'Basic Needs' of a California family cost $63,579/yr?

[n2doc]

Carolyn Said, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Raju and Simmi Kumar were busy Tuesday afternoon arranging multihued shawls, skirts, handbags and tablecloths imported from their native India in their new Mission District store, Simmi Boutique.

"We want to help the poor people back in India who work for us to make these beautiful things," Raju Kumar said.

Here in the United States, their family of five - they have three children, ages 13, 14 and 19 - struggles to make ends meet also.

"It's very tight, let me tell you," he said. "We never, ever go out, we always cook all three meals at home. But expenses are going all the way up."

A report released Tuesday underscored how the Kumar family reflects the realities of the working poor. According to a formula called the Self-Sufficiency Standard, a family of four (with two adults, one preschooler and one school-age child) in the nine-county Bay Area now needs $74,341 a year to get by, compared with $62,517 three years ago.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/04/MNB11LD969.DTL

Someone making 74K a year is considered 'rich' by some here at DU....

[RKP5637]

1. Eventually living in the US will be unsustainable for many, and now already is for many. n/t

[HappyMe]

2. Hideously high cost of living there. nt

[YvonneCa]

21. San Diego here...

...http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/oct/04/san-diego-family-3-needs-63000-be-self-sufficient/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=kpbsnews-twitter

[haele]

64. Interesting study - instead of poverty, calling it "self sufficiency" -

They took a sampling of the median County-wide housing, transportation, food and health care (factoring in 85% coverage by employer), and child care for the "family of three" - which was a single parent with two young children, and figured what it would cost just for those items. Not utilities or any other frills, just those five categories, and came up with $30.00 an hour or $67K a year just to be "sufficient" - as in, living comfortably enough to consider a savings account if you live very frugally and only spending around 35% of your income on housing.
A single person with all of above except for child care would require around $27,700 for no frills "self-sufficincy".
Housing and transportation is the killer. Even a monthly transit pass runs one close to $1200 a year.
And considering what the cheapest rents and mortgages that are in somewhat safe areas are running, one would be paying at least $18,000 a year for the average 800sqft 2 bedroom, 1 bath house or $13,200 for a similar apartment - and that's in the cheap areas of the county. You can get cheaper, but you will be sharing the place with rats and roaches and ducking bullets.

Haele

[flamingdem]

77. You forgot the cost of health insurance

A guess that it would add 300-500 per month

[antigone382]

82. I think calling it "self-sufficiency" could have very positive effects.

I'm from an incredibly poor region where a sense of self-sufficiency is a huge part of the culture. Tapping into that could do wonders for repairing the disparities in income, health, and educational opportunities that plague so many communities. It emphasizes that the people being studied are doing their best to be independent, and are still struggling.

[PETRUS]

3. dang K&R nt

[vi5]

4. Depends on where you live...

I'm in a fairly expensive area of NJ outside of NYC, and that would be enough for a family of 5 to make ends meet and probably live comfortably, if not lavishly. But the Bay area is one of the most expensive in the country.

I think everyone's ideas of what is poor or rich or struggling or whatever also revolve around what we consider essential. I've heard people argue that they are struggling because they are just covering their bills, but when pressed it's revealed that those bills include private schools for their kids. I know people who say they are struggling but live in big houses in nice neighborhoods. I'm sure in both of those situations those familie's aren't saving much above their expenses and don't have a lot of disposable income. But they would if their kids went to public school or they lived in more modest houses.

The issue is that people want to be able to make all the financial choices they want but ALSO have enough to save and have more disposable income.

[peace13]

6. In Ohio most people just want to make ends meet.

Costs going up, salaries down. The days of mortgaging the house to send the kids to school are behind us. Forget the savings plan, it is all about the needs of today! Good luck selling the house if you do decide to trim expenses.

[DCKit]

98. Excellent points.

I have a single sister who spends more each month than I spend in a year and my father and his wife can't live on less then $6k/month. With private school, two SUVs and eating out nearly every meal, another sister, her husband and two kids are probably closer to $12K/month.

They'll all starve to death if things really do go to shit.

[vi5]

99. Exactly...

"Struggling" or "Making ends meet" should apply to only someone for whom their entire salary and income goes to pay the essential bills: Rent/mortgage, heat, electricity, gas, food, and any car payment.

Whatever someone has above that is by definition disposable income. Just because someone or some family chooses to spend all their disposable income on various things doesn't make them "struggling" and it doesn't mean they're "just making ends meet". It simply means they've elected to spend their disposable income and elected to spend it in particular ways.

[peace13]

5. Bay Area now needs $74,341 a year to get by, compared with $62,517 three years ago.

According to the article. Up 12 K from three years ago. Ouch!

[JHB]

24. What's the official inflation rate?

How do those figures go roughly up 6% a year (for the 3 years indicated) with "low inflation"?

[peace13]

56. Call me a doubter but I don't really believe the 'official inflation rate.

Gas,food and insurance in this area have gone off the charts but my gov would tell me that everything is coming up roses! Rents and 'small home' prices have not gone down as those losing and selling at the top can settle in at the 'affordable' rates.

[Hippo_Tron]

92. The official inflation rate is a rough generalization, not a scientific measurement

[Cleita]

7. California is expensive to live in, which is why

many retirees leave to live in places like Nevada or Texas, where the cost of living is much lower. California's lower income people get nickle and dimed much more than poor people in other states and housing costs are much higher. I just had to pay $4 a gallon for gas again yesterday as well. On top of that the Kumar family will be taxed more than the multi-millionaire and billionaire families in this state for running a main street family business instead of trading on Wall Street.

[Tippy]

8. Take the price of milk...last week the one and only store in town

who was selling milk for $2.63 a gal went up to $3.04....

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. With our family of five, my husband and I used to fondly refer to our weekly shopping trip...

(groceries, toiletries and a few other odds and ends) as the "trek to the $200 store." No matter what we bought, for years our total always seemed to come out between $195-205.

Over the last 8-12 months it's become the "trek to the $270 store." (always totalling between $265-275)

I know what's going in the basket hasn't changed all that much. Math may not be my strong suit, but even I can tell that's quite a hike.

[Coyote_Bandit]

9. And some think that having a million bucks makes one rich

Meanwhile I know someone who was a passenger in a car that was broadsided by a truck. This woman spent over a year in various hospitals and rehabilitation facilities. Her first hospital bill for the first month of care exceeded a half million dollars. And that was only the hospital bill - it did not include all charges for her care during that time.

Someone who is bankrupt but has god insurance through their employer is potentially far richer than somebody that has a substantial stash of cash and poor (or no) health insurance.

To be sure a million bucks is a very nice cushion. But little more. Most folks that want to quit working at a young age and do whatever they want for the remainder of their life will require a stash of several million bucks - or more if that stash is expected to also provide for a spouse and kids.

[FarCenter]

10. Link to Self Sufficiency Standard

http://www.insightcced.org/index.php?page=ca-sss

http://www.insightcced.org/uploads/cfes/2011/San%20Francisco.pdf

Housing            $1728
Child care          1770
Food                 827
Transportation       144
Health care          452
Miscellaneous        492
Taxes               1215
Child care tax credit      -100

Monthly            $6363
Annual           $76,352

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. I don't think anybody would call 75K rich, anywhere in this country.

It is on the upper side of middle-class, but still well short of white-collar professionals of the upper middle class - those making 100-125k.

I don't think you get into 'rich' until at least 200k - and that depends on where you live. 200K in these parts might be rich, but in Nassau Co or Fairfax Co, that would be a different matter - hell, Marin Co doesn't even make the top 20 of 'most expensive ZIP codes'.

That said, if 'I' had 75k income, I'd feel rich, as I currently make barely more than a third that.

[Xithras]

27. In the populated parts of California, $100k a year is plain old middle class.

$100k a year will get you a boring house in the 'burbs on 0.2 acres (standard lot size), a couple of decent cars in the driveway, and a slightly shorter commute than the guys making less than $100k a year.

It will get you this:


But not this:


Or this:


And a realtor wouldn't even return your calls for this:


It could get you one of these...but not the house behind it:

[Tallulah]

32. Nothing wrong with living in the first picture

being boring old middle class. Most people would feel fortunate to afford any home. It looks strange with no privacy fences.

I would never show my home on here. Someone would make fun of it and make me feel bad. I live on crumbs compared to what some here make.

$62,000 or more is comfortable in my area.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. Suitcases and u-hauls are relatively cheap. n/t

[haele]

65. 'Nope - just had to move. Cost close $500 for an in-town move, and $500 to haul the junk left over.

Plus the time it took to move everything out and clean up - 2 weeks of packing, bickering, and hauling - and four back and forth trips with the U-Haul over that time.
Of course, we lived there for six years, and were a family. A single person could probably move in a week once they got packed up.
That's in town. If you need to move out of state to get a job, it would be closer to $1500 - $3000 up front just for the move - all those moving companies - even self-movers - charge you mileage.

You still don't get your deposit back... :(

Haele

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. Still. It's about 2-3% of the cost of living for one year in the Bay area. n/t

[xchrom]

14. Interesting. Nt

[XemaSab]

15. If both parents are working

that's 37K per parent.

[Lucian]

16. $74,000/yr is well off.

Not "rich."

I made $12,000 last year working at Walmart full-time. People crying about not making it on $75K/yr is ridiculous.

And FYI to those who complain about living in Cali, no one is forcing you to stay there. :nopity:

[frylock]

33. nobody is forcing you to work at walmart either

[SomethingFishy]

47. I cry about making 75K a year...

After Taxes I have about 60K to take care of 6 people. That's about $10,000 per person, less than what you made at Wal-Mart. I am taking care of 2 disabled people, and 3 kids. 75k may sound like a lot but it really depends on your situation.

Oh and I'd make a snide comment about not being forced to work at Wal-Mart but you seem to have that covered.

[Lucian]

59. ...

:nopity:

Many people at Walmart raise two or three kids making as much as I did per year. There are people way worse off than you are.

:eyes:

[SomethingFishy]

62. Well then to cop your attitude, No one is forcing them to work there

go get another job. It's just as easy as moving from California.

I work 80-100 hours a week for my 75K maybe you ought to go put some more time in tough guy, you'll make more money. Or is the work too hard




:nopity:

[Lucian]

68. It's obvious you're a troll looking to get a rise out of me.

I'm not going to fall for it.

Working your 70-80 hours/week is your choice. Many walmart employees don't have a choice on where they work.

[SomethingFishy]

71. Yes that's it I am a troll...

And you are Mr Compassion. Good luck to you.

And I don't "choose" to work 80 hours, it's what I need to do to support my family.

[vi5]

100. Yeah, but someone taking the same attitude...

..to you as you are with that person, and saying "Well then why don't/didn't you just....." in the abstract could also pull the same thing with regard to how and why you're in your specific financial situation.

What's the demographic of those 6 people in your family? Is it 2 parents and 4 kids? Is it one of your elderly parents? Which 2 are disabled?

Because it sounds to me like there might have been a lot of choices made that led you to that point that someone who wanted to be similarly cold heartish and dickish could just say "Well why don't you just....." or "Why didn't you just....". Not the least of which could be "Well why don't you get a job that pays you more than $75K a year if you need more money than that?". That would be just as easy as "Why don't you get a job somewhere other than Wal-Mart."

[Hatchling]

48. No one is forcing me to stay here?

Economics is forcing me to stay here. How the hell do you think I could move when I live on 9k a year?

[Lucian]

60. Uhauls cost $42 to rent plus mileage.

Not that expensive.

[haele]

74. About "No one forcing you to stay in Cali..."

If you are a single person, that might be all well and good - just pack up the Volvo and the dog and drive east until you find a job, right?
Most of us here in California, unfortunatly, have things called roots - family, a house, a job (hopefully) that tends to mean it's far more expensive and uncertain to just leave like Oakies during the dust bowl.
Our ability to find a more sustainable job elsewhere is constrained by our skills, training and the availablity of jobs elsewhere. If you're solidly middle class - say, an aerospace engineer, government worker, IT specialist, or a bio-technician, or someone who, back in the 90's, was just at the point of pulling down six figures before the bottom fell out, you will find that there are very, very few jobs out there in your field to begin with, and to move too often means taking a pay cut that leaves you in the same economic place you are now in California with even more uncertainty on whether or not you'll be able to keep a job in, say, Texas, Virginia, Wisconson, or North Dakota.
Plus - you take on an added expense of moving while maintaining a residence in California as you are trying to get rid of a house or excess belongings. I've seen too many engineers do that, leaving while the left-behind family is handling the final details and heading out to, say, Kansas or Minnesota, to go to live as a sofa-surfer and work on his or her own for six/eight months - because if they waited until the family was ready to move, that potential job in a lower cost of living state slips away to someone more local and more able to quickly relocate.
No one moves out of state to potentially work at Auto Zone or WalMart. They move out of state if they have a job in hand that would pay enough to risk the thousands of dollars of expense to move. And yeah, that means that for the most part, they are forced to stay in Cali working two/three jobs while they hope the economy picks up.

Haele

[Lucian]

88. You posted a reply with no snark.

I find that quite refreshing.

And, touche.

[coalition_unwilling]

17. Um, if both adults are working, your $75K is actually $37.5K per

person/year. I doubt anyone at DU would call that 'rich'.

[happyslug]

18. The Federal Standard of Need (What a person can live on) is only $674 a month

That comes to $8088 dollars a year.

California has supplemented the Federal SSI amount of $674, thus someone on SSI in California gets $830.40 a month (That includes the Federal Amount of $674 and the State supplement of $156 a month). For a total annual income of only $9964.80.
http://ssa.gov/pubs/11125.html

The poverty Level is $10,830:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/17/local/la-me-elderly-poverty-20101017

California Welfare law:
http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=callaw&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D20%26ved%3D0CFYQFjAJOAo%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.law.ggu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1067%2526context%253Dcallaw%26rct%3Dj%26q%3DCalifornia%2520%2522Standard%2520of%2520need%2522%26ei%3DBX-MTuG3HqPV0QH_x8z8BA%26usg%3DAFQjCNHnCYt1Q63l3A022Z2NJBfTGWdhtA%26sig2%3DS09peHby-ABIyy5--Tt4sg#search=%22California%20Standard%20need%22

[zalinda]

20. Wow, I must be lucky, because I get $711. n/t

[RebelOne]

53. I am a little luckier.

I receive $15,576 from social security, so I guess I am above poverty level.

[happyslug]

57. You are below 150% of the poverty level, you can get the filing fee for Bankruptcy waived

Now if you received $16,335, that means you have to pay the $299 filing fee if you want to file Bankruptcy. See how lucky you are, you can save $299 (I am being sarcastic).

For list of 2011 Poverty levels see:
http://liheap.ncat.org/profiles/povertytables/FY2011/popstate.htm

[happyslug]

55. State Supplement to SSI, varies by state, Pennsylvania only gives an additional $21.40

The following States work with the Federal Government as to how the State Supplement gets to the SSI Receptents:

California
(1/2011 to 6/2011)
For one Person: $845
For a Couple: $1,407.20
California
(7/2011 to 12/2011)
For one person: $830.40
For a Couple:$1,407.20
Massachusetts
For one person: $802.82
For a couple:$1,212.72
Nevada
For one person:$710.40
For a couple: $1,085.46
New Jersey
For one person:$705.25/
For a Couple: $1,036.36
New York*
For one person: $761
For a Couple: $1,115
Vermont
For one Person: $726.04
For a Couple: $1,109.88

Six States do NOT provide any supplement to SSI:
Arkansas
North Dakota
Arizona
Tennessee
Mississippi
West Virginia
http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-benefits-ussi.htm

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/11015.html#4

The rest of the States, provide supplements to SSI, but it is an independent payment (For example Pennsylvania pays $21.30 to anyone on SSI over and above the $674 the Federal Government pays, but it is sent by a separate Check). The above cite shows Pennsylvania "working" with the Federal Government as to the Supplement, but about two years ago Pennsylvania determined it would be cheaper for them to send out the checks themselves then what the Federal Government wanted from them to add the additional amount to the receiver of SSI's Federal SSI amount.

[alarimer]

84. Which is completely unrealistic.

I have no idea how they calculate that but in some places you can't even rent an apartment in a shitty neighborhood for that much.

[hfojvt]

19. hard to tell with the 9 county Bay area vs. California

According to this http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/ca_whopays_factsheet.pdf

60% of California families make less than $58,000 a year and 40% of them make less than $36,000 a year.

So how do those people live, if it requires $70,000 to live?

From the perspective of somebody making less than $36,000 - the perspective of 40% of California families - making twice their income is rich, in a relative sense.

Further, according to the breakdown, a family of four could have one spouse quit their job and thus save $21,000 in childcare expenses and then take care of two more neighbor kids and have an income of $21,000. Seems like a pretty easy way to make $40,000 a year to me. Heck, all you need is four TVs and four game boxes and the little monsters won't bother you all day.

[cleanhippie]

22. I know that this is a controversial POV, but maybe having children should be a fiscal decision...

I mean, we put off having A (as in one, not two, or four) child until I was 40 (wife is 36) for several reasons, but our financial position was a BIG, if not THE BIGGEST factor in choosing to do so.


Newsflash: children cost A LOT of money, and if one is already struggling to get by, perhaps having children is not the smartest decision to make...

[Proud Public Servant]

26. That's a toughie

I can tell you that we kept to one child initially for financial reasons; then, later, we opted against more children because the age gap would have been too great (it would have been like raising two only-children instead of siblings).

Did we make the right decision for our finances? Perhaps; our daughter has not wanted for much, and our financial picture is quite stable even in these tough times. But not having more kids is the one and only regret I have in my life, and I would trade my comfortable life for a do-over, if only I could.

[cleanhippie]

31. While I can understand the emotions you are feeling...

what about the emotions and well being of bringing children into this world where they have to suffer and live without because parents cannot adequately provide for them?

I mean, if approx. $75k is what is needed to adequately provide for a family of four and one only earns $50k, then why allow one's emotions to override reason and inflict such suffering on another human being that had no say in the matter?

[Cats Against Frist]

91. I totally agree

I count the number of people in those tug-at-your-heart-strings human interest stories who had children while they already couldn't afford it -- not the ones whose situations changed. People don't make good decisions a lot of the time.

[joeglow3]

37. Perfect picture of where we are headed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRjmyJFzrU

[blueamy66]

75. I was gonna post this....but thought I'd get slammed.

If you don't wanna pay to raise kids, don't have 'em.

On the other hand, I'll sell my 1800 sq foot, 3 bed house in Az to move to San Diego and pay the same for a 1 bed condo in a freaking heartbeat. Az sux ass...between the politics and the weather....adios asap

[wickerwoman]

85. Peoples' situations change.

Their financial situation can change at the drop of a hat. And the thing about kids is that you can't unhave them once you do. So maybe a family could afford three kids in 2007 (maybe they could afford six but only chose to have three). But then Dad got laid off or Mom was paralysed in a car crash with a drunk driver and suddenly affording three kids is unmanageable. It happens all the time. And the last thing that family needs to hear is "Well, it's your fault for having kids you couldn't afford".

[Romulox]

23. So move. Or is Ohio or Iowa not good enough for them? nt

[KamaAina]

25. It isn't a question of Ohio or Iowa not being good enough.

It's a question of Ohio's and Iowa's salaries (or business opportunities) not being good enough. The cost of living in those states looks great, until you realize you'd be making half what you would in SF.

[Romulox]

30. It likely costs less than half as much to live there. nt

[The Straight Story]

63. And you won't likely make as much here as there either (nt)

[Skidmore]

44. I raised two children while making

an average of $20K/yr. My first house cost $52K and I owned it for 10 years. Utilities were reasonable until the late 2000s. We have good communities with good values. Most are safe and all are welcome. Sometimes that extra income just buys you stress.

[spinbaby]

28. If the middle class moves, what's left?

:shrug:

[Romulox]

29. You're about 50 years too late for that argument. What do you think happened to all those people

who used to live in Detroit or Buffalo?

[belcffub]

39. Buffalo is a pretty comfortable place to live

I live just north of Buffalo... make a decent wage and live in a house that in other areas would cost $500k... Moved from Boston MA 11 years ago here and would not trade anything to move back... cost of living there was way to high... and actually got a pay raise moving here... and if you live north of the city there really is not that much snow... really...

[Romulox]

50. So is much of metro Detroit. Nonetheless, Buffalo lost more population than anywhere in NY in the

last decade.

Buffalo's population dropped by 31,338 residents between 2000 and 2010, new census figures released Thursday showed.

That 10.7 percent decline in the city's population -- which stood at 261,310 in 2010 -- was among the largest of any place in New York State, although the 9.8 percent drop in Niagara Falls followed close behind.


http://www.buffalonews.com/city/census/article375470.ece

[belcffub]

61. yup we sure did...

but it's funny for every minus there is a plus... short commutes... little sprawl... affordable housing... sure you could technically bulldoze about half of buffalo and still have plenty of housing... but I only have a seven minute commute... so I am not complaining :)

[Retrograde]

95. Buffalo? Little sprawl?

When I'm there I spend more time driving than I do in California: it's the worst kind of environment IMHO: too spread out to have any of the advantages of a city, but not spread out enough to have any advantages of country living. It used to be a very compact area, with good public transportation (two separate bus companies when I was a kid). Now all the former farmlands are suburbs (Lancaster, anyone?)

I used to live in the part that can be bulldozed: it used to have a vibrant economic center at Broadway and Fillmore, and you could get by without a car. There isn't one anymore, and you have to have your own wheels to get around.

[belcffub]

97. sure there are areas that have been built up

but there are still huge swaths that are completely undisturbed very close to the city... going north most of Niagara county is still farm land and under 30 minutes away by car... going south basically everything south of hamburg is mostly rural farm or forest land... it's true that the second ring suburbs have been built up but that is only really a 10 mile ring around the city... after that things really space out and take on a different feel...

we have 50 acres south of Buffalo in Amish country... the hill we are on is probably 10k acres and has around 25 families on it... growing up in and around Boston, MA you had to go much further to get even close to those population densities... and even then it was much more built up... and had alot more traffic...

yeah a car is pretty much needed but my wife and I combined on drive around 8k miles a year.... that includes driving down to our beach house in carolina beach and to visit my mom in Orlando most years... so while a car is helpful if you are smart you do not need to put many miles on...

I have seen the sprawl in other east coast areas and really Buffalo has nothing in comparison... and the lack of highways into the areas that are being built up has somewhat of a natural braking action... I know I do not want to drive from Lancaster into Buffalo each day... takes forever...

[blueamy66]

76. How's my hometown doing?

nt

[Retrograde]

81. It's not the snow, it's the attitude

I grew up in Buffalo, East Side. The rest of my family still lives there. I spend 2-3 weeks there every year. And when my relatives ask when I'm moving back I come up with variants of "when hell freezes over". For me, it's the lack of diversity, the conservatism and the feeling that every time I go there I'm going back twenty years.

YMMV, but there are enough of us who want the diversity, the liberalism, the outlook of California - especially the Bay Area - to drive up the prices here.

[devilgrrl]

83. That about sums it up.

I grew up in the burbs and lived in No. Bflo. in the early 90's - with the exception of Toronto there wasn't a lot culturally and for the most part the city is a huge freeper town. That's what drove me away - not the weather and I do miss North Buffalo, one of my favorite neighborhoods ever.

[leftstreet]

69. +1

Working class exodus = good

Middle class exodus = bad

:-(

[Xithras]

34. Iowa is not good enough for me.

I spent $450,000 on a crappy 30 year old house in Northern California for a reason. San Francisco, Yosemite, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Napa, Sonoma, sandy beaches, Lake Tahoe, powerboating on the Delta, Power Exchange, sailing on the San Francisco Bay, hiking in the redwood forests, fishing world-class trout creeks...all of these things (and a hell of a lot more) are within a TWO HOUR drive of my house. And the weather? I've never shoveled snow from my driveway, I've never seen a tornado, and I've never had to run from a hurricane. Snow is something you daytrip to visit, not something you live in :)

California is expensive, but there's a reason so many of us choose to live here. Most of my family has moved out of California over the past 25 years because of the high cost of living, and they now live in places like Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho. Most of them complain pretty incessantly about the lack of things to do where they live. When I visited my sister in Oregon this past summer, my teenage niece told me that one of her "lifes dreams" is to visit Yosemite. She looked at me like I was from Mars when I told her that we do daytrip picnics to the park two or three times a year, and camp up there at least once every year. When I offered to let her stay with us next summer so that she can do it with us, she screamed for joy so loudly that you'd think I'd offered her a date with Justin Beiber. It's just one of the realities of living here.

[Romulox]

36. That sounds nice. 99% of Americans can't afford that. nt

[Xithras]

45. If they lived here, more could.

The cost of living is high here, but wages are higher to compensate. Even McDonalds burger flippers make $10 an hour in San Francisco.

I could live like a king if I moved to Iowa with my income, but I couldn't make that kind of income anywhere else in this country. We're educators...I'm a part time college adjunct, and my wife is an elementary school teacher. Together, we have a (barely) six figure annual income. That income for those jobs would be inconceivable elsewhere in the U.S., but in Northern California it just makes us middle class.

[Romulox]

49. Did you *read* the OP? They were complaining about this very fact. nt

[sylveste]

90. uh, a (barely) six figure annual income

in iowa, is middle class there too.

[a la izquierda]

38. I lived in L.A. for five years.

I have no urge to go back. I can't afford it, even though I love it. I have to deal with the whims of the academic market that brought me first to Oklahoma and now to the midwest. Who knows where I'll end up, but I hope nowhere expensive.

[GSLevel9]

40. You should write tourism commercials

I see it differently and believe that SoCal at least is the fucking armpit of the nation. Dirty, crime ridden and nasty. Unfriendly people and a state gov't without a clue. I pay $500 a year to register a 6 year old car. My occupation keeps me here but I will leave soon...
I'm from Virginia and have spent years in the suburbs of Nashville and the quality of life is immeasurably better

[Xithras]

42. Well, I live in Northern California.

Like snow, SoCal is something you daytrip to visit, not something you live in ;)

I generally make it to Southern California 3-4 times a year. I have fun while I'm there, but within a day or two just want to leave again. I'm not a big fan of the whole unbroken urban megacity concept, so I can only take L.A. in small doses.

[GSLevel9]

73. I like the Bay Area suburbs much more than down here...

Near perfection... except for the prices and taxes.

[yewberry]

93. Those of us in the marine industry might not do so well in OH or IA.

I'm in marine operations. My husband is an ordinary seaman. Think that Iowa has a lot of jobs for us? We live & work in the Seattle area; the cost of living is fairly high, but we're working class here. Out combined income might be a lot elsewhere, but our jobs aren't transferable.

[Liberal_in_LA]

35. that's about right. Rent / homes are expensive. It's expensive to drive & difficult to NOT have car

when you have kids.

[Auntie Bush]

41. Yet the COLA hasn't gone up to reflect a $12K increase in expences.

Economists say we don't have inflation so no need to raise it. That's like decreasing one's salary by $12K a year. Sickening!

[Shagbark Hickory]

43. Having kids puts you in the fast lane to the poor house. n/t

[LynneSin]

46. And at 64k a year, I hate to see the neighborhood one would live at in California

Because it surely won't be anything fancy.

[flamingdem]

80. Rent is not as bad in LA as NY or SF

NY is over 2 grand but nice places exist in LA for 1500 and under for 2 small bedroom ish.

[BiggJawn]

86. 2 small bedrooms cost me $450 a month.

Of course, I live in Bumfuck, Indiana, where the biggest excitement is the numerous tornado warnings and blizzard watches we get every year. Even more so now that the "mythical" climate change is mixing shit up.

Of course, my annual salary wouldn't even make sailboat payments in NorCal.

[uppityperson]

51. Outgo varies, it depends on what you need to spend for housing especially

There is a huge difference between needing $3000/month for housing and $400. For those lucky enough to own their homes outright, and only need to pay taxes, they can get by on a whole lot less. Or those renting for inexpensive.

[slackmaster]

52. I'm single and I'd have a hard time making ends meet on that

Much less save anything.

[ljm2002]

54. They're talking about the Bay Area...

...not California as a whole. Big difference. The Bay Area is one of the most high-priced places in the nation to live, driven by high real estate prices and high rents. It is also a very desirable place to live, so real estate has not crashed as much there as some other places.

There are many places in California that are relatively cheap to live in. The Bay Area is not one of them.

[XemaSab]

66. Exactly

Hell, in many areas of the valley you can buy a house for under 100K.

60K a year is considered a damn fine income in Redding.

Redding's not the Bay Area, but it's aight if you have a job and a decent place to live.

[Cairycat]

58. Iowa family of 4 living on 38-40K/year here

Dh, me, and two teen boys. We don't have it quite as spartan as the California family. We're keeping everybody fed, housed and clothed, and two cars drivable, but not a lot more. I had breast cancer last year so if we weren't paying so many medical bills things wouldn't be so tight. We are fortunate to both have jobs, and health insurance. We have a modest house in an older but nice, safe neighborhood.

Yes, California is very scenic - but so are lots of places in Iowa. I doubt even with higher wages we could live as well as we do here. Fortunately we're used to Iowa and like it, so we wouldn't want to move.

[AtomicKitten]

67. It wasn't until I was laid off did I realize just how much it costs to stay afloat.

* Automobile registration.
* Automobile insurance.
* Medical insurance premiums.
* Utilities including PG&E internet, cable TV, phone (land line and cell), trash, and water.
* Prescription medications.
* Food, both pet and people.

[TheMightyFavog]

87. Wow, auto registration in CA can run in the hundreds per year?

Here in Wisconsin, standard auto registration is $75/yr

[trackfan]

89. Depends on the car. Mine is well under $100 for each car in CA.

My "new" car, though, is the 2000, the old car is the 1994. The reg. fee for both is in the $90s, I think. It actually was much lower, I think in the $50s, even a few years ago, but went up due to some budget deals here. (Normally, it would just keep going down every year as the car gets older).

[Texasgal]

72. Bookmarked for later.

Thank you for the story. :)

[flamingdem]

78. I'm thinking about the Occupy Wall Street protesters

.. they mostly look young and mostly want a job and some relief on college loans, among of course other things.

I'm realizing how scrod the middle agers are who don't have the energy to work as hard but have all these rising expenses.

It's going to be easy to change the focus to the young due to who we see vocalizing but the ones in the middle who are not set up for retirement and can barely get by on 60-70 grand a year... well there is going to be struggle for the ole American pie piece.

[bluestateguy]

79. One reason why having kids is not a priority for me

They cost and cost and cost money. A lot easier to make ends meet (and have a little left over each month) without them.

Now if only the women I dated would agree ;)

[Hippo_Tron]

94. And often financial stability comes at the cost of spending time with your kids

I don't envision that I will be at a financial stage in my 30's where I will want to have children. And if I am there, I imagine that I will be so career focused, that I would have to give it up in order to ever see my kids.

I'll probably adopt at some point later on.

[Bloke 32]

96. I've been told that San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities.

I can't recall whether the list pertained to the entire world or was peculiar to America.