SacBee: California incomes plummet

[evilDonkey]

The Sacramento Bee: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/13/3906899/california-incomes-plummet-poverty.html">California incomes plummet, poverty rises

California’s poverty rate jumped to its highest level in thirteen years during 2010, and state household income dropped by almost 5 percent, according to census figures released this morning.

Median household income – the middle number in a list of incomes ranked from lowest to highest – in California fell from $57,061 to $54,459. Median household income has fallen 9 percent since 2006, before the economic downturn.

California household income dropped about twice as quickly last year as household income nationwide.

If this trend continues California housing has nowhere to go but down. Families simply can't afford expensive houses if their salaries fall a little each year.

More on this at Dr. Housing Bubble.

Dr. Housing Bubble: http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/california-shacking-three-trends-crushing-the-california-housing-market-young-workers-income-real-estate-prices-refis/">California shacking – three trends crushing the California housing market. Young workers moving back home, household incomes back to 1990s levels, and lack of an entry level market.

[xchrom]

1. Recommend - I think out of state even out of country

Have something to do w/ Cali home prices.

[Warpy]

2. Then there's this: More US Households Doubled Up

There's been talk of people sharing homes during the recession, and now the Census Bureau has released the data to prove it.

This spring, there were 21.8 million "doubled-up" households across the nation, a 10.7 percent increase from the 19.7 million households in the spring of 2007, the Census Bureau said. That means 18.3 percent of all households were combined households.

Much of the increase was the result of adult children who either moved back home during the recession or never left. Among adults between the ages of 25 and 34, some 5.9 million were living with their parents this spring, up from 4.7 million before the recession hit in 2007. That 25 percent increase translated to 14.2 percent of all young adults living with their parents in March, the bureau said.

For Census purposes, a house is considered "doubled-up" if at least one more adult is living there who is not enrolled in school and is not the main householder, spouse or cohabitating partner of the householder.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-14/business/chi-more-americans-double-up-in-tough-economy-20110914_1_households-young-adults-recession

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. what a weird definition of doubling up....

"if at least one more adult is living there who is not enrolled in school"

so if my room mate or adult grandchild is taking classes, there is no "doubling up" ?
But the minute my room mate/adult grandchild stops taking classes we ARE doubling up?

Granted it is 5:30 in the am ( Helloooo world!!!) but am I missing something?

[evilDonkey]

4. loco

Most of these definitions are probably designed by committees of people so yeah, they're crazy. 8-)

[vets74]

10. "These Definitions" have been well-defined and in use for more than 50 years.

Most household descriptive statistics are available going back past World War II.

If you're spending your days complaining about such as census statistics, please consider getting another hobby.

[Warpy]

6. People with jobs used to be self supporting

and could live in their own places. That's the big change since so many of the jobs are part time and poorly paid.

I lived in a zoo in the 60s, a big apartment with 10 of us living in it. Some were students, some had jobs, but we packed in there because Boston is a very expensive city and only people with professions instead of jobs can afford to live alone.

[dgibby]

5. I'll be joining that group this month.

One of my adult nieces will be moving in with me soon, as she is struggling to make ends meet. She has a Master's in social work, but her salary can't keep up with cost of living.

[Turbineguy]

7. But there's also this:

California Loses Stigma as Borrowing Costs Dive 33%: Muni Credit

California, the biggest U.S. municipal debt issuer, is paying one-third less in long-term borrowing costs than two years ago, when former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger fought lawmakers over deficits and struggled to attract individual investors.

The nation’s most populous state is in the second day of a $2.5 billion sale of general-obligation bonds -- Governor Jerry Brown’s first long-term borrowing this year. The deal includes 10-year securities offered to individuals at 108 basis points above top-rated tax-exempt debt. That compares with a 160 basis- point premium it paid on similar bonds in March 2009. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point.

The savings reflect a turnaround in investor sentiment toward a state that only two years ago had to resort to selling IOUs to pay its bills. The price of insuring California bonds has plunged by half since 2009 as Brown, 73, has limited borrowing and brokered an $85.9 billion general-fund spending plan with fellow Democrats that addresses long-term budget deficits.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-19/california-loses-stigma-as-borrowing-costs-dive-33-muni-credit.html

With a nice photo of Jerry Brown.

[YvonneCa]

8. That would be because we actually have a...

...real governor now. :7

[Turbineguy]

9. That you do.

:thumbsup:

[vets74]

11. Buyers' annual income distribution X Historical multiples = House price distribution

Good posting. That "Dr. Housing Bubble" site's not bad either.

The Sand States are cactus/pineapple ass-xxcked. Let's hit that BIG BITCH OF A PROBLEM first. There's no "entry market."

That is a direct result of plutocracy-oriented policies at the banks. Those financial mainstays of the community are not pursuing profits in the housing markets -- not at all. Instead they are protecting the apparent/fakery-generated "market value" for the asset holdings of our Top 1% By Wealth.

Banks are showing big profits. That's true. But these are phony profits. Bank assets have fallen disastrously, but they are misstating their positions. Good for bonuses, bad for everything esle. It's a true Ponzi Scheme with the Ponzi Pool floating miles above the earth.

Some of that is pension funds. But the pension fund guys knew about mortgage scams from about the middle of 2004. They didn't get hit that bad.

The bulk of these Ponzi hits fell inheritors whose investment advisors took their rich-stupid clients in for the bribery-driven "AAA" slime-bonds.

Banks are moving heaven and earth and The Treasury to avoid dumping/de-acquisitioning/selling their housing overhangs -- excess empty houses that would normally recycle into the market as Starter Homes.

No recycling, no entry market, lots of doubling-up, screwed up housing market. That's a complicated comment. Sorry.