Where People Spend the Most and Least on Rent in America
priceonomics.com
priceonomics.com
Though what I find hard to believe is how my family does it. I attend a local community college close by, and have been doing so for the past four years after high school. Every year I fill out the FASFA (a Free Application for Student Aid limited to only six years), and I usually ask my parents for their tax record of the past year which gives me a look at our overall income.
My parents for the last four years combined have made roughly an average of $31,000/yr. I've never asked them why we initially didn't move to a cheaper state when we migrated from Mexico, but I assume they enjoy the quality of life here. Though I'm skeptical on whether the trade offs are worth it. We give up most of our life for work, so we may have a few hours off in the week and the weekend. And the the latter applies to my mother, older sister, and I, it does not apply to my father who works the entire week as a gardener with his own workers and clients and only gets a few hours each week (more now since it gets dark earlier with autumn/winter daylight savings).
Though above all, I find it odd that we give our only life (?) to living for rent, food, and necessities. Which is not to say work is bad, after all, work I think has three functions: “to give a man a chance to utilise and develop his faculties; to enable him to overcome his egocentredness by joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth the goods and services needed for a becoming existence.” But otherwise, I still believe there ought to be a healthier and more natural approach to modern day work and life balance.
The quote above is from E.F. Shumacher’s Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. A book I have come to admire and tend to revisit from time to time.
I am homeless because I don't work, but really all I desire is a good spot to put my tent. Of course I enjoy free food and amenities such as the library, but I also volunteer at the soup kitchens and some other functions from time-to-time at least. I have no desire to work 50 hours or more a week at a thankless job at this time. That does not mean I'm comfortable with being a "smooch", just that I think it's kind of irrelevant.
We need to give up the blame/excuses game and focus on the health of communities as a whole.
I wonder if your current lifestyle will make it difficult to transition to another lifestyle when it's no longer sustainable or you tire of it. At least you're volunteering and as odd as I find it to be homeless and spending time on this site, it suggests an interest in and connection to activities that will work out later.
BTW, a mooch is someone who lives off others ("to mooch" is also a verb). A smooch is slang for a kiss.
It's also more difficult to live that way when others are depending upon you.
Esteem is one of Maslow's deficiency needs.
Why because you're setting yourself up for failure. It's nice to get thanks and consider it a surrendeptious gift or happy moment but to consider it any more than that just highlights all the times you need thanks.
Furthermore, you shouldn't do anything for the thanks of others. If you do what's best for you you'll probably be satisfied and if you so something for someone else be it an individual an organization or otherwise it should be because of a reason that you've resolved the thing you're doing is worth the donation of effort and time whether it's to help a friend, family member or an organization (excluding paid jobs like volunteering and I say do something as in volunteer effort or time).
People who need to be thanked and actually end up working for charities churches and other such things for credit, self worth or priase end up being the most obnoxus and ultimately selfish people in those organizations and lose sight of the best next thing to do for the purpose of that thing or person or organization because they are consumed with having their own praise highlighted. With personal friend said family needing thanks is like holding something over someone's head.
For example, I don't take ask or accept money from family (no judgment to people who do or really need to) because in my family they will hold it over your head forever and want a million other things from you and endlessly guilt trip you so it's not worth it to me but I've also been fortunate to never really have been in such a desperate spot.
The point, people who perpetuate that attitude end up being the people who, like the other day, someone scoffed at me sarcastically and only at that point did I realize that they had apparently opened the door for me and I had not noticed and insulted them by not saying thanks.
Now, this seems rude of me for sure but let's pause in this for a second to look at this further, given the situation I was in it was not reasonable that I would notice at all for a host of reasons, but furthermore, when you do a small something for a random stranger you should accept you know literally nothing about their life or current situation so to immediately judge their behavior towards you for something they never asked you or bothered you for is actually ridiculous, and finally if you opened the door for someone and are so worked up about it that merely not getting an oral thanks makes you vocally angry hostile and upset this is mildly disturbing right? Who are you angry at? What were you expecting. If you're opening the door for someone to genuinely help them and make their day better, another way to look at if is all the more grateful you should feel if you opened the door for someone who was so busy or having such a bad day they wouldn't even notice. You just made their life better and they didn't even realize it. But aha, it's the fact that you need recognition from a random stranger that is the issue with you, and not the person who've you've chosen to be mad at because you've decided they have acted unjustly towards you.
I always look for people who are seeking recognition and extra appreciation and are wary of them because in my mind they need it, they will topple over people to get it, or will feel entitled to things and their satisfaction depends on external praise which makes me nervous and question their own internal compass. Especially in business.
On the flipside, especially personally outside of professional situations but also in professional situations, I find people who are giving, humble and expect nothing in return I can potebtially trust because I know they are helping me without wanting something in return. Also people I find who are truly successful in their own right are giving in general and have helpful hearts and want to see other people do well. People always playing the ioweu uowme game is too stressful.
That being said I'm an engineer so when my professional work environment starts to feel like a game of politics I'm outty. So maybe this is an outlier opinion but I think people tend to gravitate towards humble trusting workers.
Maybe people who need thanks and recognition don't do well in corporate environments because pay is not enough and getting recognition consistently is something almost noone gets not even ceos and faces of famously successful companies, they are the most prone to scruinty and judgment and controversy and that will always scale to be true the more you seek out positions where praise is apart of the incentive package.
I don't code BTW; I found HN by chance and noticed there are many general interest articles so I don't see it as a problem.
I didn’t assume you code, I don’t really.
Of course there is no one size fits all, but once you are exposed to a greater existence that door never closes.
The world's a lot bigger than just Irvine and Mexico...
Writing a $1k check every month just for the privilege of a 500ft^2 dump in a crowded and expensive city is pretty painful.
You should ask them! In fact, I'd love for you to get back to us on how the conversation unfolded. After all, any decision requires some origin, maybe confronting them with questions about affordability, work/life balance and quality of life, plus some alternative cities and a roadmap to getting housing and employment there, makes them decide to move in a few years.
Trulia is showing the median sales price in Irvine for the past year-ish at $766k [0]. Zillow is showing the median sales price at $764k [1]. I'm not sure how accurate this is, but it's the only data I could find.
*affordable is relative - I'm talking homes in the 500-600k range
Couldn't agree more. A few years ago, I found myself doing so much overtime that I had no life outside of work. No time for family, no time for hobbies, throw civics completely out the window. I came to the conclusion that there's no amount of money that makes that worth it. Except I had the option to relax and still make enough money for my basics. If not working overtime would actually mean having to move somewhere that I didn't know anyone, or not feeding or housing my family, I think I'd probably just get used to the idea of working overtime forever.
> I've never asked them why we initially didn't move to a cheaper state when we migrated from Mexico, but I assume they enjoy the quality of life here. Though I'm skeptical on whether the trade offs are worth it.
You obviously know your parents better than I do, but I would assume anyone migrating with kids to another country -- which would be scary as hell -- would be looking for the strongest support system. Having relatives or friends nearby might be important, or even having Spanish speaking neighbors and businesses within reach. While there are lots of cheaper places to live than Irvine/California, California is also friendlier to immigrants than other states.
Having lived in Mexico and seen that standards of living and work are different than the US, I might also assume your parents believe they are making a trade off that is worth it relative to what their lives in Mexico might be, rather than optimizing cost of living in the US. And I don't know, but as a parent I can imagine they might have their hopes resting on you, and not care much about their own quality of life. ;)
> my father works the entire week as a gardener with his own workers and clients
If he has a business, he can't move without starting over from scratch. I started a business, which failed, and got some perspective on how hard small business in the US can be, and how unsupportive this country is in certain ways. Taxes and health care are a nightmare when you're bootstrapping a small business. And I have literally nothing to complain about, I was so lucky compared to the position your father's in, I can't really imagine how hard starting and sustaining a gardening business is when you have a family.
> Which is not to say work is bad, after all
There's a pervasive belief in the US (and globally, I imagine) in the benefits and necessities of hard work. While I personally share and appreciate the optimism, I do wonder if that works against us. Rich people all talk about how hard they worked and believe hard work is why they got where they are. Yet nobody has ever made it to the top by pulling the most overtime at McDonalds or working harder at being the best janitor. Maybe the opportunity to do hard work that leads to economic leverage is the thing. School would be one example. It may be true that you have to work hard once you get the opportunity, but working hard doesn't necessarily do anything to achieve opportunity, and maybe working too hard at something that isn't leveraging might reduce the chances for the opportunity to work hard at something that could change your trajectory.
Being at the bottom of the economic ladder makes this easier, since creating value good enough for survival is the primary goal and a lot of things done well enough can do that. Often though higher talents are not used or recognized in the daily grind and the ability to create more value is not utilized. For example, I worked at a grocery store as a teenager and the store management would roll their eyes when I would come up with all sorts of ideas for things that were above my pay grade. My next job after that was doing C programming on financial software. I saw my old boss at the grocery store one day and told her about my new job. She chuckled and said she imagined I might go on to do something like that.
This is one of the many things that irk me about how Republicans sell their business rhetoric to their people. They're always talking about small businesses but it seems evident there's little they want to do to actually help small businesses.
Decoupling healthcare from employment would save money for businesses that have employees as well as make it easier for people that want to start a business to leave jobs where there's that 'health care security'.
I can't speak too much to taxes but it seems silly that here in CA to have a business you pay $800/yr to the franchise tax board. I'm sure you have further stories about how that becomes even more complex as the business grows.
I believe this is why the 'keep the government out of my business' line of thinking appeals to people and makes them think Republicans have their interests at heart (evidence points otherwise but still...). It becomes very complicated and expensive very quickly.
McDonald's isn't a great example because many franchise owners started out as employees. In fact McDonald's requires franchisees to work in their stores, you are an owner-operator not an owner-investor.
I think they did it for you, not for them, and you should be very grateful.
Well California Community Colleges received $9.2 billion in state funding last year: http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3372
So the same thing that makes California expensive (strong economy, high taxes) helps subsidize education for lower earning Californians like you.
I initially assumed strong Spanish-speaking community, other Mexican immigrants...but you can get that in Arizona for half the price. So then I wondered if the quality of life in L. A. is so much better than it was in Mexico (I mean, they moved for a reason, right?) that it never occurred to them to wonder if it can be had for less.
But they’re your parents, ask them. :-)
The sample may be fairly large but it is almost certainly not representative. These figures only represent the subset of the population who would use an online financial services company AND actually did use it.
I would expect data from sources such as the Census Bureau to be much more representative of reality. Here is one visualization of such data I found [0]. These figures are much, much closer to the actual conditions I have personally observed in multiple states.
My guess is that the reported figures from Earnest miss large categories such as low-income and elderly people. The numbers are way too high for many states.
[0]: http://overflow.solutions/demographic-data/national-data/sta...
As a South American and having seen European housing, the only city that has something equivalent to what's "normal" here is New York.
Not even San Francisco builds small apartments/condos. An average 2-bedroom in Europe or in Buenos Aires is 600 square foot, and that's the size of a studio apartment in the United States. I'm not saying going to extremes like Tokyo and their 300 square foot apartments (I lived in a 200 square feet studio for a couple of years, it's doable).
I did a quick search and the 1000 dollar apartments/condos for rent in New Jersey are similar in size to 1000 dollar apartments here in Montevideo... but there are no 500 dollar equivalents!
I think most people in the U.S. think they NEED that much space (even when they don't).
If Toyota was only allowed to make 10 cars a year, you can bet they would be top-of-the-line Lexus models.
Why should "what is needed" be higher in priority than a slightly more spacey/comfortable/whatever standard? There's a spectrum between living one step removed from hunter-gatherers sheltering in caves and Middle Class McMansions. It's certainly not clear to me that moving as far as 600 square feet for a two bedroom is necessary, even when it seems that certainly more high density housing is.
The reason why we need this space and own these things is to be able to have control over our own experience. I own a book because I don't want to have to depend on the library having it in stock when I need it. I have a bathroom so I can use it when I wan't, not have to wait for twenty minutes because someone else is being sick in it, cleaning it up, or because there is a long line for the morning shower.
I don't see why we have to diminish our living space to the standard of Europe (for example). We have more land, first of all. Second of all, restricted land area isn't the only reason for Europe's relatively smaller dwelling sizes: they have their own class problems and NIMBY problems.
See the link below for the challenges in Los Angeles.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_ar...
Don’t blame the building code. Those cars need to go somewhere!
Is it hard? Yes. Is car-free the minority? Yes. But saying the infrastructure requires a car is wrong when there's a fair number of people who make it work. LA can build developments that don't need auto infrastructure, and the more they build, the easier being car free will be.
That “$1000” apartment is a sweet spot for builders. The cost of building out a smaller, high density apartment is higher due to more trade work (plumbing, electrical, etc) and more risk abatement for building codes and ADA compliance.
Perhaps your city is an outlier, but across the U.S. micro-housing is in demand. Here's a great starting off point to read about it (and do visit the linked research in the article):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2017/03/31/what-is-t...
Of course, I paid 200 dollars in rent, not 3500 !
> I think most people in the U.S. think they NEED that much space (even when they don't).
I honestly don't know what people do with so much space. I just moved into a "large" (for me) 3-bedroom apartment with 2 roommates and think this is already more space than I need (1000 square feet total).
I guess shelter != housing in this statement, but it seems if you're talking about three items comprising a total, the largest one cannot be less than one third, right? :)
"Over 78 years, one spends an average of about $1.6 million dollars just to survive. Of this, one spends about $1M on housing, food, and cars."
So (according to the source) survival costs 1.6M of which the 3 biggest expenses add up to 1M. They don't say what comprises the other 600k.
Health care? Eduction? Clothing? Child care? Just some guesses....
More importantly, I'm missing things like household size and square footage.
I mean, nobody is really interested in a rent prices in and of itself. We're interested in affordability, i.e. how much does it cost to rent per person, or per amount of area.
If you look at the average household size in Utah and Montana for example, and divide median state rent by each, you'll find the median rent per person in the household is $480 and $530 respectively, despite median rent being $1500 and $1270.
i.e., you may think it's less affordable to rent in Montana, but on a per capita basis, it's actually the opposite.
They do mention things like education and income typically being higher in expensive places, making this a one-sided story on affordability, but mostly leave it outside the scope of the analysis. A shame, cause it's interesting stuff!
People make due when they need to — they cram into whatever space they can afford for 25-40% of income.
The author says: "One possible explanation for Los Angeles being more expensive than the Bay Area is if renters in Los Angeles are less likely to have roommates or a rent controlled apartment."
Curious if anyone here on HN has any alternative hypotheses? Perhaps technicalities of city boundaries? (E.g. NYC includes Queens, Staten Island and the Bronx, whereas from my understanding LA proper excludes much of the LA "area".)
Also, rents in the boroughs of NYC are also very high, particularly in areas near transit.
Does LA have any any rent stabilization?
Rents are going slightly down in SF. You can rent a room for $1200-1500 and pay $300-400 month in parking. A friend was paying $1900 month to share a place with 5 people in Russian Hill.
In LA, you can live at the Ritz for $5500/month.
It's been a while since I lived in the Bay Area, but has San Jose really surpassed San Francisco? Or is this a function of SJ having larger apartments than SF on average, or something like that?
I wonder if the list would be quite different for a specific type of apartment. A single renter living in 800 square feet will probably pay a lot more (I speculate) in NY than San Jose? Where a family of four living in 1200 square feet (not the norm, I realize) might not even be able to find a place in a few of these cities.
Bottom 5 cities: Toledo $550, Memphis $728, Glendale AZ $751, Kansas City $885, Lincoln NE $907
The average for the lowest cities is surprisingly high. This makes me curious about Toledo -- how is the lowest rent city 25% lower than the next lowest? That seems like an outlier. Is Toledo out of space, or depressed, or only renting studio apartments or something? How does Toledo compare to Detroit, where it's easy to find a small apartment in the $400s?
The list is based on the 100 most populous cities so I'm not sure what their point was for the least expensive cities. Higher populations generally mean higher prices.
- SF and NY have always had a high percentage of renters and a long history of rent control, skewing the actual amount people are paying in rent down.
- San Jose is closer than SF to the highest paying tech jobs, driving the median income in SJ (according to some studies) to the highest in the nation and supporting rental increases.
- As luxury apartments are a relatively newer addition to San Jose, the rents being paid are going to be higher than a 20 year occupant of a sweet rent controlled apartment in the city.
So the reason San Jose rent is showing as more expensive than SF/NY is largely due to the metrics of this particular study. However, as tech companies are continuing to heavily invest in the South Bay and Peninsula, I would expect to see a continued upward trend in San Jose median income and rent.
Maybe it's because most of the cheaper more "suburban" areas near San Jose are Cupertino, Sanrta Clara, and Santa Cruz - cities in their own right whereas SF has a wide variety of rents within it's borders. (For example, outer sunset is much cheaper than SOMA.)
Not according to the Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development American Housing Survey. That honor is reserved for Miami with an average of 27%, and 1/3 spending 50% of their income on rent.
[1] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/real-estate-news/ar...
But price per sq. ft. is not completely irrelevant and can be useful to know.
It is misleading. It has to do with averages. A large portion of SF residents are on rent control. So if you poll 10k SF people and ask their rent you get lower rental rates -- since in SF many are locked in and cannot afford to move. When you average the rents, you get a rental rate from over a decade ago. Example, if you are moving to SF today - you are looking at 3500$[i] for a run down 2brd. If you wanted to move to San Jose -- you might actually find a 2brd for $2500. I check every month and know the neighborhoods really well of Manhattan and SF. SF is more expensive - since Manhattan has more inventory and no rent control over 2k.
[i] https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/d/open-must-see-huge-2-...
Not exactly...There's several different kinds of rent regulation in NY. You're probably thinking of the rent-stabilization cutoff at $2700? Technically there are many apartments that are considered rent-stabilized with rents well above $2700 -- the building that I live in, for example, where virtually all rents are north of $3500, has over 80 stabilized units in a building with 96 units. About 31% (as of a few years ago) of technically rent-stabilized buildings have loopholes that allow normal increases on rent that landlords do take advantage of. To these tenants, rent-stabilization has little more effect than a right-to-renew.
Rent controlled apartments are much rarer, comprising only of about 27k units across the five boroughs. There are two of these in my building. The number of rent controlled units is dwarfed by the number of apartments under other regulation, like SCRIE, Mitchell-Lama, etc., comprising of about 280k units total.
NYC's total housing inventory is slightly above 3.2 mil units, of which 1.34 mil are under some kind of rent regulation.
http://www.nycrgb.org/downloads/research/pdf_reports/17HSR.p...
From the passage of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 to the Rent Act of 2011, rent stabilization was restricted to apartments where the legal, or stabilized, rent was under $2,000 per month. The 2011 law raised that to $2,500. The unit could be deregulated once the rent went above $2,000 under the 1997 law, $2,500 under the 2011 Act, and is either vacant or the household adjusted gross income was over $175,000 under the 1997 act or is $200,000 under the 2011 law, for two consecutive years.[1
This is Info-fastfood. There’s no nutritional value in this data. First off the data should be presented in at least a county level or MSA. A cloropleth map would be nice too.
Note that the "least expensive" data is from people reporting their rent on loan applications. College students probably take out fewer loans and would be underrepresented in the data set.
Edit: I see Lincoln is also one of the higher ones as a percentage of income; that could be skewed by college students but again, this data is from loan applications.
So? New York State is not New York City. New York City is populous but the rest of the state's cities pale in comparison and in decline. Texas has multiple expensive cities with populations over a million. And rents in NYC vary widely; Manhattan is much more expensive than Staten Island.
Last time I checked, rent controlled apartments make up ~1% of housing units in the city, and that number decreases all the time (because the supply of rent controlled apartments is constantly decreasing). So, I think I'd need to see a citation that rent control has any serious effects on NYC housing prices.
I'm not saying that 1% couldn't have larger effects, but given the small amount of rent-controlled units I think the burden of proof is on you here.
> Rural NY to Rural TX, I will bet anytime that Rural TX is cheaper especially in the Rio Grande Valley and West Texas.
Why? I think you have a very different picture in mind of what rural NY looks like. There are a ton of extremely poor towns and cities up near Rochester and Buffalo. Lots and lots of rust belt remnants in the western part of the state that haven't recovered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Belt#/media/File:Total_mf...
Maybe it's $50 for a 1 bedroom in west Texas vs. $60 for a 1 bedroom on the outskirts of Hammond NY, but I don't think that's a very meaningful difference.
My guess is remote parts of Texas are probably still cheaper. It's so big, remote towns can't be bedroom communities, they're less well-regulated so building costs are probably lower, and property taxes are probably lower (less expensive maintenance than in NY weather and they don't take care of their citizens as well).
Also, that median price isn’t too far off from what it costs to get a luxury apartment in a downtown. There aren’t that many $3k/mo apartments because, at that rate, you might as well get a house.
Toyota and bunch other companies have moved their HQ or operations here, it may have to do something about it.
I don't know if I would consider Palms 'working class' but it definitely is advantageous in being cheaper than other places since the whole town of Palms is essentially all apartment buildings and located near job centers in Culver City, Venice, and Santa Monica up the road / Expo line.
Also, average rent is obscure, if it lumps together different housing sizes. Breaking it by number of rooms would make it more usable.
Even in the city, it's easy to forget that most people don't live in Manhattan/the expensive parts of Queens and Brooklyn. A sizable minority, sure, but not most.
https://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/abo/d/fantastic-1-bdr-apt...
Granted it's Craigslist so who knows how legit it is, but if you're willing to share with roommates/etc. I don't feel like it's super hard to find a great apartment if you're willing to live further out.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/economy-finance/housing-af...
This gives a starker picture, with Flint, MI having the largest %, despite its low rents, and Sunnyvale CA having the lowest % despite its very high overall rents.
Is there some VAT (or sales tax, as I think you call it) applied to rents in the USA?
If so, is it included in the figures of the article or when people comment here and quote rent figures?
So, roughly, we can consider that the price of the rent is complete, no extra to add in general. Considering how high your rents are, that's lucky :-)
In France there is no VAT on rent; however there is a local tax, called 'living' tax, more or less based on the surface and theoretical value of the rented flat/house (but disconnected from the actual rent price). It is always paid to the tax office, no connection with the rent and the owner, so of course not included in rent prices.
The owner pays another local property tax, on the same bases too. (If you live in your own property, you naturally pay both).
Would still rather pay higher French taxes, where you know the money is going to social service, even if they are bit too generous, rather than the US rate where you pay slightly less but all services are barely functional.
As I said, it is not exactly a tax on rent (it is not a percentage of the rent price and even if you don't pay a rent, you shall pay it), but yes, it has to be counted in your expenses.
That tax is not really going to social services (well, that depends how you define social services, in fact), it is more for the local infrastructures: most of it goes to the municipality, so it is used for streets and small roads, for primary schools, for municipal administration, swimming pool, library, and so on; another part goes to the department (a bit like a US county), it is used for roads, middle schools, and one-off financing of heavy local equipment. Part of it can be used for local social action too, indeed.
The general principle is that it is designed to fund the burden you put on the local infrastructure by living in that place (what is a bit weird is that it is not based on the number of people living in a house, it is assumed that the bigger the house, the more inhabitants, the more burden on infrastructures, I guess). Then anything can happen but that is the general goal :-)
Anyway, this tax is going away soon for most people. What will replace the funding is still mysterious however.
I always hear people talk about their mortage, as if buying a home was the only thing that goes over there.
Probably has to do with the bad social security?
Housing costs in America have gone through the roof, so it's much harder to afford a down-payment. Also, it's generally said that millennials place a higher value on mobility and prefer to live in urban cores, where more of the housing is rentals and there are fewer single-family homes.
But yeah, also having grown up in a rural area, sidewalks to get to places are nice.
Seems it would be ideal to use post-tax income. Is the norm that you shouldn't pay more than 30% based on pre- or post-tax income?
The graph on education level does not include those not graduating high school.
The data appears to come from a company that largely handles refinancing student loans.
They missed a pretty interesting demographic issue in the analysis that education didn't quite cover, which is stage of life. The suburban city I live in has renters who are almost exclusively college students or retired / assisted living elderly. I know my uncle who was in assisted living paid something ridiculous like $6K/month for 24x7 nursing coverage until his assets were gone and the gov pays for him now, and that likely distorts the averages. Meanwhile the other end of the elderly spectrum is 55+ housing where they get gov kickbacks and incentives to charge less, to help social security recipients pay the bills. I'm sure there is a numerical average elderly rent payment but I suspect roughly zero population because the distribution isn't even remotely bell curve-ish. Meanwhile college student used to mean "poor despite 8 roommates" a generation ago but now it means infinite gov guaranteed student loans so start charging California rents, after all the .gov will pay and guarantee any expense remotely related to education regardless of ability to (re)pay.
My suburb city has a quarter mil people and a private college and a state extension uni and a community vo-tech so we have megatons of college renters, whereas the suburb city to the east is slightly larger but has zero higher ed and therefore zero renters other than assisted living. I'm just theorizing this discrepancy might extend to states. Surely there are vastly more foreign and american college students in CA than in OR or WA even in percentage relation to population?
The boomer stereotype of "retire move to Florida" is still alive, isn't it? Even though I don't personally know anyone who's done it. Surely that would distort the numbers.