Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I know a decent number of people (often with college degrees) who've moved to Arizona because they could afford to get by working at Best Buy or Target or similar, but couldn't at their previous locations in New York, California, and similar.

I think for the average person (who, let's remind, is probably part of a household making $50k or less per year) cost of living (and particularly housing) is what matters more than taxes or wages.



Perhaps you may have some anecdotes; however, there has been study of this.

Income in areas of high housing costs more than offsets those costs, so that the net result is ($income - $housing) is higher

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2011/12/us-cities-w...


I'm sure that's true for people who for whom that's true, however, that 'study' is very anecdotal itself, and quite ridiculous. It doesn't address where people with low wages live, income distribution, and other complexities. The group I'm referring to is a group who will not have $35k+ left over for house no matter where they live, and is pretty much invisible in that study. If anything the article you linked is showing that higher incomes live in places with higher housing costs and make more after paying for housing also, which is a different conclusion than is claimed by the article.


Is that why I keep reading about the BART strike and not being able to get anything but a "nice crack den" for $3K/month in San Francisco?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: