Does anyone remember how they collected income information for census? Did they get it from tax returns or you have to select a range in a multiple choice question?
According to this stat almost 90% of people in Atherton own their homes. I don’t think we need to worry how they can afford it. They do somehow.
Also income is not the same as net worth. What is Warren Buffet’s annual income?
Top incomes are way more volatile. I bet a lot of them are bought with one-time windfalls. We think of the top 1% as a group. It’s really more 5-10% of people who rotate in and out of it.
Just checked Los Gatos, more reasonable relatively for Bay Area… @9x for SFH @7.5x for all houses.
Cambrian park much better ratio @6x
Not the same people. Wondering why present only average. What is the median?
CA cities - least loneliest
That’s a seriously clickbait title. I’m sure it works and emotionally triggers a lot of people.
Ouch. Now young people prefer the South Bay over SF. We already know people with kids leave the city. If young people don’t want it, what’s the resident profile going to be? I guess it’ll be a bunch of people in denial that their city’s best days are behind it.
SF is for fossilized people like @manch who desperately want people to know there are greenery in the well.
Youth prefers South Bay and Austin where I have rentals serving them.
Millennials = young people? Maybe to old people they are young.
The median age of millennials is 35. The oldest millennial is 42. They are busy raising kids. So of course they like suburbs where houses are cheaper and offer more space.
The included people ages 25-44. At least now you admit people with kids don’t want to live in SF.
Millennials are 27-42.
I have said many times married couples with kids prefer suburbs. Nothing controversial with that statement. Suburbs offer cheaper and bigger houses.
SF’s biggest problem is its NIMBYism, and it’s getting fixed by the state as we speak. Fix the housing issue and most problems will sort themselves out.
This is a vast overstatement. 135K kids within a land area of 47 sq miles is far from zero. I bet SF has one of the highest density of kids among US cities.
We’ve been over this. SF has the lowest percent of kids under 18 of any city in the US.