Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can see retiring to the rust belt or the Carolina's. But if you're a college educated white collar professional you really need to be in more prestigious metros during the prime earning years.
For some types of people, high-earning managers and media types for instance, being in one of those cities probably yields benefits.
I don't think it is financially beneficial for most people , though.
Just off the top of my head - 2 minute search. They're not all condos or townhomes by the way - if you click on the search you will see plenty of single family homes. The link just isn't clear on that inclusion till you click on it.
Low-end condos often have issues with impaired financing.
People who work often get something called "earned income credit". That is three lies in one term. It isn't earned. It isn't income and it isn't credit. I don't begrudge these hard working folks who are low income people. I just think the name of the program is misleading.
It's "earned income" "tax credit". It requires the recipient have "earned income" and it is a feature of the "tax code". You don't get it if you have no "earned income" and you don't file a "tax return".
freemrkt is the only person I know who would be just as happy to have a pig farm move in on one side of him and a heavy metal biker bar on the other side. Most people, home owners and tenants both, actual want zoning laws.
Um, no. No pig farm or heavy metals for me. I'm fine with segregating residential land uses from incompatible land uses.
I'm not fine with restrictions on residential property which drive up the cost of living beyond what local wages can sustain.
People are protesting for a $15/hr minimum wage largely because the rent is too high. The answer is NOT a higher minimum wage, but rather a greater supply of housing, i.e. owners of residentially-zoned property need the option of building at greater density.
Houston voters defeated a zoning referendum around 1992 and support came from middle class neighborhoods while low and high income neighborhoods opposed it, according to a survey. While I believe the lower income homeowners supported zoning and lower income renters opposed zoning, the poll-takers somehow didn't even think to ask voters if they owned or rented. IOW if my theory is correct, and lower income homeowners really did support zoning, lower income renters must have heavily opposed zoning for their neighborhoods to oppose zoning overall.
If I were unskilled, I'd want to be on assistance. Not just welfare, the whole nine yards of government gimmes. I know people who get less than 2K per month on welfare, but with housing and food stamps, it's basically 2k of disposable income.
I can see retiring to the rust belt or the Carolina's. But if you're a college educated white collar professional you really need to be in more prestigious metros during the prime earning years. If you're a welfare lifer, or a unskilled low wage worker then you want to be in the cheapest place you can find.
When you a child or two, you will get at least $1200 in welfare. At least in NJ. When you throw in housing, WIC, foodstamps, it's basically 1,200 to spend how you see fit. You have to spend it, because you can't put in the bank.
I'm not fine with restrictions on residential property which drive up the cost of living beyond what local wages can sustain.
By definition, if the COL magically goes up to a level that is unsustainable, it won't be sustained at that level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.