Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Ultra-Rich Are Flourishing and Sticking Around in California

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 81 posts

Re: The Ultra-Rich Are Flourishing and Sticking Around in California

#11

Post by esotericimpl »

squokko wrote: post #8
josephjrobison wrote: post #4

As a resident who was born here and left and then came back, I’ve had this idea kicking around in my head of “California is a luxury product”. If you look at the entire US, and assume you have the ability to move and live in any state, there are lots of options for everyone at every income level. (Disclaimer that this doesn’t address poverty, DEI, and other limitations to a good chunk of citizens). From the Gold Rush…

It's a terrible luxury product though because 1) Prop 13 means that people from 50 years ago are still in the luxury neighborhoods 2) Crime is not sufficiently eradicated even from expensive areas

California is in the top quartile of safest states in the US.

Your complaint is that rich people wont have their property taxes jacked up and they haven't "eradicated" crime.

As a response to the fact that California is as close to the French Riviera as we have in the US.

Re: The Ultra-Rich Are Flourishing and Sticking Around in California

#12

Post by vorpalhex »

ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #10

I have always been convinced that the general numbers on how many rich people (> 10M networth and > 50M networth) there are is a total lie. Maybe its the bubble that I live in, but there are ALOT of very wealthy people on the coasts. The government numbers dont match my anecdata, I think they are missing a ton of income/capital gains, and thus our wealth distribution charts dont match reality

Just to be clear, you doubt a large federal entity that employs thousands of professionals because you see a lot of people who you think are rich?

Re: The Ultra-Rich Are Flourishing and Sticking Around in California

#13

Post by ldjkfkdsjnv »

vorpalhex wrote: post #12
ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #10

I have always been convinced that the general numbers on how many rich people (> 10M networth and > 50M networth) there are is a total lie. Maybe its the bubble that I live in, but there are ALOT of very wealthy people on the coasts. The government numbers dont match my anecdata, I think they are missing a ton of income/capital gains, and thus our wealth distribution charts dont match reality

Just to be clear, you doubt a large federal entity that employs thousands of professionals because you see a lot of people who you think are rich?

Yes. And I am a highly educated individual with a degree in statistics/CS

Re: The Ultra-Rich Are Flourishing and Sticking Around in California

#14

Post by game_the0ry »

ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #10

I have always been convinced that the general numbers on how many rich people (> 10M networth and > 50M networth) there are is a total lie. Maybe its the bubble that I live in, but there are ALOT of very wealthy people on the coasts. The government numbers dont match my anecdata, I think they are missing a ton of income/capital gains, and thus our wealth distribution charts dont match reality

> I have always been convinced that the general numbers on how many rich people (> 10M networth) there are is a total lie.

Not really a lie, but most of that wealth is on paper. Those people do not have $10M cash, they $10M in investments at today's fair market value.

Some amount of property appreciation is due to lower interest rates allowing home buyers to roll up their equity over time as they buy bigger, more expensive houses. That works when interest goes down, but the inverse...should be predictable.

Re: The Ultra-Rich Are Flourishing and Sticking Around in California

#15

Post by ChuckMcM »

squokko wrote: post #8
josephjrobison wrote: post #4

As a resident who was born here and left and then came back, I’ve had this idea kicking around in my head of “California is a luxury product”. If you look at the entire US, and assume you have the ability to move and live in any state, there are lots of options for everyone at every income level. (Disclaimer that this doesn’t address poverty, DEI, and other limitations to a good chunk of citizens). From the Gold Rush…

It's a terrible luxury product though because 1) Prop 13 means that people from 50 years ago are still in the luxury neighborhoods 2) Crime is not sufficiently eradicated even from expensive areas

Just to put a dose of reality here, Prop 13 property taxes reset on sales (there are exceptions when selling to children of the owners but generally they reset) and property turnover rates in California are generally in excess of 10%. What that means is that pretty much all of the taxes are reset every 10 years or so. This is more true of "desirable" places to live (Bay Area, LA, San Diego) than say "less desirable". I have encouraged (without success so far) the County Assessor's office to publish the "net" tax year (average, median, and mode) for the county to help people better understand this.

Re: The Ultra-Rich Are Flourishing and Sticking Around in California

#16

Post by eep_social »

ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #13
vorpalhex wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, you doubt a large federal entity that employs thousands of professionals because you see a lot of people who you think are rich?

Yes. And I am a highly educated individual with a degree in statistics/CS

Did that degree cover sample biases at all?

Re: The Ultra-Rich Are Flourishing and Sticking Around in California

#17

Post by vorpalhex »

ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #13
vorpalhex wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, you doubt a large federal entity that employs thousands of professionals because you see a lot of people who you think are rich?

Yes. And I am a highly educated individual with a degree in statistics/CS

So obviously you'd know that your sample size is so small as to be statistically insignificant, you can't actually measure wealth but may be guessing based on visible status symbols, and that the IRS taxes gains and not holdings.

Obviously as someone highly educated you'd realize anecdotal data can't tell you about broad statistical trends and isn't actually a replacement for real sampling.

And obviously with such a deep understanding of statistics, you'd never go off half cocked and attempt to suggest your vague gut feeling should beat out years and years of auditing, risk analysis and so on.

Re: The Ultra-Rich Are Flourishing and Sticking Around in California

#18

Post by riku_iki »

game_the0ry wrote: post #7

I grew in upper middle class southern California. I work in tech for the last 7 years. My parents house went from $500K when they bought in 1995 to +$3M today. If my math is right, that would mean the all-in payment (principal, interest, taxes) would be around $20,000/month at today's rate. Assume you do not want to spend more than 1/3 of your income on housing, your household would need to make $720,000/year. Nomina…

Its modern form of feudalism, those who secured low rate loans, pay low prop13 taxes and benefited from equity bubbles are allowed to live good life, others have to serve them for pennies and miserable life in exchange.

Re: The Ultra-Rich Are Flourishing and Sticking Around in California

#19

Post by jgalt212 »

ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #10

I have always been convinced that the general numbers on how many rich people (> 10M networth and > 50M networth) there are is a total lie. Maybe its the bubble that I live in, but there are ALOT of very wealthy people on the coasts. The government numbers dont match my anecdata, I think they are missing a ton of income/capital gains, and thus our wealth distribution charts dont match reality

It's like dark matter. It's out there, just hard to pin down. In NYC private schools, average income for parents (non-scholarship) is in the seven figures. average.

Re: The Ultra-Rich Are Flourishing and Sticking Around in California

#20

Post by jseliger »

game_the0ry wrote: post #7

I grew in upper middle class southern California. I work in tech for the last 7 years. My parents house went from $500K when they bought in 1995 to +$3M today. If my math is right, that would mean the all-in payment (principal, interest, taxes) would be around $20,000/month at today's rate. Assume you do not want to spend more than 1/3 of your income on housing, your household would need to make $720,000/year. Nomina…

CA zoning is doing its work: https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-e...
Post reply on HN