Wasn’t really sure why the survey question about Kamala Harris being a good president was included considering she’s ineligible to run due to her age...
If you live there, the odds are that you can afford to live there.
65% of people surveyed think they can afford to be in the Bay Area?! I don’t believe it. Those respondents must be all single or have tech IPO money. Among my social circle of middle-aged professionals (including doctors, lawyers, public servants) all with young kids, some homeowners, some renters, some in public schools and some private, mostly dual-income families all likely grossing $200k+/year or more, we all feel the weight of the Bay Area’s high cost of living. So I can only imagine how it must be for those earning less. Here is what I commonly find among those not pinched by living here: They bought way long ago or inherited a home, are making or already have a lot of $$$, or have parents fund there lifestyle (and yes, I am referring to middle-age people being funded by their parents, not recent grads)
“California, Mr. Malloy said, is a microcosm of the country.”
Wrong. California, in so many ways, is an outlier. And, proud of it.
1
California is huge and parts are expensive and many others are not. Obviously. For example Redding, a beautiful city in northern California, is only 14% above the national average, with a median home price of $260k.
As a fifty plus year California resident, and at 73 years of age, I will throw this in. I can afford to live in Oakland, in the Bay Area, in a decent, if not luxurious home.
Had I not bought it thirty years ago and paid it off over a decade ago, I'd not be able to live here. My mortgage payment was about 1/8th of the current corresponding rent.
7
The sampling on this survery is not stated and I have my doubts that it is valid or representative. Why? Because I took this survey after an e-mail request. That means the only people who took this were invited to do so, had the time to do it, had the inclination to spend that time, and had technology that was suitable for it. There is every chance that the people who took it were urban, affluent, white, and had down time at work (i.e., not service people or manual laborers). I'm bothered by how this presents data as being about "Californians" without telling us how this data was gathered.
27