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

[HappyJoy]

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.

You compared South Carolina at $7 an hour. That's an illegal. wage. My link says a living wage is over $10. That has nothing to do with whatever the fuck the minimum wage San Francisco chooses to pay.

 

[candycorn]

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...

I lived in Texas. If I were going to give the world an enema, I’d stick the nozzle right there. As for record numbers….good; perhaps I’ll be able to find a parking place near Bella’s or along the Wharf.

Everything is timid about Texas. The political leaders are jokes, the art scene is pretty dead—I heard Robert Plant even gave up on Austin. Somehow the shoreline and coastal views were morphed into a grotesque combination of what is worse; the green water or the garbage strewn beach. The weather? No contest. The topography of Texas is what tabletop flat for about 90% of the state? Better BBQ but that is hardly a reason to stay.

 

[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.


Why taxes should be adjusted for geographic cost of living

From the same article a family making $250,000 a year in Manhattan would be able to save $7,700 a year

A family making $250,000 a year in Indianapolis would be able to save over $92,400 a year.

Why taxes should be adjusted for geographic cost of living


Same income, more taxes
I calculated expenses for a Manhattan family of four with a combined salary of $250,000 and discovered that after taxes, rent, public transportation, groceries, clothing, individual health insurance, and saving for retirement and college, there would be about $700 extra per month remaining.

A similar analysis for a family of four in Indianapolis shows that, even owning a median-priced, three-bedroom home and a car, that family would have an eye-popping $7,700 extra per month left over, more than 10 times that of the family in Manhattan.




.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

You compared South Carolina at $7 an hour. That's an illegal. wage. My link says a living wage is over $10. That has nothing to do with whatever the fuck the minimum wage San Francisco chooses to pay.

Since when is $7.25 an illegal wage?



.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

Seriously?

Do you really want to go there?

I'd like to go to one of there, but not the other there.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

Seriously?

Do you really want to go there?

I'd like to go to one of there, but not the other there.

Cute, save it for someone who cares.



.

 

[boedicca]

For a dude who lives in a dingy trailer, you sure do come off as an arrogant prick.

Someone who earns $15 per hour in SF can have a little dignity and maybe not need any public assistance. Douche.

AHAHAHAHA!!!!! A studio apartment in SF costs $2-3K+ per month. Working full time for minimum wage is only about $2.4K per month. So, unless one shacks up with a couple of other people in said wee studio cubby hole, one would be forced onto the dole for food and necessities.

That's not exactly dignified, bub.

 

[SwimExpert]

Cute, save it for someone who cares.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

You compared South Carolina at $7 an hour. That's an illegal. wage. My link says a living wage is over $10. That has nothing to do with whatever the fuck the minimum wage San Francisco chooses to pay.

My mistake, I thought you OP stated $7 an hour. That being said, $7.25 should be considered criminally cheap.


.

My mistake, I thought your OP stated a $7. wage. However, $7.25 should be considered criminally cheap.

 

[candycorn]

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....

The costs of not living are much higher...

 

[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...

I lived in Texas. If I were going to give the world an enema, I’d stick the nozzle right there. As for record numbers….good; perhaps I’ll be able to find a parking place near Bella’s or along the Wharf.

Everything is timid about Texas. The political leaders are jokes, the art scene is pretty dead—I heard Robert Plant even gave up on Austin. Somehow the shoreline and coastal views were morphed into a grotesque combination of what is worse; the green water or the garbage strewn beach. The weather? No contest. The topography of Texas is what tabletop flat for about 90% of the state? Better BBQ but that is hardly a reason to stay.

Thank God you're gone, you need the enema, Texas does fine without you...

I know warmth and hospitality vs. plastic and phony...

Seems Plant doesn't share your views...

"I was very fortunate to enjoy great friendships in Austin, which I sadly miss. I found their hospitality and charm in Austin second to none."

You obviously haven't been to central or western Texas...

I loved the climate in California, I lived in Ventura the cost of living isn't worth it though...

The average American has a much better quality of life in Texas...

But you would have to have common sense to understand the difference...

 

[candycorn]

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...

I lived in Texas. If I were going to give the world an enema, I’d stick the nozzle right there. As for record numbers….good; perhaps I’ll be able to find a parking place near Bella’s or along the Wharf.

Everything is timid about Texas. The political leaders are jokes, the art scene is pretty dead—I heard Robert Plant even gave up on Austin. Somehow the shoreline and coastal views were morphed into a grotesque combination of what is worse; the green water or the garbage strewn beach. The weather? No contest. The topography of Texas is what tabletop flat for about 90% of the state? Better BBQ but that is hardly a reason to stay.

Thank God you're gone, you need the enema, Texas does fine without you...

I know warmth and hospitality vs. plastic and phony...

Seems Plant doesn't share your views...

"I was very fortunate to enjoy great friendships in Austin, which I sadly miss. I found their hospitality and charm in Austin second to none."

You obviously haven't been to central or western Texas...

I loved the climate in California, I lived in Ventura the cost of living isn't worth it though...

The average American has a much better quality of life in Texas...

But you would have to have common sense to understand the difference...

Central Texas? Do you mean Brenham where poison is a flavor of ice cream or Waco where inert material blows up or Austin where the "business friendly" regulators ignored both plants until the death certificates got someone's attention.

California is Texas's daddy in every possible way.

 

[initforme]

To answer the post, neither option presents any chance of happiness. Earning 7.25 per hour provides no chance at happiness nor a place to live. Why would anyone work for that miserable pay. $15 per hour in SF is not feasible either. Not a chance. That's why people get degrees, although they don't believe in edaca shun in south Carolina. Land of educationally deprived.

 

[candycorn]

...

Seems Plant doesn't share your views...

"I was very fortunate to enjoy great friendships in Austin, which I sadly miss. I found their hospitality and charm in Austin second to none."
ce...

If Texas was more like Austin, it would be more like California.

He gave up on it though...as good as Austin tries to be, it's surrounded by a sea of ignorance and poverty.

 

[Tax Man]

No matter how fine some think the pay is in Carolina you still are in carolina so anywhere in California is sooooooo much finer.

 

[initforme]

Charleston is nice...the rest of the state reminds me of Appalachia. Myrtle beach is OK too.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Been to both places. SF is special. South Carolina reeks

Hilton Head is quite nice. But then again, it's coastal. Anywhere coastal is nice.

Except during hurricane season. I lived there for 3 years.

 

[candycorn]

To answer the post, neither option presents any chance of happiness. Earning 7.25 per hour provides no chance at happiness nor a place to live. Why would anyone work for that miserable pay. $15 per hour in SF is not feasible either. Not a chance. That's why people get degrees, although they don't believe in edaca shun in south Carolina. Land of educationally deprived.

Having a tax base that is zero is great but the stakes are simply that you are exposed to less. Your kids may have AP calc classes (likely not) but not advanced courses in music or science. The school offers your daughter softball which helps keep her fit. Does it offer jiu jitsu or gymnastics? No...seriously? Softball is fine but the other disciplines reveal that max power and speed are often poor solutions to problems; nuanced pressure and subtle techniques prevail (sometimes).

 

[GWV5903]

Central Texas? Do you mean Brenham where poison is a flavor of ice cream or Waco where inert material blows up or Austin where the "business friendly" regulators ignored both plants until the death certificates got someone's attention.

Yeah that over regulated state of California is so good at preventing disasters, the latest...

The 112-day leak at the Aliso Canyon facility released about 5 billion cubic feet of methane into the atmosphere, making it by far the biggest single emitter of the gas anywhere in the country, according to detailed assessment published in the peer-reviewed journal Science.

One of two Brockovich made headlines with...

The case alleged contamination of drinking water with hexavalent chromium (also written as "chromium VI", "Cr-VI" or "Cr-6") in the southern California town of Hinkley. At the center of the case was a facility, the Hinkley compressor station, built in 1952 as a part of a natural-gas pipeline connecting to the San Francisco Bay Area. Between 1952 and 1966, PG&E used hexavalent chromium in a cooling tower system to fight corrosion. The wastewater was discharged to unlined ponds at the site, and some percolated into the groundwater, affecting an area near the plant approximately 2 by 1 mile (3.2 by 1.6 km).[6] The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) put the PG&E site under its regulations in 1968 (Region six – RWQCB WDRs and subsequent RWQCB board orders).

California is Texas's daddy in every possible way.

Keep telling yourself that, California may have one more real estate spike, after that they will be waterless...

 

[GWV5903]

If Texas was more like Austin, it would be more like California.

Austin is Texas, you have a microcosm of Austin confused with the whole city, but you have a lot of things confused with reality...

He gave up on it though...as good as Austin tries to be, it's surrounded by a sea of ignorance and poverty.

He gave up on going back and forth to the UK, not Austin...

Austin is the Live Music Capital of the World...

California has nothing to brag about when it comes to poverty levels...