News

Report: Silicon Valley income gap continues to widen

New study also shows an increase in health insurance coverage, decrease in poverty rate

Silicon Valley incomes have increased for the second straight year after a three-year downward trend, according to a report released by Joint Venture Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies, a nonprofit think tank, on Wednesday.

The new study, an analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau's 2013 American Community Survey, shows a significant increase in Silicon Valley households earning at least $150,000, up by 25,000 between 2012 and 2013 -- a jump from 26 percent to 29 percent of the total.

The increase in the number of high-income Silicon Valley households, however, was nearly five times greater than the increase in total households overall, said Rachel Massaro, Joint Venture vice president and senior research associate for the Institute, in a press release.

"The recent economic trends for Silicon Valley indicate continued recovery following the recession, although disparities still exist," Massaro said.

The median household income increased 1.3 percent in 2013, to nearly $95,000, but the uptick was less than the statewide rate of 1.7 percent, the group reported.

The U.S. census listed Palo Alto's annual median household income as $122,482 and its median home value as $1 million. The disparity between job growth and housing has driven up prices throughout Silicon Valley, according to Bena Chang, director of housing and transportation at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a public policy business trade organization. Chang spoke at a panel discussion in Palo Alto in April.

She said the recovery has come at a cost, with many longtime Palo Alto residents priced out of their homes and many professionals unable to afford local rents. Chang noted that the approximate annual income necessary to purchase a median-priced home in Palo Alto is about $375,000.

The city is in the final stages of updating its state-mandated Housing Element, which identifies the city's strategies for encouraging housing and lists potential sites for new housing growth. In September, the Housing Element won tentative endorsement from the state Department of Housing and Community Development, the state agency charged with certifying the document.

Wednesday's Joint Venture report also indicates a decrease in the region's poverty rate and an uptick in those with health insurance:

• The percentage of Silicon Valley's working age population with health insurance increased by 1.5 percent, compared to less than one percent increases across the country.

• The percentage of Silicon Valley's population living under the federal poverty limit of 23,550 for a family of four dropped from 10.1 percent to 9.7 percent. That compares to rates of 16.8 percent for California and 15.8 percent nationwide.

Comments

11 people like this
Posted by randy albin
a resident of Mountain View
on Sep 25, 2014 at 11:31 am

well, somebody must be pleased by this. this is humble reality? eliminate the middle-class. that's what you do. this is a disaster


10 people like this
Posted by enough!
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 25, 2014 at 12:45 pm

Randy nailed it. The are eliminating the middle class completely. We are being annihilated faster than the dinosaurs. To stay here near my family and to keep my job, I have to live at my mother's house in a 10x10 room at 57 years old. Not in 40 years, even when earning next to nothing, have I ever failed in finding a place to rent in Palo Alto. This new breed of bubble babies is far more arrogant than the people who came during the last tech boom. Their attitude is bad, they could care less about the damage they are doing to the community. To follow that trend, the Palo Alto City Council could care less too.


Like this comment
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 25, 2014 at 12:58 pm

> The are eliminating the middle class completely.

Really?

What income levels would you assign to the middle class?

What kinds of jobs do the middle class hold in the Silicon Valley?

What evidence do you have that the middle class is bring wiped out?


2 people like this
Posted by GoodNewsEveryone
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 25, 2014 at 1:04 pm

When I look at the actual data in the actual graph in this article, a few things are clear:

* 1% moved out of the lowest income category, and joined the middle class (good)
* 3% moved out of the middle income category, and joined the higher income category (good)
* Technically, the middle category is smaller by 2%. BUT...

While the previous poster laments the shrinking middle class - I think he misses a point: anyone who moves up in income is usually happy to leave the middle class.

Shrinking the middle class by making people wealthier is a good thing, not a bad thing.

We can look behind every rock and tree for threats to the middle class, but becoming wealthier is not one of them, and generally is not a bad thing. Wake up from you dogma-fear and look at the data in front of you. Literally, right in front of you. On the screen. It's a graph. Green. Look.


13 people like this
Posted by enough!
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 25, 2014 at 1:08 pm

Let me tell you a few things about the middle class in Silicon Valley. I work for $27 bucks an hour. Once, that would be enough to rent a small place to live. Now, it's practically penury. There are housing units in Redwood City that are 700 sq. feet that have an allowance for "low income" renters. The low income? Anyone who makes under $83,000 a year. That means that $2,800 units are now renting for $2,300. Still affordable. To be able to live here, rent here, the average income needed for renting a decent place in Silicon Valley is over $100,000 a year.

If you have to ask, or even feel the need to challenge what's happening in this valley, then you are part of the 1% problem.


2 people like this
Posted by GoodNewsEveryone
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 25, 2014 at 1:21 pm

While I am sure your individual circumstances are challenging, this article is about the population of Silicon Valley in the aggregate.

And in the aggregate, we are better off. This is good news.


There is no problem for me to be a part of. Being wealthier as a society is not a problem. It's good news.


12 people like this
Posted by enough!
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 25, 2014 at 1:23 pm

We are NOT better off. I beg too differ. YOU are better off perhaps, but not most of us. I live in the underbelly of this voracious beast. I have to live in "the system." I know full well how poorly the middle and lower class is doing.


6 people like this
Posted by enough!
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 25, 2014 at 1:26 pm

*to.

And by the way, I'll forward your posts to the people who live in The Jungle.


2 people like this
Posted by GoodNewsEveryone
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 25, 2014 at 1:30 pm

...Okay, so are the 1% who moved out of the low-income segment not better off?

are the 3% who moved out of the middle income segment into the upper income segment not better off?

The data is simple to interpret - they are making more money. So the only way to answer "how are they doing?" is that they are better off.


10 people like this
Posted by Enough!
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 25, 2014 at 1:35 pm

Oh, and I'll also let everyone over the age of 40 who is in fear of or has already lost their jobs know all about this too. You see, the real bugaboo is for people not working in tech who are over a certain age who can't afford to live here anymore. Of course, your aggregate is the all encompassing proof that there's nothing wrong here, there's no push back, people aren't getting displaced and being forced to leave this valley because of the vast disparity in incomes and the egregious ageism that is blatantly practiced by a vast majority of Silicon Valley employers.


2 people like this
Posted by GoodNewsEveryone
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 25, 2014 at 1:43 pm

...but people aren't leaving. The population of Silicon Valley is growing.

In fact, not only are there more people here, they are making more money, and the unemployment rate is dropping.

Sooo.... one can only conclude that this is good news. Silicon Valley has made more people more money. Good news again!



15 people like this
Posted by enough!
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 25, 2014 at 2:07 pm

People from other countries are moving to Silicon Valley, buying real estate and charging exorbitant rents for the homes they themselves are not occupying. I guess you don't keep on top of the whole Zuckerberg push to bring in MORE foreign workers to work in this valley. You really should keep up with the actual NEWS before you decide there is good news based on one graph. You are perpetuating the myth that the Valley bourgeoisie capitalists are somehow creating benefits to the proletariat. They aren't. Low income and middle class income people are being crushed in this valley.


1 person likes this
Posted by Joe
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 25, 2014 at 2:15 pm

It might pay to read this, on the American middle class, as it offers some insights into incomes, and education, of the various strata making up this socio-economic segment of our society--

Web Link

(Note--since this is a Wiki page, the actual data might be subject to question, but there are sources, so this data would seem to be a worthwhile starting point to understanding this large segment of Americans.)


Like this comment
Posted by GoodNewsEveryone
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 25, 2014 at 2:18 pm

@enough! writes: "Low income and middle class income people are being crushed in this valley. "


crushed? I do not think it means what you think it means.

The middle class are making more money. 1% of the population moved from low to middle income. 3% of the population moved from middle income to higher income. That is moving a LOT of people up the ladder.

Maybe Joint Venture Silicon Valley made up this data? Maybe I should put on my tinfoil hat? I don't see any other way to interpret this but Good News! There is not really much to argue about on this subject any more.


7 people like this
Posted by businessdecision
a resident of Menlo Park
on Sep 25, 2014 at 2:29 pm

[Post removed.]


4 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 25, 2014 at 2:52 pm

@Wondering -- I'll take a stab at assigning an income level to "middle class," with the traditional definition of being able to afford a house, where the mortgage is 1/3 of income. I see a 3 bedroom/2 bath on Greer for $1.4M. After 10% down, the monthly would be around $6350, requiring the support of a $230,000 income. A comparable house in another nice university town, say Norman, Oklahoma, I see listed at $123,000, which 90% mortgaged would require a $20,000 income.

Must be something intangible going on. We all get to make our choices.


8 people like this
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 25, 2014 at 3:16 pm

Congratulations to the Surfrider Foundation for their win in San Mateo Superior Court against Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla, who closed a beach on our California coastline to the public. An outrageous, arrogant move. But this was a win for us, the public. Public access is the correct thing. Yes, this is on topic.


1 person likes this
Posted by Joe
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 25, 2014 at 3:21 pm

@Musical calculates that the household income for purchasing a home in Palo Alto at/about a $230,000 income,
however, according to Bena Chang, director of housing and transportation at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Chang noted that the approximate annual income necessary to purchase a median-priced home in Palo Alto is about $375,000. Given all of the other costs associated with home ownership, as well as State/Federal taxes—then problem something higher than $230K would be a safe bet.

Assuming a two-earner family, then incomes in excess of $120K would seem to be required of future Palo Alto residents—which puts those people in the upper middle class income bracket.

> choices ..

Yes .. it all comes down to choices, doesn’t it?


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 25, 2014 at 3:47 pm

My numbers are for the low end of old-fashioned respectability, the cheapest single-family detached starter home like couples in their late twenties routinely bought in the 1950's -- not the "median-priced" McMansions sprouting everywhere now. Times have changed though, and today's entry level to middle class is more likely to be a townhouse or condo, which can realistically be reached with a much lower income than $230,000. Of course middle class seems to be more a state of mind, than dependent on property ownership, but sufficient income to exercise that option sure helps.


7 people like this
Posted by Memories
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 25, 2014 at 3:52 pm

Enough! is correct. I hear ya, loud and clear. I see it all around me, amongst those who have lived here for decades.


7 people like this
Posted by Frank
a resident of another community
on Sep 25, 2014 at 4:03 pm

I'm glad I got out of Silicon Valley, and the State of California, in 2003. Now I can enjoy retirement in my debt-free brick home in a pleasant neighborhood with great friends and neighbors. The rest of the people posting comments can argue about the income inequality in Palo Alto to no end but it's just going to get worse. Wealthy people from the world over, particularly China, are buying-up investment properties all up and down the West Coast, from Vancouver BC down to San Diego. Cash talks, others walk. Get used to it.


7 people like this
Posted by Stay on point
a resident of another community
on Sep 25, 2014 at 7:56 pm

Hey! I just love living on $10 an hour! My rent is only $ 2000 a month, living in East PaLo Alto.

Beautiful World - DEVO


7 people like this
Posted by Palo Alto native
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 25, 2014 at 11:47 pm

1. Private property only sold to US citizens..

2. No more new office development in Palo Alto and existing office space not allowed to expand.

3. No additional new Dense housing (apartments and condos) developments.

4. Push silly clone valley business interests to other areas of the state and nation.


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 26, 2014 at 6:08 am

@PA Native regarding #1 -- partnerships or schools or corporations should not own property?
Or are we agreeing with Citizens United and allowing corporations to be citizens?


5 people like this
Posted by boscoli
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 26, 2014 at 6:24 am

We are not getting wealthier as a society, we are getting poorer. The same small echelon is getting wealthier, although they produces very little of value. California real estate is being gobbled up by foreign investors, making it harder and harder for young people to own homes and extremely expensive to rent.


Like this comment
Posted by SteveC
a resident of Menlo Park
on Sep 26, 2014 at 11:01 am

@goodnewsfor everyone: Sure is easy getting long with somebody else's troubles, isn't it?


2 people like this
Posted by Wondering?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 26, 2014 at 11:47 am

> We are not getting wealthier as a society, we are getting poorer

Wealth is, in many ways, a very undependable metric for a society’s wellbeing. For instance, if we sum up the wealth the country possesses, in terms of real estate—the country “lost” maybe fifteen percent of its wealth during the 2008 meltdown. Why? Because the perceived value of the properties was seen to be over-priced, and people stopped buying at the inflated prices. (OK, a lot of money that greased the real estate wheels also dried up, but for pretty much the same reasons.)

A few years later—prosperity returns, and the prices go up again. The intrinsic value of most of these properties has not changed, just the perceived value in the eyes of the market.

If we were to make the same determination, using savings, or investments, of the American people—we would find that there isn’t a lot of wealth in the portfolios of us Americans. Why? Lots of reasons. The fact that the Obama economy has now seen the unemployment of 1 in 4 working age Americans isn’t helping. But fundamental attitudes, and a general lack of knowledge about money, wealth, and asset management probably is more at fault that the know-nothingness of Obama, and this inner circle.

Two little ideas differentiates wealth from poverty—living within your means, and saving, not spending.

Wonder how long it’s going to take to teach the American people these two little secrets?


1 person likes this
Posted by Neighbors Helping Neighbors
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 26, 2014 at 12:33 pm

Dear Neighbors & Friends,
Coming from a service provider perspective, who is striving to fill the gaps in basic needs for our Middle class ($100K to $25K), both individuals and small business owners, we are glad you all are having this dialogue. Neighbors Helping Neighbors (NHN) has a very large 'housing & jobs' network. Plus, a growing data base of landlords.
The last three years it is true the majority of our upper middle, mid middle and lower middle classes are being displaced. And the trend continues. Real world reality.
I am happy to answer these questions from this reader, from a services providers perspective who specifically serves the middle class.
Answers below.

Posted by Wondering?
1. The are eliminating the middle class completely.
Really?
Answer - A BIG YES is the answer. And the 'who' is both landlords (rental housing & commercial properties) who have been increasing rents beyond 10% plus too many who are doubling & tripling their rents. In addition, product and services businesses/mfg who continue to charge more for goods/food/services than what our middle income (of course low income too)folks can afford.

2. What income levels would you assign to the middle class?
Answer - The answer to this question has changed dramatically in the last years and months. And depends on who and what we are talking about. County and non profit organizations/agencies use the Federal income index that has established income categories for public assistance. All excludes a majority of the middle class. Then there is the IRS and SSA that sets their own income indexes. Then there are other non profits/service providers who do not use the Federal Income Index, they have their own criteria(s).

Currently, NHN income categories for middle income;
Above $100K - 150K is upper middle income, $100K-50K is mid middle and $50K-25K are lower middle incomes. The average rents in Palo Alto & MV has taken another big jump Aug-Sept 2014, so NHN will soon be adjusting our income categories to better match what it is to be middle income. Right now, $50K-25K are low income. The category for low income is expanding...

3. What kinds of jobs do the middle class hold in the Silicon Valley?
Answer, professional medical/tech people at your dentist/doctors offices, teachers, professors, middle mgrs/staff at tech companies, many small business owners, gardners, city workers, the list can go on & on...

4. What evidence do you have that the middle class is bring wiped out?
Answer - It does not take an economist, social scientist or forcasters to fiqure out that rents, cost of basic needs and services has escalated way beyond what even a $100k wage earner can afford. It would also follow that instead of compounding the problem with increasing wages that as a society and community we need to lower the costs of basic needs to what the majority of our wage earning citizens can afford. And what data indicates to NHN that our middle class is being displaced;
a. 20 middle income households are added to our rosters per week (in Palo Alto) More counting other cities. These are households that have completed our screening process.
b. Our monthly grocery roster grows monthly with those middle income folks who are food insecure.
c. 220 middle income Palo Alto households on our list of those in various stages of the screening process not yet on our rosters. This number each month grows larger.
d. Those middle income households already on our rosters that have become and continue to be displaced.
We all want our peninsula cities to be liveable for all incomes. But the very grim reality is too many/majority of our middle income folks are becoming displaced living on someones sofa, in motels, in their vehicles, on the streets and where ever they can find shelter...
If you are struggling with life's challenges or know of some else who may need help, please go to PA Weekly online calendar for NHN Outreach Event series. Or contact us directly at NeighborHelpingNeighbors2013@gmail.com ph #650-283-0270
Caryll-Lynn Taylor
Chairman & Welfare Secretary
Salvation Army - Palo Alto Service Extension 501(c)3


1 person likes this
Posted by Neighbors Helping Neighbors
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 26, 2014 at 2:31 pm

RE: Middle Income (All-upper/mid/lower) Saving Money & Jobs

Dear Neighbors & Friends, Reader-Wondering? has posted more thought provoking subjects which I will only respond to these two, middle class earners ability to save money and jobs. Of course, I am coming from a service providers perspective.
1. Ability to save - while NHN would not disagree that too many middle class (2006-2010), simply were living beyond their means and for years before 2006, credit card limits/debit gave them a means to continue to 'rob peter to pay paul'. However, among the hundreds of budget worksheet, supporting documents and credit bureaus our counselors has seen, the cost of living has dramatically diminished the ability of both 'saving money' and using credit to continue the cycle of budgets based on'robbing peter to pay paul'.
In all the credit counseling NHN and our volunteer professional counselors has done we have not found any 'wiggle room' in the budgets of (hundreds) middle income or low income folks on our rosters. Unless they are the very rare and few whose rent has stayed within 30% of their incomes.
In addition, all middle & low income folks demonstrates the need for financial & other assistance just to be stable but still a 'financially overburdened' household (whether their rents are 30% of incomes or not). But financial assistance programs usually offer only one time relief and is not enough, if auto repairs are needed, a sudden illness or job loss.

Then there is the subject of jobs. NHN has found that only 1/4 of those on our rosters is unemployed or can not work. Most have two jobs plus look for odd jobs just to remain a 'financially overburdened' household. But when they receive rent increases of more than 10% on top of other escalating cost of basic needs, it's easy to see how our middle income fall to a lower income category and become displaced.
The reality is grim and it is not getting better and that is NOT a perception it's a reality in fact.
Our community needs to focus on solutions & alternative measures than looking from the outside to criticize our struggling households. Because what is happening to them is truly out of their control. Two solutions, decrease rents and cost of products/food/services. We have done it in other periods of run away costs of basic needs, we can and should lower our expectations of prices for basic needs again.

NHN has more specific ideas for alternative measures and solutions which we have shared with City of Palo Alto staff. We will continue to remain hopeful. Also, we are very proud of how well our middle and low income neighbors have been coping with incredibly difficult circumstances.
Mostly sincerely,
Caryll-Lynn Taylor
Chairman & Welfare Secretary
Salvation Army - Palo Alto Service Extension 501(c)3


1 person likes this
Posted by SteveC
a resident of Menlo Park
on Sep 26, 2014 at 2:49 pm

Wondering. I liked your comment based on your first two paragraphs, a kind of knee-jerk reaction, I know; but I fail to see how you can lay this economy at Obama's feet? Time lag is irrefutable in economics, even if a tidal wave is the cause of a change. A lot of what is going on today can be traced back to the Reagan administration, and certainly back to Bush#2. I can forgive you for that given my agreement with your comment overall, but it is just as big a folly to think that everything is the result of something that happened in the last several years as it is to assume that dollar signs can measure the well-being of a society.


4 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 27, 2014 at 11:45 pm

GoodNewsEveryOne >> I think he misses a point: anyone who moves up in income is usually happy to leave the middle class.

Maybe you are missing the point, you are talking about insignificant numbers, and the "middle class" doesn't even mean anything around here, at least if you are using middle class numbers from the rest of the country. Middle Class used to mean or have the connotation of someone who could at least support themselves.

Today a middle class person cannot buy a house in this area. They can barely buy a house anywhere around here, and then are condemned to either pay for the energy and take the time to drive all day to get to their jobs, or they rent at rents that used to be homeowner level payments, but leave the person with nothing.

Even if you can afford a house, with $1,000,000 average price, that is over $10,000 a year in taxes. Then if you cannot afford a single-family dwelling you have to buy a condo or townhouse and you have homeowner dues and special assessments on top of that.

And another thing, if you can afford a house from the middle class, you will buy a house that is broken and substandard in many respects, old, build in the 1920's most likely with no insulation and a wasteful energy system.

1 percent of people moving up into an arbitrary bracket of income is really not good news. Sure, I'd rather move up than down, but the whole country aside from the few people it takes to implement the New American Order or indiscriminate discrimination, no privacy, having corporations knowing you better than your best friends know you or you ever know yourself.

Another thing is that most people make that jump to another margin with some kind of windfall ... like stock options, stock speculation, maybe even a lawsuit, becoming part of a startup, investing in an IPO. Most people in the middle class or struggling to get to the middle class or just to survive simply will never have access to this opportunities, and in fact they will be lucky to get health care even though they are now required to pay for it by government mandate.


6 people like this
Posted by Signal and noise
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 28, 2014 at 7:44 am

One thing to keep in mind is that just because the percentage of higher income households increased, it doesn't mean that the increase came from those moving from the middle income class. The population of the area does not remain the same, so it is possible (and probably likely) that the increase in upper income households is due to people moving into the area to take higher paying jobs.

I would imagine that the reason the middle class is shrinking around here isn't because those in the middle class are moving up, but rather that they are moving away.


6 people like this
Posted by Why us?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 28, 2014 at 1:41 pm

Why does America differ from most of the world in that we allow non-citizens to buy residential real estate? Most countries take the attitude that selling to non-citizens is tantamount to selling bits of your country to outsiders who make those properties bits of their own countries, like colonization or colonialism.

Qualified US citizens who can afford to buy a home, albeit without cash in advance, should at least have first pick at purchasing a home, as well as renting a home. The outside few should not be making the rules or making policy or deciding what is taught in our schools--or how it is taught ( in order to favor THEM).

What is happening here may not be illegal, but it should be--it is both immoral and unethical, as well as causing gross displacement of the middle class, and even the upper middle class.


2 people like this
Posted by Signal and noise
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 28, 2014 at 3:34 pm

"Why does America differ from most of the world in that we allow non-citizens to buy residential real estate?"

Are we really that different? France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and Spain all allow non-citizens from purchasing real estate, and those were just from the first article I found: Web Link

Japan also allows non-citizens to purchase real estate: Web Link

So does the UK: Web Link

So does Greece, Sweden, Mexico, China, and even Russia! Sorry, this forum won't let me list the links but the information was easy to find online.

Actually, it looks like most countries allow non-citizens to purchase real estate. Some require the purchaser to reside in the property (e.g. Denmark), but the only country I found that explicitly forbids foreigners from purchasing real estate is India (and even there some foreigners are allowed, just not all).



3 people like this
Posted by concerned mom of 3
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 29, 2014 at 1:23 pm

[Post removed.]


1 person likes this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 29, 2014 at 1:45 pm

I do not doubt that there are foreign "investors" in the PA residential market.

However such phrases as "so many" means nothing to me. For those of you who are campaigning for the elimination of foreign investment --- at least do us all a favor and provide real data. Otherwise you come off as just blowing smoke and unfortunately creating tension that is unnecessary unless backed up with facts.


2 people like this
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 29, 2014 at 10:25 pm

@ Signal and Noise

Get your facts straight, at least in regards to Mexico. The Mexican constitution specifically states that foreigners ( anyone not from Mexico) can NOT purchase real estate. Americans can open a Mexican bank trust, this is called a fideicomisoWeb Link . Also good luck trying to work in Mexico without an FM3( Mexican work Visa).Mexico strictly enforces this policy.


2 people like this
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 29, 2014 at 10:43 pm

"The Mexican constitution specifically states that foreigners ( anyone not from Mexico) can NOT purchase real estate".
Sorry, it should read " Foreigners can NOT own Mexican real estate.


2 people like this
Posted by Former expat
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 30, 2014 at 2:19 am

I have lived as an expatriate in Asia for many years (6+) and as far as I know Americans (Westerners) are not able to own property in Asia.
This includes (Philippines/Malaysia/Thailand).

Even if I married a local, they would not allow the property to be in my name because I am a westerners.

Also, you may not fully own your own business.
The same is applied to foreign multinational companies. The governments control the majority share of the investments of each of these companies.

People keep talking about globalization here, but it is not that way in Asia.

The Australian and British governments are discussing ways to halt foreign home buyers & land speculators because they are running out of homes for their own citizens, and home prices have exceeded what the younger population can afford.

I believe Canada is having similar problems.




Like this comment
Posted by Signal and noise
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 30, 2014 at 8:14 am

"Get your facts straight, at least in regards to Mexico. The Mexican constitution specifically states that foreigners ( anyone not from Mexico) can NOT purchase real estate."

My mistake. In my quick search, my first link was this: Web Link

which states in the first sentence that foreigners are allowed to purchase property in Mexico. I probably shouldn't have relied on a website that is aimed at selling foreign real estate. Interestingly, it appears that in Mexico now there is a debate of the issue: Web Link

I guess my point is that although many nations restrict or even forbid foreigners from buying real estate, many others do not. So the US isn't that unusual in that regard.


Like this comment
Posted by David V
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 30, 2014 at 1:20 pm

David V is a registered user.

We're all pretty intelligent. With that said it's not hard to figure out that the Socio/Economic balance of this are a has begun to wobble and the wobble is getting worse, not better. It's real simple; sure we can drill down for proof, but what is on the surface is proof enough.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Populism: A response to the failure of the elites: Palo Alto edition
By Douglas Moran | 10 comments | 1,580 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,373 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,129 views

Mountain View's Hangen Szechuan to close after 25 years
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,057 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 919 views