California
Related: About this forumHigh Housing Costs Are Driving Californians Out in Droves
http://la.curbed.com/2016/3/4/11161626/california-housing-costs-migrationBeacon says that a closer look at who is leaving Californiatheir income, education, jobssuggests that expensive housing costs are a far more likely explanation for out-migration than, say, the commonly complained-about taxes, which would be more likely to drive out the rich. Housing costs have been blamed for pushing lower-income people out of the state before, and a companion report from Beacon shows how unrealistically expensive the market has come in California; it now has a severe housing shortage and the second lowest homeownership rates in the country.
Who are these migrants? " T)he majority of out migration can be attributed to residents who earn less than $30,000," Beacon says, and a huge chunk of those people leaving192,700 over the seven-year periodare in "lower-skilled, lower-paying" fields, meaning something like food preparation, transportation, or office administrationjobs that are pretty essential to any state....
And that's the kind of problem that this housing-migration relationship can cause. "California has an employment boom with a housing problem," a founding partner with Beacon Economics tells the SGVT. "The state continues to offer great employment opportunities for all kinds of workers, but housing affordability and supply represent a significant problem." And that's obviously become unsustainable.
randys1
(16,286 posts)for the shit he has enabled.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)homes are not owned by people who work and live here, but out of town, even out of the country wealthy people who either use them as vacation homes, or who rent them to vacationers. Yet we have a huge homeless encampment along one of our creeks to the beach of several thousand people, many who are working poor. Something is certainly not right here.
MADem
(135,425 posts)None of the po' folks who do that work will be within commuting distance!
The rich will be stuck holding a can opener and a can, and crying!
Warpy
(110,913 posts)The people who will be hurt the most are the ones right out of school and going for that glamour job that will head their resume for the rest of their lives. The glam job requires them to work 14-16 hour days and with no one to cook restaurant food for them or drive the trains to work or provide any daily services at all, they're going to be in a world of hurt, sleep deprived and malnourished.
The real problem is that the rich are buying up housing as investment. That housing sits empty, turning a city into a ghost town of glitzy, unoccupied apartment towers. Those towers were built on what used to be residential areas housing not only marginal workers, but mid to upper level workers.
Cities like Vancouver, London, San Francisco, and even Dubai are going to start to need laws against absentee owners, especially foreign absentee owners, if they want to survive.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)you can't afford to live where services are needed.
Hell, a lot of these new businesses that rely on twenty-something labor have all-day snacks, nap couches, and stuff like that. They might as well just build a dorm and let people live "on campus."
I have a young relative who did a couple of internships (paid, mind you--they have to do that now) in a pair of those sorts of places. He got fat as hell with all the snacks until he started walking to-and-fro instead of taking the T.
What they should do is put a heavy tax surcharge on unoccupied apartments that aren't being offered for rent at a reasonable price. That'll slow the roll a bit. Then take that surcharge and use it to provide affordable housing.
Warpy
(110,913 posts)Easier to control and nice to have on call 24/7.
What's "affordable rent?" Who gets to define it? Hint: it won't be the people who have to pay it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)25 percent of your TAKE HOME salary. Other costs, like electric, heat, and so forth, should not bump the total past 33 percent of that take home salary.
That's pretty much how most agencies that pay a housing allowance/COLA play the numbers.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)more than a quarter of their income on rent.
Don't kid yourself that its going to get better, it wont, unless they start building more housing - which will effect demand and address the shortage. But the WTO precludes that being done by public entities now so the chance of that changing is slim.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)But not in San francisco.. there are very few unoccupied apartments in SF.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)They put big buck$$$ into defeating a ballot initiative that would have addressed that.
Response to KamaAina (Original post)
Baobab This message was self-deleted by its author.