Sure. But compare wage growth with the amount you can buy in California. Local inflation is a killer because we do/will/can not develop things like housing or infrastructure.
My housing costs have gone from $700 to $3950 in 10 years.
If I wasn't one of the lucky few, I would be priced out. Hence my point we need much less regulation so that middle class people can afford to live in California.
We could 10x pay, but with the same stock of housing, the poor will do no better.
House prices is a reflection of economic growth. Higher incomes means higher purchase power. Median income in the bay is soaring at 8%, house prices will match that growth. If you want house prices to come down, we would need another recession that would cut purchasing power. California population growth has leveled out and its increasing incomes that are pushing up the prices.
>Hence my point we need much less regulation so that middle class people can afford to live in California
Middle class people can afford to live in plenty of California, just not in certain places like the bay area. The problems with housing are mostly caused by local NIMBYism not statewide regulation, which is an issue that doesn't have a specific political affiliation.
Regulations do in fact have a political component. San Francisco has laws on the books mandating "affordable housing". These laws have have made housing construction much more expensive and have reduced the overall stock of housing.
An unintended consequence.
A new ballot measure, sponsored by progressives on the board of supervisors this year, will further limit construction and tie commercial development to these affordable housing mandates. The result will be less overall development and increased cost of living. Sponsored by progressives.
What I see locally is progressives fighting development, and this hurts us all. Yes there is a NIMY component, but with a super majority in the state legislature - Democrats could easily overrule local laws. But they do not.
Japan is an example of a place with housing decisions made at the state level.
> San Francisco has laws on the books mandating "affordable housing".
San Francisco is geographically limited. But San Francisco doesn't want to build up because of NIMBYism. That's the primary problem. It's not a left vs right thing.
> Democrats could easily overrule local laws.
The state government moving in and overturning local control is a big government progressive position. You are criticizing California for not being progressive enough.
> Middle class people can afford to live in plenty of California, just not in certain places like the bay area.
This hurts us all. The economy would grow if people from poorer areas could participate in more productive economies such as the Bay Area. It's sad that the most productive cities consider themselves "fully developed" - when we are far from it.
>so that middle class people can afford to live in California
You said California. Not San Francisco. The point is that it isn't the left leaning government of California that is making San Francisco expensive. It's a local problem.
My housing costs have gone from $700 to $3950 in 10 years.
If I wasn't one of the lucky few, I would be priced out. Hence my point we need much less regulation so that middle class people can afford to live in California.
We could 10x pay, but with the same stock of housing, the poor will do no better.