California housing crisis forcing residents to sleep in cars!!!
- Thread starter S2007S
- Start date
I live in California, the housing prices/rents cost spreads across the state are probably unmatched except New York ? Most Californians would never dream of being able to afford living in the places their whining about suffering. Most Californians live inland in less expensive areas, with less perfect weather and longer commutes. Some people just feel entitled to everything right now.
There are plenty of cheap cities and towns spread across the state, driving down the I-5 after leaving L.A. You would think you're in KS or Okl, up north past Marin County there are tons of hillbilly towns.. I feel bad for the teachers, police, restraunt workers and hospitality industry people who have to drive far to work in some of these nice areas.
Last edited:
There is now a fun book out about living in cars/campers. It is a great slice of life that contains a lot of interesting stories. I have no financial interest in it:
Nomadland: Surviving America in the Twenty-First Century 1st Edition
by Jessica Bruder (Author)
Not sure why I have a fascination with this squalid stuff.
So, maybe the car makers can take advantage of this. We've got "hybrid" cars that use electricity and gasoline. Maybe they can make hybrid homes that people can drive: something less expensive than a fancied-up tiny house or camper, but more fleshed out than a car. I'm sure Walmart will be happy to add more parking spaces.
A lot of it seems like failure to plan: failure to plan a family, a career, and to save money for later. I've never understood why people are content with such a lifestyle.
Nomadland: Surviving America in the Twenty-First Century 1st Edition
by Jessica Bruder (Author)
Not sure why I have a fascination with this squalid stuff.
So, maybe the car makers can take advantage of this. We've got "hybrid" cars that use electricity and gasoline. Maybe they can make hybrid homes that people can drive: something less expensive than a fancied-up tiny house or camper, but more fleshed out than a car. I'm sure Walmart will be happy to add more parking spaces.
A lot of it seems like failure to plan: failure to plan a family, a career, and to save money for later. I've never understood why people are content with such a lifestyle.
Your geographical observation is fairly accurate.
But don't feel bad for the teachers and the police , the public service employees union has made these positions very sought after careers.
The pay and pension for teachers is highest in the nation by a wide margin over any other state, and the demand for rural teachers is high.
Law enforcement and fire jobs are very highly paid and very competitive to get. I have had friends in the field tell me there are easily 30 or more qualified candidates for every opening.
Pay and pensions very high relative to other states.
The restaurant workers and hospitality workers cannot afford the nations highest state gas tax, so they do not commute.
Average Regulatory Cost of a New Home is a Whopping $84,671
A new NAHB study shows that, on average, government regulations account for 24.3% of the final price of a new single-family home.
Three-fifths of the regulatory costs – 14.6% of the final house price – is due to a higher price for a finished lot resulting from regulations imposed during the lot’s development. The other two-fifths – 9.7% of the house price – is the result of costs incurred by the builder after purchasing the finished lot.
NAHB’s previous 2011 estimates were fairly similar, showing that regulation on average accounted for a quarter of a home’s price. However, the price of new homes has gone up quite a bit since then.
Applying percentages from NAHB’s studies to Census data on new home prices during this five-year span shows that regulatory costs for an average single-family home went from $65,224 to $84,671 – a 29.8% increase.
By comparison, disposable income per capita increased by 14.4% from 2011-2016. In other words, the cost of regulation in the price of a new home is rising more than twice as fast as the average American’s ability to pay for it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ave...ome..69i57.14247j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
A new NAHB study shows that, on average, government regulations account for 24.3% of the final price of a new single-family home.
Three-fifths of the regulatory costs – 14.6% of the final house price – is due to a higher price for a finished lot resulting from regulations imposed during the lot’s development. The other two-fifths – 9.7% of the house price – is the result of costs incurred by the builder after purchasing the finished lot.
NAHB’s previous 2011 estimates were fairly similar, showing that regulation on average accounted for a quarter of a home’s price. However, the price of new homes has gone up quite a bit since then.
Applying percentages from NAHB’s studies to Census data on new home prices during this five-year span shows that regulatory costs for an average single-family home went from $65,224 to $84,671 – a 29.8% increase.
By comparison, disposable income per capita increased by 14.4% from 2011-2016. In other words, the cost of regulation in the price of a new home is rising more than twice as fast as the average American’s ability to pay for it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ave...ome..69i57.14247j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8