When I lived in the Bay Area, I had six-figure incomes, but only if you counted the two numbers to the right of the decimal point.
I have some family members in that county. None of them earn anywhere close to that.
They're all a bunch of angry liberals, too.
What utter nonsense... there are plenty of 2/1 rentals available in these areas for around $1200 monthly. The cost of living in the area is inflated by taxes and the conscious decision by the local powers that be to limit development and freeway construction. So, COL goes through the roof, then they expect federal $$$ to pay for housing for those making an otherwise decent income.
“Minimum wage is going up, but it would be different if the cost of living was the same as when I was a teenager,” Larkins said. “Minimum wage goes up, and the cost of living goes up.”
One of the hidden assumptions underlying the welfare state is that the government should subsidize poor people living in very expensive areas.
That is totally insane.
If they want subsidized housing make it available in Dubuque and Omaha—but subsidizing housing in the Bay Area just adds to the insanity of that market.
(Then the liberals will whine—where will our workers live?
My answer—allow lower cost housing to be built with less regulation and no subsidy or mow your own lawn).
I read a comment yesterday outside of free republic (where I rarely go) from a Bay Area poster who raised a concern I had not previously considered. Imagine one third of the folks in the congested, inflated real estate market where you live suddenly left. Billions in value, if not trillions would evaporate. He claims that this is what has the leftwards in the Bay Area in a panic.
Myself, I think it is fair enough. For eight years the rest of the country suffered while these folks enjoyed the perks of power bestowed by 0bama so from my perspective it is their turn to reap what they sowed.