13 ms·

This article reflects my wife and my experience: just a month ago we left San Diego for a small town north of Salt Lake City. We make over six-figures and San D

This article reflects my wife and my experience: just a month ago we left San Diego for a small town north of Salt Lake City. We make over six-figures and San Diego held only poor economic prospects for us. We'd have a very difficult time buying a decent home (2000 sq ft, good neighborhood, reasonable commute) for a price which wouldn't jeopardize other essentials like retirement savings, kids college savings, savings in general, and debt payoff and avoidance. When a small box in Clairemont (neighborhood of San Diego) cost $500-600K you know things are out-of-wack. Things are more reasonably priced here, but probably still higher than their intrinsic value. However, at least we can afford them without mortgaging our (and our kids') future. The truth is that this isn't a situation the government has shown any ability to solve for. There are a myriad of reasons, but ultimately my feeling is that federal housing policy is deeply flawed. Inevitably, by necessity, the solution to this mess will come from all those in the middle class who've been forced to find another way. Our voting with our feet will shape the next ten to twenty years in ways which are hard to predict. One likely outcome is that big cities will not be able to maintain their current housing price structures. A tipping point will come. You can't build a viable local economy only on the top and bottom of the income spectrum. You need a robust middle class. Otherwise the absence of the middle class creates a vacuum, and conditions for an implosion into that vacuum.

BipolarElsa 10y ago
Not really. There's nothing stopping the capitalist class from reverting back to, say, de facto feudalism. Don't think that the working-class always has a way forward. We do regress, and we have been regressing.
mhneu 10y ago
It's not just housing policy that's gone wrong, it's transit policy. We haven't built good public transit in our cities, and now that cars are filling all available roads, even houses far away from cities are too expensive for how long commutes are. We wish we had a train system in many cities that allowed the middle class to live 40-60 minutes away from their jobs. Ultimately however the main problem is wealth inequality. If median income had increased with GDP since 1980, instead of all gains going to the 0.01%, you would be able to afford to live in the suburbs of San Diego.
- forrestthewoods 10y ago
  Inequality is not the problem. The problem is there are more people who want to live somewhere than there are houses. With perfect equality there would still be more people than houses. The one and only fix is more houses. That's it. Any other solution is just picking winners and losers different ways. But no matter which way you pick the same number of people win and the same number lose.
  - unclebucknasty 10y ago
    >The one and only fix is more houses Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The heart of the problem in many parts of the country is that we fund our schools with property taxes. Hence, a cycle of better schools and increased demand in concentrated areas, which causes the supply-demand imbalance and price increases. Compounding this is the fact that people in such areas actively block "higher density" housing, which naturally means fewer houses per acre. Building more houses would help to a limited extent, but the shortage would still exist and resistance is stout. Hence, the shortage of housing is just a symptom of how we fund education, which is the real problem. >Inequality is not the problem Inequality absolutely enters here because if wealth/income were more evenly distributed, then funding for schools would be more evenly distributed, thus alleviating concentrated housing demand in small areas with better schools and driving up prices.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      I'm not sure I understand your comment. Public schools in dense cities tend to be almost universally bad--in spite of often being funded at significantly higher per-student levels than even relatively tony suburbs that have high-performing schools. If you look at Massachusetts public high schools for example, the one public high school in Cambridge (where housing has gotten very expensive) has some of the highest per-pupil spending and is in the bottom tier of test results.
      - unclebucknasty 10y ago
        Hmm. It's a little hard to imagine that per-student funding in high-density city schools outstrips that for truly wealthier and presumably sparser suburbs with any significant consistency. I'd want to see the actual numbers. For instance, where is this funding coming from for the cities? And, where is the suburban tax money going? And, what's the history? Were these schools neglected for years, then the state recently started pouring in money? I mean, maybe there are some exceptions (perhaps partially gentrified cities where some tax base is moving back into cities at inflated prices?), but these would generally be outliers. Since wealthier people have fled most major cities for the burbs, the tax base and educational investments have generally followed them. You see this over and over again in communities throughout the country. For example: http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why-americas-schools-have-a-money-problem http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why-americas-schools...
iMiiTH 10y ago
> Inevitably, by necessity, the solution to this mess will come from all those in the middle class who've been forced to find another way. Yes, they will be living in condos and apartments. You can have a large detached home, or live in a city. You can't have both.
developer2 10y ago
Just a minor nitpick. If you are buying a home, and are also fortunate enough to be able to manage "retirement savings, kids college savings, savings in general, and debt payoff and avoidance", you are likely not strictly middle class. Most people who are classified as middle class can't afford any one of those, let alone the entire set. You don't come across as negatively "privileged", but perhaps if you can afford to send your kids to college, and plan for retirement, and have a rainy day fund to boot, you might consider yourself blessed compared to the situation many people find themselves in. I'm well enough off, but I'd give an arm to be in your position. :)
- bitdeveloper 10y ago
  The essence of middle class is being able to do all those things.
- jblow 10y ago
  Definitions of class boundaries vary slightly depending on who you're talking to, but in general, "upper class" means you do not have to work for a living, plus you are plugged into the social network of upper-class people. This is true for a very small percentage of the population.
Melchizedek 10y ago
"...cities are increasingly home to high-rollers who can pay the high rents or down payments and lower income people who qualify for subsidized housing." If you're not rich you might as well say fuck it, relax, and be poor. The middle class has to pay for _both_ the profits of the rich and the welfare of the poor, while not being able to afford a decent life for a family despite working hard and doing everything right. It is a totally exploited class.
tokenadult 10y ago
a decent home (2000 sq ft, good neighborhood, reasonable commute) We have lived for more than a decade with four children in a house with fewer finished square feet of floor space. I'm curious about what "good neighborhood" means here, because my children can walk or bicycle all over the place, without fear of mishap, and the local public schools here draw people from all over the country. "Reasonable commute" is also a term I'd like to understand better in this context. How tied to location is the employment you each have, if you are able to move out of state? I have to think that it's possible for middle-class people like my family (at a lower income level, currently, than what you self-report) to live in cities, because we do. Most of our work happens to be in outer-ring suburbs, so "reasonable commute" puts us there, but other people with work nearer into the center of the metropolitan area can live affordably further in. Disclosure: we live in an other ring suburb of Minneapolis, just outside the beltway freeway around the Twin Cities, and barely within reach of the bus system. My wife and my third son bike-commute often, year-round.
Bombthecat 10y ago
I don't understand the way of thinking that you need a middle class?There is no need for middle class. What speaks against a giant gated community in the cities?

BipolarElsa 10y ago

Not really. There's nothing stopping the capitalist class from reverting back to, say, de facto feudalism. Don't think that the working-class always has a way forward. We do regress, and we have been regressing.

mhneu 10y ago

It's not just housing policy that's gone wrong, it's transit policy. We haven't built good public transit in our cities, and now that cars are filling all available roads, even houses far away from cities are too expensive for how long commutes are. We wish we had a train system in many cities that allowed the middle class to live 40-60 minutes away from their jobs. Ultimately however the main problem is wealth inequality. If median income had increased with GDP since 1980, instead of all gains going to the 0.01%, you would be able to afford to live in the suburbs of San Diego.

forrestthewoods 10y ago
Inequality is not the problem. The problem is there are more people who want to live somewhere than there are houses. With perfect equality there would still be more people than houses. The one and only fix is more houses. That's it. Any other solution is just picking winners and losers different ways. But no matter which way you pick the same number of people win and the same number lose.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  >The one and only fix is more houses Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The heart of the problem in many parts of the country is that we fund our schools with property taxes. Hence, a cycle of better schools and increased demand in concentrated areas, which causes the supply-demand imbalance and price increases. Compounding this is the fact that people in such areas actively block "higher density" housing, which naturally means fewer houses per acre. Building more houses would help to a limited extent, but the shortage would still exist and resistance is stout. Hence, the shortage of housing is just a symptom of how we fund education, which is the real problem. >Inequality is not the problem Inequality absolutely enters here because if wealth/income were more evenly distributed, then funding for schools would be more evenly distributed, thus alleviating concentrated housing demand in small areas with better schools and driving up prices.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your comment. Public schools in dense cities tend to be almost universally bad--in spite of often being funded at significantly higher per-student levels than even relatively tony suburbs that have high-performing schools. If you look at Massachusetts public high schools for example, the one public high school in Cambridge (where housing has gotten very expensive) has some of the highest per-pupil spending and is in the bottom tier of test results.
    - unclebucknasty 10y ago
      Hmm. It's a little hard to imagine that per-student funding in high-density city schools outstrips that for truly wealthier and presumably sparser suburbs with any significant consistency. I'd want to see the actual numbers. For instance, where is this funding coming from for the cities? And, where is the suburban tax money going? And, what's the history? Were these schools neglected for years, then the state recently started pouring in money? I mean, maybe there are some exceptions (perhaps partially gentrified cities where some tax base is moving back into cities at inflated prices?), but these would generally be outliers. Since wealthier people have fled most major cities for the burbs, the tax base and educational investments have generally followed them. You see this over and over again in communities throughout the country. For example: http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why-americas-schools-have-a-money-problem http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why-americas-schools...

iMiiTH 10y ago

> Inevitably, by necessity, the solution to this mess will come from all those in the middle class who've been forced to find another way. Yes, they will be living in condos and apartments. You can have a large detached home, or live in a city. You can't have both.

developer2 10y ago

Just a minor nitpick. If you are buying a home, and are also fortunate enough to be able to manage "retirement savings, kids college savings, savings in general, and debt payoff and avoidance", you are likely not strictly middle class. Most people who are classified as middle class can't afford any one of those, let alone the entire set. You don't come across as negatively "privileged", but perhaps if you can afford to send your kids to college, and plan for retirement, and have a rainy day fund to boot, you might consider yourself blessed compared to the situation many people find themselves in. I'm well enough off, but I'd give an arm to be in your position. :)

bitdeveloper 10y ago
The essence of middle class is being able to do all those things.
jblow 10y ago
Definitions of class boundaries vary slightly depending on who you're talking to, but in general, "upper class" means you do not have to work for a living, plus you are plugged into the social network of upper-class people. This is true for a very small percentage of the population.

Melchizedek 10y ago

"...cities are increasingly home to high-rollers who can pay the high rents or down payments and lower income people who qualify for subsidized housing." If you're not rich you might as well say fuck it, relax, and be poor. The middle class has to pay for _both_ the profits of the rich and the welfare of the poor, while not being able to afford a decent life for a family despite working hard and doing everything right. It is a totally exploited class.

tokenadult 10y ago

a decent home (2000 sq ft, good neighborhood, reasonable commute) We have lived for more than a decade with four children in a house with fewer finished square feet of floor space. I'm curious about what "good neighborhood" means here, because my children can walk or bicycle all over the place, without fear of mishap, and the local public schools here draw people from all over the country. "Reasonable commute" is also a term I'd like to understand better in this context. How tied to location is the employment you each have, if you are able to move out of state? I have to think that it's possible for middle-class people like my family (at a lower income level, currently, than what you self-report) to live in cities, because we do. Most of our work happens to be in outer-ring suburbs, so "reasonable commute" puts us there, but other people with work nearer into the center of the metropolitan area can live affordably further in. Disclosure: we live in an other ring suburb of Minneapolis, just outside the beltway freeway around the Twin Cities, and barely within reach of the bus system. My wife and my third son bike-commute often, year-round.

Bombthecat 10y ago

I don't understand the way of thinking that you need a middle class?There is no need for middle class. What speaks against a giant gated community in the cities?