Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Bad News for the Median (and Below)

1

The housing numbers are no shock, but it's really depressing that I make that much less than the median income in King County.

Posted by Gitai | February 1, 2007 10:24 AM
2

I guess we need to bring everything back to Earth by tearing down the viaduct and driving our economy and all the suburbanites out of town with the resulting gridlock.

Posted by Gomez | February 1, 2007 10:40 AM
3

Is that household income or single wage earner income? Also what percentage of homes are bought by a single person with a single income? I assume most homes are purchased by couples with dual income.

I think the sentiment is correct but the numbers seem misleading or at least in need of some further definition.

Posted by GDC | February 1, 2007 10:48 AM
4

that's household median. median income in 2000 was $40,929 for males, $35,134 for females. I think you'd see median incomes at around $45,000 for males, $40,000 for females right now...

the per capita income in Seattle was $30,000 in 2000. Probably about $33,000 now.

Posted by JAK | February 1, 2007 10:55 AM
5

Okay, I'm depressed now.

Back in Fresno I'd be RICH!

Posted by monkey | February 1, 2007 11:03 AM
6

But someone told me on another post that all of this housing was good for the economy and I should shut up about median income earners not being able to afford to live in Seattle either by renting or buying. So we are all HAPPY!!!

Posted by Andrew | February 1, 2007 11:03 AM
7

Monkey,
Average home price in Fresno is actually $3k HIGHER than Seattle (and their median wage is nowhere close).

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/hpci_data/index.html

Posted by CA Transplant | February 1, 2007 11:08 AM
8

Huh. My wife and I are at or below the median, and can pay for our house, but I guess we spend a good deal more than 30% of our income on our mortgage.

I love that yesterday the PI's headline was announcing the "not so rosy" view that home prices would be falling in the near future. Oh noooo!

Posted by Levislade | February 1, 2007 11:16 AM
9

At $33k a year I don't make enough to really live in Seattle, but too much to get assistance for all my meds.

Posted by elswinger | February 1, 2007 11:27 AM
10

Right on Elswinger - I'm with you! I pull down $190k a year and I'll be damned if I can't find a single waterfront house that I can afford. What a joke. Doesn't this town understand that it owes it to us!

Posted by Brother in Arms | February 1, 2007 12:01 PM
11

I'm with you, BIA. Housing isn't a necessity, it's a luxury, and you whiners should all just shut up about it if you aren't smart enough to pull down a six-figure salary just so you don't have to eat Hamburger Helper (without the hamburger) five days a week in order to afford a $400K 2BR 1B 700 square foot "workman's cottage" on the back side of CapHill.

Really, why do we even let poor people live in Seattle? I mean, it's not like they really appreciate it. They never eat at Rover's or The Hunt Club, or purchase season tickets to The Paramount's "Best Of Broadway" series, or even shop at Sur la Table or Barney's or anything! So, how are they contributing to the Seattle economy?

If it weren't for their occasional usefulness as hotel maids, valet parking attendants and dish-washers, there'd be no reason for any of them to come into our Lovely City at all!

Posted by Smug Seattleite | February 1, 2007 12:17 PM
12

Is that household income or single wage earner income? Also what percentage of homes are bought by a single person with a single income? I assume most homes are purchased by couples with dual income.

I think the sentiment is correct but the numbers seem misleading or at least in need of some further definition.

Clearly, GDC falls into the 'the only way your life matters is if you get married' camp, i.e. 'single people shouldn't be allowed to own houses.'

Posted by Gomez | February 1, 2007 1:12 PM
13

Levislade, like most Americans overpaying for homes... all it would take is one of you losing your jobs to turn both of your lives upside down.

Posted by Gomez | February 1, 2007 1:14 PM
14

Thanks for the reminder, Gomez; don't think it's not on our minds all the time . . .

Posted by Levislade | February 1, 2007 1:20 PM
15

Moratorium on "Housing prices high, income low, woe is us" articles until their authors either invent a hundred acres in north Seattle or exterminate ten thousand households.

Yes, sometimes reality sucks and there is no solution.

Posted by Troy | February 1, 2007 4:05 PM
16

Thanks for the reminder, Gomez; don't think it's not on our minds all the time . . .

Well then, I wouldn't go thumping my chest and talking like it's so easy, if I were you.

Posted by Gomez | February 1, 2007 4:14 PM
17

Jeez! I hardly think I was thumping my chest - I certainly didn't intend to, anyway. Sometimes the Internet sucks for discussion, you know?

Posted by Levislade | February 2, 2007 9:11 AM
18

Gomez, I just saw this comment. I really was not meaning to "thump my chest" or claim anything was easy. Sometimes it's hard to convey ideas or tone across the magical Web of the Internets. Sorry if I offended.

Posted by Levislade | February 2, 2007 9:26 AM
19

dammit, sorry for the double post. Not sure what happened there . . .

Posted by Levislade | February 2, 2007 10:49 AM
20

#10 Spoken like a Republican asshole. How you can compare a yuppie mother fucker such as yourself with someone just looking for a clean, safe one bedroom apartment is beyond believable. You should move back to the OC douchebag.

Posted by elswinger | February 2, 2007 5:21 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).