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

California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

realclearinvestigations.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 163 posts

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#141

Post by [deleted] »

Scott_Sanderson wrote: post #22
mikeyouse wrote: post #4

Unfortunately, these pieces could almost always be reduced to "housing costs". They address it a bit in this most recent one, but homelessness / school enrollment / natural population growth / middle class jobs / energy costs can all be traced back to the huge housing deficit that's accumulated over the past 30 or 40 years.

I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning. Single unit is the most expensive and least efficient zoning rule. Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!

[deleted]

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#142

Post by dragonwriter »

jollybean wrote: post #102
ffggvv wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

california is among the highest state tax rates in the country...

USA generally has lower tax burden than other nations, but I don't think taxes on the bottom 90% need to change so much, the issue is in the massive surplus of those earning capital gains. Surplus in California is not generated via income. It's capital gains - I think we need to rethink that. i.e. what Picketty has been saying for a decade. ... and real estate in particular due to historically low interest rates.

> Surplus in California is not generated via income. It's capital gains

Capital gains are income (just income that is federally taxed at a lower rate than “regular” income which, due to payroll taxes, is in turn taxes a lower rate than labor income.)

Because investors > people getting money from random sources > workers.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#143

Post by Jensson »

jollybean wrote: post #116
skrbjc wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California politicians need to break away from the hold of the progressive left. All I see in the bay area are politicians arguing over who is more progressive rather than anyone actually suggesting how they will practically and concretely solve the problems that are so obviously in front of us. But even just acknowledging that there is a problem seems to be impossible for any politicians here. Without any actual cha…

Yes, that's becoming clear, but it's only one of many issues. And FYI 'the right' has been equally compromised by a populist fringe that has no interest in legitimacy either. I grew up in Mississauga, ON, Canada, somehow the city was able to integrate people from anywhere on the planet, give them a sound place to live, some kind of job, low crime, safety, healthcare etc.. It's not the most glorious place, and I have…

California doesn't have problems with their Russian and Asian immigrants either. The amount of problems areas have with immigration very strongly depends on the education level of those immigrants, Canada mostly takes in highly educated people so doesn't face many issues, California on the other hand have over 2 million undocumented immigrants who are significantly less educated than the average immigrant in Canada.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#144

Post by ceeplusplus »

ipaddr wrote: post #131
ceeplusplus wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily enough buying a house close enough to work in NYC is actually cheaper, because Jersey City is viable and NY/NJ don't have Prop 13 to inflate property values. I could buy a 5bdr luxury home in a nice area with great schools in NYC in one of the outer boroughs or a high end luxury new construction in Jersey City. That same cash gets you a shack in a shitty part of the East Bay. > make it more popular with new h…

Average price in Freemont is 1.3 million. Top 1% nationwide is: 538,926 Top 10% in bay area: 534,600 If you make only 100k with no savings or partner you might be priced out of that 6000ft average home. Most people will buy as a couple, have a down payment and get help from parents which puts you at a disadvantage but it is still possible. No idea if a 5 bedroom NJ home is equal to a 3 bedroom 6000 ft home in Freemon…

I see you are out of touch with the housing market. Zillow doesn't give an average but most of the homes listed in Fremont there are above $1.3M, more like 1.5-1.8M if you want something bigger than 1200 sqft. If you filter by >1500 sqft everything starts at 1.5M+. So no, there's no 6000sqft "average" home, these are all starter homes averaging 1.5-1.8M. Then factor in that most houses get 100-200k over asking price during the insane bidding process.

> If you make only 100k with no savings or partner you might be priced out of that 6000ft average home. Most people will buy as a couple, have a down payment and get help from parents which puts you at a disadvantage but it is still possible

Do you listen to what you're saying? A top 10% earner in the region needs to buy as a couple and get help from parents to afford a _starter home_? So everyone else that's under the 90th percentile is just screwed?

> Top 1% nationwide is: 538,926 Top 10% in bay area: 534,600

90th percentile income in 2018 in the Bay was $384k [1]. Someone in the top 10% of incomes should not be struggling to afford a basic home with 3 bedrooms in a mediocre area.

[1]: https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2020/01/31/bay-are...

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#145

Post by RangerScience »

mrkstu wrote: post #124
RangerScience wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notable: Santa Ana (and the rest of Orange County) is substantially more conservative than many people realize.

Read: 'slightly less liberal' https://www.bestplaces.net/voting/city/california/santa_ana

AFAIK, they tend to vote Dem in presidential elections but locally swing strongly conservative. For example: Mask mandates and vaccine requirements.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#146

Post by ipaddr »

ceeplusplus wrote: post #144
ipaddr wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average price in Freemont is 1.3 million. Top 1% nationwide is: 538,926 Top 10% in bay area: 534,600 If you make only 100k with no savings or partner you might be priced out of that 6000ft average home. Most people will buy as a couple, have a down payment and get help from parents which puts you at a disadvantage but it is still possible. No idea if a 5 bedroom NJ home is equal to a 3 bedroom 6000 ft home in Freemon…

I see you are out of touch with the housing market. Zillow doesn't give an average but most of the homes listed in Fremont there are above $1.3M, more like 1.5-1.8M if you want something bigger than 1200 sqft. If you filter by >1500 sqft everything starts at 1.5M+. So no, there's no 6000sqft "average" home, these are all starter homes averaging 1.5-1.8M. Then factor in that most houses get 100-200k over asking price…

http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Inc...

The Bay area numbers I gave are from 2021 source included.

Here are some current prices: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Fremont_CA

The 1450+ feet one for 1.2 seems nice. The 760 one seems within reach.

The prices are similiar around the world. 1.5-1.8 is the average house price in Toronto. If New York/NJ is under valued and you can get a similiar home for less I would probably make the move.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#147

Post by guelo »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #130
confidantlake wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous cities. Yet article after article about how it is falling apart. Where are all the articles about St Louis or Jackson Mississippi?

We expect St Louis to be falling apart. We don't expect San Francisco to be. But I don't agree with the GP either. "Conservative bias in our media"? Either you're to the left of CNN (in which case you're far from the median, and so in a bad position to judge), or you're looking at a very skewed subset of the media. Personally, I think it's a backlash. I think the liberals have been loudly triumphalist since... maybe…

I have no idea if CNN is left-biased since I never watch it, but nobody else does either. Cable news is dominated by blatantly right-leaning Fox News.

The fact that "media is liberal" is taken everywhere as such an obvious unchallengable truism, no proof required, is to me proof of the opposite, conservative bias dominates our political discourse. I honestly feel like all I hear are conservative talking points, like cancel culture, critical race theory, trans stuff all the time, anti masks, SF is horrible, etc.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#148

Post by ceeplusplus »

ipaddr wrote: post #146
ceeplusplus wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you are out of touch with the housing market. Zillow doesn't give an average but most of the homes listed in Fremont there are above $1.3M, more like 1.5-1.8M if you want something bigger than 1200 sqft. If you filter by >1500 sqft everything starts at 1.5M+. So no, there's no 6000sqft "average" home, these are all starter homes averaging 1.5-1.8M. Then factor in that most houses get 100-200k over asking price…

http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Inc... The Bay area numbers I gave are from 2021 source included. Here are some current prices: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Fremont_CA The 1450+ feet one for 1.2 seems nice. The 760 one seems within reach. The prices are similiar around the world. 1.5-1.8 is the average house price in Toronto. If New York/NJ is under valued and you can get…

> The Bay area numbers I gave are from 2021 source included.

That's household income. But sure, put me in the top 20% instead of the top 10%. Still incredibly ridiculous that an 80th percentile earner cannot afford a basic home.

> Here are some current prices

What you linked are apartments/townhomes. These have much higher HOA fees and are priced accordingly. The sticker price seems lower but the monthly payments end up the same as more expensive SFHs. To boot, most of them are really small - everything over 1500 sqft is over 1.3M which is ridiculous. So no, that's not really more affordable. Density doesn't mean everyone lives in a shoebox, it means building taller so the same land can fit 5x more people.

> The 760 one seems within reach

Again, if a 800sqft apartment that looks like it was built 70 years ago is all that's within reach of an 80th percentile household then you need to re-evaluate housing policy.

> The prices are similiar around the world. 1.5-1.8 is the average house price in Toronto

No, it's only similar in places with similarly dysfunctional real estate markets and NIMBYism as CA. Toronto and Vancouver famously have terrible SFH zoning policies. When you look at places like Atlanta, Miami, Austin, Chicago, etc. they are nowhere near the levels seen in CA.

> If New York/NJ is under valued and you can get a similiar home for less I would probably make the move

Or I can keep voting against NIMBYs and vote for densifying the Bay.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#149

Post by jabthedang »

RangerScience wrote: post #36

The thing I want to look into that this article points out is how the thesis of "building dense housing is good / reduces housing costs" is panning out. Article seems to be saying that it isn't - here in CA, and elsewhere in the world - and TBH, that makes some sense to me, now. "There keep being more people in the world, and they keep wanting to live in the same places" isn't resolvable by making those places able t…

No post body was provided.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#150

Post by justinzollars »

confidantlake wrote: post #138
justinzollars wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean default as in bankruptcy, then restructure the fixed costs in a way to become competitive with Texas and Florida.

Their debt to gdp ration isn't even in the top 10 of states. There is no reason for them to declare bankruptcy. The idea that California is not competitive couldn't be further from the truth.If California were a country they would have the 5th highest gdp in the world.

Do you live here? Do you see the math in my post? Outcomes are horrible. Families can’t afford to exist.
Post reply on HN