January 22, 2011

Bay Area Children Better Off

 

Bay Area Children Better Off Than Rest of California

In a sign of the Bay Area’s relative wealth, children in the region are more likely to live in households with higher incomes and with parents who are married and have higher education levels than children statewide, according to a survey of parents from the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health released in December. While 24% of children in the Bay Area live in households with incomes above $125,000, only 18% statewide had this level of income, the survey found. But because of the high cost of living in the Bay Area, 23% of parents here said their level of income isn’t enough to provide for their children, only slightly lower than 26% statewide. "While that’s better than the rest of California, that’s still concerning," said David Alexander, president and chief executive of the foundation.

[BAYSIGNS]

Congrats to the Bay Area. And let’s face it, since California is the center of the world, then Bay Area children are better off than the rest of the world.

We’re #1! We’re #1!

Comments (13) -- Posted by: burbed @ 5:22 am

13 Responses to “Bay Area Children Better Off”

  1. nomadic Says:

    The problem is probably how parents in this area define “basic needs” for their children.

  2. anon Says:

    Certainly sushi is near the top of the list of basic needs..

  3. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    My daughter needs her sashimi!

  4. The Gilroy Alex Says:

    You can have 1/3 living in third world level poverty, as long as the top 1/3 are performing well. The numbers will look good.

    We’re no. 1!

  5. madhaus Says:

    But only 1 out of 4 Bay Area children live in a household where their parents earn 1/4 of not a lot of money. Scandalous! Not only are 3/4 of them deficient in Hamachi and Toro, the supposedly privileged quarter have to make due with inferior amaebi.

    Won’t somebody THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

  6. SEA Says:

    It’s difficult for me to imagine a child going without a Children’s Theater.

  7. lebowski Says:

    Or unfiltered sake.

  8. CB Says:

    I think we’ve become a population of self important whiners, the kind who’d rather carry a good data plan than pay for health coverage. If my dad had a fraction of the crap I own he’d think he was rich. 125K can seem dismal in the Bay Area or is can provide for a comfortable life. It’s all about where that money goes.

    And example, there are people who can put their kids through 4 years of UC with the money they spend on coffee every day. And they probably think life is hard.

  9. Griselda Says:

    Like Nomadic I wonder how they defined a ‘basic need’. Of course there is food, clothing and shelter. But does your child need a cell phone with unlimited texting so Mom and Dad can know where he is? (As if anyone still believes THAT as a reason.) Do they need a car to work at Mc Donald’s so they can buy trampy clothes and marijuana? How about a big screen TV and expensive cable package? Everyone else has that so why can’t I? I really doubt such a large percentage can’t afford the basics. My parents grew up on brussels sprouts and cauliflower and wore clothes until they became quilt pieces. A new outfit was for an occasion on the scale of a wedding. Today living like that sounds insane. My point is that we have redefined ‘basic’ to mean all sorts of things that, although mildly unpleasant to live without, are by no definition basic.

    I just spent a week without my beloved internet and I survived!

  10. Owl Says:

    Since there is no new topic today why don’t we talk about Google money and the falling prices in the RBA.

    http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2011/01/google_salaries_and_shares_up_2207_scott_street_down.html#comments

  11. nomadic Says:

    It’s funny that one comment in that post (from Owl) says that GOOG is pouring money into the Bay Area from all over the world. Yes, they are paying salaries to thousands of people locally, but forget the tax angle. Their marginal tax rate is only 2.4%.

    http://www.advisoranalyst.com/glablog/tag/marginal-tax-rate/

  12. traumatic Says:

    #11 Exactly! With only a 2.4% marginal tax rate, MORE money goes to those thousands right here in the RBA rather than to the bureaucrats in Washington for the benefit of millions of non-RBA’ers.

  13. nomadic Says:

    #12, do you mean via a propped up share price when they cash in their options?


Leave a Reply

Please be nice. No name calling, no personal attacks, no racist stuff, no baiting, etc. Let's be nice to each other in the true Bay Area spirit! (Comments may be edited/removed without notice.)