A California Man Showed What Renting Near Los Angeles Actually Costs in 2026  and the Comment Section Split Between Sympathy and ‘Just Move’ 62%

By Vanshika37%

7/19/2026, 11:58:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Overconfidence Bias, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 22.1% saturation with 129 hits. Analysis detected 828 faulty-reasoning hits from 584 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.5% and a BS Rank of 62% (8,307 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 62.00% of the article peer group.

A California man’s video explaining how much he pays to rent a two-bedroom apartment in Southern California has drawn attention to the state’s housing costs after it was shared on X. 
American says he lives in Southern California and it’s very expensive 
He has a 2 bedroom, it’s about an hour outside of Los Angeles and he pays $2,930 a month for rent. 
After utilities and fees it’s about $3,400 per month 
“It is not cheap to live here in Southern California”… pic.twitter.com/nRfz2KOqkD 
- Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) July 19, 2026 
The clip was reposted by @WallStreetApes and summarized the creator’s claims: the man rents a two-bedroom apartment about an hour outside Los Angeles for $2,930 a month, and after utilities and other fees, his monthly housing bill reaches roughly $3,400. 
The video creator showed listings in Santa Monica and Venice Beach with asking prices ranging from $4,500 to $5,400, though The Daily Dot could not independently verify current market rates. 
As of publication, the post had drawn more than 116,000 views and 1400 likes on X. 
In the video, the renter says living in Southern California “is not cheap” before showing apartment listings around Santa Monica and Venice Beach with asking prices ranging from roughly $3,000 to more than $5,000 per month for two-bedroom units. 
The video also includes a map of available rentals across the Los Angeles area. 
Many commenters said his experience matched their own in California. 
“I live in So Cal and can confirm how expensive it is to live here,” one user wrote. 
“The Inland Empire used to be a less expensive area, but it has crept up in cost over the last few years.” 
Another added, “How can anyone afford these rents? 
Something has to give.” 
Others shared their own housing costs, with one person writing that they had recently rented out a three-bedroom home about an hour east of Los Angeles for $3,800 per month. 
Another claimed that a two-bedroom apartment in Northern California could cost as much as $6,000 monthly. 
Several commenters argued that living in Southern California is a personal choice. 
“Tip: Do not live above your means. 
If you can’t afford LA, move elsewhere,” one commenter wrote. 
Another echoed the sentiment, saying, “Why stay in Cali and then complain?” 
Others pointed to lower housing costs in other parts of the country. 
“That’s $40k a year just on rent,” one user wrote. 
“You can buy a $350k house in the Midwest for that.” 
Some commenters argued that Southern California’s weather, beaches, and job opportunities justify the higher cost of living. 
“Y’all are paying for the premium weather and location,” one person wrote. 
Others attributed California’s high costs to housing shortages, taxes, insurance and population growth. 
At the same time, several replies veered into broader political debates over state policies and immigration. 
The Daily Dot could not independently verify the creator’s rental payments or the apartment listings shown in the video. 
The prices cited in the post reflect the claims made by the creator and the listings displayed during the recording. 
Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online. 
The post A California Man Showed What Renting Near Los Angeles Actually Costs in 2026  and the Comment Section Split Between Sympathy and ‘Just Move’ appeared first on The Daily Dot . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.5%Vanshika: 3.0%dailydot.com: 4.3%Confirmation Bias13.5%This article: 5.3%Vanshika: 1.4%dailydot.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias5.3%This article: 5.8%Vanshika: 4.6%dailydot.com: 4.2%Availability Heuristic5.8%This article: 3.6%Vanshika: 0.5%dailydot.com: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.6%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Vanshika: 1.4%dailydot.com: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias8.6%This article: 4.1%Vanshika: 4.2%dailydot.com: 4.9%Framing Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.7%Vanshika: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.7%Vanshika: 1.6%dailydot.com: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.7%This article: 1.4%Vanshika: 1.4%dailydot.com: 1.4%Pessimism Bias1.4%This article: 6.7%Vanshika: 8.4%dailydot.com: 8.7%Negativity Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Vanshika: 3.5%dailydot.com: 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error4.1%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.7%dailydot.com: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.5%dailydot.com: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.9%dailydot.com: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Vanshika: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.7%Recency Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Vanshika: 1.3%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ad Hominem2.1%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.7%dailydot.com: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 1.4%dailydot.com: 1.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.8%Vanshika: 3.3%dailydot.com: 2.2%False Dilemma5.8%This article: 0.7%Vanshika: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.7%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.6%Vanshika: 8.2%dailydot.com: 8.9%Hasty Generalization4.6%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%Vanshika: 2.7%dailydot.com: 2.4%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 1.9%Vanshika: 5.7%dailydot.com: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion1.9%This article: 2.1%Vanshika: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.9%Begging the Question2.1%This article: 6.0%Vanshika: 0.8%dailydot.com: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.0%This article: 2.1%Vanshika: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque2.1%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.9%dailydot.com: 1.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 2.9%Vanshika: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature2.9%This article: 2.1%Vanshika: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Composition/Division2.1%This article: 22.1%Vanshika: 7.8%dailydot.com: 7.4%Anecdotal22.1%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.1%Vanshika: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.1%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.4%Vanshika: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity1.4%This article: 1.2%Vanshika: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Special Pleading1.2%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.3%Vanshika: 8.1%dailydot.com: 5.1%Unattributed Quote3.3%This article: 1.9%Vanshika: 2.8%dailydot.com: 3.4%Quote-first Misdirection1.9%This article: 3.1%Vanshika: 2.4%dailydot.com: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice3.1%This article: 2.9%Vanshika: 0.6%dailydot.com: 1.6%Indoctrination2.9%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vanshika: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Vanshika: 2.8%dailydot.com: 1.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.1%

584 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.2%attributed speech536writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Apes • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Apes • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Wall Street Apes

83%flagged-word coverage
48 attributed words100% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Unattributed Quote-3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Wall Street Apes: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Wall Street Apes: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Wall Street Apes: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Wall Street Apes: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.1 ptsWriter: 2.1%Wall Street Apes: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.