Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
How much do you/should you spend on food (US)?
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
A suprising amount of people are priced out of owning a home in Seattle right now, it does seem over-inflated which of course just makes even people who can afford it (barely) wary of actually buying. Your average middle class income in America would not allow you to buy a house in Seattle right now. I'm not saying that anyone should be able to buy a house wherever they'd like, I'm just saying I can understand the frustration of basically getting priced out of where you live.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
@CSARdiver Could you help me build a proposal? Seriously, I actually know a few property investors, and I would love to pull some powers together and make this happen. Right now the only argument I have is, "We'll be operating at a loss and I can't guarantee any return on investment, but the demand is huge, and you'll probably get some feel-good media exposure."1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »$600-700 per month for my bf and me including toilettries. I live in an expensive area (Southern California) and buy only free range or grass fed meat, pasture raised eggs, wild caught shrimp, and organic fruits and veggies on the dirty dozen list. I do buy some things in bulk which saves money. I'm not sure if this is a lot or not. I do use coupons when possible. I just calculated that what I spend is 8% of my take home pay. My mortgage is 45% of my income and the biggest expense. I dont eat out much, maybe twice a month.
The grass fed beef I buy is $10/1 lb ground beef.
$4/half gallon milk.
$4/lb strawberries.
$8/lb chicken.
$5/package of 7 slices turkey bacon.
$5/dozen eggs.
$4/lb honeycrisp apples.
See yeah I am definitely doing something wrong then. Your take home is similar to mine but I'm spending twice the amount on food while not buying organic free range grass fed pasture raised type foods. That said looks like less than half of my food costs are from groceries so that is probably what I should address if I want to bring cost down.
Also damn on that mortgage, thought mine was expensive but yours is like another 1k more. So-Cal I suppose.
I spend about 15% on food, about 30% on mortgage, 10% on other house stuff, 30% on child care...so not a lot left for additional savings or other costs clothes/entertainment/bill's etc. Cutting food down to 8% would be nice.
Yeah, cost of living sucks here. It is insane. LOL. I mean I feel like my grocery bill is pretty high. I guess I save some money by getting deals here and there but the main things that add up are the produce, dairy, and meat, for sure. I buy canned and dry goods, and TP and stuff from Costco or Winco to save money. Sometimes I get stuff on sale. I get my shrimp at Trader Joe's, $10/lb. I do like to eat shrimp and buy boneless, skinless chicken which is pretty pricy. I have been buying more organic ground turkey instead of beef, which is cheaper and healthier. My takehome pay is only about 60% of my income. So much tax here in Cali too. How much do you spend?
Well heck I guess I have nothing to hide with my expenses so to be fully open I have a family of four (myself, my wife and my two 1.5 y/o twin daughters. Expenses are about $1300/mo in food, $2350/mo in mortgage, $1000/mo in prop tax, insurance, utility, $250/mo phone/internet and $2500/mo in child-care. The remaining gets typically taken up by expenses related to car plus various sundries and travel. We are pretty frugal when it comes to material things or entertainment. Home expenses and child-care are pretty fixed so really the only flexibility I have there is food. Without taking a hard look at that food costs are just going to grow as our kids grow. I recognize with some effort I could probably lower our food costs by a lot, just a question of whether I want to put effort into that or not.
Holy crap childcare is expensive. My parents spend about what you guys spend for their family if 4.0 -
I was paying 1850 for a 1 bedroom apartment before I bought my house. That was 1 hour outside L.A. When they wanted to raise the rent, I moved. A comparable apartment in L.A. is $2500 ish. It is insane. Here you can pay $800 k for an old shack in the city or $500 for a nice newer home an hour out.0
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »$600-700 per month for my bf and me including toilettries. I live in an expensive area (Southern California) and buy only free range or grass fed meat, pasture raised eggs, wild caught shrimp, and organic fruits and veggies on the dirty dozen list. I do buy some things in bulk which saves money. I'm not sure if this is a lot or not. I do use coupons when possible. I just calculated that what I spend is 8% of my take home pay. My mortgage is 45% of my income and the biggest expense. I dont eat out much, maybe twice a month.
The grass fed beef I buy is $10/1 lb ground beef.
$4/half gallon milk.
$4/lb strawberries.
$8/lb chicken.
$5/package of 7 slices turkey bacon.
$5/dozen eggs.
$4/lb honeycrisp apples.
See yeah I am definitely doing something wrong then. Your take home is similar to mine but I'm spending twice the amount on food while not buying organic free range grass fed pasture raised type foods. That said looks like less than half of my food costs are from groceries so that is probably what I should address if I want to bring cost down.
Also damn on that mortgage, thought mine was expensive but yours is like another 1k more. So-Cal I suppose.
I spend about 15% on food, about 30% on mortgage, 10% on other house stuff, 30% on child care...so not a lot left for additional savings or other costs clothes/entertainment/bill's etc. Cutting food down to 8% would be nice.
Yeah, cost of living sucks here. It is insane. LOL. I mean I feel like my grocery bill is pretty high. I guess I save some money by getting deals here and there but the main things that add up are the produce, dairy, and meat, for sure. I buy canned and dry goods, and TP and stuff from Costco or Winco to save money. Sometimes I get stuff on sale. I get my shrimp at Trader Joe's, $10/lb. I do like to eat shrimp and buy boneless, skinless chicken which is pretty pricy. I have been buying more organic ground turkey instead of beef, which is cheaper and healthier. My takehome pay is only about 60% of my income. So much tax here in Cali too. How much do you spend?
Well heck I guess I have nothing to hide with my expenses so to be fully open I have a family of four (myself, my wife and my two 1.5 y/o twin daughters. Expenses are about $1300/mo in food, $2350/mo in mortgage, $1000/mo in prop tax, insurance, utility, $250/mo phone/internet and $2500/mo in child-care. The remaining gets typically taken up by expenses related to car plus various sundries and travel. We are pretty frugal when it comes to material things or entertainment. Home expenses and child-care are pretty fixed so really the only flexibility I have there is food. Without taking a hard look at that food costs are just going to grow as our kids grow. I recognize with some effort I could probably lower our food costs by a lot, just a question of whether I want to put effort into that or not.
Holy crap childcare is expensive. My parents spend about what you guys spend for their family if 4.
Seattle has the 2nd highest daycare rates in the country. Full-time 5 day a week daycare in Seattle averages about $1700 per child per month. We do 3 days a week for 2 for the $2500 and have grandparents take the other two days. Only place higher is San Fran0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
Saw an article someone posted on Linkedin. I'm not going to have all the facts straight from memory but the idea is directionally correct that talks about your point.
Each high paying tech job (much like high paying manufacturing jobs in the past) creates 4-5 other jobs. Think jobs like teachers, police/fire, salespeople, retail/food service, etc that don't pay nearly as much as the tech job. The people in the "support jobs" have to have a place to live also. Seattle, with it's geography, has little room to expand, therefore available land is uber expensive. Compare to someplace like Dallas or Austin where there is buildable land for miles around (even though the core of these cities is getting pricey).2 -
For 3 people at home. I spend, in avg, $60 per week. I eat plant based, mostly organic. My wife and son eat chicken and eggs. I buy Leaves (Spinash, spring mix), Avocados and Organic Sona Masoori Rice at Costco. Beans and Lentils and other veggies that are on sale at Whole Foods and I get a produce box from a local organic farm every other week.
I get the eggs and Chicken at Costco as well.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
Industry doesn't have as much power to make change or resolve those issues as they used to(100 years ago)
For example: An employer has fairly tight restrictions on how far they can go to provide affordable housing or food to their employees as a benefit of employment(quite rightly-due to abuses of such behavior a century ago).0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
@CSARdiver Could you help me build a proposal? Seriously, I actually know a few property investors, and I would love to pull some powers together and make this happen. Right now the only argument I have is, "We'll be operating at a loss and I can't guarantee any return on investment, but the demand is huge, and you'll probably get some feel-good media exposure."
Hehe - profit is always the rub right? This is one of the key problems in that while even if we produce a profit it would pale by comparison to the potential of the property. I had a similar situation here where a group of us invested in commercial property knowingly taking a loss in the short term, but banking on the long term potential of the area. It was challenging at first, but we sought out civic minded investors who are willing to take a short term loss for a greater goal.
The problem with Seattle is that the tax structure does not provide incentives for these measures.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
@CSARdiver Could you help me build a proposal? Seriously, I actually know a few property investors, and I would love to pull some powers together and make this happen. Right now the only argument I have is, "We'll be operating at a loss and I can't guarantee any return on investment, but the demand is huge, and you'll probably get some feel-good media exposure."
Hehe - profit is always the rub right? This is one of the key problems in that while even if we produce a profit it would pale by comparison to the potential of the property. I had a similar situation here where a group of us invested in commercial property knowingly taking a loss in the short term, but banking on the long term potential of the area. It was challenging at first, but we sought out civic minded investors who are willing to take a short term loss for a greater goal.
The problem with Seattle is that the tax structure does not provide incentives for these measures.
Off Topic, I hear you. Our oldest daughter lives in Seattle. We are in downstate IL, closer to STL.
Renting a van out there for a holiday trip and 33% of the rental costs are tax. Of course, IIRC, no state income tax, so it has to come from somewhere...
She will finish her masters at Seattle University and has a contract to start this fall with Seattle Public Schools, so one more kid off the payroll.
End of threadjack....
1 -
About $750 a month for my wife and I.1
-
stanmann571 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
Industry doesn't have as much power to make change or resolve those issues as they used to(100 years ago)
For example: An employer has fairly tight restrictions on how far they can go to provide affordable housing or food to their employees as a benefit of employment(quite rightly-due to abuses of such behavior a century ago).
I was hoping someone would bring this up. Business used to have the ability to build/own/maintain housing for their employees. It's a smart practice and mutually beneficial. Our firm owns several homes as transition sites for visitors, consultants, and employees while they find a home. Note that we pulled out of hostile areas such as San Francisco/Seattle. The regulatory burden makes the risk outweigh the reward.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
Industry doesn't have as much power to make change or resolve those issues as they used to(100 years ago)
For example: An employer has fairly tight restrictions on how far they can go to provide affordable housing or food to their employees as a benefit of employment(quite rightly-due to abuses of such behavior a century ago).
This is not the housing you are talking about, but I lived in employer provided housing for many years. I worked in a remote area so living on property meant staff didn't have to drive hours+ to get to work every day and the company could save on wages. We would be paid minimum wage, but had plenty to get by get by considering free housing/utilities and no commuting expenses. Well, every time the minimum wage increased, the employer would "adjust" the value of the housing benefit to keep wages the same. Wages therefore hadn't increased since the 90's. When staff couldn't afford decent clothing anymore, the owners would judge the staff for having made such poor life decisions. They judged their own loyal employees for not being more financially successful. It was disgusting.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
No offense but I think that Vancouver and Seattle are in rather unique situations that you aren't fully grasping. The real estate economy is so "booming" or "bubbling" that it has attracted a lot of foreign investment of people buying up property not to occupy it or even to use it really but like they are valuable trading cards or something. So the market is being driven by people who aren't actually affected by the living conditions of the city itself. Sure, free market capitalism balances the whole system, but if you look locally to the actual people who live in the actual city they are getting kind of screwed by investor wars driving up prices and making housing overpriced and non-functional for the general population. When a run down 900 sq ft townhouse costs more than a typically 2 person household can afford that is sort of a problem and if the market "equalizes" by crashing that isn't good either.
My wife and I both work and are both professionals both earning more than the national average and we managed to buy a 1600 sqft home in the outskirts of Seattle 3 years ago. If we were trying today I don't think we could afford a house in Seattle at all. I don't think anything like that is happening in Chicago. Looks to me from Zillow like in Chcago can buy a 3 bed 3 bath 2000 sqft house like literally in the downtown area for under 500k. In Seattle that would be something like 2 million and you cannot buy something that size within the city limits at all for 500k.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
No offense but I think that Vancouver and Seattle are in rather unique situations that you aren't fully grasping. The real estate economy is so "booming" or "bubbling" that it has attracted a lot of foreign investment of people buying up property not to occupy it or even to use it really but like they are valuable trading cards or something. Sure, free market capatalism balances the whole system, but if you look locally to the actual people who live in the actual city they are getting kind of screwed by investor wars driving up prices and making housing overpriced and non-functional for the general population. When a run down 900 sq ft townhouse costs more than a typically 2 person household can afford that is sort of a problem and if the market "equalizes" by crashing that isn't good either.
I don't think anything like that is happening in Chicago.
It's Ok, The tulips will rot. and yes, a crash will suck, so keep your powder dry.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
No offense but I think that Vancouver and Seattle are in rather unique situations that you aren't fully grasping. The real estate economy is so "booming" or "bubbling" that it has attracted a lot of foreign investment of people buying up property not to occupy it or even to use it really but like they are valuable trading cards or something. So the market is being driven by people who aren't actually affected by the living conditions of the city itself. Sure, free market capitalism balances the whole system, but if you look locally to the actual people who live in the actual city they are getting kind of screwed by investor wars driving up prices and making housing overpriced and non-functional for the general population. When a run down 900 sq ft townhouse costs more than a typically 2 person household can afford that is sort of a problem and if the market "equalizes" by crashing that isn't good either.
My wife and I both work and are both professionals both earning more than the national average and we managed to buy a 1600 sqft home in the outskirts of Seattle 3 years ago. If we were trying today I don't think we could afford a house in Seattle at all. I don't think anything like that is happening in Chicago. Looks to me from Zillow like in Chcago can buy a 3 bed 3 bath 2000 sqft house like literally in the downtown area for under 500k. In Seattle that would be something like 2 million and you cannot buy something that size within the city limits at all for 500k.
No offence taken. I get it completely, but see the obvious outcome - the system is crashing and pitchforks are coming. Seattle and Vancouver are simply further along and have fewer mitigators than similar cities.
Seems like a tremendous opportunity for Nick Hanauer to act in the best interest of the public.
0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
No offense but I think that Vancouver and Seattle are in rather unique situations that you aren't fully grasping. The real estate economy is so "booming" or "bubbling" that it has attracted a lot of foreign investment of people buying up property not to occupy it or even to use it really but like they are valuable trading cards or something. So the market is being driven by people who aren't actually affected by the living conditions of the city itself. Sure, free market capitalism balances the whole system, but if you look locally to the actual people who live in the actual city they are getting kind of screwed by investor wars driving up prices and making housing overpriced and non-functional for the general population. When a run down 900 sq ft townhouse costs more than a typically 2 person household can afford that is sort of a problem and if the market "equalizes" by crashing that isn't good either.
My wife and I both work and are both professionals both earning more than the national average and we managed to buy a 1600 sqft home in the outskirts of Seattle 3 years ago. If we were trying today I don't think we could afford a house in Seattle at all. I don't think anything like that is happening in Chicago. Looks to me from Zillow like in Chcago can buy a 3 bed 3 bath 2000 sqft house like literally in the downtown area for under 500k. In Seattle that would be something like 2 million and you cannot buy something that size within the city limits at all for 500k.
No offence taken. I get it completely, but see the obvious outcome - the system is crashing and pitchforks are coming. Seattle and Vancouver are simply further along and have fewer mitigators than similar cities.
Seems like a tremendous opportunity for Nick Hanauer to act in the best interest of the public.
It is Seattle...no one has a pitchfork. It is going to be like guitars and rolled up yoga mats.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »We live downstate IL mid-size community....same house in S. Cali or Seattle would be 4-5X as much.
Yeah not even an exaggeration....pretty spot on. Median price per square foot for houses:
Seattle: $506
Los Angeles: $635
Illinois: $141
Illinois x 4 = Seattle
Illinois x 5 = So Cal.
Your house would probably be ~1.2 million in Seattle. Food prices probably a little higher in Seattle as well but not nearly to that degree.
Acutely aware after family moved from St. Louis to Mission Viejo in the mid 1970s and living as a single sailor in San Diego in 1996. Food, gas, basics in general were about double the price largely due to taxes associated with the product. Economics in motion - supply and demand.
I don't want to divert too much from the thread's topic, but housing (in Seattle at least) is NOT economics in motion. It's investors having their fun. The demand for low-income housing is through the roof. Nine percent of children attending public schools do not have a roof over their heads at night. An overwhelming number of adults living without shelter are employed full time. But there are plenty of housing options for the top 20% and plenty of vacant properties too (although a lot of that is zoned for business). I'm sure we'll be like Vancouver, BC soon, with vacant overpriced properties everywhere you look.
High demand, low supply. How is this not economics? Seattle's primary issue is dealing with reality.
You can either rail against a system which you have no control over, or you can change that which you have control over. Get a group of investors together and purchase property offering low-income housing.
Eh I think you can understand that when a city (which obviously has to employ a labor force and base-level professional workers) has housing costs that vastly exceed the income of those people it creates a very awkward situation where you need people to work in the city but they can't afford to live in the city. You can't really get a house within the Seattle city limits for less than 500k now and if you get one that is 500k you are talking like a 900 sqft townhome on the outskirts.
This is precisely my point. We can sit and discuss it, but market forces being what they are those with wealth can either decide to provide necessities to maintain status quo or suffer. Until workers utilize their power there will be no change. Seattle like so many other cities needs to quickly come to terms with reality. Chicago is in the same situation, only the disparity is not as obvious. Government blames industry. Industry blames government. Both have the power to implement a solution.
No offense but I think that Vancouver and Seattle are in rather unique situations that you aren't fully grasping. The real estate economy is so "booming" or "bubbling" that it has attracted a lot of foreign investment of people buying up property not to occupy it or even to use it really but like they are valuable trading cards or something. So the market is being driven by people who aren't actually affected by the living conditions of the city itself. Sure, free market capitalism balances the whole system, but if you look locally to the actual people who live in the actual city they are getting kind of screwed by investor wars driving up prices and making housing overpriced and non-functional for the general population. When a run down 900 sq ft townhouse costs more than a typically 2 person household can afford that is sort of a problem and if the market "equalizes" by crashing that isn't good either.
My wife and I both work and are both professionals both earning more than the national average and we managed to buy a 1600 sqft home in the outskirts of Seattle 3 years ago. If we were trying today I don't think we could afford a house in Seattle at all. I don't think anything like that is happening in Chicago. Looks to me from Zillow like in Chcago can buy a 3 bed 3 bath 2000 sqft house like literally in the downtown area for under 500k. In Seattle that would be something like 2 million and you cannot buy something that size within the city limits at all for 500k.
No offence taken. I get it completely, but see the obvious outcome - the system is crashing and pitchforks are coming. Seattle and Vancouver are simply further along and have fewer mitigators than similar cities.
Seems like a tremendous opportunity for Nick Hanauer to act in the best interest of the public.
It is Seattle...no one has a pitchfork. It is going to be like guitars and rolled up yoga mats.
This would dramatically soften up ANTIFA's image.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 908 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions