This is a bullshit story for sure. Anyone who lives in Seattle knows this is simply not true. If you move south to Kent or Tacoma you will find a lot of places with a decent rent.
Same if you start moving north to Shoreline and above.
Those places are not far from Seattle. If you live in a freaking RV in downtown that's definitely your choice.
I don't make 250k, my wife's income included, and we own a home just north of Seattle. I bus it in and she drives to her job in Ballard. That must be some new hipster trend, 'cause that ain't forced =[
I think it's also a mistake to think that someone living in an RV is homeless: a) Is an RV any less a home than a mobile home in a trailer park? b) More people are opting for a nomadic lifestyle that combines the advantage of working anywhere with the ability to "see the world".
I also think that finding a dead-end street full of RVs near down-town Seattle might mean there's not a convenient Wal-Mart parking lot or a campground close enough to the center of the action. With the huge increase in campground prices, I'd probably be looking for safe, free parking if I was RVing full-time.
Charles Mudede is the Stranger's equivalent of an internet troll. As soon as I saw the title I knew he wrote this. No one in the region takes him seriously as a journalistic force.
Sweeping generalizations? Check
One sided / shallow presentation of complex societal issues? Check
Half baked rant out the changing nature of the city? Check
The middle class in Seattle doesn't live in an RV in Seattle. They live in Auburn, Burien, Renton, Lynnwood, and Everett. Same is true for any other large city, no? How many middle class people live in downtown Boston, or San Jose?
I've heard a lot lately about people who avoid many expenses, including rent, in order to save a lot from decent jobs and retire early. If the author of this blog post had talked to them, maybe conclusions could have been drawn.
Yeah, it seems likely the author is just in that majority class of people who cannot conceive of any living arrangement outside the conventional stick-and-mortar dwelling bound to property or rent. That is, after all, what the ``American Dream'' of the past 100 years-or-so was built upon.
In a lot of ways I envy these people; there's a lot of hardship they face with the lack of permanent address, and I can't imagine that RV living is incredibly pleasant nor cheap compared to more conventional housing, but they're also untethered in ways that make living "normally" seem like the crazy proposition. Job stability is basically out the window in the modern economy, so why tether yourself to a lease? With the gig economy, RV living allows you, at least theoretically, to follow the jobs in a way most only dream of. In rising housing prices, it's stable rent by comparison. Being able to take your whole home with you on vacation is another huge plus.
Sorry you are getting downvoted into oblivion. From the descriptions in this article it does sound like a solidly middle-class couple who are _choosing_ to live this lifestyle. Money is not tight if they are Lyft'ing to the grocery store etc. There are a lot of people who just assume if you are in a boat or RV you are destitute or mentally ill. If this describes you, check your assumptions. Maybe they are just not bought into the 'work yourself to death to buy/rent a house as big as you can afford and then fill it with junk you dont want or need'
I and my wife lived in our RV in silicon valley (thanks San Jose elks lodge) for a period of time. We chose a lifestyle where I would do consulting for six months a year in SV and then travel for 6 months. After several years of renting, furnishing, establishing utilities in a place only to unwind that all a few months later, we thought just getting an RV and staying in it was a better solution. So for several years we'd spend six months in the RV in San Jose, and then the other six months doing things like road tripping through Alaska, hanging out in Key West, sailing the Mexican riviera etc.
There's definitely some downsides to living in a small space, with a low level of stability - but in that phase of our life the trade-off to be able to travel for months at a time was well worth it.
When you're healthy (physical, mental, what have you), there's no dependents to worry about, no worries about personal safety at night, and a reasonable ability to walk into an average retail store and pick up a job ... that's one thing. Unfortunately a great deal of homeless folks don't fit into that very narrow criteria (much narrower than I expect most folks to realize), and so it's a metaphorical nightmare of a gun-in-the-head to take. Sometimes literally.
In a lot of ways I envy these people; there's a lot of hardship they face with the lack of permanent address, and I can't imagine that RV living is incredibly pleasant nor cheap compared to more conventional house, but they're also untethered in ways that make living "normally" seem like the crazy proposition.
When it’s a choice you get to make, not when it’s your only choice. Don’t you have a shred of empathy? Envy them... Jesus Christ this site!
Freedom from dignity or the respect of your peers, of stability, of the ability to start or raise a family, and freedom from much of the dating pool. As a bonus you get to wonder when what little you have might vanish and you’re “free” from that too, and “free” to live on the streets.
I joke that the way to afford rent in LA is to live in your car. I grew up there and last visit I had one friend who sleeps in his van when he sublets his apartment and another who was looking to buy a van to live rent free for a while. It's amazing that we haven't started building upward yet.
A van parked at the Berkeley Marina is looking like a pretty good option in the bay area. I could sublet my Piedmont place and spend the few thousand on some sweet van digs.
I worked with someone that was living on an boat he had purchased (for not much) in Marina del Rey. He would commute by motorcycle (much cheaper than a car) and was probably making a minimum of $50k-60k. Seems like a smart way to save money if you can make the space sacrifice.
Homelessness is middle class in Rio and Cape Town and Johannesburg. What that means is that hundreds of thousands of people in those cities live in informal settlements in houses built on dirt out of trash and scrap.
So my impression is that Seattle often jumps the gun regulating things away--banning things that actually increase quality of life/spending power. We all know that those without discretionary income are the first to feel drops in spending power (due to regulation, etc.).
I'm also reminded of a great chapter in "Downtown: Its Rise and Fall" which talks about the special interests behind and the consequences of tenement reform, consequences which were largely negative if you were poor. I can't help wondering if similar forces have led to Seattle's present-day predicaments.
what does it matter whether seattle is hostile to jitneys? (a word whose definition I just learned). I see lots of private small buses around seattle. buses for google, tmobile, i think facebook, and many unsigned buses.
She's jumping to conclusions. Lots of people enjoy living in camper vans and RVs. It's a fun, cheap, and adventurous way to live. I know people who own a house in a ski town, and they'll take off for weeks at a time living out of their camper van.
TBH there's a good chance they make more money than the author.
There's a massive, massive, huge difference between voluntarily taking an extended trip in your 'camper van' (which is probably a $50k+ Mercedes or similar if the owners "own a house in a ski town") and having to live in a shitty, broken down RV as a home.
I live in the area, and I actually have calculated how much an upper middle class existence would cost for a family of 3. $90k or so. Upper middle class mortgage from 2012, taxes, one midrange car loan, medical insurance, utilities, food, other insurance, one decent vacation a year. Pretty good lifestyle, all in all. As a family of 3 you don’t even have to work that hard to earn this amount in Seattle area. So I have a fairly limited amount of compassion towards the dwellers of tent cities etc.
A mortgage on a $90k income would responsibly top out under $300k, and that's after putting down 20%. Average house in Seattle today runs just about $800k. It was closer to $400k in 2012.
Unless you come back and specify that you meant Kent or Renton, $90k unquestionably and unarguably would not provide an upper middle class lifestyle in Seattle. Not in 2012, and definitely not today.
Wait, seriously? Can you provide the data? I think you have a seriously huge hole in your model if you're basing your housing costs on a mortgage on a 2012 priced house. Try nearly doubling that part.
This means a basic average lifestyle in Seattle now only takes 150% of the average wage in the state, or about 120% of the average income in Seattle, the city.
Meanwhile lots of people complain about getting forced out ... I'd say those complaints are probably justified.
Also keep in mind that "average wage" is among those who work. Since the participation rate in the US is about 60% ... the remaining 40% doesn't even usually have average wage.
Interesting. Would you mind posting some of your calculations/data here? I live in NYC myself -- probably a bit more expensive than Seattle -- but even as a single, young, healthy person, $90k wouldn't feel very comfortable here. I make a lot more than that because I work in tech, but I'm still concerned about retirement plans (is $18k/year in my 401k really enough? What if market returns start to stagnate?). I'm really curious where you got your numbers from though, because on 90k salary, your (twice-monthly) paycheck should end up around $2800, before subtracting things like social security/etc. So you probably take home a little less than $5k/month at the end of it all.
Of note in your calculations:
- upper middle class mortgage from 2012. According to zillow [1], median home price in 2012 was $353k. Today it's $800k, over twice that -- 2012 was the worst year in a long time for Seattle housing. Probably 2k/month, right? At 90k, that's going to be about 50% of your salary after tax -- not abysmal, but certainly not close to the 1/3 rule I've always been told. Then again, it's owning rather than renting, so maybe it's justifiable. Biggest problem I see here is that there aren't that many folks who managed to buy their house at the best possible time to do so, and anybody who's moved to Seattle since 2012 is going to pay closer to $4k/month for that same home.
--one midrange car loan: I don't think just one car would be very comfortable for a family of three living in the suburbs of Seattle. Again, doable -- maybe only one parent works, and the child is young, so you could carpool to school/one job/other job, but it sounds like a lot of commuting for whoever has to drop off the others. In Seattle traffic, that could easily end up being 2 hours of driving just to get to and from work, every morning and every evening. Doesn't leave much room for flexibility though. According to Experian Automotive, the average American monthly car payment is $500 [2].
-medical insurance: assuming this isn't provided by your employer, I could easily see this eating the rest of your income after tax. I pray that anybody in this situation has insurance through work. Apparently the average American family is spending between $10k-$20k on insurance, including deductibles [3], so... $1k-$2k/month.
So if nobody gets sick in this family, you've still got $1k/month for food and luxuries like eating out, going to concerts, or activities outside of work.
-one decent vacation a year: I never vacationed growing up (family was relatively poor), but I'd guess that for a family of three any real vacation is going to end up in the thousands (my guess would be around $3-5k, though I have little idea). So maybe if you just spend $400-500/month on food, you could put away whatever's left (maybe $500, tops?) to take a vacation every year.
So I suppose $90k is livable, based on what I see here. But it doesn't sound great, and doesn't leave much room for things like serious medical issues, buffer room if you get fired, or even the ability to pay for something like a summer program for your kid. And what about gifts for birthdays, or if your car breaks down, or you get robbed, etc. etc.? Sounds like you're working hard every day but never getting ahead.
Oh, and now that I remember... what about saving for retirement, and saving for college (because you're making $90k, so the government isn't going to give your kid much financial assistance)? Well, I guess we'll just work forever, and the kid will take on $50k of debt to go to a cheaper state school. And then when she graduates and tries to live on $90k in Seattle, we'll have to take into account even worse housing prices AND her student loan payments...
Like Manhattan, Seattle and San Francisco are extremely expensive for housing because the cities are surrounded by water. Hence, they have no place to expand the housing supply. Austin sits in the middle of a prairie, so there is plenty of room to grow, keeping prices reasonable.
[+] [-] whoisjuan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UnpossibleJim|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smoyer|8 years ago|reply
I also think that finding a dead-end street full of RVs near down-town Seattle might mean there's not a convenient Wal-Mart parking lot or a campground close enough to the center of the action. With the huge increase in campground prices, I'd probably be looking for safe, free parking if I was RVing full-time.
[+] [-] somethingsimple|8 years ago|reply
Tacoma is really freaking far though. I’d be in a world of misery if I had to commute from there every day.
[+] [-] nitwit005|8 years ago|reply
There are people near me living on boats, because the monthly slip fees are cheaper than rent. That doesn't make them homeless or poor.
[+] [-] pnathan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fjsolwmv|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scurvy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jorblumesea|8 years ago|reply
Sweeping generalizations? Check
One sided / shallow presentation of complex societal issues? Check
Half baked rant out the changing nature of the city? Check
Here's another one of his gems: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/10/17/25475173/big-umb...
The middle class in Seattle doesn't live in an RV in Seattle. They live in Auburn, Burien, Renton, Lynnwood, and Everett. Same is true for any other large city, no? How many middle class people live in downtown Boston, or San Jose?
[+] [-] stevenwoo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jerkstate|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmcdm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jseliger|8 years ago|reply
And note the date stamp on that.
[+] [-] GauntletWizard|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gregatragenet3|8 years ago|reply
I and my wife lived in our RV in silicon valley (thanks San Jose elks lodge) for a period of time. We chose a lifestyle where I would do consulting for six months a year in SV and then travel for 6 months. After several years of renting, furnishing, establishing utilities in a place only to unwind that all a few months later, we thought just getting an RV and staying in it was a better solution. So for several years we'd spend six months in the RV in San Jose, and then the other six months doing things like road tripping through Alaska, hanging out in Key West, sailing the Mexican riviera etc.
There's definitely some downsides to living in a small space, with a low level of stability - but in that phase of our life the trade-off to be able to travel for months at a time was well worth it.
[+] [-] kradeelav|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Erlangolem|8 years ago|reply
When it’s a choice you get to make, not when it’s your only choice. Don’t you have a shred of empathy? Envy them... Jesus Christ this site!
Freedom from dignity or the respect of your peers, of stability, of the ability to start or raise a family, and freedom from much of the dating pool. As a bonus you get to wonder when what little you have might vanish and you’re “free” from that too, and “free” to live on the streets.
[+] [-] TACIXAT|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s0rce|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JBlue42|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jinushaun|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] somethingsimple|8 years ago|reply
It’s the kind of thing my wife and I might have done if we didn’t have a kid.
[+] [-] mbid|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmaunder|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] booblik|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Barjak|8 years ago|reply
Seattle was also one of those cities hostile to jitneys. http://mynorthwest.com/152499/political-promise-personal-veh...?
So my impression is that Seattle often jumps the gun regulating things away--banning things that actually increase quality of life/spending power. We all know that those without discretionary income are the first to feel drops in spending power (due to regulation, etc.).
I'm also reminded of a great chapter in "Downtown: Its Rise and Fall" which talks about the special interests behind and the consequences of tenement reform, consequences which were largely negative if you were poor. I can't help wondering if similar forces have led to Seattle's present-day predicaments.
[+] [-] NotSammyHagar|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlarocco|8 years ago|reply
TBH there's a good chance they make more money than the author.
[+] [-] not_kurt_godel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway84742|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seattle_spring|8 years ago|reply
Unless you come back and specify that you meant Kent or Renton, $90k unquestionably and unarguably would not provide an upper middle class lifestyle in Seattle. Not in 2012, and definitely not today.
[+] [-] erentz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] candiodari|8 years ago|reply
https://esd.wa.gov/newsroom/washingtons-average-wage-nears-5...
Meanwhile lots of people complain about getting forced out ... I'd say those complaints are probably justified.
Also keep in mind that "average wage" is among those who work. Since the participation rate in the US is about 60% ... the remaining 40% doesn't even usually have average wage.
[+] [-] bsenftner|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vanilla_nut|8 years ago|reply
Of note in your calculations:
- upper middle class mortgage from 2012. According to zillow [1], median home price in 2012 was $353k. Today it's $800k, over twice that -- 2012 was the worst year in a long time for Seattle housing. Probably 2k/month, right? At 90k, that's going to be about 50% of your salary after tax -- not abysmal, but certainly not close to the 1/3 rule I've always been told. Then again, it's owning rather than renting, so maybe it's justifiable. Biggest problem I see here is that there aren't that many folks who managed to buy their house at the best possible time to do so, and anybody who's moved to Seattle since 2012 is going to pay closer to $4k/month for that same home.
--one midrange car loan: I don't think just one car would be very comfortable for a family of three living in the suburbs of Seattle. Again, doable -- maybe only one parent works, and the child is young, so you could carpool to school/one job/other job, but it sounds like a lot of commuting for whoever has to drop off the others. In Seattle traffic, that could easily end up being 2 hours of driving just to get to and from work, every morning and every evening. Doesn't leave much room for flexibility though. According to Experian Automotive, the average American monthly car payment is $500 [2].
-medical insurance: assuming this isn't provided by your employer, I could easily see this eating the rest of your income after tax. I pray that anybody in this situation has insurance through work. Apparently the average American family is spending between $10k-$20k on insurance, including deductibles [3], so... $1k-$2k/month. So if nobody gets sick in this family, you've still got $1k/month for food and luxuries like eating out, going to concerts, or activities outside of work.
-one decent vacation a year: I never vacationed growing up (family was relatively poor), but I'd guess that for a family of three any real vacation is going to end up in the thousands (my guess would be around $3-5k, though I have little idea). So maybe if you just spend $400-500/month on food, you could put away whatever's left (maybe $500, tops?) to take a vacation every year.
So I suppose $90k is livable, based on what I see here. But it doesn't sound great, and doesn't leave much room for things like serious medical issues, buffer room if you get fired, or even the ability to pay for something like a summer program for your kid. And what about gifts for birthdays, or if your car breaks down, or you get robbed, etc. etc.? Sounds like you're working hard every day but never getting ahead.
Oh, and now that I remember... what about saving for retirement, and saving for college (because you're making $90k, so the government isn't going to give your kid much financial assistance)? Well, I guess we'll just work forever, and the kid will take on $50k of debt to go to a cheaper state school. And then when she graduates and tries to live on $90k in Seattle, we'll have to take into account even worse housing prices AND her student loan payments...
[1] https://www.zillow.com/seattle-wa/home-values/
[2] https://www.experian.com/assets/automotive/white-papers/expe... (warning: pdf)
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-a...
[+] [-] Apocryphon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshuaheard|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freejulian|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] NotSammyHagar|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tytytytytytytyt|8 years ago|reply