Seattle's New Normal: Homelessness Is Now Middle Class
thestranger.com
thestranger.com
(Also, there's a pretty big gap in salary of "we don't make $250k and we own." It's possible to buy a $600k house on under $200k/year and $600k will still buy you something even in Bellevue.)
To each his own though.
not to be crass, but in the past week I've had a few recruiters from there write me about interesting (and probably better paying compared to here) job opportunities that I've had to turn down because I'm 1) not very interested in moving to the US right now, and 2) somewhat rooted here in Toronto at the moment.
Unrelated to the last bit, but related to my experience: sounds like just hipster stuff to me. That, or maybe a quiet protest of sorts— or both. If they're happy, and functional, and it's not a problem to people, then I'm not sure it's worth much worry.
Just a little further north in Vancouver... now that's a homeless problem. (East Hastings area, for the unaware)
Tacoma is really freaking far though. I’d be in a world of misery if I had to commute from there every day.
Tacoma at least has a commuter train these days, though I guess that would add to your commute costs. I have a relative who reverse commutes from West Seattle to Tacoma and it’s decent enough (because traffic goes the other way).
Tukwila or SeaTac should have decent rents and are accessible to downtown by light rail.
I also think that finding a dead-end street full of RVs near down-town Seattle might mean there's not a convenient Wal-Mart parking lot or a campground close enough to the center of the action. With the huge increase in campground prices, I'd probably be looking for safe, free parking if I was RVing full-time.
There are people near me living on boats, because the monthly slip fees are cheaper than rent. That doesn't make them homeless or poor.
Sweeping generalizations? Check
One sided / shallow presentation of complex societal issues? Check
Half baked rant out the changing nature of the city? Check
Here's another one of his gems: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/10/17/25475173/big-umb...
The middle class in Seattle doesn't live in an RV in Seattle. They live in Auburn, Burien, Renton, Lynnwood, and Everett. Same is true for any other large city, no? How many middle class people live in downtown Boston, or San Jose?
And note the date stamp on that.
When it’s a choice you get to make, not when it’s your only choice. Don’t you have a shred of empathy? Envy them... Jesus Christ this site!
Freedom from dignity or the respect of your peers, of stability, of the ability to start or raise a family, and freedom from much of the dating pool. As a bonus you get to wonder when what little you have might vanish and you’re “free” from that too, and “free” to live on the streets.
I and my wife lived in our RV in silicon valley (thanks San Jose elks lodge) for a period of time. We chose a lifestyle where I would do consulting for six months a year in SV and then travel for 6 months. After several years of renting, furnishing, establishing utilities in a place only to unwind that all a few months later, we thought just getting an RV and staying in it was a better solution. So for several years we'd spend six months in the RV in San Jose, and then the other six months doing things like road tripping through Alaska, hanging out in Key West, sailing the Mexican riviera etc.
There's definitely some downsides to living in a small space, with a low level of stability - but in that phase of our life the trade-off to be able to travel for months at a time was well worth it.
It’s the kind of thing my wife and I might have done if we didn’t have a kid.
Seattle was also one of those cities hostile to jitneys. http://mynorthwest.com/152499/political-promise-personal-veh...?
So my impression is that Seattle often jumps the gun regulating things away--banning things that actually increase quality of life/spending power. We all know that those without discretionary income are the first to feel drops in spending power (due to regulation, etc.).
I'm also reminded of a great chapter in "Downtown: Its Rise and Fall" which talks about the special interests behind and the consequences of tenement reform, consequences which were largely negative if you were poor. I can't help wondering if similar forces have led to Seattle's present-day predicaments.
TBH there's a good chance they make more money than the author.
Since they were Ubering around town instead of driving the van, I would assume they're probably not poor.
But we'll never know because the "journalist" was too busy listening to music to find out the facts.
Unless you come back and specify that you meant Kent or Renton, $90k unquestionably and unarguably would not provide an upper middle class lifestyle in Seattle. Not in 2012, and definitely not today.
Of note in your calculations:
- upper middle class mortgage from 2012. According to zillow [1], median home price in 2012 was $353k. Today it's $800k, over twice that -- 2012 was the worst year in a long time for Seattle housing. Probably 2k/month, right? At 90k, that's going to be about 50% of your salary after tax -- not abysmal, but certainly not close to the 1/3 rule I've always been told. Then again, it's owning rather than renting, so maybe it's justifiable. Biggest problem I see here is that there aren't that many folks who managed to buy their house at the best possible time to do so, and anybody who's moved to Seattle since 2012 is going to pay closer to $4k/month for that same home.
--one midrange car loan: I don't think just one car would be very comfortable for a family of three living in the suburbs of Seattle. Again, doable -- maybe only one parent works, and the child is young, so you could carpool to school/one job/other job, but it sounds like a lot of commuting for whoever has to drop off the others. In Seattle traffic, that could easily end up being 2 hours of driving just to get to and from work, every morning and every evening. Doesn't leave much room for flexibility though. According to Experian Automotive, the average American monthly car payment is $500 [2].
-medical insurance: assuming this isn't provided by your employer, I could easily see this eating the rest of your income after tax. I pray that anybody in this situation has insurance through work. Apparently the average American family is spending between $10k-$20k on insurance, including deductibles [3], so... $1k-$2k/month. So if nobody gets sick in this family, you've still got $1k/month for food and luxuries like eating out, going to concerts, or activities outside of work.
-one decent vacation a year: I never vacationed growing up (family was relatively poor), but I'd guess that for a family of three any real vacation is going to end up in the thousands (my guess would be around $3-5k, though I have little idea). So maybe if you just spend $400-500/month on food, you could put away whatever's left (maybe $500, tops?) to take a vacation every year.
So I suppose $90k is livable, based on what I see here. But it doesn't sound great, and doesn't leave much room for things like serious medical issues, buffer room if you get fired, or even the ability to pay for something like a summer program for your kid. And what about gifts for birthdays, or if your car breaks down, or you get robbed, etc. etc.? Sounds like you're working hard every day but never getting ahead.
Oh, and now that I remember... what about saving for retirement, and saving for college (because you're making $90k, so the government isn't going to give your kid much financial assistance)? Well, I guess we'll just work forever, and the kid will take on $50k of debt to go to a cheaper state school. And then when she graduates and tries to live on $90k in Seattle, we'll have to take into account even worse housing prices AND her student loan payments...
[1] https://www.zillow.com/seattle-wa/home-values/
[2] https://www.experian.com/assets/automotive/white-papers/expe... (warning: pdf)
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-a...
It's definitely possible for a family to spend $3-5k on a vacation, but it's also possible to spent waaaayyyy less than that (mostly by not flying somewhere)
I calculated this just to see whether I have to work. Turns out I don’t, but I work anyway.
However, the exercise of calculating those numbers out was still very interesting -- particularly the fact that I pay close to 2x the taxes of a Seattle-ite as a New Yorker. Holy cow, state and local taxes take a huge chunk out of my pay. I really wonder what NYS/NYC do with those taxes... but perhaps more importantly, how does Seattle get by without state/local taxes? Who pays for public transit subsidies? I guess it must come from property taxes? Boy I wish NYC charged more property taxes, especially since metropolis properties are largely owned by the very, very rich and even with a respectable tech salary I'll likely never own property in the city ever.
But to emphasize once again, this is upper middle class, with very little compromise. Not everyone has to live like this. Not everyone has to pay $10k/yr in property taxes or spend $2k/mo on food, or budget $1500/mo in health insurance/out of pocket costs. We factored in inviting people over, etc. Basically little to no change in lifestyle.
WTF???? Where the hell does your money go? I felt _very_ comfortable when I was making $75k and living in lower Manhattan walking distance from my job near wall street, in a market rate apartment I easily found. And I participated in the culture of going out all the time, and built up modest 401k savings.
Really, where on earth does your money go?
I hate hearing bullshit like this because at the same time, so much evil that goes on does so because people "gotta make a living" ... Well, no, wasting so much money is a choice, not a need. And if you don't control it it will expand to consume any amount of income.
I used to know sales guys who made 7 figures but still fretted about money and did desperate shady shit at work to make more money, and treated it no different than a starving man stealing a loaf of bread for his family. Disgusting. Radix malorum est cupiditas, my friends.
$90k/year in NYC pre-tax -> ~$60k/year in NYC post-tax. State and local taxes hit hard when they're a combined 10%ish.
Out of that $60k, you'll probably be spending at least $20k on rent alone. Factor in utilities and you're getting closer to $22k total for the year. So we're already down to $38k tops.
Food is going to cost you at least $200/month if you've got a decent diet, your work doesn't provide food for you, etc. In Manhattan I'd be impressed if you could get that low, because stuff tends to be a lot more expensive here, but it's probably possible if you're frugal. So after food you're hitting $35k left over.
Transportation: most of us don't work in LES, the nexus of cheap housing in Manhattan below 90th. Most people work in FiDi or Midtown, and rent is expensive there, so either you're spending a lot more on housing, splitting a bedroom with someone to hit the $1500/month price point, or commuting in from an outer borough. Regardless if you're living in the city you probably use the subway sometimes... so let's take $130/month out for an unlimited subway pass. If you commute both ways 5 days a week you're basically even on pay-per vs. unlimited, and hopefully you leave your apartment on weekends, so it's probably worth it. So you're now at $33k left over.
Now let's take that $18k/year out for retirement, since the USA will let you starve on the street if you hit 65 without savings and Social Security is not a replacement for retirement savings. Now we're at $15k after the fact. So you've got $15k a year to: 1) save for a down payment on a house/apartment down the line (unless you want to be a renter for life) 2) big-ticket non-regular expenses, like buying furniture, clothes, traveling 3) maintain a 6-month safety buffer in a relatively liquid form (so... 30k to cover rent/food if you lose your job?) 4) medical expenses 5) saving for children, college, pets, a car, etc. down the line 6) luxuries like going out to eat, getting a drink/coffee with friends, or a gym membership
If your rent is closer to $2k/month (if, for instance, you want to live alone in a decent apartment) you'll have $9k left over for this. God forbid you have to dump $400/month on student loans, which is easy to rack up even if you went to a state school.
Yeah I guess it's possible, though it looks to me like your budget is going to be pretty tight the minute you start saving responsibly for retirement. I've got more wiggle room because my job pays more than $90k, but I definitely have a fear of a huge medical expense or getting fired from my job.
Anyway, I'm curious if you have a different perspective on this. Do you think things like going to the dentist/eye doctor/yearly physicals are luxuries? $75k sounds brutal in lower Manhattan, but maybe I'm not seeing something. Was this in the 90s/early 2000s or something?
Also, I completely agree that if you're making good money you still need to have morals. But please don't conflate my point of "NYC is expensive" with "bullshit" just because I try to be financially responsible. I think you might have a good argument here but there's no need to resort to insulting words and ad hominem attacks.
I don’t think you’ve actually totaled up how much your food costs. It’s a lot more than $200 per person, even if you cook everything at home.
I was trying to be conservative here because food costs vary so much from person to person. I have a lot of friends who eat out probably at least once per day on average, and friends who never eat out. Friends who buy the nicest cuts of meat and friends who try to keep things as cheap as possible. I'd guess it varies a lot more than rent.
Food costs can be much higher if you choose to indulge in luxury, but those are all choices. You don't need to eat out or eat any meat at all. I sure enjoy it, but needs first, wants second.
The original topic was how much money you need, not want
Also, i found nyc and manhattan to not be much more expensive for groceries than central arkansas or NJ, my other adult reference points, contrary to popular belief
That said most of your assumptions about my budget are wrong which explains why we disagreed to begin with:
1. Yes I was saving for retirement, like $6k, but half was an employer 401k match so it did not come from my budget. It's tight but enough. I won't have to live near an expensive business district when I'm retired, obviously. Where do you get your 18k figure from BTW? Also, 100pct of any raises after that went into savings, but my point was it was easy to live comfortably before then... Also, why not factor Social Security? It's estimated to be 79% funded so yiu could just subtract 21%. I am slightly more conservative and assume I'll only get he standard SSI payment (the bsre minimum you get if you did not work at all) whixh was about $700 a few years ago
2. It took modest effort to find a market rate $1700 1.5br I shared with my SO at the time, for $850 of rent. If you don't believe it was relatively easy to find i can go into more detail. Thr apart was fine. It only lacked meaningless luxuries like the latest most stylish bathroom tiles or track lighting or whatever inane things they're cominguo with today to part renters from their hard earned money
3. I did not say i worked in LES. You assumed. I worked in the fidi, by battery park. 45 min walk, 15 min bike ride, 20min subway.
4. Anyone who doesn't use the subway roundtrip 6 days a week is wasting money if they get the monthly pass. I like to call it the worst deal in NYC. I walked or biked most of the time, so I spent little on subway commuting. (Ironically, I occasionally took a taxi, and still spent less than if I had a subway pass)
5. Furniture, clothes... Uh these are cheap to the point of irrelevance if you buy secondhand, but very expensive if you're a sucker....
6. Not much travel. I strategically chose to live in a city in which I would not feel much urge to travel because I can find travel experiences just a borough or less away... Or a bit further out, other parts of the Northeast cheaply accessible by train or rented car. The Northeast is very diverse terrain, with climate varying from DC to Vermont, mountains, beaches, towns, villages, cities, a real swell place. I think that was wise, given how much people spend on vacations when they go distant places which, since they can only afford a brief time, they then barely get a chance to learn about more superficially than one could through wikipedia :(
7. Yeah I paid about $400 a month in loans.
8. Cars and pets and kids are luxuries. I couldn't afford them then but I was very happy. Further raises though, could go towards saving for such luxuries (and eventually did in the case of a car)
9. This was 3 years ago. It's still possible today. The trick is i was spending much less on many things than you thought.
Sorry again for the insulting tone!, it's not about you, but to the many people who will never make that much income and would give an arm for it, it's insulting to pretend it's an inadequate income. Its only inadequate if you choose to make it inadequate.
https://esd.wa.gov/newsroom/washingtons-average-wage-nears-5...
Meanwhile lots of people complain about getting forced out ... I'd say those complaints are probably justified.
Also keep in mind that "average wage" is among those who work. Since the participation rate in the US is about 60% ... the remaining 40% doesn't even usually have average wage.
“Too many long-time residents are getting locked out and pushed out of Seattle,” Durkan said in a statement.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-t...
That's why it's not the best idea to use subsidies to lure one of the largest tech companies in the world to your town. Available housing declines, it takes far too long in the feedback cycle for new housing to be built, and you've made the city marginally worse for anyone who isn't a tech worker.
On the other hand, your city gets a ton more wealthy and existing homeowners essentially win the lottery.
Now that you raised my awareness, I think the article conflates 'middle class' with normal behavior in a developed country, and that feels offensive to me, because it seems to suggest that some poor people are not like that.