
Seattle's New Normal: Homelessness Is Now Middle Class - viburnum
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/03/23/25950929/seattles-new-normal-homelessness-is-now-normal
======
whoisjuan
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.

~~~
UnpossibleJim
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 =[

~~~
52-6F-62
If it isn't some hipster trend, they should hit up some Seattle companies...

not to be crass, but in the past week I've had a few recruiters from there
write me about interesting (and probably better paying compared to here) job
opportunities that I've had to turn down because I'm 1) not very interested in
moving to the US right now, and 2) somewhat rooted here in Toronto at the
moment.

Unrelated to the last bit, but related to my experience: sounds like just
hipster stuff to me. That, or maybe a quiet protest of sorts— or both. If
they're happy, and functional, and it's not a problem to people, then I'm not
sure it's worth much worry.

Just a little further north in Vancouver... now that's a homeless problem.
(East Hastings area, for the unaware)

------
nitwit005
I wouldn't classify living in an RV as "homeless". Lots of people do that and
just pick up mail in a post office box.

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.

~~~
scurvy
Sleepless in Seattle anyone?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
House boats on lake union are pretty expensive these days and definitely not a
way to save on rent.

~~~
astrodust
I looked at that as an option here (Toronto) to escape ridiculous rents and
the price of a berth is absolutely astronomical. The boats themselves sell in
excess of $700K, which while cheaper than a house, a house doesn't have
$3000/mo. plus in berthing fees.

------
jorblumesea
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

Here's another one of his gems:
[https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/10/17/25475173/big-
umb...](https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/10/17/25475173/big-umbrellas-
must-be-banned-in-seattle)

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
Wow, I read your comment first and thought you were exaggerating but this
article about the Bay Area van life that just popped up has more facts about
Seattle than this Stranger article. [https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-
francisco/article/Vanli...](https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-
francisco/article/Vanlife-Bay-Area-residents-living-rv-mobile-
home-12732484.php)

------
jerkstate
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.

~~~
dmcdm
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.

~~~
drak0n1c
The Stranger is a notorious left-wing tabloid that loves to pick fights with
the rest of the city, especially its more centrist rival, the Seattle Times.
Stranger articles are consistently slanted with a pessimistic view of anything
that doesn't help make life luxuriously comfortable for the 5% who choose to
lead alternative lifestyles.

------
jseliger
Seattle has done better on housing than SF, but not nearly good enough:
[https://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-
fut...](https://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-future-in-
seattle-do-millennials-have-a-future-in-any-superstar-cities).

And note the date stamp on that.

------
GauntletWizard
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.

~~~
gregatragenet3
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.

------
TACIXAT
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.

~~~
s0rce
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.

------
jinushaun
It’s the Stranger. I trust it as a news source as much as I trust Breitbart.
Mudede, the author, is a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

------
somethingsimple
I would be willing to bet that that couple lives in an RV because they want
to, not because they need to.

It’s the kind of thing my wife and I might have done if we didn’t have a kid.

------
mbid
Thank god the author told us which songs he was listening to. The story
would've been incomprehensible otherwise.

------
mmaunder
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.

------
booblik
This is bullshit. Lyft line show you where it’s gonna drop the next passenger,
you can’t be “surprised” by the route.

------
Barjak
I don't have many data points on Seattle, but I'm reminded of this article
from a couple years ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12459698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12459698)

Seattle was also one of those cities hostile to jitneys.
[http://mynorthwest.com/152499/political-promise-personal-
veh...](http://mynorthwest.com/152499/political-promise-personal-vehicles-
spelled-doom-for-seattles-jitneys/)?

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
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.

------
jlarocco
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.

~~~
not_kurt_godel
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.

~~~
jlarocco
Of course, but the author didn't talk to them at all, and doesn't know
anything about their situation except that they got out of the Uber at a van.

Since they were Ubering around town instead of driving the van, I would assume
they're probably not poor.

But we'll never know because the "journalist" was too busy listening to music
to find out the facts.

------
throwaway84742
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.

~~~
vanilla_nut
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...

[1] [https://www.zillow.com/seattle-wa/home-
values/](https://www.zillow.com/seattle-wa/home-values/)

[2] [https://www.experian.com/assets/automotive/white-
papers/expe...](https://www.experian.com/assets/automotive/white-
papers/experian-auto-2015-q2.pdf?WT.srch=Auto_Q12015FinanceTrends_PDF)
(warning: pdf)

[3] [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-
average-a...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-
american-spends-on-health-care.html)

~~~
throwaway84742
That’s not “salary before tax”, that’s $90k _net_, as in, living off the
savings or $90k in post tax income. But it also has fairly generous budgets
for groceries ($2k/mo) and one $7k vacation a year, and real estate taxes as
of 2018, with house value more than doubled.

I calculated this just to see whether I have to work. Turns out I don’t, but I
work anyway.

~~~
vanilla_nut
Oh my gosh I'm terribly sorry, I totally misinterpreted what you meant. 90k
post-tax _before_ saving for college/retirement sounds, sadly, very right for
Seattle today-- since your model uses 2012 housing prices, I'm not sure I even
want to think about what it would be using 2018 housing prices.

However, the exercise of calculating those numbers out was still very
interesting -- particularly the fact that I pay close to 2x the taxes of a
Seattle-ite as a New Yorker. Holy cow, state and local taxes take a huge chunk
out of my pay. I really wonder what NYS/NYC do with those taxes... but perhaps
more importantly, how does Seattle get by without state/local taxes? Who pays
for public transit subsidies? I guess it must come from property taxes? Boy I
wish NYC charged more property taxes, especially since metropolis properties
are largely owned by the very, very rich and even with a respectable tech
salary I'll likely never own property in the city ever.

~~~
throwaway84742
Keep voting for tax-and-spend politicians, and sky is the limit in terms of
taxes. There are always creative ways to piss money away.

But to emphasize once again, this is upper middle class, with very little
compromise. Not everyone has to live like this. Not everyone has to pay
$10k/yr in property taxes or spend $2k/mo on food, or budget $1500/mo in
health insurance/out of pocket costs. We factored in inviting people over,
etc. Basically little to no change in lifestyle.

------
Apocryphon
What's the next city to have the fate of Seattle and the Bay Area? Will it be
Austin? Denver? Still somewhere else?

~~~
joshuaheard
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.

------
toomuchtodo
This is why cities should be turning away Amazon's HQ2.

~~~
tytytytytytytyt
One couple choosing to live in an RV doesn't make a good argument for that.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Agree! Here's a better data point, where the Seattle mayor says as much (while
announcing $100 million investment in affordable housing because there is so
little).

“Too many long-time residents are getting locked out and pushed out of
Seattle,” Durkan said in a statement.

[https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-
news/politics/seattle-t...](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-
news/politics/seattle-to-spend-100-million-on-affordable-housing-including-
for-9-new-apartment-buildings/)

That's why it's not the best idea to use subsidies to lure one of the largest
tech companies in the world to your town. Available housing declines, it takes
far too long in the feedback cycle for new housing to be built, and you've
made the city marginally worse for anyone who isn't a tech worker.

~~~
jonknee
> That's why it's not the best idea to use subsidies to lure one of the
> largest tech companies in the world to your town. Available housing
> declines, it takes far too long in the feedback cycle for new housing to be
> built, and you've made the city marginally worse for anyone who isn't a tech
> worker.

On the other hand, your city gets a ton more wealthy and existing homeowners
essentially win the lottery.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Sounds terrible for urban planning and quality of life.

