Who has a better life? $15 hour in San Francisco?or $7.25 hour in South Carolina?

[Wyatt earp]

So, I saw a couple of posts that seemed to imply San Francisco is expensive because of taxes. Taxes? That makes this the most expensive city in the country? No.

It's actually a matter of supply and demand, there is not enough housing in the city and you have a lot of affluent people in the area who are more than happy to pay the going rate and drive up costs. San Francisco's foot print is relatively small for a major city and they are banked by the water on the West,, North and east sides. So the only way to provide more housing is through growing vertically and San Francisco has mostly resisted this change in their zoning laws which further exacerbates the cost of living.

Then you have the kids who move to the city thinking it's some sort of haven for wayward hippies, it's anything but and many of them either leave or become part of the homeless population, damaged souls running away from whatever.

None of this South Carolina has to deal with and to compare a $15 minimum wage in a single city to a state wide $7 wage is comparing apples to oranges. The suburbs of San Francisco provides relatively more affordable housing and combined with the bay area's expanding metro system commuting is straightforward and easy.

Here is an article about why San Francisco is expensive:

This One Intersection Explains Why Housing Is So Expensive In San Francisco

That's not the point of my thread, I was just using San Francisco and South carolina as examples, this was not my usual troll thread and trashing liberals, Unions and blue city's.

I like big city's like Chicago, New York. Boston, Los Angeles for example hey have a lot to offer and see.

The point I was trying to make is hearing over and over again about how much the average wage is more then redstates and nothing said about the cost of living....

 

[kaz]

When government sets your wage rather than free markets, you are getting welfare

Please. When a person works and gets paid for that work....it is not known as welfare. You arrogant prick, ya.

The difference between the market wage and what they earn is welfare. They aren't earning that money, it is given to them with government guns. That government doesn't hold the money between the payer and receiver of the welfare is irrelevant

Government is not setting anyone's wage. Government is mandating a minimum wage

A liberal skill is the ability to hold and simultaneously and totally believe two contradictory points as you do here

They are basically telling employers that their employers are going to be protected from being taken advantage of.....in much the same way other labor laws are established

They are telling employers to pay people money they aren't worth. If the employee wants to be paid more, it's on them to earn it, not the employer to just give it to them

Free markets.........require regulation. Always have. Always will.

Government doesn't "regulate," it controls, and that isn't free market

 

[Londoner]

Get in a time machine and go back to pre-Reagan America when the government was run for the middle class not the wealthy job shippers.

 

[GWV5903]

The only way I am living in San Francisco is with a 7 digit base and 7 digit bonus. Why in the world would you want to live there and struggle, life's too short...

Expose yourself to bigger, better, more, complexity.... Certainly you can live a cheaper, more timid life elsewhere. It's not for everyone

I currently and previously have lived in larger, better and extremely more complex cities than San Francisco...

Life is what you make of it, not necessarily where you live it...

Californians are flocking to Texas in record numbers because we have a better cost of living...

Liberal Politics have ruined California...

And BTW there is nothing timid about Texas...

 

[LoneLaugher]

When government sets your wage rather than free markets, you are getting welfare

Please. When a person works and gets paid for that work....it is not known as welfare. You arrogant prick, ya.

The difference between the market wage and what they earn is welfare. They aren't earning that money, it is given to them with government guns. That government doesn't hold the money between the payer and receiver of the welfare is irrelevant

Government is not setting anyone's wage. Government is mandating a minimum wage

A liberal skill is the ability to hold and simultaneously and totally believe two contradictory points as you do here

They are basically telling employers that their employers are going to be protected from being taken advantage of.....in much the same way other labor laws are established

They are telling employers to pay people money they aren't worth. If the employee wants to be paid more, it's on them to earn it, not the employer to just give it to them

Free markets.........require regulation. Always have. Always will.

Government doesn't "regulate," it controls, and that isn't free market

It is precisely the duty of an employer in a totally free market to pay an employee less than he or she is worth. If that were not the case, no minimum wage laws would be required.

 

[SwimExpert]

I think the question is best answered by asking who has the better neighbors?

 

[kaz]

When government sets your wage rather than free markets, you are getting welfare

Please. When a person works and gets paid for that work....it is not known as welfare. You arrogant prick, ya.

The difference between the market wage and what they earn is welfare. They aren't earning that money, it is given to them with government guns. That government doesn't hold the money between the payer and receiver of the welfare is irrelevant

Government is not setting anyone's wage. Government is mandating a minimum wage

A liberal skill is the ability to hold and simultaneously and totally believe two contradictory points as you do here

They are basically telling employers that their employers are going to be protected from being taken advantage of.....in much the same way other labor laws are established

They are telling employers to pay people money they aren't worth. If the employee wants to be paid more, it's on them to earn it, not the employer to just give it to them

Free markets.........require regulation. Always have. Always will.

Government doesn't "regulate," it controls, and that isn't free market

It is precisely the duty of an employer in a totally free market to pay an employee less than he or she is worth. If that were not the case, no minimum wage laws would be required.

You can't pay an employee less than they are worth in a free market, it's impossible. They wouldn't take the job if they had a better opportunity from someone else

 

[Pop23]

So, I saw a couple of posts that seemed to imply San Francisco is expensive because of taxes. Taxes? That makes this the most expensive city in the country? No.

It's actually a matter of supply and demand, there is not enough housing in the city and you have a lot of affluent people in the area who are more than happy to pay the going rate and drive up costs. San Francisco's foot print is relatively small for a major city and they are banked by the water on the West,, North and east sides. So the only way to provide more housing is through growing vertically and San Francisco has mostly resisted this change in their zoning laws which further exacerbates the cost of living.

Then you have the kids who move to the city thinking it's some sort of haven for wayward hippies, it's anything but and many of them either leave or become part of the homeless population, damaged souls running away from whatever.

None of this South Carolina has to deal with and to compare a $15 minimum wage in a single city to a state wide $7 wage is comparing apples to oranges. The suburbs of San Francisco provides relatively more affordable housing and combined with the bay area's expanding metro system commuting is straightforward and easy.

Here is an article about why San Francisco is expensive:

This One Intersection Explains Why Housing Is So Expensive In San Francisco

That's not the point of my thread, I was just using San Francisco and South carolina as examples, this was not my usual troll thread and trashing liberals, Unions and blue city's.

I like big city's like Chicago, New York. Boston, Los Angeles for example hey have a lot to offer and see.

The point I was trying to make is hearing over and over again about how much the average wage is more then redstates and nothing said about the cost of living....

Exactly,

I few years ago I was fortunate enough to stay a week in a home in the Berkley hills with an assessed value of over 3.5 million. In my Midwestern town the same house could be bought for, maybe 650K.

 

[HappyJoy]

So, I saw a couple of posts that seemed to imply San Francisco is expensive because of taxes. Taxes? That makes this the most expensive city in the country? No.

It's actually a matter of supply and demand, there is not enough housing in the city and you have a lot of affluent people in the area who are more than happy to pay the going rate and drive up costs. San Francisco's foot print is relatively small for a major city and they are banked by the water on the West,, North and east sides. So the only way to provide more housing is through growing vertically and San Francisco has mostly resisted this change in their zoning laws which further exacerbates the cost of living.

Then you have the kids who move to the city thinking it's some sort of haven for wayward hippies, it's anything but and many of them either leave or become part of the homeless population, damaged souls running away from whatever.

None of this South Carolina has to deal with and to compare a $15 minimum wage in a single city to a state wide $7 wage is comparing apples to oranges. The suburbs of San Francisco provides relatively more affordable housing and combined with the bay area's expanding metro system commuting is straightforward and easy.

Here is an article about why San Francisco is expensive:

This One Intersection Explains Why Housing Is So Expensive In San Francisco

That's not the point of my thread, I was just using San Francisco and South carolina as examples, this was not my usual troll thread and trashing liberals, Unions and blue city's.

I like big city's like Chicago, New York. Boston, Los Angeles for example hey have a lot to offer and see.

The point I was trying to make is hearing over and over again about how much the average wage is more then redstates and nothing said about the cost of living....

I disagree with your premise. You're only comparing a single city to an entire state. The most expensive city in the country to one of the cheapest states. Then you go further, let's not compare wages, let's compare minimum wages. Why? $7 bucks an hour and your poor everywhere. $15 bucks an hour and you're still poor but you can get by in the burbs if you had to. Send an average wage earner on a vacation to San Francisco and maybe they can afford motel 6 and McDonalds. Send a San Franciscan to South Carolina on vacation and maybe they'll buy another vacation home if they enjoy their time away from the noise of making money.

 

[hazlnut]

Where would you want to live and rent for $400 bucks a month?

This:

Or this box for $400 bucks a month in someone's 1 bedroom apartment?

Why it's not completely ridiculous to live in a $400 box in San Francisco



We started the search for a cat-friendly, one-bedroom apartment with the max price set to $2,500. It would be more than we spent in Washington, D.C., but split between the two of us, my boyfriend Brent and I could make that work. Zero results came up. We paid for an AirBnB for one full month to help us get settled and, ideally, not be forced into the first available apartment we found, so we took the next week to search online for apartments.

I could pay $1,400 for a private bedroom in a house with other roommates — but I’d have to leave Brent behind. I could live in the “PENTHOUSE DELUXX FULLY FURNISHED” scam that had a price tag of $99 a month. Or we could commute from San Jose. We gulped and bumped our search window up to $3,300. Finally, there were a number of options. I emailed all of them. Every single one. Photos or no photos. Regardless of neighborhood, distance from work or square footage, I emailed with my friendliest compliments about their “absolutely beautiful” properties...


Read more


Why it's not completely ridiculous to live in a $400 box in San Francisco

South Carolina vs. California.

Are you shitting me?

 

[HappyJoy]

So, I saw a couple of posts that seemed to imply San Francisco is expensive because of taxes. Taxes? That makes this the most expensive city in the country? No.

It's actually a matter of supply and demand, there is not enough housing in the city and you have a lot of affluent people in the area who are more than happy to pay the going rate and drive up costs. San Francisco's foot print is relatively small for a major city and they are banked by the water on the West,, North and east sides. So the only way to provide more housing is through growing vertically and San Francisco has mostly resisted this change in their zoning laws which further exacerbates the cost of living.

Then you have the kids who move to the city thinking it's some sort of haven for wayward hippies, it's anything but and many of them either leave or become part of the homeless population, damaged souls running away from whatever.

None of this South Carolina has to deal with and to compare a $15 minimum wage in a single city to a state wide $7 wage is comparing apples to oranges. The suburbs of San Francisco provides relatively more affordable housing and combined with the bay area's expanding metro system commuting is straightforward and easy.

Here is an article about why San Francisco is expensive:

This One Intersection Explains Why Housing Is So Expensive In San Francisco

That's not the point of my thread, I was just using San Francisco and South carolina as examples, this was not my usual troll thread and trashing liberals, Unions and blue city's.

I like big city's like Chicago, New York. Boston, Los Angeles for example hey have a lot to offer and see.

The point I was trying to make is hearing over and over again about how much the average wage is more then redstates and nothing said about the cost of living....

Exactly,

I few years ago I was fortunate enough to stay a week in a home in the Berkley hills with an assessed value of over 3.5 million. In my Midwestern town the same house could be bought for, maybe 650K.

And? Again, you're comparing an expensive area of Northern California to a "midwestern town". It has to do with supply and demand, your town just isn't as popular as the hills above Oakland and Berkeley.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I think the question is best answered by asking who has the better neighbors?

Seriously?

Do you really want to go there?

 

[kaz]

Where would you want to live and rent for $400 bucks a month?

This:

Or this box for $400 bucks a month in someone's 1 bedroom apartment?

Why it's not completely ridiculous to live in a $400 box in San Francisco



We started the search for a cat-friendly, one-bedroom apartment with the max price set to $2,500. It would be more than we spent in Washington, D.C., but split between the two of us, my boyfriend Brent and I could make that work. Zero results came up. We paid for an AirBnB for one full month to help us get settled and, ideally, not be forced into the first available apartment we found, so we took the next week to search online for apartments.

I could pay $1,400 for a private bedroom in a house with other roommates — but I’d have to leave Brent behind. I could live in the “PENTHOUSE DELUXX FULLY FURNISHED” scam that had a price tag of $99 a month. Or we could commute from San Jose. We gulped and bumped our search window up to $3,300. Finally, there were a number of options. I emailed all of them. Every single one. Photos or no photos. Regardless of neighborhood, distance from work or square footage, I emailed with my friendliest compliments about their “absolutely beautiful” properties...


Read more


Why it's not completely ridiculous to live in a $400 box in San Francisco

South Carolina vs. California.

Are you shitting me?

True dat, South Carolina's no place for a fag Muslim

 

[Wyatt earp]

So, I saw a couple of posts that seemed to imply San Francisco is expensive because of taxes. Taxes? That makes this the most expensive city in the country? No.

It's actually a matter of supply and demand, there is not enough housing in the city and you have a lot of affluent people in the area who are more than happy to pay the going rate and drive up costs. San Francisco's foot print is relatively small for a major city and they are banked by the water on the West,, North and east sides. So the only way to provide more housing is through growing vertically and San Francisco has mostly resisted this change in their zoning laws which further exacerbates the cost of living.

Then you have the kids who move to the city thinking it's some sort of haven for wayward hippies, it's anything but and many of them either leave or become part of the homeless population, damaged souls running away from whatever.

None of this South Carolina has to deal with and to compare a $15 minimum wage in a single city to a state wide $7 wage is comparing apples to oranges. The suburbs of San Francisco provides relatively more affordable housing and combined with the bay area's expanding metro system commuting is straightforward and easy.

Here is an article about why San Francisco is expensive:

This One Intersection Explains Why Housing Is So Expensive In San Francisco

That's not the point of my thread, I was just using San Francisco and South carolina as examples, this was not my usual troll thread and trashing liberals, Unions and blue city's.

I like big city's like Chicago, New York. Boston, Los Angeles for example hey have a lot to offer and see.

The point I was trying to make is hearing over and over again about how much the average wage is more then redstates and nothing said about the cost of living....

Exactly,

I few years ago I was fortunate enough to stay a week in a home in the Berkley hills with an assessed value of over 3.5 million. In my Midwestern town the same house could be bought for, maybe 650K.

And? Again, you're comparing an expensive area of Northern California to a "midwestern town". It has to do with supply and demand, your town just isn't as popular as the hills above Oakland and Berkeley.

Only One expensive city?

Only one Midwestern town?


.

 

[HappyJoy]

So, I saw a couple of posts that seemed to imply San Francisco is expensive because of taxes. Taxes? That makes this the most expensive city in the country? No.

It's actually a matter of supply and demand, there is not enough housing in the city and you have a lot of affluent people in the area who are more than happy to pay the going rate and drive up costs. San Francisco's foot print is relatively small for a major city and they are banked by the water on the West,, North and east sides. So the only way to provide more housing is through growing vertically and San Francisco has mostly resisted this change in their zoning laws which further exacerbates the cost of living.

Then you have the kids who move to the city thinking it's some sort of haven for wayward hippies, it's anything but and many of them either leave or become part of the homeless population, damaged souls running away from whatever.

None of this South Carolina has to deal with and to compare a $15 minimum wage in a single city to a state wide $7 wage is comparing apples to oranges. The suburbs of San Francisco provides relatively more affordable housing and combined with the bay area's expanding metro system commuting is straightforward and easy.

Here is an article about why San Francisco is expensive:

This One Intersection Explains Why Housing Is So Expensive In San Francisco

That's not the point of my thread, I was just using San Francisco and South carolina as examples, this was not my usual troll thread and trashing liberals, Unions and blue city's.

I like big city's like Chicago, New York. Boston, Los Angeles for example hey have a lot to offer and see.

The point I was trying to make is hearing over and over again about how much the average wage is more then redstates and nothing said about the cost of living....

Exactly,

I few years ago I was fortunate enough to stay a week in a home in the Berkley hills with an assessed value of over 3.5 million. In my Midwestern town the same house could be bought for, maybe 650K.

And? Again, you're comparing an expensive area of Northern California to a "midwestern town". It has to do with supply and demand, your town just isn't as popular as the hills above Oakland and Berkeley.

Only One expensive city?

Only one Midwestern town?


.

Yes, the hills in the East bay are very rich. Not, just squeaking by for California standards. Nobody lives there off of any minimum wage, whether its $7, $15 or $50 an hour.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So, I saw a couple of posts that seemed to imply San Francisco is expensive because of taxes. Taxes? That makes this the most expensive city in the country? No.

It's actually a matter of supply and demand, there is not enough housing in the city and you have a lot of affluent people in the area who are more than happy to pay the going rate and drive up costs. San Francisco's foot print is relatively small for a major city and they are banked by the water on the West,, North and east sides. So the only way to provide more housing is through growing vertically and San Francisco has mostly resisted this change in their zoning laws which further exacerbates the cost of living.

Then you have the kids who move to the city thinking it's some sort of haven for wayward hippies, it's anything but and many of them either leave or become part of the homeless population, damaged souls running away from whatever.

None of this South Carolina has to deal with and to compare a $15 minimum wage in a single city to a state wide $7 wage is comparing apples to oranges. The suburbs of San Francisco provides relatively more affordable housing and combined with the bay area's expanding metro system commuting is straightforward and easy.

Here is an article about why San Francisco is expensive:

This One Intersection Explains Why Housing Is So Expensive In San Francisco

That's not the point of my thread, I was just using San Francisco and South carolina as examples, this was not my usual troll thread and trashing liberals, Unions and blue city's.

I like big city's like Chicago, New York. Boston, Los Angeles for example hey have a lot to offer and see.

The point I was trying to make is hearing over and over again about how much the average wage is more then redstates and nothing said about the cost of living....

Exactly,

I few years ago I was fortunate enough to stay a week in a home in the Berkley hills with an assessed value of over 3.5 million. In my Midwestern town the same house could be bought for, maybe 650K.

And? Again, you're comparing an expensive area of Northern California to a "midwestern town". It has to do with supply and demand, your town just isn't as popular as the hills above Oakland and Berkeley.

More then supply and demand


Why You Pay Extra to Live in the City

Research by the Urban Land Institute's Terwilliger Center for Housing finds that in many urban areas, including Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Boston, working families often struggle to find affordable housing. Indeed, the price of housing often gets the most attention when it comes to measuring the cost of city living. Rent and housing prices tend to be significantly higher in urban locations. But city dwellers face other extra costs, too. Here are seven less-obvious costs of city living:


Entertainment: When you live close to the movie theaters and live entertainment such as plays and concerts, it's more tempting to pay to see them. In some cases, you can access the performing arts for free, but many city events require paid tickets.

Clothes: People who live in cities often feel more pressure to stay stylish. That means spending more on clothes, as well as shoes, which can get worn down more quickly with all of the city walking and public transportation use.

Schools and daycare: This one only applies to families with children, but paying for child care is often much more expensive in urban areas than suburban and rural ones. Families who choose to send their children to private school because they don't like their urban school districts also face expensive tuitions.

Food: In addition to the fact that produce and other fresh food can cost more at urban grocery stores, there are also more temptations for lots of daily food expenditures, from coffee to take-out to midday snacks. When you pass five cafes on your way to work, in can be hard to keep walking without stopping in for a treat.



Exercise: This cost can go both ways, because suburban and rural dwellers might spend so much time in their cars that they feel the need to buy an at-home gym or DVDs in order to squeeze in exercise time. Urbanites, on the other hand, might walk enough to stay in shape, but they also usually have easy access to gyms, and might want to join so they can exercise free from the city smog and traffic

Parking: Only in cities do you need to rent parking spaces for $200 a month (or higher). Of course, you might be able to avoid driving altogether, but if not, you'll be forced to pay a higher price for the luxury.

Taxes and insurance: Cities often charge higher tax rates and insurance companies charge more to cover the additional risk of living in a high-population area, where your car might be more likely to be stolen and your home more likely to be broken into.

 

[HappyJoy]

So, I saw a couple of posts that seemed to imply San Francisco is expensive because of taxes. Taxes? That makes this the most expensive city in the country? No.

It's actually a matter of supply and demand, there is not enough housing in the city and you have a lot of affluent people in the area who are more than happy to pay the going rate and drive up costs. San Francisco's foot print is relatively small for a major city and they are banked by the water on the West,, North and east sides. So the only way to provide more housing is through growing vertically and San Francisco has mostly resisted this change in their zoning laws which further exacerbates the cost of living.

Then you have the kids who move to the city thinking it's some sort of haven for wayward hippies, it's anything but and many of them either leave or become part of the homeless population, damaged souls running away from whatever.

None of this South Carolina has to deal with and to compare a $15 minimum wage in a single city to a state wide $7 wage is comparing apples to oranges. The suburbs of San Francisco provides relatively more affordable housing and combined with the bay area's expanding metro system commuting is straightforward and easy.

Here is an article about why San Francisco is expensive:

This One Intersection Explains Why Housing Is So Expensive In San Francisco

That's not the point of my thread, I was just using San Francisco and South carolina as examples, this was not my usual troll thread and trashing liberals, Unions and blue city's.

I like big city's like Chicago, New York. Boston, Los Angeles for example hey have a lot to offer and see.

The point I was trying to make is hearing over and over again about how much the average wage is more then redstates and nothing said about the cost of living....

Exactly,

I few years ago I was fortunate enough to stay a week in a home in the Berkley hills with an assessed value of over 3.5 million. In my Midwestern town the same house could be bought for, maybe 650K.

And? Again, you're comparing an expensive area of Northern California to a "midwestern town". It has to do with supply and demand, your town just isn't as popular as the hills above Oakland and Berkeley.

More then supply and demand


Why You Pay Extra to Live in the City

Research by the Urban Land Institute's Terwilliger Center for Housing finds that in many urban areas, including Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Boston, working families often struggle to find affordable housing. Indeed, the price of housing often gets the most attention when it comes to measuring the cost of city living. Rent and housing prices tend to be significantly higher in urban locations. But city dwellers face other extra costs, too. Here are seven less-obvious costs of city living:


Entertainment: When you live close to the movie theaters and live entertainment such as plays and concerts, it's more tempting to pay to see them. In some cases, you can access the performing arts for free, but many city events require paid tickets.

Clothes: People who live in cities often feel more pressure to stay stylish. That means spending more on clothes, as well as shoes, which can get worn down more quickly with all of the city walking and public transportation use.

Schools and daycare: This one only applies to families with children, but paying for child care is often much more expensive in urban areas than suburban and rural ones. Families who choose to send their children to private school because they don't like their urban school districts also face expensive tuitions.

Food: In addition to the fact that produce and other fresh food can cost more at urban grocery stores, there are also more temptations for lots of daily food expenditures, from coffee to take-out to midday snacks. When you pass five cafes on your way to work, in can be hard to keep walking without stopping in for a treat.



Exercise: This cost can go both ways, because suburban and rural dwellers might spend so much time in their cars that they feel the need to buy an at-home gym or DVDs in order to squeeze in exercise time. Urbanites, on the other hand, might walk enough to stay in shape, but they also usually have easy access to gyms, and might want to join so they can exercise free from the city smog and traffic

Parking: Only in cities do you need to rent parking spaces for $200 a month (or higher). Of course, you might be able to avoid driving altogether, but if not, you'll be forced to pay a higher price for the luxury.

Taxes and insurance: Cities often charge higher tax rates and insurance companies charge more to cover the additional risk of living in a high-population area, where your car might be more likely to be stolen and your home more likely to be broken into.

Its still supply and demand. Anywhere the ultra rich live the cost of living rises.

Now, what your point is and you should just say it is that states like South Carolina don't need a raise in the minimum wage and for whatever reason your comparing it to San Francisco. Hey, newsflash, a $15 minimum wage in San Francisco still leaves you in poverty. In South Carolina You need about $10 - 11 an hour to receive a living wage.

Living Wage Calculator - Living Wage Calculation for South Carolina

The question is, what should the federal minimum wage be and individual states can as they do now increase depending on their own circumstances. I'm cool with that. So, again, why are you comparing San Francisco to South Carolina?

 

[Wyatt earp]

I found the article I read years ago and looking for:


Why taxes should be adjusted for geographic cost of living

Why taxes should be adjusted for geographic cost of living

Our national discussion regarding income tax brackets has so far failed to address one of the major inequities of America's tax system. Dual-income households living in high-cost areasshoulder a tax burden disproportionate to those at their same standard of living in the rest of the country. And, not surprisingly,Manhattan workers carry the heaviest load.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 2010 average weekly wage in Manhattan was $2,404, or just over $125,000 a year. The top-heavy financial sector skewed these numbers, as did the 22 percent living in poverty. However, Manhattan wages are still higher than the national average across all supersectors.

Of course, Manhattan salaries are high for a reason: They must meet the basic costs of living there. A 2009Center for an Urban Future study compared the costs of living in Manhattan with other areas around the country and concluded, "Income levels that would enable a very comfortable lifestyle in other locales barely suffice to provide the basics inNew York City."

middle class wage earners hard. The same study revealed that in 2009 a family attempting to live on around $26,000 a year in Atlanta would have to make $60,000 to meet their basic needs in Manhattan.

Consequently, a struggling Manhattan family with a yearly salary of $60,000, but a standard of living uncomfortably close to the federal poverty line, is taxed at a higher rate than a family with that same standard of living in Atlanta (making $26,000 a year).

The higher costs in Manhattan quickly bump the dual-income families who can least afford it into higher tax brackets.

This disparity is exacerbated by state and local tax burdens. Manhattan families with higher incomes not only pay more federal income tax, they pay more income taxes overall.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So, I saw a couple of posts that seemed to imply San Francisco is expensive because of taxes. Taxes? That makes this the most expensive city in the country? No.

It's actually a matter of supply and demand, there is not enough housing in the city and you have a lot of affluent people in the area who are more than happy to pay the going rate and drive up costs. San Francisco's foot print is relatively small for a major city and they are banked by the water on the West,, North and east sides. So the only way to provide more housing is through growing vertically and San Francisco has mostly resisted this change in their zoning laws which further exacerbates the cost of living.

Then you have the kids who move to the city thinking it's some sort of haven for wayward hippies, it's anything but and many of them either leave or become part of the homeless population, damaged souls running away from whatever.

None of this South Carolina has to deal with and to compare a $15 minimum wage in a single city to a state wide $7 wage is comparing apples to oranges. The suburbs of San Francisco provides relatively more affordable housing and combined with the bay area's expanding metro system commuting is straightforward and easy.

Here is an article about why San Francisco is expensive:

This One Intersection Explains Why Housing Is So Expensive In San Francisco

That's not the point of my thread, I was just using San Francisco and South carolina as examples, this was not my usual troll thread and trashing liberals, Unions and blue city's.

I like big city's like Chicago, New York. Boston, Los Angeles for example hey have a lot to offer and see.

The point I was trying to make is hearing over and over again about how much the average wage is more then redstates and nothing said about the cost of living....

Exactly,

I few years ago I was fortunate enough to stay a week in a home in the Berkley hills with an assessed value of over 3.5 million. In my Midwestern town the same house could be bought for, maybe 650K.

And? Again, you're comparing an expensive area of Northern California to a "midwestern town". It has to do with supply and demand, your town just isn't as popular as the hills above Oakland and Berkeley.

More then supply and demand


Why You Pay Extra to Live in the City

Research by the Urban Land Institute's Terwilliger Center for Housing finds that in many urban areas, including Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Boston, working families often struggle to find affordable housing. Indeed, the price of housing often gets the most attention when it comes to measuring the cost of city living. Rent and housing prices tend to be significantly higher in urban locations. But city dwellers face other extra costs, too. Here are seven less-obvious costs of city living:


Entertainment: When you live close to the movie theaters and live entertainment such as plays and concerts, it's more tempting to pay to see them. In some cases, you can access the performing arts for free, but many city events require paid tickets.

Clothes: People who live in cities often feel more pressure to stay stylish. That means spending more on clothes, as well as shoes, which can get worn down more quickly with all of the city walking and public transportation use.

Schools and daycare: This one only applies to families with children, but paying for child care is often much more expensive in urban areas than suburban and rural ones. Families who choose to send their children to private school because they don't like their urban school districts also face expensive tuitions.

Food: In addition to the fact that produce and other fresh food can cost more at urban grocery stores, there are also more temptations for lots of daily food expenditures, from coffee to take-out to midday snacks. When you pass five cafes on your way to work, in can be hard to keep walking without stopping in for a treat.



Exercise: This cost can go both ways, because suburban and rural dwellers might spend so much time in their cars that they feel the need to buy an at-home gym or DVDs in order to squeeze in exercise time. Urbanites, on the other hand, might walk enough to stay in shape, but they also usually have easy access to gyms, and might want to join so they can exercise free from the city smog and traffic

Parking: Only in cities do you need to rent parking spaces for $200 a month (or higher). Of course, you might be able to avoid driving altogether, but if not, you'll be forced to pay a higher price for the luxury.

Taxes and insurance: Cities often charge higher tax rates and insurance companies charge more to cover the additional risk of living in a high-population area, where your car might be more likely to be stolen and your home more likely to be broken into.

Its still supply and demand. Anywhere the ultra rich live the cost of living rises.

Now, what your point is and you should just say it is that states like South Carolina don't need a raise in the minimum wage and for whatever reason your comparing it to San Francisco. Hey, newsflash, a $15 minimum wage in San Francisco still leaves you in poverty. In South Carolina You need about $10 - 11 an hour to receive a living wage.

Living Wage Calculator - Living Wage Calculation for South Carolina

The question is, what should the federal minimum wage be and individual states can as they do now increase depending on their own circumstances. I'm cool with that. So, again, why are you comparing San Francisco to South Carolina?

Not that complicated read the OP for drastic examples and quit focusing on San Francisco and South Carolina, Jesus Christ. .....

 

[HappyJoy]

I found the article I read years ago and looking for:


Why taxes should be adjusted for geographic cost of living

Why taxes should be adjusted for geographic cost of living

Our national discussion regarding income tax brackets has so far failed to address one of the major inequities of America's tax system. Dual-income households living in high-cost areasshoulder a tax burden disproportionate to those at their same standard of living in the rest of the country. And, not surprisingly,Manhattan workers carry the heaviest load.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 2010 average weekly wage in Manhattan was $2,404, or just over $125,000 a year. The top-heavy financial sector skewed these numbers, as did the 22 percent living in poverty. However, Manhattan wages are still higher than the national average across all supersectors.

Of course, Manhattan salaries are high for a reason: They must meet the basic costs of living there. A 2009Center for an Urban Future study compared the costs of living in Manhattan with other areas around the country and concluded, "Income levels that would enable a very comfortable lifestyle in other locales barely suffice to provide the basics inNew York City."

middle class wage earners hard. The same study revealed that in 2009 a family attempting to live on around $26,000 a year in Atlanta would have to make $60,000 to meet their basic needs in Manhattan.

Consequently, a struggling Manhattan family with a yearly salary of $60,000, but a standard of living uncomfortably close to the federal poverty line, is taxed at a higher rate than a family with that same standard of living in Atlanta (making $26,000 a year).

The higher costs in Manhattan quickly bump the dual-income families who can least afford it into higher tax brackets.

This disparity is exacerbated by state and local tax burdens. Manhattan families with higher incomes not only pay more federal income tax, they pay more income taxes overall.

I get it. Somebody wants the blue states to pay their federal taxes for them. You do realize it's a progressive tax system, right?