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]](http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/SF-AA704_BAYSIG_NS_20110112172911.gif)
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!
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:57 am
The problem is probably how parents in this area define “basic needs” for their children.
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Certainly sushi is near the top of the list of basic needs..
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:35 pm
My daughter needs her sashimi!
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:47 pm
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!
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
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?
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:33 pm
It’s difficult for me to imagine a child going without a Children’s Theater.
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Or unfiltered sake.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:13 pm
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.
January 23rd, 2011 at 12:58 pm
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!
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:06 pm
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
January 23rd, 2011 at 8:17 pm
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/
January 25th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
#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.
January 25th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
#12, do you mean via a propped up share price when they cash in their options?