Inflation..... wow the differance between Washington State and South Carolina is real!!!!

[MillauFr]

What I have just realized is that the percentage of inflation compared to what I make is pretty negligible. Costs were always high here because our min wage was always high. In South Carolina the costs were low and when wages were forced up in COVID (lack of people to work) the costs increased significantly. Those increases made the prices jump much more then in Washington State.

It depends what cities you are comparing. Is the cost of living in Spokane about the same as Charlston? Yes. But if you add Seattle in the mix no place in South Carolina comes close to the cost of living in Seattle.

 

[summerlyangel]

YES!!! SC is FULL!!!



You must live close to me. I live in Fort Mill. Housing prices have gotten insane. Rarely do you meet anyone that is originally from this area. People are moving here like crazy mainly due to the fact our schools are good and the proximity to Charlotte. Most are moving from states where housing is higher and not blinking at houses in the 500K-700K range on tiny postage stamp size lots.

I'm in Rock Hill, near the hospital. The growth is just unbelievable! I know it's even crazier in Fort Mill. 77 is a mess!

 

[TCRAIG]

YES!!! SC is FULL!!!



You must live close to me. I live in Fort Mill. Housing prices have gotten insane. Rarely do you meet anyone that is originally from this area. People are moving here like crazy mainly due to the fact our schools are good and the proximity to Charlotte. Most are moving from states where housing is higher and not blinking at houses in the 500K-700K range on tiny postage stamp size lots.

I’m down the road a bit - I’m in Rock Thrill…I mean Hill.

 

[TCRAIG]

It depends what cities you are comparing. Is the cost of living in Spokane about the same as Charlston? Yes. But if you add Seattle in the mix no place in South Carolina comes close to the cost of living in Seattle.

Umm- I’m thinking Isle of Palms, Sullivan Island, Hilton Head, Daniel Island, Mt Pleasant, ETC could come close to Seattle…

 

[Wendy31]

Just like about everywhere else in the South, TN wages have not kept up w/ the inflation. Additionally, people w/ higher salaries from places like California moving here have driven prices sky-high, & housing is absolutely crazy.

People are moving to the South to get away from where they are for various reasons - politics, cost of living, taxes, better weather, etc.

New construction in what was previously gorgeous farmland & fields is everywhere. But the road infrastructure has NOT kept up the growth, & traffic is horrid.

TN is full, y’all.

And there are reasons for all the “Don’t California my Tennessee” signs & memes.

 

[gmi3804]

Home builders aren't interested in building starter homes because the profit margins are much better on larger homes with more amenities. Same reason US automakers are dropping baseline vehicles for models they can load up and charge 50k-plus for. $300-plus per night hotel room rates have been proliferating to wider and wider range of locales, not simply major cities or super desirable destinations.

Bubble's bound to burst at some point. Income levels simply haven't reached the level to sustain these stratospheric increases.

If your theories are correct, that's income inequality, and the business instinct to cater to the "haves," at work right there. No different from urban (and rural) food wastelands.

 

[barkley]

Looking at the massive surface parking lots surrounding the suburban BART stations in the Bay Area is ludicrous. Why haven't they built massive amounts of housing around them instead?

it may be different now with housing shortages but historicaly people have not wanted to live immediatly near mass transit. BART was born of creating a means for people who lived in the burbs to commute to san francisco, oakland and berkeley. i studied a whole unit on it in the 80's in college wherein it was explained how BART anticipated housing would grow in the different counties as they expanded (people have a mindset they may be entirely unaware of on how far they are willing to 'self commute'/drive their own vehicle). an individual station goes in/other transit to access that station is eastablished and they hypothosized you would see expansion in outlying communities. eliminate 30 minutes of driving and areas of housing demand pushes out another 30 minutes. i saw it years later in action as busses to the BART lots were added in areas like fairfield and vacaville-housing started booming in dixon, similarly in areas of contra costa-i remember a drive through miles of nothing much between martinez, pittsburg and antioch while now it's wall to wall developments. even the parking lots are a reminder to the commuter that they are commuting-and they have not historicaly wanted to live with a visual reminder out their front window of that daily commute/grind.

at least that was the industry belief back in the day.

 

[Rex1993]

No one who breathed the air in Los Angeles in the 1970s would ever make a statement like this. I agree with you that California government has definitely overreached in some areas but efforts to clean up the air have been a huge success. The NIMBY crowd in California is what needs to be stopped. Looking at the massive surface parking lots surrounding the suburban BART stations in the Bay Area is ludicrous. Why haven't they built massive amounts of housing around them instead?

There are huge apartment/condo developments adjacent to most of the East Bay BART stations, even Lafayette. What am I missing?

 

[cabanafrau]

If your theories are correct, that's income inequality, and the business instinct to cater to the "haves," at work right there. No different from urban (and rural) food wastelands.

My "theories" are backed by statements from industry officials in two of the three sectors I've cited, namely homebuilders and automakers alluding to the fact that they have shifted their focus specifically towards higher profit margins. As far as the hotel sector, that is anecdotally based on my observations of pricing shifts occurring over the past two to three years, which is a marked departure from past experiences of same and/or similar properties at same and/or similar destinations.

Easily enough to brush it off as capitalism doing what capitalism does, until pausing a beat to think a bit more. Has our economy truly taken a rocket ride to the point where there is simply no market for starter level homes, entry level basic autos, and Hampton Inn level hotel rooms with $150 a night rates? That's not suggesting that there aren't or shouldn't be segments of society that are able to afford larger homes with commensurate amenities or autos crammed to the brim with every bell, whistle and luxury one could want.

I'd suggest that no, our economy has not suddenly supercharged to the point where the overwhelming majority of people with reasonable means can suddenly sustain such a market in the ways they have traditionally done so. It's very interesting how the very market segments being shunned as unprofitable at the moment are one and the same as those that fueled the engines of growth in this economy for decades. Curious how that was clearly understood all the way back to the Model Ts and stretching to the Chevy Cavaliers, etc. Yet now we have Toyota happy to count all the coin from the RAV 4 market that Detroit thumbs its nose at. Very, very different from urban and rural food wastelands as you posit.

 

[Lumpy1106]

No one who breathed the air in Los Angeles in the 1970s would ever make a statement like this. I agree with you that California government has definitely overreached in some areas but efforts to clean up the air have been a huge success. The NIMBY crowd in California is what needs to be stopped. Looking at the massive surface parking lots surrounding the suburban BART stations in the Bay Area is ludicrous. Why haven't they built massive amounts of housing around them instead?

Two entirely different things - but thanks for playing. What cleaned up the air was emissions standards. You can't re-register your car unless it passes, and all of that happened back in the 80s when CA gas prices were still comparable to the rest of the nation. BART is BART, and WAS a really nice way to get around the Bay Area - not really anymore, but that's a whole other issue. I am really curious how you think commuters are going to use BART if they don't have anywhere to put their cars when they get there (hint: they won't).

If you want to defend how the gas tax is used in CA, well, that's a fool's errand. Suffice to say, roads are a lot nicer in AZ for a reason.

 

[obsesseddisneyfan]

Umm- I’m thinking Isle of Palms, Sullivan Island, Hilton Head, Daniel Island, Mt Pleasant, ETC could come close to Seattle…

I live just south of Seattle and the grocery stores 30 min outside of myrtle beach are about the same price.

 

[MillauFr]

Two entirely different things - but thanks for playing. What cleaned up the air was emissions standards. You can't re-register your car unless it passes, and all of that happened back in the 80s when CA gas prices were still comparable to the rest of the nation. BART is BART, and WAS a really nice way to get around the Bay Area - not really anymore, but that's a whole other issue. I am really curious how you think commuters are going to use BART if they don't have anywhere to put their cars when they get there (hint: they won't).

If you want to defend how the gas tax is used in CA, well, that's a fool's errand. Suffice to say, roads are a lot nicer in AZ for a reason.

If they build ten of thousands of housing units within walking distance of the BART stations they won't need to drive to the station. That is the point. Cars are very expensive and the #2 most expensive item in most family's budget.

 

[MillauFr]

There are huge apartment/condo developments adjacent to most of the East Bay BART stations, even Lafayette. What am I missing?

Why do they have massive surface parking lots next to Richmond, El Cerrito Del Norte, North Berkley, Bay Fair, Hayward, South Hayward, Union City, Fremont, Warm Springs, Berryessa, etc...??? That makes no sense. Complete waste of space. Should be 20 story high rise apartments on every single one of those parking lots.

 

[MillauFr]

But the road infrastructure has NOT kept up the growth, & traffic is horrid.

It isn't possible to keep widening roads to keep up with growth. The roads just encourage more growth. Otherwise Houston would have solved traffic congestion by now. They tried widening the Katy Freeway to 26 lanes wide to reduce travel times. It was an epic disaster.

 

[NotUrsula]

That's what Toyota was doing with me when I was car shopping last year. I was interested in a Prius which start at $27K and go to about $35K for the highest trim package. They told me that if I wanted to order one, it would be about $42K. I asked if that was for the base model? They said that they can't get the base model - "They don't really come that way," they said. Then why is it even offered? Why even have a $27K model on the website? Essentially, they were going to do everything to jack up the price, and they could because these things were flying off the lot as soon as they could get them. I went to Subaru and they sold me an Imprezza Sport for MSRP.

Funny, back in 2019 I had essentially the same conversation with the folks at 2 Toyota dealers, and just as you say, it was the Subaru folks who were willing to actually sell me what *I* wanted instead of what they wanted to sell. A full week after giving me the whole "take it or leave it" speech the sales person from Toyota called me up with a more conciliatory attitude. It was rather a pleasure to inform her that it was too little too late because I was taking delivery of an Outback within the hour -- a car that had been brought in from the other side of the state for me at no add'l charge because it had the exact specifications and trim that I wanted.

Toyota does make reliable cars, but their pricing model practically charges you to have glass included in the windows, and the sales dept. attitude is insufferable.

I've said it before here and I'll say it again. The housing situation is not the fault of developers, who are in business to make money and thus take advantage of every design and construction loophole they are given by local governments. The *real* problem is those local governments, who don't have the stones to stand up to business interests and do what is right for the people of their communities. They should be issuing permits for the kinds of residential building that is actually needed in their communties, not just what developers WANT to build. That's the difference in cars vs. homes; local governments have recourse to planning and zoning power to keep spec-built home stock right-sized for local pay rates; it's just that most of the time they are too grasping and corrupt to use it. If what your public workers can afford is $130K, then you leverage that to make sure developers build it if they wat to sell in your community (and since land is finite, they will, because some profit is better than no profit, after all.)

 

[Lumpy1106]

If they build ten of thousands of housing units within walking distance of the BART stations they won't need to drive to the station. That is the point. Cars are very expensive and the #2 most expensive item in most family's budget.

That assumes you want to live in those housing units, and that everyone in your household is using BART to get to their jobs and schools that are also right next to a BART station. That's...never been my experience.

 

[NotUrsula]

That assumes you want to live in those housing units, and that everyone in your household is using BART to get to their jobs and schools that are also right next to a BART station. That's...never been my experience.

What tends to happen in areas where train systems go in after being eliminated for decades is that housing right near stations increases in value, but appeals only to singles or young couples, who mostly want smaller options. Once 2 breadwinners, and especially children, become part of the equation, living in an area with busy traffic and going everywhere by train is usually no longer an optimal situation. Car-shares were supposed to be the middle-ground solution, but the pandemic largely killed that option (and they tend to be quite expensive and hard to reserve at specific times. OK for grocery shopping, but much less so for driving Kindie carpool in the morning.)

These days, the best target for housing built near mass transit is students and singles who travel to cities for work. Young families tend to find such areas cost too much and have the wrong set of amenities for their needs. They are mostly dual-income families, though, so having one adult drive the other to the station usually isn't very workable either. (I say this as someone who works mostly at home and has been doing the station run for about a year, because DH has been taking the train to his center-city office and letting DD take his car to school and her job and her various suburban after-school activities. I often have to leave the house during the day to do tasks for clients in suburban areas, so I need my car available at short notice.)

One of the phenomena that turned up here when the train system was built is that they mis-judged how gender would influence nearby residents. The train comes close to a few hospitals, and it was presumed nearby housing would be attractive to medical workers. Med students do live in the nearby developments, but not so many female hospital staff, and not as many female students, either. What they now know was the catch is that single female medical workers do like living an easy commute to the hospitals where they work, but they won't ride the trains &/or walk near the stations alone at night, which takes away at least 33% of the available market, because there is always at least one of the 3 hospital shifts that requires a dark-time commute.

 

[barkley]

What tends to happen in areas where train systems go in after being eliminated for decades is that housing right near stations increases in value, but appeals only to singles or young couples, who mostly want smaller options. Once 2 breadwinners, and especially children, become part of the equation, living in an area with busy traffic and going everywhere by train is usually no longer an optimal situation. Car-shares were supposed to be the middle-ground solution, but the pandemic largely killed that option (and they tend to be quite expensive and hard to reserve at specific times. OK for grocery shopping, but much less so for driving Kindie carpool in the morning.)

These days, the best target for housing built near mass transit is students and singles who travel to cities for worlk. Young families tend to find such areas cost too much and have the wrong set of amenities for their needs. They are mostly dual-income families, though, so having one adult drive the other to the station usually isn't very workable either. (I say this as someone who works mostly at home and has been doing the station run for about a year, because DH has been taking the train to his center-city office and letting DD take his car to school and her job and her various suburban after-school activities. I often have to leave the house during the day to do tasks for clients in suburban areas, so I need my car available at short notice.)

One of the phenomena that turned up here when the train system was built is that they mis-judged how gender would influence nearby residents. The train comes close to a few hospitals, and it was presumed nearby housing would be attractive to medical workers. Med students do live in the nearby developments, but not so many female hospital staff, and not as many female students, either. What they now know was the catch is that single female medical workers do like living an easy commute to the hospitals where they work, but they won't ride the trains &/or walk near the stations alone at night, which takes away at least 33% of the available market, because there is always at least one of the 3 hospital shifts that requires a dark-time commute.

again, i've not lived in the bay area for over a decade so areas can change (and i'm not familiar with the newer stations) but when BART was established at least a couple of the stations were in HIGHLY crime ridden areas that did not see any value increase from it's presence. i worked within short walking distance to one and despite it being (at the time) less costly for many of my co-workers to ride it vs. facing long commutes i don't know of a single person who opted to do so for fear of life and limb. the other large scale employers nearby also had a majority of car commuters b/c of horrific crime so while BART stopped at those stations there was a much lower amount of ridership.

 

[RangerPooh]

Regarding the cars at BART stations, not everyone wants to or can afford to live along the BART line. I grew up in the 80s and 90s south of San Jose. We were told that BART, light rail, and Cal Trains would extend to us. By the time I left in the early 00’s all we had was limited Cal Trains service. Last I checked, that’s still all they have. lots of promises, little follow through.

I keep reading that TN is rising fast....particularly the 'burbs outside Nashville, with home prices skyrocketing beyond what most can afford. Is that hyperbole or can any locals confirm?

In Shelby County the burbs outside of Memphis keep increasing in price. Better schools, nicer neighborhoods, slightly lower crime rates. Browsing new builds in my community they start at the $575k, with most in the $640k range. I’m curious where these people work? I know many military families in these neighborhoods and others who are house poor because here neighborhood is everything.

New construction in what was previously gorgeous farmland & fields is everywhere. But the road infrastructure has NOT kept up the growth, & traffic is horrid.

Infrastructure here in west TN sucks! Money is not put into expanding or resurfacing roads. Potholes are only patched, temporarily.

 

[NotUrsula]

again, i've not lived in the bay area for over a decade so areas can change (and i'm not familiar with the newer stations) but when BART was established at least a couple of the stations were in HIGHLY crime ridden areas that did not see any value increase from it's presence. i worked within short walking distance to one and despite it being (at the time) less costly for many of my co-workers to ride it vs. facing long commutes i don't know of a single person who opted to do so for fear of life and limb. the other large scale employers nearby also had a majority of car commuters b/c of horrific crime so while BART stopped at those stations there was a much lower amount of ridership.

Yes, I can see that would be true if a station was put into a high-crime residential area without the area around it being flattened and rebuilt.

I'm sure there are some I'm not at all familiar with, and I know nothing about California systems these days, my friends there all having relocated out of state. However, the projects I've been following in recent years seem to all be going the same way. The stations are not being built in existing residential areas at all. What seems more the norm is the scorched-earth option using old freight rights of way. In that scenario the system construction contractor flattens several blocks, and new streetscapes and housing are put in along with the station and tracks. Usually the developers learn the planned route long before it is announced and start buying up lots of surrounding land, so that they are in position to get buildings in at rock-bottom cost. In every case I've encountered, the developer made a killing on the new buildings near the stations, lots of small businesses moved in to support new residents, but within about 5 years the area would stagnate and become known for being a place young people live for a few years then just move on. Not high crime, not a food desert, just blah small box apartments and too busy with traffic.