irrelevant to most because they already own. What does it matter if you make 50k or 500k if your existing home is benefitting from the same price increases as your new home?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2021, 7:15 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
I must admit I'm confused. $122,437 is the average family income, with both spouses working, in Fresno? Like each spouse averages 61K annually?
I'm confused about what you are confused about. Do you think $61K is too high or too low for a typical income in Fresno? Remember that Fresno is a significant city with a population of over half a million. As such, it has a lot of small business owners and some very rich landowners as well migrant labor and all sorts of other people. What it doesn't have is the highly paid tech and professional class of the coast (other than its share of doctors and lawyers). It's more like the rest of America than like Silicon Valley but with a prosperous agricultural economy (and more than its share of oil wells). So $61K for an average income seems reasonable to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2021, 4:06 PM
DCReid DCReid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
https://www.jacobsonwealth.com/p/is-...er-than-stocks

The moral: Rent (preferably under rent control) and invest the amount you would otherwise pay each month on a mortgage minus your rent payment in stocks.
Rent may be a good option now for California residents. However, the advantage of owning is the leverage and tax benefits, you can put as little as 5% down and if the home appreciates and you sell it, you get an outsized gain on your small down payment even if you have maintenance and upkeep costs. The trick is buying in a cheap place or at a cheap price, and having it skyrocket.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2021, 4:18 PM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles/ Tahoe
Posts: 5,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
San Benito(is part of the SJ Metro Area)is nothing special, agreed, but it has become a bedroom community of San Jose that many people have moved to in search of cheaper housing and now prices have gone through the roof there.
The area used to be really beautiful and have a remote feel to it. Now it is turning into a sprawling mess of suburban tract homes and strip malls.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2021, 4:36 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCReid View Post
Rent may be a good option now for California residents. However, the advantage of owning is the leverage and tax benefits, you can put as little as 5% down and if the home appreciates and you sell it, you get an outsized gain on your small down payment even if you have maintenance and upkeep costs. The trick is buying in a cheap place or at a cheap price, and having it skyrocket.
to me, the true benefits of home ownership transcend investment potential.

stability: as long as i live up to my end of the bargain with the mortgage payments, no one can kick my family out of our home. as our neighborhood continues to get wealthier, no landlord can ever jack the rent on us and force us to move out of our community. the value of that peace of mind is immeasurable when you're raising a family, IMO.

predictability: unlike rent, which only ever seems to increase over time, my mortgage payments will be exactly the same in 20 years as they are today.

pride: because i own it, i take much greater care with my home than i ever did with any of the rental properties that i lived in when i was younger. not that i was some savage who destroyed other people's properties, but when something is yours, you simply care more about it.

customization: because my home is mine, if i want to make changes to improve it or otherwise better suit my needs/desires, i don't have to seek the approval of some landlord who may not be on board with my plans. if i wanna redo a bathroom, boom, i redo a bathroom. i'm not at anyone else's mercy.



there probably are better investments than buying a home (in most markets), but for all of the intangibles listed above, especially when it comes to family raising, i would never again want to be subject to the vagaries of the rental game. i enjoy calling my own shots way too fucking much.

besides, i think you'd be hard-pressed to find many financial planners who would say that home ownership, as ONE piece of a diversified investment strategy, is a bad idea in general.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Mar 21, 2021 at 1:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2021, 6:59 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 958
The map posted on the last page of Marin County is not surprising and truth be told, I'm happy that the majority of the county is not able to be developed. It's absolutely beautiful and should not be destroyed by development.

There needs to be more liberal development laws in the cities of California that are already developed, though. The Bay Area and LA are taking small steps towards densification, but not enough. Places like Oakland and the East Bay should be building tens of thousands of units a year, there is no excuse.

Also, LA is slowly densifying but its time places like North Hollywood get some serious, high rise density.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2021, 7:56 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
to me, the true benefits of home ownership transcend investment potential.
Totally agree. I just wanted to point out that the apparent skyrocketing of CA home prices is not all gravy and not necessarily a better investment than stocks, bitcoin and all manner of alternatives.

I myself have bought 3 homes so I eat my cooking, knowing full well it might not be the best investment (but believing it's not a serious financial mistake either).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2021, 11:58 PM
Reverberation's Avatar
Reverberation Reverberation is offline
disorient yourself?
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Diaspora
Posts: 4,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
An idea just came to my head; maybe after the pandemic is over and people recognize that having fewer housing supply compared to demand leads to situations like you mentioned, the NIMBYs may then support more housing development. Or the state government can just use their authority and force the build anyway.
I don’t think they will. The authorities in CA have let this fester long enough that there is a large subset of people who are invested (no pun intended) in perpetually worsening housing shortages. By now there are people who have sacrificed for years to be house poor but to own there and they will be burned by new supply bringing prices down. The selfish boomers and old hippies who bought in the 90s and then moved to protest new housing so their kids would never be able to have the stability they have are far enough down the equity wave that they won’t be touched by it.

There’s that old parable about the man who plants a tree knowing that he will never enjoy its shade. In California the old man protects the tree his grandfather planted for him and relishes the shade so much that nobody else can spoil his shade and no other trees are allowed until he passes on - if then.
__________________
RT60
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2021, 1:27 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
Everyone's leaving but prices keep climbing and homes are still selling. How odd.:confused::ok:

Riverside has surpassed the half-million dollar mark.

Orange County would be the 9th CA county to surpass a 7-digit median home price,

CA Counties by February 2021 Median Home Price
$1,900,000 San Mateo
$1,786,400 San Francisco
$1,540,000 Marin
$1,486,250 Santa Clara
$1,435,000 Mono
$1,174,080 Santa Barbara
$1,100,000 Alameda
$1,058,000 Santa Cruz
$995,000 Orange
$931,500 Napa
$820,000 Monterey
$817,500 Contra Costa
$765,000 San Diego
$750,000 Ventura
$740,000 Sonoma
$700,000 San Benito
$700,000 San Luis Obispo
$664,120 Los Angeles
$599,500 Placer
$577,500 El Dorado
$525,000 Mendocino
$520,000 Yolo
$519,500 Riversie
$509,750 Solano
$463,000 Sacramento
$441,500 Calaveras
$436,300 San Joaquin
$406,280 Amador
$405,000 Stanislaus
$397,500 Mariposa
$397,000 Butte
$395,000 Sutter
$389,900 San Bernardino
$375,000 Tuolumne
$370,000 Yuba
$360,000 Humboldt
$359,000 Del Norte
$354,500 Madera
$350,000 Fresno
$329,950 Shasta
$329,500 Plumas
$326,500 Lake
$322,500 Siskiyou
$319,500 Glenn
$299,000 Tehama
$295,000 Kern
$288,500 Tulare
$280,000 Kings
$208,250 Lassen

https://www.car.org/en/aboutus/media...s/feb2021sales

Governor Newsom promised 3.5 million new housing units during the election season---Im wondering what the progress on that has been?
This is how you get a new wave of socialist. Absolutely sick. In nine counties I would be spending over 1 million dollars, or need to make around 250-300k and have 200k for a downpayment? LOL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2021, 1:29 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
Yeah incomes in the bay are a little higher than SoCal but most expensive metro areas in the country are pretty doable for dual family incomes.

MSA by Average Family Income, Both Spouses Work, 2019
$277,587 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
$241,824 San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley
$203,744 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria
$199,963 New York-Newark-Jersey City
$198,059 Boston-Cambridge-Newton
$185,465 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue
$172,809 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson
$170,998 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim
$168,782 Hartford-East Hartford-Middletown
$168,755 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin
$165,927 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington
$165,836 San Diego-Vista-Carlsbad
$163,212 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood
$162,041 Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown
$159,946 Raleigh-Cary
$158,091 Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington
$156,736 Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom
$154,406 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land
$153,186 Richmond
$152,740 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta
$151,600 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
$151,389 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro
$146,631 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia
$145,706 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn
$145,514 Providence-Warwick
$145,289 St Louis
$144,713 Cincinnati
$144,182 Milwaukee-Waukesha
$143,118 Pittsburgh
$141,105 Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin
$141,007 New Orleans-Metairie
$142,669 Columbus
$138,351 Jacksonville
$137,921 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach
$137,805 Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler
$137,424 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson
$136,943 Cleveland-Elyria
$136,755 Kansas City
$134,787 Tampa-St Petersburg-Clearwater
$134,747 Birmingham-Hoover
$133,030 Oklahoma City
$131,501 Rochester
$131,085 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
$130,714 Buffalo-Cheektowaga
$128,907 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise
$128,103 Memphis
$127,240 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News
$126,730 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford
$126,849 San Antonio-New Braunfels
$125,509 Tucson
$124,760 Salt Lake City
$123,700 Grand Rapids-Kentwood
$122,437 Fresno

Average incomes mean absolutely nothing. Many people are making 15-25 dollars an hour.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2021, 1:36 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
This is how you get a new wave of socialismt. Absolutely sick. In nine counties I would be spending over 1 million dollars, or need to make around 250-300k and have 200k for a downpayment? LOL
^^No, you'd just have a smaller home like people do in dense urban areas all over. And you might be a renter like 57% of San Franciscans (45% statewide). And if you have an outbuilding or room for one or possibly a basement or garage, you might create an "inlaw apartment" and rent it out to help pay your own mortgage. And in any case, you'd spend more of your disposable income on housing and thank your lucky stars your utility bills are pretty low, Prop. 13 saves you a lot on taxes and there's an awful lot to do in CA that's free, much of it in the bosom of a glorious Mother Nature.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2021, 1:39 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Average incomes mean absolutely nothing. Many people are making 15-25 dollars an hour.
And most of them rent like people do making relatively low wages (which means $8/hr many places) everywhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:40 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.