Average SD family 2000 vs 2010

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=protorio][quote=jstoesz] population of people with poor fiscal values. [/quote]

Well, its more than that, and perhaps speaks to Scarlett’s mention of professionals. Markets are shaped not just by economics, but by culture and ideology. No one disputes that the ideology of home ownership in the U.S. is very strong (if sometimes illogical). But people who earn a certain income often want to stretch that income to the limit in order to achieve homogeneity within a particular taste culture – aesthetic, social, economic. So many “professionals” (I suppose I’m one) seem to have driven up prices by going “all in” with stretching dual incomes, rather than live rather modestly in more diverse neighborhoods.

Of course, I’m not drawing from any data – purely anecdotal and general observations.[/quote]

Agree with this, protorio. “Young professionals” (YP’s) in the 70’s or 80’s didn’t mind buying a house for their families in Univ Heights, North Park or Golden Hill and perhaps turning the granny flat into an office for one of them. And “API scores” were unheard of. I think today’s YP’s in SD County have different housing expectations because there are so many choices on where to live now (many outlier areas/zip codes that didn’t exist then). SD County also has 3x the population, more and wider freeways and more job centers, now. The “YP’s” of yesteryear wouldn’t have dreamed of complicating their lives by commuting long distances, like many of today’s YP’s do. The “values” are different between Gen Y, Gen X, boomers, WWII gen and Greatest gen . . . very, VERY different.[/quote]

I wouldn’t really chalk it up to YPs’ outlandishly high expectations. Back in the 70s and 80s, you had many more “middle-class” neighborhoods that, while not fancy, were certainly quite safe and clean, and the schools were very adequate.

Along with the decimation of the middle class, we’ve seen the decimation of middle class neighborhoods, so that today’s families have to choose between gang-infested barrios, or insanely-priced, “fancy” neighborhoods where all the white and Asian families are fleeing to in order to escape the gang ‘hoods. It’s like people have been left with no real options: they either subject their children to the gangs at school and in their neighborhoods, or they have to pay the piper to get them into schools with “Buffy” and “Skip” so they can feel safe and get a decent education. There is no more “middle” left in our society, and this speaks to the root of our problems, and the problems of the world, right now, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]thought I’d toss a chart into the mix.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

I realize CPI is not specifically being discussed here – but this is another data point… CPI and alternate CPI (as it was calculated before 1990.)

On an anectdotal basis – my base salary (same employer) has gone up 20%… the bulk of that in two moves: one when I transfered to CA (fortunately, before the eliminated the pay differential) and one when I got a promotion. Those big jumps were offset with 3 years of NO increase (zero, zip, nada). That’s just base salary. Bonuses, 401k match, etc have also had negative and positive impacts on my real earnings.

Any increase I got was offset by my husband’s underemployment. We’re definitely pulling in less now than in 2006.[/quote]

One more anecdote to add to Scarlett’s and UCGal’s…

Since the LAUSD pay schedule was pulled up in the other thread, I thought it would be fun to see how it compares to one of the last ones I have.

From the 1998-1999 salary table for LAUSD (last one I have), a teacher with 10 years and 98+ units was paid $55,672/yr. From the 2009-2010 salary table for LAUSD, the same position paid $72,592/yr., for a 30% increase. The house I bought in 1998 for just under $120K, just recently sold again for just over $205K, for an increase of ~70% (again, a specific home with known prices in both time periods, in a hard-hit area, is UP 70% over that time), and this was in one of the hardest-hit areas in SD County, with price drops in the 50-60%+ range already baked in.

Medical insurance, groceries, gas, utilities, etc. are all UP by much more than 30% since then, so that’s one more very specific example (actually have specific pay for a specific position) of a worker who would be much worse off today than 10+ years ago. And that’s not even addressing the education costs for a teacher, which have gone up by much more than 30% over that time.
———————-

One more anecdote…

Just talked to a long-time friend last night from L.A. who is dealing with a foreclosure. Both spouses are now working at literally half — or LESS — than what they were earning 5 years ago, with no better prospects on the horizon. Prices for basic needs have not dropped by 50% over that time.

——————-

Additionally, jobs were MUCH easier to find 10 years ago than today, which should be factored into housing costs, etc.

Under no circumstances have I seen any evidence that people are better off today. Yes, maybe if you track that certain group over time, but you have to compare apples to apples. The bottom 50% of our society is far worse off today than the bottom 50% of our socieity was in 2000 and the years just before, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]thought I’d toss a chart into the mix.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

I realize CPI is not specifically being discussed here – but this is another data point… CPI and alternate CPI (as it was calculated before 1990.)

On an anectdotal basis – my base salary (same employer) has gone up 20%… the bulk of that in two moves: one when I transfered to CA (fortunately, before the eliminated the pay differential) and one when I got a promotion. Those big jumps were offset with 3 years of NO increase (zero, zip, nada). That’s just base salary. Bonuses, 401k match, etc have also had negative and positive impacts on my real earnings.

Any increase I got was offset by my husband’s underemployment. We’re definitely pulling in less now than in 2006.[/quote]

One more anecdote to add to Scarlett’s and UCGal’s…

Since the LAUSD pay schedule was pulled up in the other thread, I thought it would be fun to see how it compares to one of the last ones I have.

From the 1998-1999 salary table for LAUSD (last one I have), a teacher with 10 years and 98+ units was paid $55,672/yr. From the 2009-2010 salary table for LAUSD, the same position paid $72,592/yr., for a 30% increase. The house I bought in 1998 for just under $120K, just recently sold again for just over $205K, for an increase of ~70% (again, a specific home with known prices in both time periods, in a hard-hit area, is UP 70% over that time), and this was in one of the hardest-hit areas in SD County, with price drops in the 50-60%+ range already baked in.

Medical insurance, groceries, gas, utilities, etc. are all UP by much more than 30% since then, so that’s one more very specific example (actually have specific pay for a specific position) of a worker who would be much worse off today than 10+ years ago. And that’s not even addressing the education costs for a teacher, which have gone up by much more than 30% over that time.
———————-

One more anecdote…

Just talked to a long-time friend last night from L.A. who is dealing with a foreclosure. Both spouses are now working at literally half — or LESS — than what they were earning 5 years ago, with no better prospects on the horizon. Prices for basic needs have not dropped by 50% over that time.

——————-

Additionally, jobs were MUCH easier to find 10 years ago than today, which should be factored into housing costs, etc.

Under no circumstances have I seen any evidence that people are better off today. Yes, maybe if you track that certain group over time, but you have to compare apples to apples. The bottom 50% of our society is far worse off today than the bottom 50% of our socieity was in 2000 and the years just before, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]thought I’d toss a chart into the mix.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

I realize CPI is not specifically being discussed here – but this is another data point… CPI and alternate CPI (as it was calculated before 1990.)

On an anectdotal basis – my base salary (same employer) has gone up 20%… the bulk of that in two moves: one when I transfered to CA (fortunately, before the eliminated the pay differential) and one when I got a promotion. Those big jumps were offset with 3 years of NO increase (zero, zip, nada). That’s just base salary. Bonuses, 401k match, etc have also had negative and positive impacts on my real earnings.

Any increase I got was offset by my husband’s underemployment. We’re definitely pulling in less now than in 2006.[/quote]

One more anecdote to add to Scarlett’s and UCGal’s…

Since the LAUSD pay schedule was pulled up in the other thread, I thought it would be fun to see how it compares to one of the last ones I have.

From the 1998-1999 salary table for LAUSD (last one I have), a teacher with 10 years and 98+ units was paid $55,672/yr. From the 2009-2010 salary table for LAUSD, the same position paid $72,592/yr., for a 30% increase. The house I bought in 1998 for just under $120K, just recently sold again for just over $205K, for an increase of ~70% (again, a specific home with known prices in both time periods, in a hard-hit area, is UP 70% over that time), and this was in one of the hardest-hit areas in SD County, with price drops in the 50-60%+ range already baked in.

Medical insurance, groceries, gas, utilities, etc. are all UP by much more than 30% since then, so that’s one more very specific example (actually have specific pay for a specific position) of a worker who would be much worse off today than 10+ years ago. And that’s not even addressing the education costs for a teacher, which have gone up by much more than 30% over that time.
———————-

One more anecdote…

Just talked to a long-time friend last night from L.A. who is dealing with a foreclosure. Both spouses are now working at literally half — or LESS — than what they were earning 5 years ago, with no better prospects on the horizon. Prices for basic needs have not dropped by 50% over that time.

——————-

Additionally, jobs were MUCH easier to find 10 years ago than today, which should be factored into housing costs, etc.

Under no circumstances have I seen any evidence that people are better off today. Yes, maybe if you track that certain group over time, but you have to compare apples to apples. The bottom 50% of our society is far worse off today than the bottom 50% of our socieity was in 2000 and the years just before, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]thought I’d toss a chart into the mix.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

I realize CPI is not specifically being discussed here – but this is another data point… CPI and alternate CPI (as it was calculated before 1990.)

On an anectdotal basis – my base salary (same employer) has gone up 20%… the bulk of that in two moves: one when I transfered to CA (fortunately, before the eliminated the pay differential) and one when I got a promotion. Those big jumps were offset with 3 years of NO increase (zero, zip, nada). That’s just base salary. Bonuses, 401k match, etc have also had negative and positive impacts on my real earnings.

Any increase I got was offset by my husband’s underemployment. We’re definitely pulling in less now than in 2006.[/quote]

One more anecdote to add to Scarlett’s and UCGal’s…

Since the LAUSD pay schedule was pulled up in the other thread, I thought it would be fun to see how it compares to one of the last ones I have.

From the 1998-1999 salary table for LAUSD (last one I have), a teacher with 10 years and 98+ units was paid $55,672/yr. From the 2009-2010 salary table for LAUSD, the same position paid $72,592/yr., for a 30% increase. The house I bought in 1998 for just under $120K, just recently sold again for just over $205K, for an increase of ~70% (again, a specific home with known prices in both time periods, in a hard-hit area, is UP 70% over that time), and this was in one of the hardest-hit areas in SD County, with price drops in the 50-60%+ range already baked in.

Medical insurance, groceries, gas, utilities, etc. are all UP by much more than 30% since then, so that’s one more very specific example (actually have specific pay for a specific position) of a worker who would be much worse off today than 10+ years ago. And that’s not even addressing the education costs for a teacher, which have gone up by much more than 30% over that time.
———————-

One more anecdote…

Just talked to a long-time friend last night from L.A. who is dealing with a foreclosure. Both spouses are now working at literally half — or LESS — than what they were earning 5 years ago, with no better prospects on the horizon. Prices for basic needs have not dropped by 50% over that time.

——————-

Additionally, jobs were MUCH easier to find 10 years ago than today, which should be factored into housing costs, etc.

Under no circumstances have I seen any evidence that people are better off today. Yes, maybe if you track that certain group over time, but you have to compare apples to apples. The bottom 50% of our society is far worse off today than the bottom 50% of our socieity was in 2000 and the years just before, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]thought I’d toss a chart into the mix.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

I realize CPI is not specifically being discussed here – but this is another data point… CPI and alternate CPI (as it was calculated before 1990.)

On an anectdotal basis – my base salary (same employer) has gone up 20%… the bulk of that in two moves: one when I transfered to CA (fortunately, before the eliminated the pay differential) and one when I got a promotion. Those big jumps were offset with 3 years of NO increase (zero, zip, nada). That’s just base salary. Bonuses, 401k match, etc have also had negative and positive impacts on my real earnings.

Any increase I got was offset by my husband’s underemployment. We’re definitely pulling in less now than in 2006.[/quote]

One more anecdote to add to Scarlett’s and UCGal’s…

Since the LAUSD pay schedule was pulled up in the other thread, I thought it would be fun to see how it compares to one of the last ones I have.

From the 1998-1999 salary table for LAUSD (last one I have), a teacher with 10 years and 98+ units was paid $55,672/yr. From the 2009-2010 salary table for LAUSD, the same position paid $72,592/yr., for a 30% increase. The house I bought in 1998 for just under $120K, just recently sold again for just over $205K, for an increase of ~70% (again, a specific home with known prices in both time periods, in a hard-hit area, is UP 70% over that time), and this was in one of the hardest-hit areas in SD County, with price drops in the 50-60%+ range already baked in.

Medical insurance, groceries, gas, utilities, etc. are all UP by much more than 30% since then, so that’s one more very specific example (actually have specific pay for a specific position) of a worker who would be much worse off today than 10+ years ago. And that’s not even addressing the education costs for a teacher, which have gone up by much more than 30% over that time.
———————-

One more anecdote…

Just talked to a long-time friend last night from L.A. who is dealing with a foreclosure. Both spouses are now working at literally half — or LESS — than what they were earning 5 years ago, with no better prospects on the horizon. Prices for basic needs have not dropped by 50% over that time.

——————-

Additionally, jobs were MUCH easier to find 10 years ago than today, which should be factored into housing costs, etc.

Under no circumstances have I seen any evidence that people are better off today. Yes, maybe if you track that certain group over time, but you have to compare apples to apples. The bottom 50% of our society is far worse off today than the bottom 50% of our socieity was in 2000 and the years just before, IMHO.

[an]

CAR, using your example of 120k in 2000 and 205k in 2010 AND using the interest rate of 2000 vs interest rate of 2010, the monthly payment (PIT) was $825/month while the PIT in 2010 would be $1084/month. The monthly payment has risen 31.4% over the last 10 years.

Using your income data you posted, such individual in 98/99 would be bringing home $3624.66/month (assume single filing). A similar individual in 09/10 would be bringing home $4855.25/month. That equate to 34% rise in net income and a 31.4% rise in monthly mortgage payment.

The individual in 98/99 would be paying 22.7% of their net pay for the house. While the individual in 09/10 would be paying 22.3% of their net pay for the house. It doesn’t seem to outrageous to me.

Do you have data to back up the statement of the bottom 50% of our society is far worse off today than in 2000? The data I’m seeing is not lining up w/ this statement.

[an]

CAR, using your example of 120k in 2000 and 205k in 2010 AND using the interest rate of 2000 vs interest rate of 2010, the monthly payment (PIT) was $825/month while the PIT in 2010 would be $1084/month. The monthly payment has risen 31.4% over the last 10 years.

Using your income data you posted, such individual in 98/99 would be bringing home $3624.66/month (assume single filing). A similar individual in 09/10 would be bringing home $4855.25/month. That equate to 34% rise in net income and a 31.4% rise in monthly mortgage payment.

The individual in 98/99 would be paying 22.7% of their net pay for the house. While the individual in 09/10 would be paying 22.3% of their net pay for the house. It doesn’t seem to outrageous to me.

Do you have data to back up the statement of the bottom 50% of our society is far worse off today than in 2000? The data I’m seeing is not lining up w/ this statement.

[an]

CAR, using your example of 120k in 2000 and 205k in 2010 AND using the interest rate of 2000 vs interest rate of 2010, the monthly payment (PIT) was $825/month while the PIT in 2010 would be $1084/month. The monthly payment has risen 31.4% over the last 10 years.

Using your income data you posted, such individual in 98/99 would be bringing home $3624.66/month (assume single filing). A similar individual in 09/10 would be bringing home $4855.25/month. That equate to 34% rise in net income and a 31.4% rise in monthly mortgage payment.

The individual in 98/99 would be paying 22.7% of their net pay for the house. While the individual in 09/10 would be paying 22.3% of their net pay for the house. It doesn’t seem to outrageous to me.

Do you have data to back up the statement of the bottom 50% of our society is far worse off today than in 2000? The data I’m seeing is not lining up w/ this statement.

[an]

CAR, using your example of 120k in 2000 and 205k in 2010 AND using the interest rate of 2000 vs interest rate of 2010, the monthly payment (PIT) was $825/month while the PIT in 2010 would be $1084/month. The monthly payment has risen 31.4% over the last 10 years.

Using your income data you posted, such individual in 98/99 would be bringing home $3624.66/month (assume single filing). A similar individual in 09/10 would be bringing home $4855.25/month. That equate to 34% rise in net income and a 31.4% rise in monthly mortgage payment.

The individual in 98/99 would be paying 22.7% of their net pay for the house. While the individual in 09/10 would be paying 22.3% of their net pay for the house. It doesn’t seem to outrageous to me.

Do you have data to back up the statement of the bottom 50% of our society is far worse off today than in 2000? The data I’m seeing is not lining up w/ this statement.

[an]

CAR, using your example of 120k in 2000 and 205k in 2010 AND using the interest rate of 2000 vs interest rate of 2010, the monthly payment (PIT) was $825/month while the PIT in 2010 would be $1084/month. The monthly payment has risen 31.4% over the last 10 years.

Using your income data you posted, such individual in 98/99 would be bringing home $3624.66/month (assume single filing). A similar individual in 09/10 would be bringing home $4855.25/month. That equate to 34% rise in net income and a 31.4% rise in monthly mortgage payment.

The individual in 98/99 would be paying 22.7% of their net pay for the house. While the individual in 09/10 would be paying 22.3% of their net pay for the house. It doesn’t seem to outrageous to me.

Do you have data to back up the statement of the bottom 50% of our society is far worse off today than in 2000? The data I’m seeing is not lining up w/ this statement.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]CAR, using your example of 120k in 2000 and 205k in 2010 AND using the interest rate of 2000 vs interest rate of 2010, the monthly payment (PIT) was $825/month while the PIT in 2010 would be $1084/month. The monthly payment has risen 31.4% over the last 10 years.

Using your income data you posted, such individual in 98/99 would be bringing home $3624.66/month (assume single filing). A similar individual in 09/10 would be bringing home $4855.25/month. That equate to 34% rise in net income and a 31.4% rise in monthly mortgage payment.

The individual in 98/99 would be paying 22.7% of their net pay for the house. While the individual in 09/10 would be paying 22.3% of their net pay for the house. It doesn’t seem to outrageous to me.

Do you have data to back up the statement of the bottom 50% of our society is far worse off today than in 2000? The data I’m seeing is not lining up w/ this statement.[/quote]

Perhaps I’m crazy, but I think we ought to look at the total cost of things, not the monthly payment. That’s how we got in this mess to begin with.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]CAR, using your example of 120k in 2000 and 205k in 2010 AND using the interest rate of 2000 vs interest rate of 2010, the monthly payment (PIT) was $825/month while the PIT in 2010 would be $1084/month. The monthly payment has risen 31.4% over the last 10 years.

Using your income data you posted, such individual in 98/99 would be bringing home $3624.66/month (assume single filing). A similar individual in 09/10 would be bringing home $4855.25/month. That equate to 34% rise in net income and a 31.4% rise in monthly mortgage payment.

The individual in 98/99 would be paying 22.7% of their net pay for the house. While the individual in 09/10 would be paying 22.3% of their net pay for the house. It doesn’t seem to outrageous to me.

Do you have data to back up the statement of the bottom 50% of our society is far worse off today than in 2000? The data I’m seeing is not lining up w/ this statement.[/quote]

Perhaps I’m crazy, but I think we ought to look at the total cost of things, not the monthly payment. That’s how we got in this mess to begin with.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]CAR, using your example of 120k in 2000 and 205k in 2010 AND using the interest rate of 2000 vs interest rate of 2010, the monthly payment (PIT) was $825/month while the PIT in 2010 would be $1084/month. The monthly payment has risen 31.4% over the last 10 years.

Using your income data you posted, such individual in 98/99 would be bringing home $3624.66/month (assume single filing). A similar individual in 09/10 would be bringing home $4855.25/month. That equate to 34% rise in net income and a 31.4% rise in monthly mortgage payment.

The individual in 98/99 would be paying 22.7% of their net pay for the house. While the individual in 09/10 would be paying 22.3% of their net pay for the house. It doesn’t seem to outrageous to me.

Do you have data to back up the statement of the bottom 50% of our society is far worse off today than in 2000? The data I’m seeing is not lining up w/ this statement.[/quote]

Perhaps I’m crazy, but I think we ought to look at the total cost of things, not the monthly payment. That’s how we got in this mess to begin with.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN]CAR, using your example of 120k in 2000 and 205k in 2010 AND using the interest rate of 2000 vs interest rate of 2010, the monthly payment (PIT) was $825/month while the PIT in 2010 would be $1084/month. The monthly payment has risen 31.4% over the last 10 years.

Using your income data you posted, such individual in 98/99 would be bringing home $3624.66/month (assume single filing). A similar individual in 09/10 would be bringing home $4855.25/month. That equate to 34% rise in net income and a 31.4% rise in monthly mortgage payment.

The individual in 98/99 would be paying 22.7% of their net pay for the house. While the individual in 09/10 would be paying 22.3% of their net pay for the house. It doesn’t seem to outrageous to me.

Do you have data to back up the statement of the bottom 50% of our society is far worse off today than in 2000? The data I’m seeing is not lining up w/ this statement.[/quote]

Perhaps I’m crazy, but I think we ought to look at the total cost of things, not the monthly payment. That’s how we got in this mess to begin with.

[Author]

Posts