Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajross | Hacker News Reader

Corrected wording or not, I think this is simply wrong. A quick Google tells me that median income in LA is $78k (sounds about right given the US household median is $60ish) and per Zillow average LA rent[1] is $2800, so about half that.

One of the biggest problems with meme-driven economics like this (and HN is ground zero for this kind of logic) is the extent to which people just don't cite numbers anymore.

There is some truth here: property values in high-income US cities are growing faster than incomes. And that's a problem, and worth discussing. But that discussion can't happen until people stop with the hyperbole. And needless to say, without discussion there can be no solution. (Which, after all, serves the evolutionary goal of the meme!)

[1] Which surely reflects an average occupancy of 1.5-2 people, so needs to be adjusted even farther downward.

View on HN

Anyway I didn’t address the “meme” part of this post - what, IYO, is the meme here? The rent to income ratio is not remotely disputable, and I don’t think “la is too expensive to live on a typical income” is that hot of a take. It is. I’ve lived there my whole life. People are leaving in droves, and that’s backed by the data in this very thread.

So what’s the meme data here? are you disputing the rent to income ratio statistics? because you’re quoting them here. Are you claiming that a 1:2 rent to income ratio in a high cost of living state is actually fine? because that could be a legitimate meme on its own.

> what, IYO, is the meme here? The rent to income ratio is not remotely disputable

It... is. You said it had a certain value. I disputed that and gave numbers.

> Are you claiming that a 1:2 rent to income ratio in a high cost of living state is actually fine?

No, I'm claiming it's not 1:1, which is what you said the first time. Also that it's not outrageously out of scale with the rest of the country (which pays less rent but makes significantly less) or historical data (housing used to be cheaper, but only by about 30% over 50 years or thereabouts).

The "meme" is basically that The Economy Is Terrible And We Are Going To Hell In A Handbasket. And that's wrong. Something are more expensive, housing among them. Other things (travel, entertainment) are much cheaper. And as those tradeoffs change (slowly) the demographic distributions change (slowly). There's nothing new here, this is how things have always worked.

Your great great grandparents moved west in caravans for precisely the same reason: real estate was cheaper in the frontier!

> No, I'm claiming it's not 1:1, which is what you said the first time. Also that it's not outrageously out of scale with the rest of the country (which pays less rent but makes significantly less) or historical data (housing used to be cheaper, but only by about 30% over 50 years or thereabouts).

You're being pretty dishonest in your replies here. I said multiple times throughout this thread that this trend is across the country. I used LA as a specific example. 1:2 is still bad. It's not really disputable that this is not a sustainable or liveable situation.

> Other things (travel, entertainment) are much cheaper

Good thing those are the things people need to live? You think someone paying $3k a month rent making $50k is super concerned about travel prices? You sound extraordinarily privileged and out of touch and I see nothing to be gained from continuing this conversation.

>Your great great grandparents moved west in caravans for precisely the same reason: real estate was cheaper in the frontier!

My great great grandparents were slaves or the children of slaves - and what a strange analogy. There is no "frontier" now and the government subsidized those moves and stole the land from the natives. You're wildly out of touch and uninformed.

> Good thing those are the things people need to live?

Not but those are the sort of things people who say stuff like this need to you to purchase to keep you complaisant

> You're being pretty dishonest in your replies here.

All I'm doing is responding to your (incorrect) numerical assertions. I really don't see how that can be "dishonest". If you don't like the direction of the conversation, I strongly recommend you counter with numbers of your own showing where the problem you think you see lies. That's how we get to a policy discussion on which we can agree. All you're doing right now is shouting at me because I don't see the same reality you do. Let's discuss the reality, no?

You used the median, I used the mean. I think the latter is more useful here, but regardless, even using the median, that ratio is still god awful and not liveable.

You didn't cite numbers. But if anything the "mean" in a long tail signal like urban incomes is going to be much *higher* than the median, which cuts in my direction, not yours. But if you want to post numbers I'm happy to have the discussion I mentioned.

you are right, I was looking at something outdated. However, I think the ratio is still bad enough that it doesn’t matter to my original point.

this chain of discussion is hilarious because each step just gets worse

Reply on news.ycombinator.com