irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
This may be old news but I was watching the Today Show this morning and a guest mentioned some statistics on unemployment by income:
$150k or more: 3%
Middle income: 9%
Lowest 10%: 30%
So I google-fu'ed and found that this came from a Northeastern University study (PDF):
http://www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/Labor_Underutilization_Problems_of_U.pdf
If you look at it even more, the top 10% of income earners only have an unemployment rate of 1.6%. Now of course there are variances with any of these numbers but it does generally show that the people most affected by job loss are the ones who have lower incomes.
Now if you tie that in with real estate... match that to premium areas that haven't seen significant losses (like Irvine) and their incomes... is there some corollary?
Anyways... just thinking out loud... but I've read some blog sites that analyze the same study and I find one comment interesting, if these unemployment percentages were flipped... do you think the government would be doing more or less about the jobless situation?
$150k or more: 3%
Middle income: 9%
Lowest 10%: 30%
So I google-fu'ed and found that this came from a Northeastern University study (PDF):
http://www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/Labor_Underutilization_Problems_of_U.pdf
If you look at it even more, the top 10% of income earners only have an unemployment rate of 1.6%. Now of course there are variances with any of these numbers but it does generally show that the people most affected by job loss are the ones who have lower incomes.
Now if you tie that in with real estate... match that to premium areas that haven't seen significant losses (like Irvine) and their incomes... is there some corollary?
Anyways... just thinking out loud... but I've read some blog sites that analyze the same study and I find one comment interesting, if these unemployment percentages were flipped... do you think the government would be doing more or less about the jobless situation?