In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”(mercurynews.com)
mercurynews.com
In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/22/in-costly-bay-area-even-six-figure-salaries-are-considered-low-income/
427 comments
Did the exact same thing this year. Moved to Oviedo, FL from SF:
1) no state income tax,
2) public schools in my neighborhood are equivalent to a private school in sf [i]
4) weather is great 8 months out of year,
5) beaches you can swim in,
6) rent is ~1/4 of what it was in SF,
7) cuban food,
8) as a resident, kids have year round disney passes
[i] http://school-ratings.com/Florida/schools/Carillon_Elementar...
WARNING: The tech job market is pretty much non-existent. "more challenging" is an understatement. I would be prepared to answer 'can you lift 50 lbs' in your 'tech' interview. I am a remote dev.
1) no state income tax,
2) public schools in my neighborhood are equivalent to a private school in sf [i]
4) weather is great 8 months out of year,
5) beaches you can swim in,
6) rent is ~1/4 of what it was in SF,
7) cuban food,
8) as a resident, kids have year round disney passes
[i] http://school-ratings.com/Florida/schools/Carillon_Elementar...
WARNING: The tech job market is pretty much non-existent. "more challenging" is an understatement. I would be prepared to answer 'can you lift 50 lbs' in your 'tech' interview. I am a remote dev.
I also moved from the the Bay Area to Oviedo, FL not long ago (fun fact about our little town: Brian Acton, co-founder of WhatsApp, grew up here). I agree with everything on your list, and I'll add one more item:
9) Greater thought diversity and tolerance for opposing viewpoints.
When I lived in the Bay Area it seemed that too many people I interacted with were of similar backgrounds: very educated, high income and similar political and social values. While I loved my years there, at times I felt like I was in a cultural bubble insulated from the real world. Worse, I saw people professionally shunned for expressing opinions that fell outside the mainstream. People here in the Orlando area are all types and they seem to love to discuss their differences and even try to learn from them. I can't begin to imagine someone suffering professionally only for their opinions here. It's very refreshing.
I have not lived in enough places to guess if this is a Florida vs California thing, or an Orlando area vs Bay Area thing, or a Bay Area vs everywhere else thing, but I think it's certainly a positive difference.
9) Greater thought diversity and tolerance for opposing viewpoints.
When I lived in the Bay Area it seemed that too many people I interacted with were of similar backgrounds: very educated, high income and similar political and social values. While I loved my years there, at times I felt like I was in a cultural bubble insulated from the real world. Worse, I saw people professionally shunned for expressing opinions that fell outside the mainstream. People here in the Orlando area are all types and they seem to love to discuss their differences and even try to learn from them. I can't begin to imagine someone suffering professionally only for their opinions here. It's very refreshing.
I have not lived in enough places to guess if this is a Florida vs California thing, or an Orlando area vs Bay Area thing, or a Bay Area vs everywhere else thing, but I think it's certainly a positive difference.
> When I lived in the Bay Area it seemed that too many people I interacted with were of similar backgrounds: very educated, high income and similar political and social values.
I think this is one of the most important things as a whole. I am in Iowa (a red except for the counties holding the ~5 largest cities) and have a friend who is in DC. She said she mentioned having a couple friends from high school who were conservative and that made her weird in her friend group. The rest were in the DC bubble, effectively not knowing people from "the other side" on a personal level.
The political polarization is really bad for the country. The concept that you can agree with the left on some issues and the right on others isn't popular. Personally I take the position that the "true, objective best" (if there was such a thing) solution is closer to the middle than the far right or far left.
I think this is one of the most important things as a whole. I am in Iowa (a red except for the counties holding the ~5 largest cities) and have a friend who is in DC. She said she mentioned having a couple friends from high school who were conservative and that made her weird in her friend group. The rest were in the DC bubble, effectively not knowing people from "the other side" on a personal level.
The political polarization is really bad for the country. The concept that you can agree with the left on some issues and the right on others isn't popular. Personally I take the position that the "true, objective best" (if there was such a thing) solution is closer to the middle than the far right or far left.
OT politics and viewpoints are deeply ingrained. Two people with different views could be given the exact same facts and come away with vastly different conclusions. That never changes. The way we with with people we disagree with does change, and it indeed changes us as well.
Totally agreed. Bay Area seems to be detached from the rest of the country sometimes and it's easy for people who live here to fall into echo chambers/cultural bubbles. I would not give out the company name, but I once visited this company and there is an "empathy corner" that displays low-end phones to remind employees that these still exist, probably because majority of the employees there are well-off and unlikely to own low-end devices. It struck me how detached from reality big tech companies could be and hence my decision to travel around other parts of the country/world to refresh my mind and get out of this bubble.
With all due respect, I don't really buy that narrative.
People often mistake critical thinking skills with close-mindedness. Just because someone uses thought and reason to reject an idea doesn't mean they are close-minded. Not all ideas deserve acceptance. I'm as open-minded as it gets, but if you tell me that vaccines cause autism then you will go down several notches in my book. (Ironically, there are many anti-vax people in the Bay Area!)
I don't know about Oviedo specifically (maybe it's a liberal haven in the middle of a conservative sea, like Austin TX), but I've known several Floridans from the more conservative parts of the state, and they were either naive and gullible as hell, or actually close-minded. I don't say that to stereotype the entire state, but it's worth remembering that conservatism is about the preservation of the status quo, and by definition it's not nearly as accepting of new (and valid) ideas and perspectives as liberalism is. That's not meant to be a value judgment, but rather a descriptive statement.
People often mistake critical thinking skills with close-mindedness. Just because someone uses thought and reason to reject an idea doesn't mean they are close-minded. Not all ideas deserve acceptance. I'm as open-minded as it gets, but if you tell me that vaccines cause autism then you will go down several notches in my book. (Ironically, there are many anti-vax people in the Bay Area!)
I don't know about Oviedo specifically (maybe it's a liberal haven in the middle of a conservative sea, like Austin TX), but I've known several Floridans from the more conservative parts of the state, and they were either naive and gullible as hell, or actually close-minded. I don't say that to stereotype the entire state, but it's worth remembering that conservatism is about the preservation of the status quo, and by definition it's not nearly as accepting of new (and valid) ideas and perspectives as liberalism is. That's not meant to be a value judgment, but rather a descriptive statement.
Everybody you don't agree with is "close-minded". It's the fact that they can't seem to see the sense in your own position that makes them seem like such benighted fools. But they look at you in the same way. Unless you can accept that _to those people_ opposition to vaccines or whatever _does_ make a kind of sense, then I suggest you're being equally close-minded. You may be right, but your mind is not open to the sense in other people's worldviews.
The division of our society into ideological camps that point fingers at each other and can't see the others as basically-sensible human beings drives me crazy.
The division of our society into ideological camps that point fingers at each other and can't see the others as basically-sensible human beings drives me crazy.
Right, that's one of the things I have found my fellow liberals struggling with. They don't understand the state of mind of somebody who wants to maintain things how they are, "we like it here" and attribute that to being close-minded, racist, ignorant, whatever. Sometimes that's true, but often times it's not. For example, I'm quite bearish on immigration, for example (I won't get into it here unless asked), and among my fellow liberal friends it's something they don't understand and considered "close-minded" or "unaccepting" but what does being close-minded actually mean?
In my case, for example, I've thought about an issue and have drawn a conclusion based on the facts at hand. I'm very open to new perspectives and new ideas and often challenge people on their own preconceptions because I think it's valuable that people are challenged. But again, I'm not "close-minded", I've just drawn a different conclusion. People need to understand the difference and they largely don't.
In my case, for example, I've thought about an issue and have drawn a conclusion based on the facts at hand. I'm very open to new perspectives and new ideas and often challenge people on their own preconceptions because I think it's valuable that people are challenged. But again, I'm not "close-minded", I've just drawn a different conclusion. People need to understand the difference and they largely don't.
That sort of "critical thinking" arrogance is what keeps people from sharing their different opinions and perspectives from your pompous ass.
Not sure why critical thinking is in quotes - critical thinking is a real thing. It's connecting conclusions with premises that lead to those conclusions, so that if someone else started with those premises, they'd also arrive at the same conclusions. It's not a different opinion or perspective, and it's not pompous - it's by definition something that can be shared across all opinions and perspectives.
> if someone else started with those premises, they'd also arrive at the same conclusions
I like your definition of critical thinking, it also allows me to highlight why I agree with sideband. In the bay area there tends to be less acceptance for differing premises.
I am a conservative Christian and certain premises I bring to the conversation automatically make me "hateful" or "bigoted". While I have seen this most prominently in the religious/moral realm I see it in politics as well.
In the bay area there is a right set of premises and a wrong set. If you start with the wrong set it is acceptable to wholly reject the conclusions without engaging critically with why the premises are wrong.
I like your definition of critical thinking, it also allows me to highlight why I agree with sideband. In the bay area there tends to be less acceptance for differing premises.
I am a conservative Christian and certain premises I bring to the conversation automatically make me "hateful" or "bigoted". While I have seen this most prominently in the religious/moral realm I see it in politics as well.
In the bay area there is a right set of premises and a wrong set. If you start with the wrong set it is acceptable to wholly reject the conclusions without engaging critically with why the premises are wrong.
Yes, I'm far from a conservative Christian but I appreciate that while some premises are fact, other premises are simply "values" ("should/ought" statements) that can vary from person to person. People can reason accurately towards different conclusions from those values. People should be able to debate/disagree respectfully about differing values, assuming there's a basic level of humanity in those values.
Of course, people can reason incorrectly, too. I think there's a set of people that disagree with the values, but there's another set of people that object to conclusions that appear inconsistent when compared to the premises/values they purportedly rest upon.
Of course, people can reason incorrectly, too. I think there's a set of people that disagree with the values, but there's another set of people that object to conclusions that appear inconsistent when compared to the premises/values they purportedly rest upon.
> assuming there's a basic level of humanity in those values
I am not saying that you are this way, but I have had interactions that lead me to believe that reasoning allows some to wholly reject values I hold dear as "intolerant" without consideration, all in the name of tolerance. It comes across as comical in a tragic way.
On the flip side, I have had interactions where I was able have a disagreement and work backward to the differing values which we were able to agree to disagree on.
I am not saying that you are this way, but I have had interactions that lead me to believe that reasoning allows some to wholly reject values I hold dear as "intolerant" without consideration, all in the name of tolerance. It comes across as comical in a tragic way.
On the flip side, I have had interactions where I was able have a disagreement and work backward to the differing values which we were able to agree to disagree on.
There are some deeply held values worldwide that are deeply offensive to others, that's for sure. For instance, there are those who earnestly believe that some class of humans is naturally inferior to others, or more genetically suited to servitude, etc.
The question of how or whether to limit some kinds of speech... I honestly think this is one of the great philosophical struggles of this generation. I am not sure why it has come up again when it seemed largely settled in the past. On the liberal side, you see people like Howard Dean and Elizabeth Warren disagree on it, which is a weird experience.
I think the question is, is there some set of underlying values where we can appropriately justify excluding someone entirely?
If the answer is yes, then how do you draw the line, and how do you protect against arbitrary lines being drawn against you in return? If the answer is no, then there's a whole host of other questions, like how do you deal with trolls?
I remember there was a great deal of consternation about Bill Nye debating Ken Ham, for instance. So many voices thought it was inappropriate. I thought the debate was a good thing.
On the other hand, I have a hard time accepting that trolling is protected speech. Heartfelt offensive speech I'm fine with, but trolling feels like a close cousin of fighting words, with intent only to destroy. On the other hand, I'm not sure how to tell the difference between trolling and heartfelt ignorance.
The question of how or whether to limit some kinds of speech... I honestly think this is one of the great philosophical struggles of this generation. I am not sure why it has come up again when it seemed largely settled in the past. On the liberal side, you see people like Howard Dean and Elizabeth Warren disagree on it, which is a weird experience.
I think the question is, is there some set of underlying values where we can appropriately justify excluding someone entirely?
If the answer is yes, then how do you draw the line, and how do you protect against arbitrary lines being drawn against you in return? If the answer is no, then there's a whole host of other questions, like how do you deal with trolls?
I remember there was a great deal of consternation about Bill Nye debating Ken Ham, for instance. So many voices thought it was inappropriate. I thought the debate was a good thing.
On the other hand, I have a hard time accepting that trolling is protected speech. Heartfelt offensive speech I'm fine with, but trolling feels like a close cousin of fighting words, with intent only to destroy. On the other hand, I'm not sure how to tell the difference between trolling and heartfelt ignorance.
When you see someone look down on another's thoughts because they aren't "critical thinking enough, you'll find someone (or a culture) that assumes they have all the facts, and have considered all possibilities. That is hubris.
I find people who are truly open don't hold so desperately to facts, because they tend to change over time.
I find people who are truly open don't hold so desperately to facts, because they tend to change over time.
The fact that this entire comment could have been written by (for example) a flat-earther in response to criticism of their flat-earth beliefs makes it difficult to understand what kind of "facts" you are disappointed that people hold so dearly to, and what kind of facts you believe change over time. Depending on your response, I might agree entirely with you or disagree entirely. I understand that human knowledge is inherently fungible, and therefore sometimes what we previously understand as facts can change. However, that does not mean that I can decide that the Holocaust didn't happen, for example.
The truth is generally not up for interpretation by any person who feels it should be. Critical thinking is actually a thing, and the lack of it does actually result in believing false things. If someone told me that I'm not applying critical thinking, then my response would be to ask for specific details on what aspect of critical thinking I'm not applying and exactly where I'm getting things wrong. What I would not do is respond by criticizing the idea of critical thinking itself or tell them that they need to consider alternative facts.
The truth is generally not up for interpretation by any person who feels it should be. Critical thinking is actually a thing, and the lack of it does actually result in believing false things. If someone told me that I'm not applying critical thinking, then my response would be to ask for specific details on what aspect of critical thinking I'm not applying and exactly where I'm getting things wrong. What I would not do is respond by criticizing the idea of critical thinking itself or tell them that they need to consider alternative facts.
Flat earthers are derided now, but that wasn't always so. You might have been in that camp 500 years ago and been just as adamant then as you are now.
500 years from now I have absolutely no doubt that there are things we absolutely believe to be truth to be proven wrong. (Maybe light isn't both a wave and a particle?)
Heck, maybe antibiotics do contribute to autism some how. I very much doubt it. But it would be hubris to assume I know absolutely everything there is to know about the human body, antibiotics, and all their interactions. So I disagree with anti-vaxxers, based on current evidence. But I won't dismiss them and consider them less intelligent.
500 years from now I have absolutely no doubt that there are things we absolutely believe to be truth to be proven wrong. (Maybe light isn't both a wave and a particle?)
Heck, maybe antibiotics do contribute to autism some how. I very much doubt it. But it would be hubris to assume I know absolutely everything there is to know about the human body, antibiotics, and all their interactions. So I disagree with anti-vaxxers, based on current evidence. But I won't dismiss them and consider them less intelligent.
Flat earthers are derided now, but that wasn't always so. You might have been in that camp 500 years ago and been just as adamant then as you are now.
We knew this 500 years ago too, but even if we didn't it would not have been rational to pretend to know the shape of our entire world without having evidence to back it up. All we would know is that it appears to be flat from our limited vantage point, and we were free to investigate further using various methods.
500 years from now I have absolutely no doubt that there are things we absolutely believe to be truth to be proven wrong. (Maybe light isn't both a wave and a particle?)
500 years from now it will still be the case that light can behave like a particle and a wave depending on how you're measuring it. We may have better, more accurate models to explain the behavior of light in 500 years.
So I disagree with anti-vaxxers, based on current evidence. But I won't dismiss them and consider them less intelligent.
The reason that many people believe vaccines cause autism is because of a fraudulent study by Andrew Wakefield. Believing in a claim based an a proven fraud is not rational regardless of what is discovered in the future.
To put it generally, if you believe in claim X for bad reasons, and it later is discovered that X is true, it does not mean that you were retroactively acting rational for previously believing in claim X for bad reasons.
We knew this 500 years ago too, but even if we didn't it would not have been rational to pretend to know the shape of our entire world without having evidence to back it up. All we would know is that it appears to be flat from our limited vantage point, and we were free to investigate further using various methods.
500 years from now I have absolutely no doubt that there are things we absolutely believe to be truth to be proven wrong. (Maybe light isn't both a wave and a particle?)
500 years from now it will still be the case that light can behave like a particle and a wave depending on how you're measuring it. We may have better, more accurate models to explain the behavior of light in 500 years.
So I disagree with anti-vaxxers, based on current evidence. But I won't dismiss them and consider them less intelligent.
The reason that many people believe vaccines cause autism is because of a fraudulent study by Andrew Wakefield. Believing in a claim based an a proven fraud is not rational regardless of what is discovered in the future.
To put it generally, if you believe in claim X for bad reasons, and it later is discovered that X is true, it does not mean that you were retroactively acting rational for previously believing in claim X for bad reasons.
> To put it generally, if you believe in claim X for bad reasons, and it later is discovered that X is true, it does not mean that you were retroactively acting rational for previously believing in claim X for bad reasons.
That is true. Isn't it equally as true that if one goes around telling people they are wrong, and then it turns out that one is wrong (based on new evidence), one has been wrong AND a hypocrite? The temptation is to say "ahh, but THIS TIME we have better science!". That's always been the case.
My point isn't about truth and error as much as hubris, humility, and respect.
That is true. Isn't it equally as true that if one goes around telling people they are wrong, and then it turns out that one is wrong (based on new evidence), one has been wrong AND a hypocrite? The temptation is to say "ahh, but THIS TIME we have better science!". That's always been the case.
My point isn't about truth and error as much as hubris, humility, and respect.
I think a big part of the reason why hubris is bad is because it causes you to make mistakes when determining truth from error. If someone goes around telling people a claim is false without sufficient justification, and they're doing so as a reaction against people believing in the claim for bad reasons, then you could say that their hubris (or something like it) caused them to make an error in judgement.
There is a difference between saying that a belief in a claim is not rationally justified and saying that a claim is false. Both sides of these debates can make mistakes. Those against believing in the claim can make the counterclaim that it is false, and they might not actually have justification for that. On the other hand, often those that believe in the claim misinterpret the other side as making the counterclaim when they are in fact not doing so.
In the case of autism there has been extensive research since the moral panic began, and no evidence for a link has been found where it was expected to be found, thereby bringing increased justification for the counterclaim. I think this is also true with many other unsupported claims out there that are popular enough to have been exposed to systematic scrutiny.
There is a difference between saying that a belief in a claim is not rationally justified and saying that a claim is false. Both sides of these debates can make mistakes. Those against believing in the claim can make the counterclaim that it is false, and they might not actually have justification for that. On the other hand, often those that believe in the claim misinterpret the other side as making the counterclaim when they are in fact not doing so.
In the case of autism there has been extensive research since the moral panic began, and no evidence for a link has been found where it was expected to be found, thereby bringing increased justification for the counterclaim. I think this is also true with many other unsupported claims out there that are popular enough to have been exposed to systematic scrutiny.
> But if you tell me that vaccines cause autism
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but have you researched this? My assumption is "no they don't" but it's actually an area I know very little about.
Looking at the whole discussion currently happening around glyphosate / Roundup, where extensive lobbying has been done by Monsanto to block out any negative reports from the public domain, I (personally) think a lot of things shouldn't just be disregarded as absolute nonsense (even if they, eventually are). Pharma companies are also not above extensive lobbying (look at Mylan and their EpiPen).
Autism rates have gone up during the last 20+ years. Why is this? It would be interesting to at least be able to figure out why, so you are able to rule out other things.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but have you researched this? My assumption is "no they don't" but it's actually an area I know very little about.
Looking at the whole discussion currently happening around glyphosate / Roundup, where extensive lobbying has been done by Monsanto to block out any negative reports from the public domain, I (personally) think a lot of things shouldn't just be disregarded as absolute nonsense (even if they, eventually are). Pharma companies are also not above extensive lobbying (look at Mylan and their EpiPen).
Autism rates have gone up during the last 20+ years. Why is this? It would be interesting to at least be able to figure out why, so you are able to rule out other things.
Not everyone needs to do scientific research and read peer-reviewed journal articles about every topic to come to a conclusion about it.
Until such time as reputable scientists start saying there is more than a tangential relationship between vaccination and autism, it's a pretty untenable position to have.
> Autism rates have gone up during the last 20+ years. Why is this?
Autism rates increasing doesn't mean there's more autism, it means there's more diagnosed autism. It could be that it was under-diagnosed in the past. It could be that it's actually increasing. It could be that it's simply being over-diagnosed now. I'm bracing for the backlash but I've met a dozen or so diagnosed autistic children and more than a few of them are just assholes or have parents looking for an easy way to not discipline their children.
Until such time as reputable scientists start saying there is more than a tangential relationship between vaccination and autism, it's a pretty untenable position to have.
> Autism rates have gone up during the last 20+ years. Why is this?
Autism rates increasing doesn't mean there's more autism, it means there's more diagnosed autism. It could be that it was under-diagnosed in the past. It could be that it's actually increasing. It could be that it's simply being over-diagnosed now. I'm bracing for the backlash but I've met a dozen or so diagnosed autistic children and more than a few of them are just assholes or have parents looking for an easy way to not discipline their children.
> but I've met a dozen or so diagnosed autistic children and more than a few of them are just assholes or have parents looking for an easy way to not discipline their children.
Yes and same with ADHD, gluten intolerance and other 'diseases' that have gone up in the past 20 years while your annoying, anti social, always crying and shouting, only likes sugar child is just the result of lazy parenting and a general lack of tolerance to suffering at large.
Yes and same with ADHD, gluten intolerance and other 'diseases' that have gone up in the past 20 years while your annoying, anti social, always crying and shouting, only likes sugar child is just the result of lazy parenting and a general lack of tolerance to suffering at large.
Completely agreed here. My experience has been that people are very intolerant of thought diversity. They like all sorts of diversity, as long as you subscribe to the same politics and morality as they do.
Agree in a lot of ways, but there's darker sides to this pro depending on context and who you are. One of the things that makes the Bay Area priceless to me (visibile minority) is that I'm consistently treated like a regular person/with friendliness by strangers instead of with general hostility/coldness like I was back home in the Midwest.
Really surprised to hear my hometown mentioned on hackernews! Went to Carillon as a child, still around the area now working at UCF.
Grew up in FL.
Weather is actually terrible about 8 months of the year. It's too humid and hot. The climate is perfect for mosquitos, forcing you to wear long sleeve clothing at night during this humid weather (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalitis). Insects and arachnids thrive in FL's swampy climate. People who aren't from either that or a jungle need to take time to adjust. Imagine being sweaty after walking outside for a few feet. AC is a must and you will pay around $200-300/month (maybe more) for electricity without an EV (on the bright side your house is 2-3 times larger than the Bay Area). Great place for solar. When I think about it, FL is probably the Australia of the US; there are a lot of things there that will kill you. (Almost every Floridian knows not to let their children play near water when it gets dark. The ones that don't end up on the news.) The good part is that it's easy to grow avocado and mango trees. Also unlike earthquakes, hurricanes are easier to forecast.
Other than water and the beaches, there's nothing to do compared to the SF Bay Area. Yes you can swim and surf in the beaches but due to decades of pollution, 'sea lice' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_louse) has been prevalent since I was a kid. Also due to erosion, most beach sand is now crushed rock. That said, the water is way nicer than anywhere in the SF Bay Area. If you like diving or snorkeling, you can hunt for lobsters yourself. Unfortunately, due to damage to the eco system, sharks are also a lot more aggressive, and they've been known to attack surfers as well for years now. Still, in some parts the water is so clear that you can see fish below while on a boat.
Florida is primarily a giant retirement community for northerners, making it mostly a nice giant boring, suburb unless you are attending a party college in the far north. Miami has a club scene but it gets old. It's not NYC or LA. Cuban food is amazing though and even if it is available in another state; it's not the same.
Forgot to add that there's less diversity in FL compared to other metros, even if you just compare it to other metros in the South it's still less. Maybe things have changed since I left?
Weather is actually terrible about 8 months of the year. It's too humid and hot. The climate is perfect for mosquitos, forcing you to wear long sleeve clothing at night during this humid weather (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalitis). Insects and arachnids thrive in FL's swampy climate. People who aren't from either that or a jungle need to take time to adjust. Imagine being sweaty after walking outside for a few feet. AC is a must and you will pay around $200-300/month (maybe more) for electricity without an EV (on the bright side your house is 2-3 times larger than the Bay Area). Great place for solar. When I think about it, FL is probably the Australia of the US; there are a lot of things there that will kill you. (Almost every Floridian knows not to let their children play near water when it gets dark. The ones that don't end up on the news.) The good part is that it's easy to grow avocado and mango trees. Also unlike earthquakes, hurricanes are easier to forecast.
Other than water and the beaches, there's nothing to do compared to the SF Bay Area. Yes you can swim and surf in the beaches but due to decades of pollution, 'sea lice' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_louse) has been prevalent since I was a kid. Also due to erosion, most beach sand is now crushed rock. That said, the water is way nicer than anywhere in the SF Bay Area. If you like diving or snorkeling, you can hunt for lobsters yourself. Unfortunately, due to damage to the eco system, sharks are also a lot more aggressive, and they've been known to attack surfers as well for years now. Still, in some parts the water is so clear that you can see fish below while on a boat.
Florida is primarily a giant retirement community for northerners, making it mostly a nice giant boring, suburb unless you are attending a party college in the far north. Miami has a club scene but it gets old. It's not NYC or LA. Cuban food is amazing though and even if it is available in another state; it's not the same.
Forgot to add that there's less diversity in FL compared to other metros, even if you just compare it to other metros in the South it's still less. Maybe things have changed since I left?
Interviewing in Seattle at Amazon, arguably the outdoor recreation capital of the US, only one of the interviewers had had time to take advantage.
One of the things that helped to lure me to the Bay Area was the "abundance of outdoor activities." I pretty much rarely get time to go out to do these things in reality, doing the normal Bay Area 8AM-6PM, plus the two hours to commute each way because look at cost of living anywhere near employment.
If you guys aren't able to do anything outside of work on weekends, you're setting yourselves up for burn out.
[deleted]
> arguably the outdoor recreation capital of the US
... as long as you don't mind being damp the whole time. It's not a nice place to be outdoors much of the year.
Moved from South FL to Bay Area... you cannot make me go back.
Add flying cockroaches the size of tri-folded dollar bill to chaostheory's accurate depiction (that when I sent to my wife had her saying, "I could have written that word for word!").
Add flying cockroaches the size of tri-folded dollar bill to chaostheory's accurate depiction (that when I sent to my wife had her saying, "I could have written that word for word!").
Sidebar / off topic: highly recommend the cuban espresso in Florida if you're into coffee...blew me away when I had it for the first time, and is one of the top reasons I look forward to travelling there.
Colada is life for me in Miami. 4-5 shots of Cafe Cubano to share with friends, or just drink yourself and feel the buzz.
What the existence of Colada says about the culture is so awesome. I want to be part of that so bad!
To me it's just a poorly pulled espresso with a ton of sugar...
Not sure the down votes because you just perfectly described a bad colada. But there is hope they can be delicious, it's the only coffee I drink, and I even wanted to bring Cuban coffee in a can to market cubanshot.weebly.com of course months after contacting coffee canners Starbucks came out with their doubleshot cubano which is terrible.
Basically the difference between a real/good colada and what you described is whipping and creation of a paste in the beginning before the pull.
Remain open minded
Basically the difference between a real/good colada and what you described is whipping and creation of a paste in the beginning before the pull.
Remain open minded
Cafe colada is what I miss most about Miami, having now moved to California :(
1) And this shows: public services and family friendly recreation are basically non-existent by comparison with the Bay
2) Possibly a gem in the rough, but having family who teach in OCPS I'm skeptical
4) Quite subjective; I personally don't enjoy 100% humidity and 100 degree temperatures 8 months out of the year in which one is constantly assaulted by mosquitoes and "love bugs"
5) again, subjective, although it's hard to argue that the Bay Area isn't laughable by comparison
6) I doubt you're going to find a 1500 sq ft. 3 bedroom town home for $1k per month (1/4 of what I pay 20 miles south of SF), and you're leaving out other costs, hidden costs, including commute and items related to the lack of public services and much higher utilities costs; the cost of living is lower, but not 75% lower
7) there is much, much greater diversity of food (including Cuban food) in the Bay Area
8) This isn't cheap, even for residents. Last I looked, years ago, it was more expensive than a family pass for the Exploratorium and other far more enriching and entertaining things for kids to.
Then there are many negatives. The biggest one, in my opinion, is the lack of diversity. Central Florida had a strong Latin American influence but it's still mainly a white monoculture.
2) Possibly a gem in the rough, but having family who teach in OCPS I'm skeptical
4) Quite subjective; I personally don't enjoy 100% humidity and 100 degree temperatures 8 months out of the year in which one is constantly assaulted by mosquitoes and "love bugs"
5) again, subjective, although it's hard to argue that the Bay Area isn't laughable by comparison
6) I doubt you're going to find a 1500 sq ft. 3 bedroom town home for $1k per month (1/4 of what I pay 20 miles south of SF), and you're leaving out other costs, hidden costs, including commute and items related to the lack of public services and much higher utilities costs; the cost of living is lower, but not 75% lower
7) there is much, much greater diversity of food (including Cuban food) in the Bay Area
8) This isn't cheap, even for residents. Last I looked, years ago, it was more expensive than a family pass for the Exploratorium and other far more enriching and entertaining things for kids to.
Then there are many negatives. The biggest one, in my opinion, is the lack of diversity. Central Florida had a strong Latin American influence but it's still mainly a white monoculture.
>6) I doubt you're going to find a 1500 sq ft. 3 bedroom town home for $1k per month (1/4 of what I pay 20 miles south of SF), and you're leaving out other costs, hidden costs, including commute and items related to the lack of public services and much higher utilities costs; the cost of living is lower, but not 75% lower
Are we talking town homes for rent?
* 3 beds; 2.5 baths; 1,528 sqft; $1,000/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/Crooked-Pine-Trl-Crestvie...
* 3 beds; 2 baths; 1,863 sqft; $900/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1006-Villaway-W-Sebring-F...
...or maybe you'd like to rent a house:
* 3 beds; 2 baths; 1,821 sqft; $975/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5693-Highway-4-Baker-FL-3...
* 4 beds; 4 baths; 1,700 sqft; $975/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/351-Pine-Ave-Cocoa-FL-329...
...or maybe buy a house:
* 3 beds; 2 baths; 1,564 sqft; EST. MORTGAGE $705/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/FL/fsba,fsbo,fore,new_...
* 3 beds; 2 baths; 1,661 sqft; $464/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2579-Dogwood-Dr-Cottondal...
* 4 beds; 2 baths; 1,541 sqft; EST. MORTGAGE $261/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/362-Palm-Ave-Cocoa-FL-329...
Are we talking town homes for rent?
* 3 beds; 2.5 baths; 1,528 sqft; $1,000/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/Crooked-Pine-Trl-Crestvie...
* 3 beds; 2 baths; 1,863 sqft; $900/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1006-Villaway-W-Sebring-F...
...or maybe you'd like to rent a house:
* 3 beds; 2 baths; 1,821 sqft; $975/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5693-Highway-4-Baker-FL-3...
* 4 beds; 4 baths; 1,700 sqft; $975/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/351-Pine-Ave-Cocoa-FL-329...
...or maybe buy a house:
* 3 beds; 2 baths; 1,564 sqft; EST. MORTGAGE $705/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/FL/fsba,fsbo,fore,new_...
* 3 beds; 2 baths; 1,661 sqft; $464/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2579-Dogwood-Dr-Cottondal...
* 4 beds; 2 baths; 1,541 sqft; EST. MORTGAGE $261/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/362-Palm-Ave-Cocoa-FL-329...
The sale prices for some of those don't factor in homeowners insurance or property taxes, which can easily double the total payment. Also, I don't see anything from Oviedo, specifically, in that list.
The first item, for example, is just north of I-10, which is northern Florida and even more conservative than the rest of the state.
The first item, for example, is just north of I-10, which is northern Florida and even more conservative than the rest of the state.
That sounds great, but one of the common rebuttals is that the job market (remote or otherwise) may be more challenging outside of the Bay Area.
What good is a "hot job market" that can't keep up with the housing market or cover the costs of raising a family?
its "good" for chewing up and spitting out 22-29 year olds. and people wonder why so many Silicon Valley tech firms have problems with "bro culture".
Treading water in a tech job in the bay area is kind of like being in a "normal" job (such as architect, as in buildings not software) any where else, except you don't have to worry about layoffs or a tyrannical boss because you can always just get another job.
Sure it would be great to have both a high income (relative to local costs) and a job you love and plenty of other options, but if one must choose... I choose to trade away the upper-middle-class lifestyle in order to have enjoyable and impactful work in my chosen field of software engineering.
Sure it would be great to have both a high income (relative to local costs) and a job you love and plenty of other options, but if one must choose... I choose to trade away the upper-middle-class lifestyle in order to have enjoyable and impactful work in my chosen field of software engineering.
As a full time work-from-home person for the past 8 years I'd love for that to continue to be most people's assumption. :)
>> That sounds great, but one of the common rebuttals is that the job market (remote or otherwise) may be more challenging outside of the Bay Area.
It amazes me how many people in tech can't do simple math.
Hint: The Detroit area job market is on fire, but you will pass it over if your idea of compensation doesn't take into account cost of living. I'm sure there are several other cities that can say the same.
It amazes me how many people in tech can't do simple math.
Hint: The Detroit area job market is on fire, but you will pass it over if your idea of compensation doesn't take into account cost of living. I'm sure there are several other cities that can say the same.
I'm not an expert, but from my experience this is not true. If you do well in Bay Area (lets say ~500k total comp) it will be hard to match that in another area even including cost of living.
How do you get to that level of compensation? Are you just referring to "luck" with stock or cash salary? If it's not stock what skills pay that much?
You don't. It's kind of a "HN trope" that the typical Silicon Valley engineer makes that much in total comp. Everyone on HN seems to know that one guy who's brother's nephew's roommate works at Google and makes $400K, but it is a far, far, FAR outlier in terms of total comp for a mid-senior level engineer at a mid-tier company.
There seems to be ample [1] data [2] about [3] this.
1: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-senior-soft...
2: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Senior_Software_Engi...
3: http://www1.salary.com/CA/San-Francisco/Software-Engineer-II...
There seems to be ample [1] data [2] about [3] this.
1: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-senior-soft...
2: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Senior_Software_Engi...
3: http://www1.salary.com/CA/San-Francisco/Software-Engineer-II...
Staff engineer at Google, most likely, but possibly Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft.
In any case, somebody who thinks this represents a significant slice of the Silicon Valley workforce is living in a bubble. For every engineer making >$500k, there are many thousands making <$200k, at the thousands of other tech companies in the Bay Area that aren't Google/Amazon/Facebook/Apple. While the $500k engineer has every incentive to stay in SV, that has no bearing on the vast majority of engineers.
In any case, somebody who thinks this represents a significant slice of the Silicon Valley workforce is living in a bubble. For every engineer making >$500k, there are many thousands making <$200k, at the thousands of other tech companies in the Bay Area that aren't Google/Amazon/Facebook/Apple. While the $500k engineer has every incentive to stay in SV, that has no bearing on the vast majority of engineers.
I have seen offers or been given exact numbers from 3 of the 4 companies in your list at the "staff engineer" level or equivalent ("principal" at both amazon and microsoft), and they are nowhere near $500k/year.
I have heard that at FB and Google, a very small percentage of engineers got special stock awards a couple years ago that could put them in that range. But most top performers at these places at the senior/staff level are more in the 175-350 range.
Other than that, the only engineers making that kind of money got lucky in a startup lottery.
I have heard that at FB and Google, a very small percentage of engineers got special stock awards a couple years ago that could put them in that range. But most top performers at these places at the senior/staff level are more in the 175-350 range.
Other than that, the only engineers making that kind of money got lucky in a startup lottery.
I wouldn't rule out $500k for Google. It's not a super reliable source, but Glassdoor lists the average total compensation for a Google staff engineer at $420k.
I doubt Apple, Amazon, or even Facebook pay that much on any regular basis, but I wouldn't rule out someone getting an outsized offer during a machine learning (or other flavor of the month) hiring frenzy.
[1] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Staff-Software-Engin...
I doubt Apple, Amazon, or even Facebook pay that much on any regular basis, but I wouldn't rule out someone getting an outsized offer during a machine learning (or other flavor of the month) hiring frenzy.
[1] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Staff-Software-Engin...
It's also a very small subset of people that get those style offers. Every CS student I talk to thinks they're going to make the google prime salary, when the reality is they're not likely to make the cut as an average developer let alone the "silicon valley rock star". It's really a dis-service to the reality for most entry level and young developers. Additionally these crazy bootcamps aren't helping with their take a 12 week class get a job at google stories.
I know senior engineers making more than that because of 1 year pre ipo equity, but my understanding is senior engineers at google and facebook are more in the 300k-400k range with base/bonus/rsu. I am also curious how common it is to get to 500k total comp, and how one would go about that. It sounds like an outlier, unless you are an executive.
If you are mostly just saving that money, perhaps to later do early retirement in a place like Tennessee or Kentucky, sure. Cost of living doesn't impact you much when you live in a tiny apartment.
If you want to raise a big family, you're better off elsewhere. Even with a really reduced total comp, say ~300k, you could have a 6-bedroom house on the beach or on a 30-acre lot. You could have a guest house and servant's quarters.
If you want to raise a big family, you're better off elsewhere. Even with a really reduced total comp, say ~300k, you could have a 6-bedroom house on the beach or on a 30-acre lot. You could have a guest house and servant's quarters.
My plan is for sure to retire somewhere cheaper, but life sometimes have it's own plans.
You don't need anywhere near $500k in SF to have more disposable income than most other places. That is, if you don't have any dependents. Things like food, entertainment, and rent are high in SF, but on average software engineer salaries I still think you'll come out ahead of most other places until you have to start paying for child care, education, etc.
I don't know if I would call the Detroit market hot, it took me about 3-4 months to find a new job. However, I'm not a software developer, so rhat could also have something to do with it.
> However, I'm not a software developer, so rhat could also have something to do with it
Definitely has something to do with it. I'm a software engineer in the Detroit area and the last time I switched jobs (4ish years ago), it took less than 2 weeks from the time I updated and posted my resume to signing an offer letter. With the number of calls and emails I get daily for different positions in the area, I have a feeling it would go just as quickly the next time I decide to make a move.
Definitely has something to do with it. I'm a software engineer in the Detroit area and the last time I switched jobs (4ish years ago), it took less than 2 weeks from the time I updated and posted my resume to signing an offer letter. With the number of calls and emails I get daily for different positions in the area, I have a feeling it would go just as quickly the next time I decide to make a move.
Every single person I know in software has a decent job and I'm having a hard time finding good people. We're slowly increasing staff, but it's hard. Back in 2008-9 I worked somewhere that was hiring a LOT and the problem was just sifting through the mountains of people after the crash. This is the complete opposite. Part of the problem is internal - since management wants to operate very lean we need to find really good people, but there aren't very many average ones showing up either.
"Our salaries aren't competitive, but we still wonder why we can't hire any good people!"
That rebuttal is resoundingly false, though there is unspeakably great vested interest in perpetuating that myth, it seems.
Unless you enjoy sweatshop programming in the gaming or defense (simulations) industry, where actual software engineering is done in spite of the companies' best efforts, software work in that area of Florida has almost no resemblance to software work in the Bay Area.
Keep in mind there is a huge sliding scale between the job market in SF and BFE.
I lived in the Orlando area for a few years. Finding software shops is challenging (there are some, but you haven't heard of them), but there is a fair amount of defense contracting work. So, if you can get over the fact that your probably working on weapons systems or something related, the work definitely can be technically challenging. Plus, both UF and UCF have pretty decent comp sci/comp engineering programs so there is local talent, but it doesn't tend to stay in the Orlando area.
The tech market exists.
The "can you lift 50 pounds" thing is so that you can't usefully sue them when they ask you to move your own PC or monitor. Especially at a non-union job site, the nearest available person tends to do that kind of task. Nobody wants to have to schedule a union-approved object-lifter person to show up.
Just a bit to the southeast of you, the tech job market is booming. It sort of focuses on the MLB airport, with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, but there are others too. The area has Thales, Raytheon, Harris, and numerous cyberwar startups. Obviously, you do need to enjoy designing things that cause destruction, and it is mighty hard to pass the background checks if you have foreign relatives.
If that sounds appealing to you and you can do low-level hacking (you won't freak out over assembly language), send a note to acahalan at gmail.
The "can you lift 50 pounds" thing is so that you can't usefully sue them when they ask you to move your own PC or monitor. Especially at a non-union job site, the nearest available person tends to do that kind of task. Nobody wants to have to schedule a union-approved object-lifter person to show up.
Just a bit to the southeast of you, the tech job market is booming. It sort of focuses on the MLB airport, with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, but there are others too. The area has Thales, Raytheon, Harris, and numerous cyberwar startups. Obviously, you do need to enjoy designing things that cause destruction, and it is mighty hard to pass the background checks if you have foreign relatives.
If that sounds appealing to you and you can do low-level hacking (you won't freak out over assembly language), send a note to acahalan at gmail.
Never thought I would see Oviedo on HN!
I spend my high-school years in Oviedo but I had trouble finding jobs around the area.
I had my first job in downtown Orlando which was 40-50 min commute, and I recently moved to Tampa Bay area.
Oviedo is a decent area -- good air quality, close to nature but at the same time close to urban areas.
I spend my high-school years in Oviedo but I had trouble finding jobs around the area.
I had my first job in downtown Orlando which was 40-50 min commute, and I recently moved to Tampa Bay area.
Oviedo is a decent area -- good air quality, close to nature but at the same time close to urban areas.
Welcome! From another remote dev in Orlando (though not a disney pass holder... yet).
What's the tech job market like there? Or are you fully remote like above?
The tech industry in Central Florida has grown in recent years and seems to be quite strong at present with companies like Disney, Universal, Deloitte hiring lots of tech folks, and a small but growing startup scene.
Salaries aren't going to be the same as the west coast though (obviously), and most of the senior developer roles I've seen cap out at around the $100k-ish mark. With the far cheaper cost of living though, it goes a lot further.
Salaries aren't going to be the same as the west coast though (obviously), and most of the senior developer roles I've seen cap out at around the $100k-ish mark. With the far cheaper cost of living though, it goes a lot further.
Practically, I know it should go further. I think about doing it all the time. But it sure sounds daunting to take a 30-50% pay cut to move to an area with (significantly) fewer jobs.
I spent a few months trying to get (re)established in FL last year as a Consultant.
The major market for tech jobs come from health care.
Not a very progressive or interesting market.
Its mostly the typical Windows/VMWare, Microsoft stuff.
A little bit of Devops here and there, and a smattering of low level development/coding work.
As a tooling and process consultant focused on Atlassian's tools, there's very little for me.
The major market for tech jobs come from health care.
Not a very progressive or interesting market.
Its mostly the typical Windows/VMWare, Microsoft stuff.
A little bit of Devops here and there, and a smattering of low level development/coding work.
As a tooling and process consultant focused on Atlassian's tools, there's very little for me.
What is your tech stack ? I would love to be remote some day.
I do native iOS development. I'm very much a proponent of remote work, and I wish more Bay Area companies would embrace it. If done right, it can lead to higher satisfaction from employees as well as increased productivity and reduced costs!
My fear is it also makes you the first to go.
I used to live in south Florida (Ft. Lauderdale) and would move back in a heartbeat if I could find steady remote work. It's great, and still relatively cheap!
8) as a resident, kids have year round disney passes
What? Surely you pay for those?
Also what about the humidity? Every time I've been there it's like a sauna.
What? Surely you pay for those?
Also what about the humidity? Every time I've been there it's like a sauna.
Welcome, from a remote dev in Orlando (and fellow Disney pass holder)!
Very tempted to visit Florida
As a Fl native, it's a great place to live. The political situation sucks, but ya can't have everything.
Edit: Some tips for visitors.
Most beaches are beautiful and most have free access. Enjoy, but wear sunscreen (and keep reapplying). Oh and bring lots of water; playing at the beach dehydrates you fast. If you pick a Gulf Coast beach (Clearwater is nice), as you enter the water, skoot your feet on the sand. That flutter you feel across the top of your foot is a minor stingray. Won't hurt you unless you step on it.
Don't bring an umbrella. The lightning here will kill you. Just plan on not being outside in the summer during the hours of 2pm - 6pm.
Georgia drivers ... can't. I jest. But seriously...
UF and FSU football... you will get so tired of seeing those school colors.
:)
Edit: Some tips for visitors.
Most beaches are beautiful and most have free access. Enjoy, but wear sunscreen (and keep reapplying). Oh and bring lots of water; playing at the beach dehydrates you fast. If you pick a Gulf Coast beach (Clearwater is nice), as you enter the water, skoot your feet on the sand. That flutter you feel across the top of your foot is a minor stingray. Won't hurt you unless you step on it.
Don't bring an umbrella. The lightning here will kill you. Just plan on not being outside in the summer during the hours of 2pm - 6pm.
Georgia drivers ... can't. I jest. But seriously...
UF and FSU football... you will get so tired of seeing those school colors.
:)
You can go outside. Just do it with a Gore-tex jacket and brimmed oilskin hat on. It's like an umbrella that won't evert in the wind or act as a lightning rod.
If you feel a tingly sensation on the back of your neck or detect a sharp ozone-like smell, crouch down and cover your ears. Don't play golf or baseball in the rain. If you hear thunder or see lightning, go inside.
Football is the unhealthy sports obsession of the South. You would think that in February, after the pro season ends, you would get a reprieve from it, but no, you don't. Baseball is the alternate sport. Basketball is a legend from a distant land, and nobody even knows what a hockey is. Stanley Cup playoffs are happening right now, and local television news would rather air a 10-minute story about some high school football team practicing for next year's season instead of 10 seconds just saying that the Senators beat the Bruins. If you don't love football, you will get so sick of football.
If you feel a tingly sensation on the back of your neck or detect a sharp ozone-like smell, crouch down and cover your ears. Don't play golf or baseball in the rain. If you hear thunder or see lightning, go inside.
Football is the unhealthy sports obsession of the South. You would think that in February, after the pro season ends, you would get a reprieve from it, but no, you don't. Baseball is the alternate sport. Basketball is a legend from a distant land, and nobody even knows what a hockey is. Stanley Cup playoffs are happening right now, and local television news would rather air a 10-minute story about some high school football team practicing for next year's season instead of 10 seconds just saying that the Senators beat the Bruins. If you don't love football, you will get so sick of football.
> Georgia drivers ... can't. I jest. But seriously...
Triggered Atlantan
Triggered Atlantan
>Georgia drivers ... can't. I jest. But seriously...
We have no patience for slow or dumb drivers in Atlanta.
Go Dawgs.
The panhandle has nice beaches as well.
We have no patience for slow or dumb drivers in Atlanta.
Go Dawgs.
The panhandle has nice beaches as well.
Orlando... really...?
Isn't Disney pretty much the same thing as SeaWorld these days?
Did the exact same thing 10 years ago. Couldn't take living in California any more. We moved to Colorado.
* My health, both physical and mental has increased tremendously.
* Our house is far cheaper in mortgage than our apartment was.
* Schools are far better than anything in California we could afford
* Crime is almost non-existent. Most people don't lock car or house doors.
* It is rare I drive more than 8 miles on any day, no more highways for me unless I'm skiing.
* The air & water are clean, the tap water tastes better than the bottle water I used to drink.Can I ask you about one thing, though? Both my kids are in SFUSD schools, and San Francisco actually has a large number of 10/10 rated schools. This is based on test scores, of course, so it doesn't tell the whole story.
For instance, take a look at this:
http://www.greatschools.org/california/san-francisco/schools...
Do you think that your elementary school in Colorado are vastly better than the top three we see here, Chin (John Yehall) Elementary, Clarendon, or Lafayette?
Scroll down a bit. SF has some bad schools, but it's not like these three are isolated one offs. There really are a lot of schools in SF scoring a 9 or 10 here. There is a lottery, but (this is just my experience and impression) it's not shot in the dark level lottery. If you research schools and find some of the ones that fly below the radar rather than just listing the "trophy" schools, and create a balanced list, you have a good chance at a good school. No, not a 100% chance and an excellent school, which you can obtain by leaving SF and moving to a good district where a high rent or mortgage payment locks it in for you (hey, I get it - I'll call it what it is, but I do get it).
There are great reasons to leave SF, and the school situation here is hardly perfect. But I disagree with the general notion that public schools in SF are an across the board failure. I'd even disagree that they are a general failure with a few minor bright spots.
I'd call the situation mixed, with a lot of good, a lot of bad and a lot of in the middle. You can have a very good experience with SFUSD.
For instance, take a look at this:
http://www.greatschools.org/california/san-francisco/schools...
Do you think that your elementary school in Colorado are vastly better than the top three we see here, Chin (John Yehall) Elementary, Clarendon, or Lafayette?
Scroll down a bit. SF has some bad schools, but it's not like these three are isolated one offs. There really are a lot of schools in SF scoring a 9 or 10 here. There is a lottery, but (this is just my experience and impression) it's not shot in the dark level lottery. If you research schools and find some of the ones that fly below the radar rather than just listing the "trophy" schools, and create a balanced list, you have a good chance at a good school. No, not a 100% chance and an excellent school, which you can obtain by leaving SF and moving to a good district where a high rent or mortgage payment locks it in for you (hey, I get it - I'll call it what it is, but I do get it).
There are great reasons to leave SF, and the school situation here is hardly perfect. But I disagree with the general notion that public schools in SF are an across the board failure. I'd even disagree that they are a general failure with a few minor bright spots.
I'd call the situation mixed, with a lot of good, a lot of bad and a lot of in the middle. You can have a very good experience with SFUSD.
> Both my kids are in SFUSD schools, and San Francisco actually has a large number of 10/10 rated schools.
If their problem with California was lack of good schools anyplace they could afford to live in the state, why on Earth would you point to one of the most expensive places in the state and say it has some good schools? To address it, you need to point to someplace affordable in California that has good schools.
If their problem with California was lack of good schools anyplace they could afford to live in the state, why on Earth would you point to one of the most expensive places in the state and say it has some good schools? To address it, you need to point to someplace affordable in California that has good schools.
Completely agree. If you need an affordable house with good schools, recommending SF borders on nuts.
I'm mentioning this because people often describe SF as an expensive place with failing schools. That's not quite accurate. SF has a large number of good public schools, though it is uneven and you are at the mercy of the lottery. Your odds aren't horrible but they aren't 100% either.
I'm mentioning this because people often describe SF as an expensive place with failing schools. That's not quite accurate. SF has a large number of good public schools, though it is uneven and you are at the mercy of the lottery. Your odds aren't horrible but they aren't 100% either.
>> San Francisco actually has a large number of 10/10 rated schools.
Is that on a national or state scale? I find my district in Michigan making all kinds of claims like that about many of our schools, but it's all compared to others in the state. Nationally we're still above average but nothing to get excited about.
Is that on a national or state scale? I find my district in Michigan making all kinds of claims like that about many of our schools, but it's all compared to others in the state. Nationally we're still above average but nothing to get excited about.
I think it's a California state test. So you could compare to a top school in a wealthy California suburb, but not to a school outside the state. I think.
Another thing is range. 10/10 is nice, but as you can see, a bunch of SF schools got it. Kind of how the Math GRE (used to?) top out at about 95%ile (ie., 5% of the people taking the test got an 800/800).
So this leaves open the possibility that even the best elementary schools are far behind the other 10/10s in other parts of the state. Kind of doubt it, since Lowell is clearly extremely competitive with top public and private high schools around the country. But I can't make the comparison directly at the elementary school level.
That's why I kind of put it as a question... what's your guess? Are the 10/10 elementary schools in SF notably worse than top elementary schools in Colorado? Like I said, I seriously doubt it, but I can't be sure.
Another thing is range. 10/10 is nice, but as you can see, a bunch of SF schools got it. Kind of how the Math GRE (used to?) top out at about 95%ile (ie., 5% of the people taking the test got an 800/800).
So this leaves open the possibility that even the best elementary schools are far behind the other 10/10s in other parts of the state. Kind of doubt it, since Lowell is clearly extremely competitive with top public and private high schools around the country. But I can't make the comparison directly at the elementary school level.
That's why I kind of put it as a question... what's your guess? Are the 10/10 elementary schools in SF notably worse than top elementary schools in Colorado? Like I said, I seriously doubt it, but I can't be sure.
It's almost certainly going to be whatever is the most prestigious or makes the school look the best. They'll obviously use national rankings if they're #9 in the nation. If they're #9 in Mississippi, they are probably not using national rankings.
I could be wrong but that's only a system that compares schools in CA with other schools in CA. It's currently being revamped so it may change.
Cherry picking the best schools in any state will certainly make the state look good. State vs. State, California is ranked around 40 out of 50 on most lists. In my case, I would've had to move some place I couldn't afford just so my kids could go to a school that was even average.
I've never even heard of anyone moving to an area because of elementary schools, or factoring them into a decision related to moving and/or purchasing a home. Only the quality of high school matters from what I've seen (in rich parts of LA and Orange County).
[deleted]
I'm a Texan looking to move out of state because I'm transgender and our legislature wants to make it impossible for people like me to exist.
Since that's the only reason I'm wanting to move, I'm looking for the most Texas-like place I can find. Unfortunately, the closest I can come is Southern California. I dragged my heels like crazy on admitting that SoCal was the only place that has most of what I wanted because the cost of living is so insanely high, but I really have no choice. Everything else either was outside the Sun Belt or not Asian enough. Unfortunately, that means I'm stuck hoping I get a job that pays $140k, because that's what I'll need to make to rent a house in SoCal, and I'll be in a position where if I ever lose my job and end up unemployed, I'll have less than a month to find a new job before I become homeless.
I have a friend of mine trying to sell me on the Vegas area, though. I'm considering it, particularly Spring Valley. But I also have another friend urging me to avoid Vegas because she says there's no tech industry there.
For the record, my main criteria are: must have transgender-inclusive non-discrimination protections at the state level, must be in the Sun Belt, must have high Asian and Hispanic populations (I'm looking for at least 15% of each in the suburb I'm moving to, preferably more), must be a sprawling suburb, must be able to afford to rent a house with central AC on the salary of a software engineer of my experience in the area. The only states that meet the first two criteria are California (and only SoCal, not NorCal), New Mexico, and Nevada. The third criterion eliminates New Mexico (almost no Asian people in the entire state)... and until a few days ago, I thought it eliminated Nevada as well.
Since that's the only reason I'm wanting to move, I'm looking for the most Texas-like place I can find. Unfortunately, the closest I can come is Southern California. I dragged my heels like crazy on admitting that SoCal was the only place that has most of what I wanted because the cost of living is so insanely high, but I really have no choice. Everything else either was outside the Sun Belt or not Asian enough. Unfortunately, that means I'm stuck hoping I get a job that pays $140k, because that's what I'll need to make to rent a house in SoCal, and I'll be in a position where if I ever lose my job and end up unemployed, I'll have less than a month to find a new job before I become homeless.
I have a friend of mine trying to sell me on the Vegas area, though. I'm considering it, particularly Spring Valley. But I also have another friend urging me to avoid Vegas because she says there's no tech industry there.
For the record, my main criteria are: must have transgender-inclusive non-discrimination protections at the state level, must be in the Sun Belt, must have high Asian and Hispanic populations (I'm looking for at least 15% of each in the suburb I'm moving to, preferably more), must be a sprawling suburb, must be able to afford to rent a house with central AC on the salary of a software engineer of my experience in the area. The only states that meet the first two criteria are California (and only SoCal, not NorCal), New Mexico, and Nevada. The third criterion eliminates New Mexico (almost no Asian people in the entire state)... and until a few days ago, I thought it eliminated Nevada as well.
Have you looked at Tucson? Similar to Austin, it's a liberal artsy city surrounded by reds, and yes the AZ legislature has done some AWFUL things, but Tucsonans are passionate about protecting people and it's one of my favorite places on Earth. Grew up there and since I left, the diversity has been growing since Tucson takes in a ton of refugees from all over the world. It's a sweet little bubble, beers are $1.50, food is amazing, and the people are sweet. Nothing like sitting outside at 11pm in sandals, shorts, and a tank top.
Arizona has no transgender protections at the state level. Local protections mean jack shit. It must be done at the state level or it's meaningless.
Also, I hate artsy hipsters with a passion. Even though I'm transgender, I'm deeply conservative in most other respects, I specifically want to live in a conservative suburb in a blue state. I don't want independent record stores and third-wave coffee shops. I want shopping malls, strip centers, cookie-cutter housing, and Asian people operating restaurants that serve their traditional food (I especially don't want white people remixing ethnic food that's not theirs). What I want is Plano, TX dug out of the ground and transported into a blue state. This is why I'm looking at Torrance and Orange County in CA.
Also, I hate artsy hipsters with a passion. Even though I'm transgender, I'm deeply conservative in most other respects, I specifically want to live in a conservative suburb in a blue state. I don't want independent record stores and third-wave coffee shops. I want shopping malls, strip centers, cookie-cutter housing, and Asian people operating restaurants that serve their traditional food (I especially don't want white people remixing ethnic food that's not theirs). What I want is Plano, TX dug out of the ground and transported into a blue state. This is why I'm looking at Torrance and Orange County in CA.
What's Georgia law on this? There are definitely some northern suburbs of Atlanta that would fit the bill.
must be in the Sun Belt
I'd try to sell you on Minnesota except for this :-)
Well, we do get tons of sun (similar solar insolation numbers to Houston, TX), but it can be bright and sunny and still -25F
I'd try to sell you on Minnesota except for this :-)
Well, we do get tons of sun (similar solar insolation numbers to Houston, TX), but it can be bright and sunny and still -25F
I had a friend who did try to sell me on Minneapolis. What put me off ultimately was finding out that central AC is difficult to find outside of the Sun Belt.
I guess in older homes. There's not a single home being built in the Minneapolis metro area (in my experience!) that doesn't have central A/C. This is a state of temperature extremes! It gets hot here in summer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Minneapolis%E2%80%9...
Vermont has an amazing community of remote engineers, reasonable housing prices, and some of the best public schools in the country.
Come and enjoy the outdoors, food, and amazing beer with us.
Come and enjoy the outdoors, food, and amazing beer with us.
Where in Vermont do you recommend? I just went remote in the past year and I plan on roadtripping to VT soon for a week.
Burlington is very nice if you like small cities.
Huntington/Richmond is a little off the path, but still close if you want more space.
Huntington/Richmond is a little off the path, but still close if you want more space.
Just curious, as an engineer finding myself thinking along similar lines, where did you end up moving?
We moved to Utah where the tech scene is actually quite strong, and the cost of living is significantly less. We bought an 8k sq ft house for the price of many 1,500 sq ft town homes we had been putting offers in on in California.
It can be such a rat race down there, it is refreshing to remember that it doesn't have to be that way. Life exists outside of The Valley, and it happens to be a pretty darn good one (and affordable!) :)
It can be such a rat race down there, it is refreshing to remember that it doesn't have to be that way. Life exists outside of The Valley, and it happens to be a pretty darn good one (and affordable!) :)
I lived in Salt Lake City, Utah for 11 years. Needless to say, I got out five years ago the first chance I got. If you’re not into winter sports, the weather is shit. You get 10 months of bitter cold and snow every day. You have to dig your car out of the snow all winter and drive on horrible conditions with clueless drivers who seem to forget how to drive in snow every year. Spring and fall are one or so week each and you get rain storms the whole time. Then you have 6 or so weeks of scorching hot summer where it’s unbearable to be outside.
I never ventured outside of the metro area and no one was ever overtly racist but boy if you are not a white Mormon you will stick out, you will be judged and questioned. Most Utah Mormons are conditioned to be nice so on the surface they appear so but they do judge and single out people who don’t belong.
I visited SF over a weekend and was instantly surprised about how accepting everyone was. It just seemed like I fit in and belonged. I’d tolerate much worse conditions than “low income in SF” than be “rich” in Utah.
I never ventured outside of the metro area and no one was ever overtly racist but boy if you are not a white Mormon you will stick out, you will be judged and questioned. Most Utah Mormons are conditioned to be nice so on the surface they appear so but they do judge and single out people who don’t belong.
I visited SF over a weekend and was instantly surprised about how accepting everyone was. It just seemed like I fit in and belonged. I’d tolerate much worse conditions than “low income in SF” than be “rich” in Utah.
Are you a minority race and if so would you say that Utah is friendly to non-whites ?
Utah is pretty friendly overall on account of the high Mormon population.
Metro-SLC is pretty liberal and tolerant. The further out you go, the more ignorance you'll encounter.
My bigger issue is the beer. 2.5% whatttttt?
Metro-SLC is pretty liberal and tolerant. The further out you go, the more ignorance you'll encounter.
My bigger issue is the beer. 2.5% whatttttt?
Actually friendly or just polite?
Actually friendly, like go out of the way to help you friendly.
One counter-point: not sure if this is still the case, but a few years ago Provo, Utah (just south of SLC) used to have the highest per capita usage of anti-depressants. Interpret that how you will :P
One counter-point: not sure if this is still the case, but a few years ago Provo, Utah (just south of SLC) used to have the highest per capita usage of anti-depressants. Interpret that how you will :P
I am not a minority race, but Utah is becoming quite diverse. My personal opinion is that it is a welcoming place and is a great place for families to raise their children.
Utah is a lovely place, but this stuck out to me
> Utah is becoming quite diverse
Was curious about this, as it didn't seem to fit my limited observation from my last few trips to Utah (which is again, a lovely place). The Census bureau government says Utah is >91% "white only":
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/49
Which is likely more diverse than Utah was in the past, but could not be fairly compared to California as "quite diverse" given the same number for California is 73%:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/06,49
> Utah is becoming quite diverse
Was curious about this, as it didn't seem to fit my limited observation from my last few trips to Utah (which is again, a lovely place). The Census bureau government says Utah is >91% "white only":
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/49
Which is likely more diverse than Utah was in the past, but could not be fairly compared to California as "quite diverse" given the same number for California is 73%:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/06,49
That is a fair point. Instead of the word "quite", it might have been better to use the word "more".
Federal numbers count hispanics as white. California was 42.3% non-hispanic white as of 2010, Utah was at 80% in 2013.
[deleted]
Would love to move to Utah for couple of years one day, just because of skiing.
Don't forget the mountain biking!
Hopefully 8k sqft was a typo. I feel like 2500sqft is too much sometimes.
It's Utah. You know, Mormons. The bit about them having huge families is real.
With one kid or wife per bedroom and 1000sqft for kitchen/dining/whatever, you have room for 28. (4 wives, 6 kids each) Making the non-bedroom part of the house more luxurious and adding a bathroom to each bedroom, you have room for about 16. You can hit that even without polygamy.
He may be counting a large garage. That could be 1000sqft by itself, so knock off 3 or 4 bedrooms.
With one kid or wife per bedroom and 1000sqft for kitchen/dining/whatever, you have room for 28. (4 wives, 6 kids each) Making the non-bedroom part of the house more luxurious and adding a bathroom to each bedroom, you have room for about 16. You can hit that even without polygamy.
He may be counting a large garage. That could be 1000sqft by itself, so knock off 3 or 4 bedrooms.
Mormons aren't polygamous. Please stop spreading this narrative that you know isn't true.
Only 95% of Mormons are in "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".
Fundamentalist Mormons are still Mormon, and yes, 10,000 to 30,000 of them are in plural marriages.
Also, note that I didn't mean it as an insult, and I quite like large families. Even the mainstream Mormons tend to have large families.
Fundamentalist Mormons are still Mormon, and yes, 10,000 to 30,000 of them are in plural marriages.
Also, note that I didn't mean it as an insult, and I quite like large families. Even the mainstream Mormons tend to have large families.
Jesus, was hoping someone else caught that too. I have a 2300sq ft for a 4 bed two bath, wouldn't want much bigger at all!
What's the power bill?
I have considered doing the same but seems like you almost have to buy a house that big or live in a non-desirable area.
I have considered doing the same but seems like you almost have to buy a house that big or live in a non-desirable area.
Another good thing about not living in the bay area is you dont have to pay pg&e rates for electricty. Us avg is 0.12/kwh while pge quickly gets up to +0.30/kwh
I'd have to look at the bill but I think that it averages out to be around $250-350/month for electricity.
800 square meters????
This is something I still don't get, even as an American. I live by myself in a 950 sq ft (~88 sq m) apartment, and that's already more space than I know what to do with. Sure, add a spouse and 2 or 3 kids and my space needs would increase, but I can't imagine needing 8-10x as much space, ever. Maybe 3x, at most 4x.
I grew up in a fairly large house (I don't recall the size, but two floors, 6 bedrooms, kitchen, formal dining room, living room, family room, 3 bathrooms, basement filled with junk; so, fairly large -- semi-rural Maryland, where space was cheap in the 80s/90s). My parents weren't hoarders, though they did accumulate stuff. After my sister and I moved out and my mom passed away, my dad lived in a giant house by himself, couldn't maintain it, and also felt like he couldn't move because the house wasn't in good enough shape to sell.
I just don't get this need for more and more space. It just encourages you to buy more stuff that you don't need, and takes more time/effort/money to maintain. I hesitate to "tell people how to live", but this keeping up with the Joneses attitude is a component of what causes cost of living to rise and is ultimately a zero-sum game.
I grew up in a fairly large house (I don't recall the size, but two floors, 6 bedrooms, kitchen, formal dining room, living room, family room, 3 bathrooms, basement filled with junk; so, fairly large -- semi-rural Maryland, where space was cheap in the 80s/90s). My parents weren't hoarders, though they did accumulate stuff. After my sister and I moved out and my mom passed away, my dad lived in a giant house by himself, couldn't maintain it, and also felt like he couldn't move because the house wasn't in good enough shape to sell.
I just don't get this need for more and more space. It just encourages you to buy more stuff that you don't need, and takes more time/effort/money to maintain. I hesitate to "tell people how to live", but this keeping up with the Joneses attitude is a component of what causes cost of living to rise and is ultimately a zero-sum game.
I know people who don't have the discipline to keep spaces open, but large open spaces can be wonderful (and easy to maintain). The tough thing is maintaining large arrays of intricate special-purpose rooms which you don't need and which are full of stuff that makes it feel small nonetheless.
Space is wonderful for doing things like dancing, hosting guests, exercise, communal/family cooking (sprouting many kilograms of chickpeas, fermenting 40+qt of kimchi).
Space is wonderful for doing things like dancing, hosting guests, exercise, communal/family cooking (sprouting many kilograms of chickpeas, fermenting 40+qt of kimchi).
There are certainly times I regret having so much space for our kids to clutter, but we ultimately bought it as a place for us to grow into. My wife is expecting our 6th child later this year, and our house has 6 bedrooms. So in that sense, it isn't insanely lavish, but a comfortable place to raise a large family.
Also, as the commenter below mentioned, we do enjoy hosting people for parties and family get-togethers. We spend a good amount of energy and time and money on these activities that are for the enjoyment of other people.
Wealthy people often build massive palaces to honor their own greatness and inflate their egos, I can assure you this is not one of those homes :).
Also, as the commenter below mentioned, we do enjoy hosting people for parties and family get-togethers. We spend a good amount of energy and time and money on these activities that are for the enjoyment of other people.
Wealthy people often build massive palaces to honor their own greatness and inflate their egos, I can assure you this is not one of those homes :).
A lot of it isn't "need" for more space; rather, it's that all that is available. I've been living in the same 3.3k sq-ft house for 10 years. There's simply nothing smaller in my area. OK, one retired farmer down the road has a house that's about 1200 sq ft, but that's by far the smallest house.
It's a pattern I found recurring as we were looking at houses: unless you wanted a 100 year-old house (which could be a good or bad idea), there was simply nothing under 3,000 sq ft on the lot sizes we were looking at.
It's a pattern I found recurring as we were looking at houses: unless you wanted a 100 year-old house (which could be a good or bad idea), there was simply nothing under 3,000 sq ft on the lot sizes we were looking at.
If you were a Mormon living in Utah, you might need space for three or four wives, not to mention lots of children...
I'm sure the OP purchased such a large house for efficiency... as their children mature they can just start their own families in various parts of the vast, cavernous manor.
Yes, I guess 8,000 sq ft translates to 743 meters :)
8k sqft is ridiculous even by American standards. For a family of 5, I'd call about 2400 sqft (~220 sqm) normal, maybe a bit overkill.
[deleted]
Probably around 180 square meters plus 50 square meters garage, driveway and garden?
Edit: duh, it's really 800 sqm.
Edit: duh, it's really 800 sqm.
My reaction exactly. Americans use way too much, to be honest. 8k sq ft is more than enough for like 7+ families.
After living in 'cramped old london' for over a decade (still), I can only dream of the luxury of 800 Sq.m. Where do I sign up? :) fitting multiple people/families into anything less is just bad living standards as far as I'm concerned.
You work hard all day long to go back to such a depressing existence. Time to start living fellow HN'ers!
Eh, grass is greener. Some of us worked hard to live in lively, crowded European cities. The suburbs have their downsides. For me, it was crushing loneliness.
You live in the centre when you're young and single and changing jobs. You move to the suburbs when you have married, settled down and want kids, a garden, good local schools etc.
When the kids have moved out, you can downsize to that retirement place in Spain... except that may not work as well after the UK leaves the EU.
When the kids have moved out, you can downsize to that retirement place in Spain... except that may not work as well after the UK leaves the EU.
Well, I don't live in the UK, so there's that. I am expecting a child within a few months and hope to stay in the city; we'll see how it pans out.
Which is why Londoners move to suburbia...
..and always dream of places like Spain (or better yet "Texas")
Or time to charge more and get bigger
Yeah.. I mean, space is nice, but in homes of 800 or so square feet I've been pretty happy.
How much carbon is emitted cooling and heating an 8k sq ft home in Utah? How far do you have to drive to do things?
How much carbon is emitted cooling and heating an 8k sq ft home in Utah? How far do you have to drive to do things?
Our utility bills certainly have gone up, which we aren't thrilled with. We are considering some solar panel options to help bring our carbon footprint down. Being fully remote, I try to make up for that by not driving very much :)
Overall, the valley we live in has pretty much everything we could want, from a retail perspective.
A nice small-town grocery store about 3 mins away, and larger national chains further down the road.
Overall, the valley we live in has pretty much everything we could want, from a retail perspective.
A nice small-town grocery store about 3 mins away, and larger national chains further down the road.
[deleted]
Yeah, seems fairly ridiculous. You'd spend your life vacuuming.
That was actually an onerous task at first. But I bought my wife a Neato robot vacuum a few years back and it has been such a nice thing to have.
Btw, I run https://twitter.com/SLCTechEvents which is a great way to plug in and see what's going on around Salt Lake City.
Not sure if it will be helpful to you but I hope so. :)
Not sure if it will be helpful to you but I hope so. :)
I assume 8k is the lot size (~0.2 acre)? I had a similar experience moving to Colorado from CA.
I have to ask: 8000ft²? What are you doing with all that space? Are you Mormon?
Just remember that you'll want to select a city that has a decent economy and tech scene in the event that you lose your job and need to take a location dictated position.
So long as you and your partner are both making 6 figures you should be able to afford any of the following cities:
- Seattle
- Portland
- Austin
- Denver
So long as you and your partner are both making 6 figures you should be able to afford any of the following cities:
- Seattle
- Portland
- Austin
- Denver
I would strike Seattle from this list. Just over the last couple of years, home prices are up 50% or more. It's not SF/SV prices but it's 80-90% there...unfortunately. It is, however, easier to build in Washington, so hopefully this will be a bubble and not a permanent trend.
I wouldn't get too comfortable with the "easier to build" bit, either - Seattle has a strong far-left presence, and as we've seen in SF it's very easy for homeowners to convince them (against all reason) that more housing means higher prices and get them to start blocking new construction across the board (whoever thought up the "100% affordable or not at all!" bit is a genius at playing progressives like a fiddle, and is probably making a killing on a ton of SF property). Meanwhile, the office buildings that are actually luring more people to the city and driving prices up keep getting built, because they're not in the neighborhoods that NIMBYs care about.
I'd leave Seattle on the list.
In SF/SV, the high housing prices extend far enough out from SF to cover almost everything that is in reasonable commute distance. Same for Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and San Jose.
In Seattle, prices are high or getting there in Seattle, Redmond, and Bellevue, but there is still reasonable housing between Seattle and Tacoma, and across the Sound over in Kitsap county. If you can get a work schedule that lets you miss the heavy commute hours it should be reasonably possible to get affordable housing without too bad a commute.
In SF/SV, the high housing prices extend far enough out from SF to cover almost everything that is in reasonable commute distance. Same for Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and San Jose.
In Seattle, prices are high or getting there in Seattle, Redmond, and Bellevue, but there is still reasonable housing between Seattle and Tacoma, and across the Sound over in Kitsap county. If you can get a work schedule that lets you miss the heavy commute hours it should be reasonably possible to get affordable housing without too bad a commute.
true this. Average sale price in seattle metro for march was just shy of 700k. The city is trying to be pretty aggressive about building but if you want to live in the city you are going to pay a lot. That being said, if you dont mind commuting you can get a nice place that is affordable(30 minutes commute to the city).
>So long as you and your partner are both making 6 figures
That's a pretty high bar for cost of living. Here in Charlotte, NC, I make half of that, and could support two people without any difficulty.
That's a pretty high bar for cost of living. Here in Charlotte, NC, I make half of that, and could support two people without any difficulty.
I get the feeling that tech people no longer have reasonable understandings of cost of living. I live in the PNW and could keep my current nice standard of living on a $60k salary (as a single person). I cannot think of a scenario where I would need two six figure incomes unless I really ramped up spending (private school, nicer car, nicer house).
Yeah. There's definitely a culture tax in the NW. I can freely enjoy the virtues of legal cannabis, frequent the best coffee shops in the world, and hike the glacial peaks all in the same day. To me that's worth the cost.
In Charlotte, I'm 2 hours away from the Appalachian mountains, and can easily get good coffee.
I wouldn't consider legal marijuana worth $100k a year, personally.
I wouldn't consider legal marijuana worth $100k a year, personally.
[deleted]
> Portland
Rents in Portland are skyrocketing (I had friends whose landlords were pulling out 30% rent increases). I went from Portland to Oakland and my rent isn't that much more.
Rents in Portland are skyrocketing (I had friends whose landlords were pulling out 30% rent increases). I went from Portland to Oakland and my rent isn't that much more.
My brother is moving in from Portland with me in Pittsburgh. He eventually wants to own a house, but that's not possible out there, since he works in a bookstore. He sometimes would complain about Californians moving north, and driving up real estate. Pittsburgh is vastly more affordable.
You can still buy a house in Portland for $500k. I live here. Bought in 2015. It's more expensive in 2017, but not 100% more. Once 1000sqft houses hit a $1mm average Portland will be too expensive. Until then we're doing just fine.
As a point of reference, you can buy a new 3,000+ sq ft house on 5+ acres of land just 30 minutes outside Minneapolis for that!
Not impressed.
Not impressed.
Sure, compared the the Midwest or South it's not great, but compared to other west coast cities it's not bad. Portland is cheaper than the bay area, Seattle, LA, and San Diego. It has good culture, great nature, and a mid-sized & growing tech sector.
I dunno, developers were snapping up lots in our hood in Albina for 750, demoing them to lower the tax burden, and letting them sit empty to appreciate. Long term residents who had been renting for 30 years were getting chased out and moving to the numbers... those don't seem like great situations.
[deleted]
> moving to the numbers
I lived in Portland for six years and never once heard this expression and yet I know exactly what you mean.
I lived in Portland for six years and never once heard this expression and yet I know exactly what you mean.
20 years ago = 57th is bad
10 years ago = 82nd is bad
Now = 122nd is bad
I count myself lucky to live West of 82nd.
10 years ago = 82nd is bad
Now = 122nd is bad
I count myself lucky to live West of 82nd.
That was the same with the Upper East/West side of manhattan, (although truncate the timeframe by 1/2 and going N/S instead of E/W).
[deleted]
Still not as bad as Seattle, though here the rental market has started to slow, while the house market is super hot.
I wonder how many couples make six figures. What is the percentage of population with 350k combined income that are not business owners.
And can both move and find jobs in a new city at once.
I mean, my COMBINED income with my partner is around $160k. This isn't a whole lot of money in a large city, and especially not with children.
There are a number of people here in Bend who want more space and a smaller town. It's getting expensive here too, but hopefully there's the political will to not repeat all of the mistakes of San Fran, Boulder and other places. I certainly do my share of talking to people like city councilors when I can.
If anyone's up here visiting, I'll happily buy you a beer - or whatever you prefer, but... there's lots of beer here.
If anyone's up here visiting, I'll happily buy you a beer - or whatever you prefer, but... there's lots of beer here.
What area of the country did you decide to move to, and why (besides the obvious cost saving)?
We decided to move to Utah. We have some family here and the tech scene is actually quite strong. Overall it has been a great move, and besides the nice people that we met in California, we haven't really missed the craziness of the rat race down there.
Thanks, that makes perfect sense. Just the local car traffic over the last ten years has kind of gone crazy.
Are you an engineer? You were probably being underpaid.
For a family of 4. That's the critical bit left out of the article title. 104k is low income for a family of 4, in some areas.
Which makes sense when it's hard to find somewhere to live alone, in SF, even at 100k. Finding a place big enough for a family of 4 plus all the costs related to 4 humans? Not surprising in the least.
Which makes sense when it's hard to find somewhere to live alone, in SF, even at 100k. Finding a place big enough for a family of 4 plus all the costs related to 4 humans? Not surprising in the least.
Once upon a time, a family of four had the same number of working adults as a family of one.
Once upon a time a family of four would live in a 1200 square foot house and own one car and one television, would rarely travel, rarely go out to eat. That kind of life style can still be sustained even in the Bay area on $100k/yr.
Once upon a time, the woman stayed at home and didn't need a second car.
Televisions were prohibitively priced as to make one even a stretch.
And, travel was prohibitively priced so that only the ultra-rich could afford planes. When cars hit the scene en masse, it brought rise to car trips.
So, I guess you're saying people aren't living within their means? But they weren't necessarily then either... And boy, I sure miss all of the great stuff from the 50s.
Televisions were prohibitively priced as to make one even a stretch.
And, travel was prohibitively priced so that only the ultra-rich could afford planes. When cars hit the scene en masse, it brought rise to car trips.
So, I guess you're saying people aren't living within their means? But they weren't necessarily then either... And boy, I sure miss all of the great stuff from the 50s.
> Televisions were prohibitively priced as to make one even a stretch.
It's just astounding how cheap televisions have become. A 32" flatscreen is like $150, and weighs ten pounds.
It's just astounding how cheap televisions have become. A 32" flatscreen is like $150, and weighs ten pounds.
Whereas content is $100/month when it used to be $0.
Broadcast TV is still free. Movies always cost a fair amount of money.
An internet connection with youtube is $30 which is WAY more variety than "back then".
An internet connection with youtube is $30 which is WAY more variety than "back then".
Mmm. Yeah, I get loads of value from Univision and Home Shopping Channels like HSN, QVC and the others.
Can't forget Qubo and Me.tv. Good times, for sure.
Can't forget Qubo and Me.tv. Good times, for sure.
CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, PBS
Also, I'm suspecting you're not a Spanish speaker, so I guess it's okay to discount a channel that over 10% of the US has utility for.
Cable TV is a relatively recent invention, has quickly declining subscription rates, and has always been billed as premium.
Also, I'm suspecting you're not a Spanish speaker, so I guess it's okay to discount a channel that over 10% of the US has utility for.
Cable TV is a relatively recent invention, has quickly declining subscription rates, and has always been billed as premium.
You know, maybe not. Even in the excelsior, a 1200sf ft house that is liveable (not remodeled highly, just liveable) will run you $900k. It can go up from there easily.
It's possible, I suppose... You'd need to be a one income family at 100k, because there's no way you could cover that and child care. But yeah, a stay at home spouse and a working spouse who brought in 100k might be able to make it work south of 280.
EDIT: just realized you said Bay Area, not San Francisco. That changes things.
It's possible, I suppose... You'd need to be a one income family at 100k, because there's no way you could cover that and child care. But yeah, a stay at home spouse and a working spouse who brought in 100k might be able to make it work south of 280.
EDIT: just realized you said Bay Area, not San Francisco. That changes things.
Even with your edit I would like to chime in that I got a condo in San Jose that is 3 bed, 2 bath for <500k. It isn't fancy but it is home.
When did you buy this condo? Surely not recently.
I closed in December of 2016, as I nice side affect I got a rate that was a little lower then they are now.
Great point. Let's regress backwards. San Francisco's housing crises and living cost is self inflicted by limiting supply.
That did not last for long though, maybe forty years from after the second world war till the early 80s. The model that did last for centuries had families of 8-12 people, with men working in the fields and women looking after children and grandchildren.
That's inaccurate or incomplete. Women shared a significant portion of agricultural labor throughout history and on top of that maintained the household and performed auxiliary labor.
Yes, I was simplifying a lot. The point still stands, in that except for a short period of time it has never been "one person working", because maintaining the household and looking after all the young in the extended family is a job of its own. It was not at all like having two kids, who spend half the day or more at school.
Yes, but any spare income earned by multiple working adults in a family will eventually be siphoned up by either landlords, or banks.
Um what!? My family has two incomes. We save the entire second income (before taxes) and then some. Not to mention interest rates are at historic lows.
(PS, people's spending tends to match their income no matter how high the income, it's called lifestyle inflation)
(PS, people's spending tends to match their income no matter how high the income, it's called lifestyle inflation)
In hot markets, landlords will charge as much rent as their tenants can bear. If enough people have an entire income available to them, rents will rise.
If your bank is eating your income, you need a new bank.
Keep in mind that 1. California has high taxes, and 2. those taxes go down as your number of dependents goes up. Your employer has the same number in your salary column either way, but your take-home pay tends to rise to match your needs, up to a point. (It doesn't work out for e.g. n=8, but it tends to take care of n<4.)
[deleted]
[deleted]
There's only four zip codes in Denmark that have a higher average income per household, and Denmark is a pretty expensive place to live.
It seems obvious to move that some tech companies would move away from San Francisco, offer lower wages, but still manage to give their employees a better deal.
It seems obvious to move that some tech companies would move away from San Francisco, offer lower wages, but still manage to give their employees a better deal.
> There's only four zip codes in Denmark that have a higher average income per household, and Denmark is a pretty expensive place to live.
In Denmark the following costs are cheaper or entirely nonexistent: Paying for health insurance (for every member of the family), saving for retirement, saving for sending kids to college, kids daycare, kids school fees, and also rent or cost of buying a house is cheaper than in the Bay Area.
In Denmark the following costs are cheaper or entirely nonexistent: Paying for health insurance (for every member of the family), saving for retirement, saving for sending kids to college, kids daycare, kids school fees, and also rent or cost of buying a house is cheaper than in the Bay Area.
While you partly right, you do need to pay for at least daycare, and retirement. It varies, but around 15% of your salary should go towards retirement and even if you employer pays part of you retirement that normally include in the statistic for house hold income.
The four zip code, with the higher average income also have an average price per square meter of 7000USD, so that's of cause a little less than in the Bay Area, assume the 8000USD per square meters I saw a while back is correct.
The four zip code, with the higher average income also have an average price per square meter of 7000USD, so that's of cause a little less than in the Bay Area, assume the 8000USD per square meters I saw a while back is correct.
> you do need to pay for at least daycare
I guess in the richer areas in US, $1000 per child is not an unusual monthly fee for daycare. Whereas in Finland, the monthly fee tops at 290€ per child, and I would guess Denmark is more or less similar to Finland.
I guess in the richer areas in US, $1000 per child is not an unusual monthly fee for daycare. Whereas in Finland, the monthly fee tops at 290€ per child, and I would guess Denmark is more or less similar to Finland.
How much does that have to do with our increasing desire for more space though? The square footage of living space per person in a new home has increased from 506.6 to 980.7 since 1973.
https://www.aei.org/publication/todays-new-homes-are-1000-sq...
https://www.aei.org/publication/todays-new-homes-are-1000-sq...
I've seen this argument before and it's not a clear-cut relationship to desire at all. Did home buyers absolutely demand more and more space, or did developers realize they could make more by building bigger and bigger homes? Now we are in a situation where many, many young people looking to move to cities would be perfectly happy with smaller living spaces at associated smaller costs, but those properties straight up don't exist, and also aren't being built.
"many, many young people looking to move to cities would be perfectly happy with smaller living spaces at associated smaller costs, but those properties straight up don't exist, and also aren't being built"
This is it right here. Many municipalities won't even allow them to be built. I would love to live in a small town but such towns are designed around car ownership, total separation of residential and commercial districts, and massive housing lots. If you can't drive, you're stuck living in the big city. And that's only getting more difficult if you're middle income.
This is it right here. Many municipalities won't even allow them to be built. I would love to live in a small town but such towns are designed around car ownership, total separation of residential and commercial districts, and massive housing lots. If you can't drive, you're stuck living in the big city. And that's only getting more difficult if you're middle income.
The space doesn't cost as much as it once did. In almost every market, the land is the expensive part, not the house. Modern building materials are cheap and energy efficient. I moved from a 1400sqft 1930 built house to a 3600sqft 2014 built house, and the new house costs half as much as the old one to heat and cool. For a builder, there's hardly any reason not to build the largest house that fits on the property, because most of the high cost components are the same if you have a small house or a large house.
Across America that is true, but in hot real estate markets people are chopping up houses into smaller condos and new apartments have tiny rooms.
I bet living space per person in the bay area, NYC, DC, etc. has gone down over that same period.
I bet living space per person in the bay area, NYC, DC, etc. has gone down over that same period.
A lot of the unaffordability is due to the high price of housing in the area. Here are some concrete steps you can take to help lower the price of housing:
- The Brisbane City Council is deciding whether to build 4400 units of housing on 600 acres south of San Francisco, about the same number of units SF built in total last year. The Brisbane Planning Commission recommended building an office park instead. Contact them and ask them to build the housing version of the project.
- The Mountain View City Council is deciding whether to build 2000 units or 8000 units of housing next to Google. They are leaning toward the low end - 2000 units would be tough to support a grocery store or frequent transit. Contact them (or show up to their board meeting - tonight!) and ask them to build the high-housing version of the plan.
- The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering a plan to require 28% of all new developments to be below market rate. When you consider the unit costs to build in SF, that would make it _extremely_ difficult to justify new housing starts here. Please contact your Supervisor and ask them to oppose the Peskin/Kim Prop C plan.
- Call your CA State Assemblymember and ask them to oppose AB 915 (makes it harder to build affordable units)
- Call your CA State Assemblymember and ask them to support AB 71 (higher property taxes on second homes, money goes to affordable housing)
- Call your CA State Senator and ask them to support SB 167, which would put teeth in the state's Housing Accountability Act. (for more on this see carlaef.org)
- Call your CA State Senator and ask them to support SB 35 (would remove the ability of local government to block projects that meet certain criteria - near transit, have a high % of affordable units, use union construction labor)
- Email your VC's and C-level executives and tell them how hard it is to find housing in the area. Tell them about your awful commutes and the difficulty of finding good school districts for your kids. Ask them to get more involved politically in pro-housing causes. Ron Conway is a good example here.
NIMBY's are really well organized and things don't change unless we do something about them. All of these changes listed above will go a long way to support the development of housing in the Bay Area, which should help lower prices, and help keep families here and teachers in our neighborhoods.
https://kev.inburke.com/kevin/sf-housing-politics/
- The Brisbane City Council is deciding whether to build 4400 units of housing on 600 acres south of San Francisco, about the same number of units SF built in total last year. The Brisbane Planning Commission recommended building an office park instead. Contact them and ask them to build the housing version of the project.
- The Mountain View City Council is deciding whether to build 2000 units or 8000 units of housing next to Google. They are leaning toward the low end - 2000 units would be tough to support a grocery store or frequent transit. Contact them (or show up to their board meeting - tonight!) and ask them to build the high-housing version of the plan.
- The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering a plan to require 28% of all new developments to be below market rate. When you consider the unit costs to build in SF, that would make it _extremely_ difficult to justify new housing starts here. Please contact your Supervisor and ask them to oppose the Peskin/Kim Prop C plan.
- Call your CA State Assemblymember and ask them to oppose AB 915 (makes it harder to build affordable units)
- Call your CA State Assemblymember and ask them to support AB 71 (higher property taxes on second homes, money goes to affordable housing)
- Call your CA State Senator and ask them to support SB 167, which would put teeth in the state's Housing Accountability Act. (for more on this see carlaef.org)
- Call your CA State Senator and ask them to support SB 35 (would remove the ability of local government to block projects that meet certain criteria - near transit, have a high % of affordable units, use union construction labor)
- Email your VC's and C-level executives and tell them how hard it is to find housing in the area. Tell them about your awful commutes and the difficulty of finding good school districts for your kids. Ask them to get more involved politically in pro-housing causes. Ron Conway is a good example here.
NIMBY's are really well organized and things don't change unless we do something about them. All of these changes listed above will go a long way to support the development of housing in the Bay Area, which should help lower prices, and help keep families here and teachers in our neighborhoods.
https://kev.inburke.com/kevin/sf-housing-politics/
If I had the money, I'd just put a ballot measure on the ballot to raise the height ceiling for new buildings built within 2 blocks of a MUNI line to 100ft, no approval required. Also: legalize the unpermitted "in law" units.
There is a proposal to do this! It's called HOME SF. Going in front of the SF Land Use Committee on May 8; I will be there. https://sfbay.ca/2017/02/15/home-sf-plan-revisits-affordable...
Naturally, the SF Sierra Club and some tenants rights groups are trying to block it. It's not a sure thing at all. Please contact your Supervisor about it. http://thebaycitybeacon.com/32740/282282/a/the-sierra-club-f...
Naturally, the SF Sierra Club and some tenants rights groups are trying to block it. It's not a sure thing at all. Please contact your Supervisor about it. http://thebaycitybeacon.com/32740/282282/a/the-sierra-club-f...
I moved out of California 5 years ago and I think I won't consider back moving back at all. I enjoy my 1K/month 2 bedroom-2 bath apartment. 15 mins commute to work and a decent pay to manage my monthly expenses. I dont get paid in 6 figures, but close and I still leave a pretty decent life. I have a friend who works for vmware and gets paid in 6 figures, and still complains about how hard is to manage and do budgeting.
Most of the friends are in bay area in tech industry, tells me that tech scene here is amazing and I miss out on the cool dev meetups. I agree, but I think I got used to my life style now. Good work-life balance is hard to achieve.
Most of the friends are in bay area in tech industry, tells me that tech scene here is amazing and I miss out on the cool dev meetups. I agree, but I think I got used to my life style now. Good work-life balance is hard to achieve.
And this is why tech jobs are going to continue to lead the charge to being mostly remote workers. Major tech hubs are crazy expensive, and the jobs are pretty amenable to remote work.
At some point, there's going to be another inflection point where a lot of people making comfortable upper middle-class incomes move out to, well, anywhere. Basically, someone's going to do the math, and recognize that remote workers are just as productive, and are a little cheaper then having a bunch of 20-somethings in the office physically. And the incentive for anyone who wants to have kids to work remote is just going to be really, really high.
We may also see more software engineers sticking around as engineers instead of becoming managers as well. Because the incentive to grow your income via management may be relieved.
At some point, there's going to be another inflection point where a lot of people making comfortable upper middle-class incomes move out to, well, anywhere. Basically, someone's going to do the math, and recognize that remote workers are just as productive, and are a little cheaper then having a bunch of 20-somethings in the office physically. And the incentive for anyone who wants to have kids to work remote is just going to be really, really high.
We may also see more software engineers sticking around as engineers instead of becoming managers as well. Because the incentive to grow your income via management may be relieved.
I think it's investors holding up the movement at this point. I usually see most tech guys are mentally prepared for this shift, but finance guys are strongly opposed.
Well, there are a lot of complicating factors in the US when a remote worker moves out of state.
Health care seems to be a big one. Few HR departments are frequently equipped to provide another kind of health-care package, and health care expensive, heavily subsidized by many tech companies, negotiated because of bulk sales, etc.
Depending on the business, the company might actually be subject to massive sales taxes as well if they employ someone out of state. Some states, like CA, have enacted rather byzantine sales tax laws, such that if you were, say, a company in Idaho, and someone wanted to move to CA, you'd all of a sudden have a "presence" in the state and be subject to more taxes.
These are just off the top of my head. So basically, unless the CEO wants it prioritized, I suspect the "finance guys" are actually just identifying real costs. So I wouldn't expect remote work to just jump wholesale nationwide without some real infrastructure in place. In any case, the silicon valley area sure seems to have some pretty stark incentives for prioritizing remote work. I'd expect the issues with remote work to be ironed out faster then say, a massive wage raise or controlled real estate costs.
Health care seems to be a big one. Few HR departments are frequently equipped to provide another kind of health-care package, and health care expensive, heavily subsidized by many tech companies, negotiated because of bulk sales, etc.
Depending on the business, the company might actually be subject to massive sales taxes as well if they employ someone out of state. Some states, like CA, have enacted rather byzantine sales tax laws, such that if you were, say, a company in Idaho, and someone wanted to move to CA, you'd all of a sudden have a "presence" in the state and be subject to more taxes.
These are just off the top of my head. So basically, unless the CEO wants it prioritized, I suspect the "finance guys" are actually just identifying real costs. So I wouldn't expect remote work to just jump wholesale nationwide without some real infrastructure in place. In any case, the silicon valley area sure seems to have some pretty stark incentives for prioritizing remote work. I'd expect the issues with remote work to be ironed out faster then say, a massive wage raise or controlled real estate costs.
Any thoughts on why?
"Tech people" usually don't think outside of the context of producing code.
Good foresight.
Single income, Alameda county ( Fremont ), family of 4
No car payment, No credit card debt,
130k will let you live and eat with a bit of room to go do things once a month.
If you have a car payment and or credit cards kiss that once a month thing goodbye
150k will let you have a car and do things
Source : I left that area recently
No car payment, No credit card debt,
130k will let you live and eat with a bit of room to go do things once a month.
If you have a car payment and or credit cards kiss that once a month thing goodbye
150k will let you have a car and do things
Source : I left that area recently
As a counterpoint, my family of 3 is living in San Bruno (San Mateo county, on the peninsula) on a budget of $50k[1], and enjoying life immensely. We do without a lot of things that other people probably take for granted, but it's by choice, not necessity. And even within that limited budget we can afford some great perks that most of humanity can only dream about, like a reliable car for getting around town and the two trips we took to Europe last year. I don't blame anyone for making different choices -- our lifestyle probably isn't a good fit for many people -- but I do think it's important that everyone realize that life doesn't have to be as expensive as what the median consumer spends in the developed world. Once you know that, you can make a deliberate choice about how much each additional luxury is actually worth to you, taking into account the opportunity cost of spending a dollar now vs having it available later.
[1]: This number is not related to my take-home pay, the balance of which is automatically invested and ideally forgotten until retirement. One of the great mysteries of human nature is that the average individual living a perfectly happy life on a salary of X will, upon finding himself earning 1.5X, naturally increase his expenditures to 1.5X as well, and yet find himself no happier than he was when his spending was just X. Don't be the average individual!
[1]: This number is not related to my take-home pay, the balance of which is automatically invested and ideally forgotten until retirement. One of the great mysteries of human nature is that the average individual living a perfectly happy life on a salary of X will, upon finding himself earning 1.5X, naturally increase his expenditures to 1.5X as well, and yet find himself no happier than he was when his spending was just X. Don't be the average individual!
Given the effective tax rate in CA and the outrageous rents I would assume you have no housing costs to manage this.
That or you live on the streets
That or you live on the streets
You're right, I was unclear. $50k is our after-tax spending (including housing, which we're renting at market rate). For a couple making $130k like you mentioned above, with the worst-case scenario of 0 deductions or tax credits, total state+federal income tax should come to about $40k, leaving ~$90k after-tax to play with.
Same for me. At $130k I was paying off debts at $2k/month but otherwise living paycheck to paycheck. At $160k I now finally have a little extra, replaced my old broken car and have a little cash to save. Rent is $1450 for a studio with no kitchen. I am 32 and single but want a home. I grew up in this area and I feel like I'll have to work forever and start saving aggressively to be able to buy a home and have anything for retirement.
Over the next few years I will travel and see what other areas of the country are like.
Over the next few years I will travel and see what other areas of the country are like.
Answer: you live like a king at 100+ in lots of major cities.
Honest question. I just looked at Redfin and the average house costs around $1.2mm. How would anyone making $130k with 4 dependents buy a house? You seem to fit that criteria so I'll ask you. How on earth did you afford that? Because based on my simple math there just isn't enough money for it to be possible.
My wife and I work full time, combined income is just below $400k. With a mortgage on a 3 bedroom in Oakland, daycare and after-school care costs, student loans, et al, we have never been more broke in our lives. I was living large when I was making $75k and not living in the Bay Area... now, it's beans and rice most nights, and hoping the early 2000's honda doesn't break down on the way to school.
Wait a second. You and your wife pulled in ~$30K per month pre-tax, so I'll be generous and say $15K per month after tax. Any you have never been more broke? Even with kids I'd be hard pressed to call that broke unless you had ridiculous student loans. And in that case, you're screwed where ever you live.
That's what I was thinking too. If your mortgage on your 3br in Oakland is $1MM, your payment is $4,728/mo (interest portion is tax deductible but let's ignore that). Let's say your place is $1.5MM, that's another $1500 in property tax (also tax deductible but again, let's ignore). If you're bringing home $15K/mo, then you're still left with ~9K per month. That's a lot of rice and beans.
yeah, ridiculous student loans (med school), and some of it is definitely unrelated to being in the bay - a lot of debt related to the substandard paid maternity/paternity leave when having a kid in the USA (shoulda got that job @ netflix in retrospect...).
but kid-related costs here are also out of control, accredited infant daycare is insane, and you pretty much have to take what you can get into. same with after school care. this alone is >$3k/mo.
CA self-employment tax is nothing to sneeze at either, especially if you're a contractor in an industry that makes having an s-corp unfeasible.
but kid-related costs here are also out of control, accredited infant daycare is insane, and you pretty much have to take what you can get into. same with after school care. this alone is >$3k/mo.
CA self-employment tax is nothing to sneeze at either, especially if you're a contractor in an industry that makes having an s-corp unfeasible.
Coming from a state where even $50K/hh is quite comfortable (maybe slightly less so with a family of 4, but still beyond "rice and beans" level), I have to ask: how is this even possible? It strains credulity.
OK, sure, rents/real estate are higher. A LOT higher. But other than that, you're not going to pay substantially more for a car, computer, or any other consumer good in CA than anywhere else. Gas and food are somewhat higher, although some of that, based on my visits to and relatives in CA, seems to be based on more picky eating preferences than inherent logistical problems (but you say you don't do that).
It seems outlandish on its face: you know that a $400K household has to be way above the median, even in Oakland. So how is everyone else surviving?
OK, sure, rents/real estate are higher. A LOT higher. But other than that, you're not going to pay substantially more for a car, computer, or any other consumer good in CA than anywhere else. Gas and food are somewhat higher, although some of that, based on my visits to and relatives in CA, seems to be based on more picky eating preferences than inherent logistical problems (but you say you don't do that).
It seems outlandish on its face: you know that a $400K household has to be way above the median, even in Oakland. So how is everyone else surviving?
Simple, you don't buy a house. At least, not unless you can afford to pay cash. For most people, buying a house on a mortgage is financial suicide. It only makes sense to buy a house on a mortgage if the price-to-rent ratio is under 25. Anything over that and you could rent the same house and invest the money you save and come out ahead. The price-to-rent ratio in San Francisco is 45.88, meaning that a house that rents for $1000/month costs $550,560 to buy. Your monthly payment on a $550,560 mortgage would be $2,603. Conservatively investing $1603/month in an index fund for 30 years would yield $1,122,003 after inflation.
https://smartasset.com/mortgage/price-to-rent-ratio-in-us-ci...
https://smartasset.com/mortgage/price-to-rent-ratio-in-us-ci...
Something seems way off on those SmartAsset numbers. There is no way you are renting a $600k place in Manhattan or a $195k place in Dallas for only $1000/month.
Ante for renting a standalone place in Manhattan right now is around $2500/month, but I can buy places for as little as $500k (if I don't care about space). Some condos in Manhattan don't even allow rentals.
We just sold our house in Dallas for $220k, and I guarantee we would have been renting it out for a hell of a lot more than $1100/month if it came to that.
Ante for renting a standalone place in Manhattan right now is around $2500/month, but I can buy places for as little as $500k (if I don't care about space). Some condos in Manhattan don't even allow rentals.
We just sold our house in Dallas for $220k, and I guarantee we would have been renting it out for a hell of a lot more than $1100/month if it came to that.
I believe that their number is an mean of all properties weighted equally. So if you're only looking at single-family homes you could be paying much more, and if you're only looking at apartments you could be paying a lot less. They're also not considering factors like brokerage fees, property taxes, insurance, maintenance, or depreciation.
Not the OP, but based on living here for 15 years- you bought a house 8 years ago, when prices were half what they are now. Or you had an IPO/acquisition/bonus that netted you a downpayment large enough to bring the mortgage into affordable range.
You are right. You dont buy a house there.
I left
I left
Interestingly similar discussion going around in the UK at the moment after a UK MP came out saying that '£70,000' salary makes you 'rich'.
70k as a single income won't get you a flat in London in any reasonable time and you'll most certainly be renting forever on that kind if money in London. Even if its triple the average UK wage.
Location means everything.
70k as a single income won't get you a flat in London in any reasonable time and you'll most certainly be renting forever on that kind if money in London. Even if its triple the average UK wage.
Location means everything.
Actually at a previous job (at the front page of HN today for CEO severance) I started developing sympathy for politicians who say things like that. I saw how out of touch upper management was with what was actually going on, and in something like government it's at a much higher order of magnitude.
Doesn't excuse them, but I can understand how they say such things.
Doesn't excuse them, but I can understand how they say such things.
Saying that a £70,000 salary makes you rich sounds like sensible politics to me.
In the UK the median pre-tax income is £22,400 with £72,000 putting you in the 95th percentile [1]; £70,000 is in the middle of the pay scale for a salaried GP/family doctor [2]; and MPs receive a base salary of £74,000 [3] (plus a bunch of extra income through a variety of opaque means)
I think you would look pretty out of touch, from the perspective of someone earning £22,400 if you claimed earning £70,000 didn't make you rich.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-f... [2] https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/pay/general-practit... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_Members_of_the_Uni...
In the UK the median pre-tax income is £22,400 with £72,000 putting you in the 95th percentile [1]; £70,000 is in the middle of the pay scale for a salaried GP/family doctor [2]; and MPs receive a base salary of £74,000 [3] (plus a bunch of extra income through a variety of opaque means)
I think you would look pretty out of touch, from the perspective of someone earning £22,400 if you claimed earning £70,000 didn't make you rich.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-f... [2] https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/pay/general-practit... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_Members_of_the_Uni...
While I agree with your point, that 22400 number talks about household income not median income of an individual.
That's misleading on purpose.
"Houseold" accounts for children, single income families, and ignore benefits and unemployment. Last but not least, it's scaled for the UK, not London.
If you are a male in your 20-40, living in London, being the source of income for your household. 70k couldn't be further from rich.
"Houseold" accounts for children, single income families, and ignore benefits and unemployment. Last but not least, it's scaled for the UK, not London.
If you are a male in your 20-40, living in London, being the source of income for your household. 70k couldn't be further from rich.
Agreed that won't make you rich in London but you can very easily buy a house outside of London or a 1-bed in London. I have friends who are on less than that and are buying in decent zone 2/3 areas. Mortgages are actually pretty cheap if you can save up the 10% deposit and live with a 10/15 min walk to a station.
FYI: £70k = £4000 per month after taxes.
Only if you want to live in central London. You can still easily get a house on that income in London suburbs. For example you can get a 3-bed in Orpington (20 minutes by train to London Bridge) for around £400k which should be comfortably affordable to someone on 70k.
> around £400k which should be comfortably affordable to someone on 70k
The mortgage on that will be using up around half of your income. That's insane.
The mortgage on that will be using up around half of your income. That's insane.
Assuming a 60k deposit (so 340k mortage), you could get a 2 year fixed mortgage at 1.53% so your repayments will be £1,178.31.
£70k post-tax is around £48k so £4k/month so the mortgage will take around 30% of your take-home pay which is a fairly standard ratio.
£70k post-tax is around £48k so £4k/month so the mortgage will take around 30% of your take-home pay which is a fairly standard ratio.
Where are you renting near London (so you can work that same job) that you can both pay that AND save 60K?
Considering that looking at similar 3 bedrooms to those suggested for purchase gives rates of around £1350 / month. Even putting aside another 1/3 of your income (high) still leaves you looking at 5+ years to save a deposit.
Considering that looking at similar 3 bedrooms to those suggested for purchase gives rates of around £1350 / month. Even putting aside another 1/3 of your income (high) still leaves you looking at 5+ years to save a deposit.
£70k = 48k post-tax
60k/(48k*1/3) = 3.75 years
And that's assuming you start from zero savings.
60k/(48k*1/3) = 3.75 years
And that's assuming you start from zero savings.
I don't think someone on £70k, paying rent, would be able to build up that kind of deposit.
You can in a few years if you flatshare alone, or if you live as a couple without children and double income.
long term average mortgage interest rates are over 5% - if you're working in a STEM field what thought process leads you to blowing 1+ years net salary on a deposit for a 2yr fix at 1.53% with a 20+ year commitment?
Mortgage rates are fundamentally unpredictable, you can't assume that they'll revert to a 30 year average.
However what mortgage lenders do is "stress test" at 5%-6.5% that means they evaluate if you'd be able to afford to pay the mortgage + cover your essential costs (food, energy, etc.) if rates rose to those levels.
It's essentially a worse-case assumption to ensure you wouldn't be bankrupt if that happened, not whether you'd be comfortably off at that level.
If interest rates were to rise in 5-10 years time don't forget you could also remortgage to a longer time period to significantly reduce monthly payments if you needed to.
Rates aren't going to jump overnight; if they rise it'll likely be a long slow-rise by which point you should have already paid down a meaningful percentage of your mortgage.
However what mortgage lenders do is "stress test" at 5%-6.5% that means they evaluate if you'd be able to afford to pay the mortgage + cover your essential costs (food, energy, etc.) if rates rose to those levels.
It's essentially a worse-case assumption to ensure you wouldn't be bankrupt if that happened, not whether you'd be comfortably off at that level.
If interest rates were to rise in 5-10 years time don't forget you could also remortgage to a longer time period to significantly reduce monthly payments if you needed to.
Rates aren't going to jump overnight; if they rise it'll likely be a long slow-rise by which point you should have already paid down a meaningful percentage of your mortgage.
Saving up a 10%, £40k, deposit while renting here is quite tough though, even on 70k. And most devs don't earn that much
Well lets reverse out the numbers.
The median cost of a room in a flatshare in Zone 1/2 is just under £700 month, that's £8.4k/year. Let's assume other costs of living to be £10k/year that gives us a total of £18.4k/year.
Let's say you want to save £40k over 4 years, so 10k/year, that would require a take-home salary of £28.4k/year which implies a pre-tax salary of 37k.
37k should be comfortably achievable for a software developer 1-2 years out of uni.
The median cost of a room in a flatshare in Zone 1/2 is just under £700 month, that's £8.4k/year. Let's assume other costs of living to be £10k/year that gives us a total of £18.4k/year.
Let's say you want to save £40k over 4 years, so 10k/year, that would require a take-home salary of £28.4k/year which implies a pre-tax salary of 37k.
37k should be comfortably achievable for a software developer 1-2 years out of uni.
For £700 a month, you live in a complete dump with 2-4 flatmates.
And you still have to add the expenses on top. Food, transport, council taxes, utilities.
And you still have to add the expenses on top. Food, transport, council taxes, utilities.
How many people realistically go from a "flatshare" to a "3 br home" in one step like that?
It's a fairly common move for people getting married with a plan to have children.
But if you rent in the suburbs you can get a similar discount on rental as you get on purchases.
(Although the 3-bed was just an example obviously you can get a 1-bed for a cheaper price as well)
But if you rent in the suburbs you can get a similar discount on rental as you get on purchases.
(Although the 3-bed was just an example obviously you can get a 1-bed for a cheaper price as well)
I must say that as someone who does NOT live in a crazy high-rent state or town, I am not well pleased by the idea of my federal tax dollars going to people who choose to live there but can't make ends meet, and this even though I'm generally pro-spending on social welfare.
You may say, "but the poor can't afford to move!". Well, if that's the case, the government should subsidize their move instead. It would be way cheaper and would incidentally drive real estate prices closer to the national median.
I'm not trying to cast any blame on people in this situation, as they are likely there through no fault of their own, but this can hardly be the most efficient way to solve the problem.
I feel like economics is screaming a message to people in the Bay Area: "There are too many people here! There's tons of land in the U.S.!", but no one is listening, just casting blame on the techies, gentrification, land policy, or whatever.
You may say, "but the poor can't afford to move!". Well, if that's the case, the government should subsidize their move instead. It would be way cheaper and would incidentally drive real estate prices closer to the national median.
I'm not trying to cast any blame on people in this situation, as they are likely there through no fault of their own, but this can hardly be the most efficient way to solve the problem.
I feel like economics is screaming a message to people in the Bay Area: "There are too many people here! There's tons of land in the U.S.!", but no one is listening, just casting blame on the techies, gentrification, land policy, or whatever.
My federal income taxes (which treat me as though I am rich, because income taxes are not cost-of-living adjusted) buy:
- The diplomatic, covert, and military apparatus which dominates the world to the extent necessary to secure the flow of cheap oil for your car.
- The interstate highways you drive on.
- The stability of the mortgage-lending ecosystem (via bailouts), and FHA subsidies that privilege suburban single family homes over urban condos.
- Welfare so that unemployed people can stay in dead-end towns, instead of moving to where they are needed.
If these costs were instead embedded in the home prices and rents of the low-density regions they enable, those places wouldn't be cheap anymore.
I don't think we need to force everyone in to urban skyscrapers, but I do think the federal government ought to prop up urbanization at the expense of people in cheap areas at least as much as it props up sprawl at the expense of high COL city dwellers.
- The diplomatic, covert, and military apparatus which dominates the world to the extent necessary to secure the flow of cheap oil for your car.
- The interstate highways you drive on.
- The stability of the mortgage-lending ecosystem (via bailouts), and FHA subsidies that privilege suburban single family homes over urban condos.
- Welfare so that unemployed people can stay in dead-end towns, instead of moving to where they are needed.
If these costs were instead embedded in the home prices and rents of the low-density regions they enable, those places wouldn't be cheap anymore.
I don't think we need to force everyone in to urban skyscrapers, but I do think the federal government ought to prop up urbanization at the expense of people in cheap areas at least as much as it props up sprawl at the expense of high COL city dwellers.
> income taxes are not cost-of-living adjusted
Well, this is another issue. It's incoherent, honestly, that someone can be considered both rich and poor from the federal perspective. But in the end, a COL adjustment on income tax would be equivalent to the type of subsidy in question.
- The diplomatic, covert, and military apparatus which dominates the world to the extent necessary to secure the flow of cheap oil for your car.
lel. If that was ever true, which I doubt, it isn't any more. If there was ever a point that our military paid for itself (even on the margin) in terms of cheaper oil, I'll eat my hat.
> Welfare so that unemployed people can stay in dead-end towns, instead of moving to where they are needed.
This is really the core of it. If people are really needed, economically and relatively to elsewhere, in supercities, then supercities will pay enough for them to live there. Ergo, you are overstating how much they are needed. This is exactly analogous to employers claiming there is a "shortage" of programmers, but they aren't willing to raise wages.
Besides, am I to believe that there are no unemployed people on welfare in cities? I don't know what the relative rate is. I do agree people should be incentivized to move where they are needed. We may have different views on where that is, exactly. Any kind of welfare distorts economic "need" signals, which is a big downside of it.
Imagining welfare or wealth transfers didn't exist, I'd say that the place where people are most "needed" is a place where benefits of living - COL is highest. I have no data on where that might be, but I doubt SV ranks high on the list unless you are a programmer. By that metric I would imagine that there would be a dynamic equilibrium between urbanization and countryside, as there is now.
In some ways, SV programmers defending subsidies for service workers in SV sounds like "please subsidize my $10 latte and Whole Foods bill".
> the low-density regions they enable
This is pretty creative. If cities had to grow their own food and extract their own natural resources, I think they'd have quite a problem, yes? It may be fair to say cities & countryside are codependent, but the idea that cities are one-sidedly enabling everyone else is not credible.
It is quite likely that there is a net transfer of wealth from cities to the countryside. The reason I would argue this is "fair" is because people in the cities are also the primary beneficiaries of GDP growth.
BTW, I don't live in the country, I live in a medium-sized city. I am limiting my criticisms to cities that have so poorly planned expansion, or are so crowded, that the COL is sky-high, and they want a bailout from everyone else.
Well, this is another issue. It's incoherent, honestly, that someone can be considered both rich and poor from the federal perspective. But in the end, a COL adjustment on income tax would be equivalent to the type of subsidy in question.
- The diplomatic, covert, and military apparatus which dominates the world to the extent necessary to secure the flow of cheap oil for your car.
lel. If that was ever true, which I doubt, it isn't any more. If there was ever a point that our military paid for itself (even on the margin) in terms of cheaper oil, I'll eat my hat.
> Welfare so that unemployed people can stay in dead-end towns, instead of moving to where they are needed.
This is really the core of it. If people are really needed, economically and relatively to elsewhere, in supercities, then supercities will pay enough for them to live there. Ergo, you are overstating how much they are needed. This is exactly analogous to employers claiming there is a "shortage" of programmers, but they aren't willing to raise wages.
Besides, am I to believe that there are no unemployed people on welfare in cities? I don't know what the relative rate is. I do agree people should be incentivized to move where they are needed. We may have different views on where that is, exactly. Any kind of welfare distorts economic "need" signals, which is a big downside of it.
Imagining welfare or wealth transfers didn't exist, I'd say that the place where people are most "needed" is a place where benefits of living - COL is highest. I have no data on where that might be, but I doubt SV ranks high on the list unless you are a programmer. By that metric I would imagine that there would be a dynamic equilibrium between urbanization and countryside, as there is now.
In some ways, SV programmers defending subsidies for service workers in SV sounds like "please subsidize my $10 latte and Whole Foods bill".
> the low-density regions they enable
This is pretty creative. If cities had to grow their own food and extract their own natural resources, I think they'd have quite a problem, yes? It may be fair to say cities & countryside are codependent, but the idea that cities are one-sidedly enabling everyone else is not credible.
It is quite likely that there is a net transfer of wealth from cities to the countryside. The reason I would argue this is "fair" is because people in the cities are also the primary beneficiaries of GDP growth.
BTW, I don't live in the country, I live in a medium-sized city. I am limiting my criticisms to cities that have so poorly planned expansion, or are so crowded, that the COL is sky-high, and they want a bailout from everyone else.
>If there was ever a point that our military paid for itself (even on the margin) in terms of cheaper oil
Of course it doesn't pay for itself. Cities with their GDP growth pay for it (financially), and exurbs with their cheap sprawling subdivisions and giant SUVs benefit from it.
People are most needed where they would create the most value, regardless of cost of living.
Let's say your programming labor would be worth $120k/year ($40k in taxes) in San Francisco, but you're stuck making $50k/year ($10k in taxes) in Indianapolis because San Francisco would still be a net less for you.
Your not being in San Francisco costs the government $30k/year. Any subsidy below $30k/year that gets you to that more productive job is profitable for the taxpayer.
Now imagine someone who costs taxpayers $20k/year in Appalachia, but could generate $30k/year ($5k in taxes) as a barista at the Googleplex. It's still worth any price below $25k to get her to Mountain View.
Of course, these subsidies might just arm you (and the barista) to displace other, also productive Bay Area residents, resulting in no net change. There would also have to be a zoning policy intervention to create new units.
I do agree that high and low density regions are codependent, and subsidies are appropriate in both directions. I simply argue that subsidies to get people to high-productivity cities are much less costly (they can even be profitable!) than subsidies to help people stay in low-productivity situations.
Of course it doesn't pay for itself. Cities with their GDP growth pay for it (financially), and exurbs with their cheap sprawling subdivisions and giant SUVs benefit from it.
People are most needed where they would create the most value, regardless of cost of living.
Let's say your programming labor would be worth $120k/year ($40k in taxes) in San Francisco, but you're stuck making $50k/year ($10k in taxes) in Indianapolis because San Francisco would still be a net less for you.
Your not being in San Francisco costs the government $30k/year. Any subsidy below $30k/year that gets you to that more productive job is profitable for the taxpayer.
Now imagine someone who costs taxpayers $20k/year in Appalachia, but could generate $30k/year ($5k in taxes) as a barista at the Googleplex. It's still worth any price below $25k to get her to Mountain View.
Of course, these subsidies might just arm you (and the barista) to displace other, also productive Bay Area residents, resulting in no net change. There would also have to be a zoning policy intervention to create new units.
I do agree that high and low density regions are codependent, and subsidies are appropriate in both directions. I simply argue that subsidies to get people to high-productivity cities are much less costly (they can even be profitable!) than subsidies to help people stay in low-productivity situations.
> exurbs with their cheap sprawling subdivisions and giant SUVs benefit from it
I guess I'm with you to the extent this means they "recoup a larger proportion of their losses on these pointless endeavors".
> Your not being in San Francisco costs the government $30k/year. Any subsidy below $30k/year that gets you to that more productive job is profitable for the taxpayer.
With this I agree, although it seems at odds with what I think you were saying earlier, that tax should be COL-adjusted. If this were the case, it would no longer be true.
> People are most needed where they would create the most value, regardless of cost of living.
Nope! True, this would be best from the government's perspective. From the individual's perspective, it is most rational to live where they have the biggest surplus of wages over costs. Doesn't do you much good to make $1M if it's $1.5M for a crappy apartment and basic food.
Unless you are separating the concept of "people are needed most at X" from the concept of "it is most economically rational to live at X".
> imagine someone who costs taxpayers $20k/year in Appalachia, but could generate $30k/year ($5k in taxes) as a barista at the Googleplex
OK, yes, but this sets up a mostly false dichotomy between "employed in SV (etc)" or "unemployed in Appalachia". There are a lot of places in the US that are less dysfunctional than either one of those two places.
> I simply argue that subsidies to get people to high-productivity cities are much less costly (they can even be profitable!) than subsidies to help people stay in low-productivity situations.
It just seems self-contradictory. You say that people in SV pay more tax than people not in SV. That's right. But then you say people in SV should be subsidized, which removes the logical basis you're using to argue they should be there in the first place.
It is helpful to remember that subsidizing someone's COL in a low-cost area is by definition going to cost less than someone in a high-cost area. In short, if we HAVE to subsidize people a lot, then we should subsidize them to live in Appalachia, not SV. But if only a little (i.e., they still pay tax in net), then it could make economic sense to subsidize people in SV. Ironically, by this logic, it makes more sense to subsidize the $90K person in SV than the $30K person.
I guess I'm with you to the extent this means they "recoup a larger proportion of their losses on these pointless endeavors".
> Your not being in San Francisco costs the government $30k/year. Any subsidy below $30k/year that gets you to that more productive job is profitable for the taxpayer.
With this I agree, although it seems at odds with what I think you were saying earlier, that tax should be COL-adjusted. If this were the case, it would no longer be true.
> People are most needed where they would create the most value, regardless of cost of living.
Nope! True, this would be best from the government's perspective. From the individual's perspective, it is most rational to live where they have the biggest surplus of wages over costs. Doesn't do you much good to make $1M if it's $1.5M for a crappy apartment and basic food.
Unless you are separating the concept of "people are needed most at X" from the concept of "it is most economically rational to live at X".
> imagine someone who costs taxpayers $20k/year in Appalachia, but could generate $30k/year ($5k in taxes) as a barista at the Googleplex
OK, yes, but this sets up a mostly false dichotomy between "employed in SV (etc)" or "unemployed in Appalachia". There are a lot of places in the US that are less dysfunctional than either one of those two places.
> I simply argue that subsidies to get people to high-productivity cities are much less costly (they can even be profitable!) than subsidies to help people stay in low-productivity situations.
It just seems self-contradictory. You say that people in SV pay more tax than people not in SV. That's right. But then you say people in SV should be subsidized, which removes the logical basis you're using to argue they should be there in the first place.
It is helpful to remember that subsidizing someone's COL in a low-cost area is by definition going to cost less than someone in a high-cost area. In short, if we HAVE to subsidize people a lot, then we should subsidize them to live in Appalachia, not SV. But if only a little (i.e., they still pay tax in net), then it could make economic sense to subsidize people in SV. Ironically, by this logic, it makes more sense to subsidize the $90K person in SV than the $30K person.
You're discussing the government force relocating poor people. Think about that...
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that they be given the choice of moving somewhere else, of their choice, with subsidies for the move, or trying to go it alone in place.
And this only for those people who fall in that gap between (approximately) the national low-income line and the local "low-income" line. People who fall below the national low-income line should be given subsidies, regardless of where they live.
I believe in helping people, but not subsidizing irrational behavior that exacerbates an existing problem.
Just think about how this looks to someone like me: the low-income threshold in CA is over twice my household income. And I am not classified as low-income. So to some degree my tax dollars will be transferred to subsidize some terrible decision-making. If this looks bad to me, a liberal, think how it looks to moderates and conservatives!
Let's take this to the logical extreme: suppose I decide to live literally in Hollywood hills, where one of my relatives lives. I make nowhere near enough to survive there. Should I be subsidized anyway? Does it make a difference if I was born in Hollywood and this situation arose subsequently? I think not, when it comes to the question of what should be done about it now, although reasonable minds may differ.
And this only for those people who fall in that gap between (approximately) the national low-income line and the local "low-income" line. People who fall below the national low-income line should be given subsidies, regardless of where they live.
I believe in helping people, but not subsidizing irrational behavior that exacerbates an existing problem.
Just think about how this looks to someone like me: the low-income threshold in CA is over twice my household income. And I am not classified as low-income. So to some degree my tax dollars will be transferred to subsidize some terrible decision-making. If this looks bad to me, a liberal, think how it looks to moderates and conservatives!
Let's take this to the logical extreme: suppose I decide to live literally in Hollywood hills, where one of my relatives lives. I make nowhere near enough to survive there. Should I be subsidized anyway? Does it make a difference if I was born in Hollywood and this situation arose subsequently? I think not, when it comes to the question of what should be done about it now, although reasonable minds may differ.
After two years in San Francisco, I had to move back to my small(er) home town city because I ultimately realized there's little to no future for me in a city like San Francisco, despite making 250k/yr. I'd have to make at minimum $1M per year for a similar lifestyle (and even then, the stress of living in the bay area will reduce years from your lifespan... what's each year of your life worth to you?).
You "need" to make $1.5M/year for "similar" lifestyle. Maybe you should either reconsider your lifestyle or your math skills.
note: I made the assumption you didn't move to a village in a 3rd world country.
note: I made the assumption you didn't move to a village in a 3rd world country.
You're right. The point still stands. The difference is further reduced after taxes (you'd be paying over 50% in California taxes on that high of an income). I moved to a very normal and beautiful suburb in the USA close to a big city (Boston, Chi, DC, take your pick)
This post is hilarious. You're the embodiment of HN.
Yeah, first world problem I know :)
Everything's a matter of perspective. Ultimately I want my future kids to have a quality of life similar or greater than I had growing up, and I just didn't think that would be possible in the Bay (at least not without taking on the much higher stress that would likely accompany a much higher income)
Everything's a matter of perspective. Ultimately I want my future kids to have a quality of life similar or greater than I had growing up, and I just didn't think that would be possible in the Bay (at least not without taking on the much higher stress that would likely accompany a much higher income)
[deleted]
Curious as to what was causing the stress specific to the Bay Area for you?
Most activities seemed at least 2x more difficult, and that differential probably becomes 3x with kids. Service all around isn't very good in the Bay, there is a higher chance of simple things to not go as planned. Over the years I've realized that stress is something that creeps up on you slowly but surely, and most often you don't even realize it. Over the years it adds up, and ultimately can reduce your lifespan. It truly is the silent killer.
Can you elaborate a little more on the activities here being 2x more difficult? I'm curious because this is a metric I use when comparing quality of life between NYC and SF (I made the move about a year ago). Activities like laundry, grocery shopping, and commuting I find easier in SF than in NYC, even though some of the salient variables haven't changed much (e.g. in both cities I don't have in-unit laundry so I go to the closest laundromat).
Not to say things aren't harder here than in most places. Just having in-unit laundry seems like something most non high-COL, urban-dwelling Americans take as a given.
Not to say things aren't harder here than in most places. Just having in-unit laundry seems like something most non high-COL, urban-dwelling Americans take as a given.
NYC seems to be on par with SF. Both living situations are extreme for someone with a more suburban upbringing.
Lack of mobility if you don't have a car, lack of available parking if you do, long lines in general, lots of traffic. Very poor care at many establishments due to overworked and over stressed staff. Miniscule and generally not so great living conditions. For example I lived in a nearly 100 year old house in Oakland with others, which 1 yr later found out had mold problems (a serious health hazard). Also lived in two very modern apartments in the heart of SF both of which had a converted living room bedroom with three roommates. One roommate slept on a couch for a year, paying over $1000/mo. Crime due to homeless situation (witnessed crime frequently during my time, petty crime especially. Side note, didn't a Bart train get robbed just yesterday?). Medical care is another big one (multiple experiences, one for me personally)
Even little things like cooking are very difficult when your entire kitchen is 1/5 the size of what you'd find in a similarly priced suburban home. Little things like this add to stress as I wrote a bit about already.
And sadly the south bay isn't that much better as a "suburb". The home prices in Palo Alto for example are quite outrageous. There are a lot of far nicer suburbs in other parts of the country without the wild price tag.
I was young when I moved, and don't regret the time I spent in the Bay at all. I learned a lot, it was positive for my career and most of all I just had to get it out of my system. The glitz and glamour of it all wore with time, as I suspect it does for many, and ultimately I felt it wasn't where I would want to build my future.
Lack of mobility if you don't have a car, lack of available parking if you do, long lines in general, lots of traffic. Very poor care at many establishments due to overworked and over stressed staff. Miniscule and generally not so great living conditions. For example I lived in a nearly 100 year old house in Oakland with others, which 1 yr later found out had mold problems (a serious health hazard). Also lived in two very modern apartments in the heart of SF both of which had a converted living room bedroom with three roommates. One roommate slept on a couch for a year, paying over $1000/mo. Crime due to homeless situation (witnessed crime frequently during my time, petty crime especially. Side note, didn't a Bart train get robbed just yesterday?). Medical care is another big one (multiple experiences, one for me personally)
Even little things like cooking are very difficult when your entire kitchen is 1/5 the size of what you'd find in a similarly priced suburban home. Little things like this add to stress as I wrote a bit about already.
And sadly the south bay isn't that much better as a "suburb". The home prices in Palo Alto for example are quite outrageous. There are a lot of far nicer suburbs in other parts of the country without the wild price tag.
I was young when I moved, and don't regret the time I spent in the Bay at all. I learned a lot, it was positive for my career and most of all I just had to get it out of my system. The glitz and glamour of it all wore with time, as I suspect it does for many, and ultimately I felt it wasn't where I would want to build my future.
Because you asked: Actually, I'm happy to give up a year or two of my lifespan in exchange for a much more urban lifestyle in a place a lot of our (wife and I) friends live. Assuming a regular lifespan somewhere into the 70s or so. I'd die earlier of boredom in a small town (I'm from one in India). Of course I might feel another way in ten years.
When I was driving to work, I felt that the stress would give me chronic stress issues, or make me drop dead one day at 40. That I am not ok with.
When I was driving to work, I felt that the stress would give me chronic stress issues, or make me drop dead one day at 40. That I am not ok with.
Yeah, I couldn't live in a small town either. Its important to note though that Boston, Chicago, Philly or any number large metros are actually quite larger than San Francisco and have more vibrant downtowns with much more affordable suburbs. Agree that having friends and family around can make all the difference. Driving indeed can be stressful, my work happens to be just 10 min from home and I'm a 30 min drive away from a great city. After making the move I do feel like I have the best of both worlds... relaxed and low stress suburban lifestyle with a massive and vibrant urban center nearby. I've also found that the fiscally conservative and low stress lifestyle is more conducive to travel, which I've been able to do a lot more often now (being in the East coast probably helps too, with lots of major cities just a short flight away)
I was going to disagree with a bunch of things you said about the cities you mentioned, but I liked your last two lines! You seem to be happy, so it doesn't really matter why, I guess. I hope that continues being the case.
what were you doing/where were you working that you were pulling in 250k?
Is 250k considered unusual in the bay area for a BigCo for someone for someone 3-5 years out of college? If that's the case, choosing to living in SF is even crazier than I thought.
Yes, that's unusual. Think half that for someone only a few years out of college. And that's for software dev at a large company. The vast majority of employed people in the Bay Area do not make six figures (source: I've lived here for several decades).
As someone in the bay area working for a BigCo, I expect to be making making ~250k with 5 years of experience due to internal info, see also https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/
That seems a bit high-ish for that year range but achievable at BigCo (if you negotiate savvy).
I prefer not to say exactly, but it was multiple sources of income from different small businesses I've built over the years.
That's obviously completely fair, and I appreciate you replying at all. I guess I took it as you were working for a single company and not a proprietor in any way. So that was (false) context I injected, and that's on me.
Where did you go?
I don't know much about SF salaries, but in NYC, 100K is really middle class. With enrage rent at 2k/mo, salaries have to be high in order to keep up with cost of living.
Everyone makes a huge deal about the number but shouldn't it be more of a ratio? Like the cost of living to base salary? That should be a better statistic to judge quality of life.
Everyone makes a huge deal about the number but shouldn't it be more of a ratio? Like the cost of living to base salary? That should be a better statistic to judge quality of life.
Ratio is probably better, but also misleads if my income isn't close to the cost of maintaining my lifestyle.
If I am able to save, and I move to make 2x in a place that costs 2x, I am saving 2x as much!
If I am stuck drawing down savings, and I make the opposite move, I have doubled my runway.
If I am able to save, and I move to make 2x in a place that costs 2x, I am saving 2x as much!
If I am stuck drawing down savings, and I make the opposite move, I have doubled my runway.
Yeah what's probably best is some number closer to "monthly net after taxes, rent, insurance".
If I take home $2500/mo and pay $1000/mo rent and $500/mo expenses, it takes 9 months to save a six month emergency fund.
If I take home $5000, pay $3500/mo in rent, and spend $500 on everything else, it takes 24 months to save a six month emergency fund.
Yet my monthly net is the same. Ratio matters a great deal. Maybe less so after you've established savings.
If I take home $5000, pay $3500/mo in rent, and spend $500 on everything else, it takes 24 months to save a six month emergency fund.
Yet my monthly net is the same. Ratio matters a great deal. Maybe less so after you've established savings.
True that ratio is more relevant to savings where your target scales with local COL. That's true for some things, not for others.
Though I might argue, regarding an emergency fund in particular, that establishing and maintaining such would be something that should be accounted as an expense rather than savings.
Though I might argue, regarding an emergency fund in particular, that establishing and maintaining such would be something that should be accounted as an expense rather than savings.
The median annual family income (for a whole family including all earners) is 50k. 100k for a family is in the top 20% of NYC.
Well to really answer the question we have to define what we mean by "middle-class," which is often deliberately left so nebulous that it covers practically everyone besides the homeless and the stratospherically wealthy.
You also have to define "NYC"; this includes outer boroughs like the Bronx where incomes and rents are MUCH lower. If you restrict yourself to Manhattan or a couple outlying areas in Brooklyn/Queens that are considered desirable, the numbers change quite dramatically.
I used NYC as the 5 boroughs. I also used working class neighborhood rent as comparison instead of manahattan, which would be a bit more
I live in Brooklyn, by Verrazano bridge which is an hour away from Manahattan by train. I don't know how a family can servive on 50k in a working class neighborhood like mine.
I believe there is a great disparity in NYC between Section 8 housing and regular, rent stabilized, apartments.
Section 8 brings down family income median as the housing is very affordable but cannot be classified as desirable by most standards.
I believe there is a great disparity in NYC between Section 8 housing and regular, rent stabilized, apartments.
Section 8 brings down family income median as the housing is very affordable but cannot be classified as desirable by most standards.
Section 8 is only 8% of people in nyc.
What you're describing is close to disposable income. For most people a ratio of compensation to disposable income would be of little use. Personal P/E?
I live more than comfortable with 100K in NYC. Sure, no kids, but money is not something I think about. It's enough for a 23 year old like me.
Not too long ago, I built a tool that aggregates various information form the US Census, American Community Survey, and a few other sources.
At one point, I decided that I wanted to track the cost of living of every place, so I started delving into American Community Survey data to find what I needed. I wound up picking three variables to display: median annual income, median monthly housing cost, and median housing cost as a percentage of income.
I had to aggregate a bunch of stuff together for this, as the data was divided up between renters, owners with a mortgage, and owners without a mortgage.
Here's the query I made against the ACS API to pull the data I needed: http://api.census.gov/data/2015/acs5?get=NAME%2CB25106_001E%...
For the purposes of this post, I'll call the pieces of data this gives me by the following names (I don't remember if this is in the same order the API call returns... I'm copying and pasting this from notes I took when I was coming up with my calculations):
housingunits
renters
owners
ownersmortgage
ownersnomortgage
grent
smocmortgage
smocnomortgage
annualincome
First five variables are totals, the next four are all median values. SMOC stands for "selected monthly ownership costs", which is basically mortgage (if applicable) + property taxes + average utility payment. Grent stands for "gross rent" and is rent + average utility payment.
I then can do the following intermediate calculations:
rentpct = renters / housingunits
ownerpct = owners / housingunits
mortgagepct = ownersmortgage / owners
nomortgagepct = ownersnomortgage / owners
monthlyincome = annualincome / 12
And get the data points that will be displayed on the model's UI:
housingcost = grent * rentpct + (smocmortgage * mortgagepct + smocnomortgage * nomortgagepct) * ownerpct
housingcostapi = housingcost / monthlyincome
("api" here stands for "as percentage of income", and the acronym is used heavily within the American Community Survey's documentation of their income data, so I picked it up as wlel)
(and I'm displaying annualincome as well, which is just raw data from the ACS and not a calculation)
I've found that nicer places tend to have a lower housingcostapi, but within a narrow range. A wealthy suburb might be around 20%, while the ghetto might be around 30%. But there are tons of exceptions... middle-class suburbs tend to run a really wide gamut all over the 20s, so I wouldn't consider things like "20% housingcostapi = filthy rich people" to be gospel.
I'm not comfortable linking my census tool here because I've yet to set up safeguards to prevent my server from getting hammered by crawlers (my tool has a very large amount of dynamically-generated graphics that are CPU intensive to generate and are then cached... and there are so many possible permutations that a crawler could easily exhaust my disk space), but I might consider sending the link privately to people if I think they won't share it publicly.
At one point, I decided that I wanted to track the cost of living of every place, so I started delving into American Community Survey data to find what I needed. I wound up picking three variables to display: median annual income, median monthly housing cost, and median housing cost as a percentage of income.
I had to aggregate a bunch of stuff together for this, as the data was divided up between renters, owners with a mortgage, and owners without a mortgage.
Here's the query I made against the ACS API to pull the data I needed: http://api.census.gov/data/2015/acs5?get=NAME%2CB25106_001E%...
For the purposes of this post, I'll call the pieces of data this gives me by the following names (I don't remember if this is in the same order the API call returns... I'm copying and pasting this from notes I took when I was coming up with my calculations):
housingunits
renters
owners
ownersmortgage
ownersnomortgage
grent
smocmortgage
smocnomortgage
annualincome
First five variables are totals, the next four are all median values. SMOC stands for "selected monthly ownership costs", which is basically mortgage (if applicable) + property taxes + average utility payment. Grent stands for "gross rent" and is rent + average utility payment.
I then can do the following intermediate calculations:
rentpct = renters / housingunits
ownerpct = owners / housingunits
mortgagepct = ownersmortgage / owners
nomortgagepct = ownersnomortgage / owners
monthlyincome = annualincome / 12
And get the data points that will be displayed on the model's UI:
housingcost = grent * rentpct + (smocmortgage * mortgagepct + smocnomortgage * nomortgagepct) * ownerpct
housingcostapi = housingcost / monthlyincome
("api" here stands for "as percentage of income", and the acronym is used heavily within the American Community Survey's documentation of their income data, so I picked it up as wlel)
(and I'm displaying annualincome as well, which is just raw data from the ACS and not a calculation)
I've found that nicer places tend to have a lower housingcostapi, but within a narrow range. A wealthy suburb might be around 20%, while the ghetto might be around 30%. But there are tons of exceptions... middle-class suburbs tend to run a really wide gamut all over the 20s, so I wouldn't consider things like "20% housingcostapi = filthy rich people" to be gospel.
I'm not comfortable linking my census tool here because I've yet to set up safeguards to prevent my server from getting hammered by crawlers (my tool has a very large amount of dynamically-generated graphics that are CPU intensive to generate and are then cached... and there are so many possible permutations that a crawler could easily exhaust my disk space), but I might consider sending the link privately to people if I think they won't share it publicly.
Did you ever think about monetizing it? I'm sure with your tool and Zillows API, this would be very valuable for people looking at homes.
One application is looking for places that are up and coming with values below MR.
One application is looking for places that are up and coming with values below MR.
I hear this sort of thing a lot and I have trouble reconciling it with my experiences. I live in SF and my total expenses (rent, food, entertainment, etc.) were ~$15,000 in 2016. I don't feel like I live a life of great deprivation.
I get that the article is talking about a family of four, but even if we assume there are no economies of scale, my costs would work out to $60,000 for a family of four.
I also get that I have some privileges: healthy enough to bike rather than drive/take transit, minimal medical expenses, no student loans. But I am surely not the only person in this position.
What's happening here? What are the other major expenses that people have?
(I understand this comment probably comes off as obnoxious, but I'm genuinely trying to understand. This incongruity makes it harder for me to understand/sympathize with others on this issue and I'd like to regain that ability.)
I get that the article is talking about a family of four, but even if we assume there are no economies of scale, my costs would work out to $60,000 for a family of four.
I also get that I have some privileges: healthy enough to bike rather than drive/take transit, minimal medical expenses, no student loans. But I am surely not the only person in this position.
What's happening here? What are the other major expenses that people have?
(I understand this comment probably comes off as obnoxious, but I'm genuinely trying to understand. This incongruity makes it harder for me to understand/sympathize with others on this issue and I'd like to regain that ability.)
You're indicating that you rent for less than $1250/mo. A studio is out of the question at that rate; even a room in a shared apartment would be unlikely. People I know paying that little money for housing are an entire BART line away from the city (Richmond, Pittsburg, etc), have several roommates or a working spouse, and need cars.
What do you pay for housing, what kind of housing is it, and is a lease like yours available to newcomers who don't have your grandfathered status or connections?
What do you pay for housing, what kind of housing is it, and is a lease like yours available to newcomers who don't have your grandfathered status or connections?
$915/month for SRO. No special connections or status.
Ah. SROs seem to have a reputation for extremely poor physical condition, predatory management, a high concentration of unstable and dangerous people with untreated mental illnesses as neighbors, and locations in rough neighborhoods like the Tenderloin.
There seems to be a consensus that enduring long commutes, or just moving away, are preferable to living in those kinds of conditions. I've never heard of someone considering an SRO unless they had been previously homeless or institutionalized.
Even the starving artists seem to prefer sharing apartments (or using former warehouse/factory space as apartments) in the less glamorous parts of the East Bay.
I'd love to to live in a clean, safe, quiet, well-maintained SRO close to work at that price.
There seems to be a consensus that enduring long commutes, or just moving away, are preferable to living in those kinds of conditions. I've never heard of someone considering an SRO unless they had been previously homeless or institutionalized.
Even the starving artists seem to prefer sharing apartments (or using former warehouse/factory space as apartments) in the less glamorous parts of the East Bay.
I'd love to to live in a clean, safe, quiet, well-maintained SRO close to work at that price.
[deleted]
Among other things, childcare is wildly expensive. Throw in life insurance, and you want your kids to live in a good school district, right?
Hm, early childhood care is more expensive than I thought. I think the schools for my address do happen to be good.
If you make $100k, you probably net at least $70k after income taxes. The GP could double his rent and still have over $40k per year to spend on childcare.
So something is still not adding up.
So something is still not adding up.
It's a low income if you are supporting a family of four and only one person is working. It doesn't mean the salary is in the low income bracket for a single tech worker on six figures.
Here in Boulder CO, the cutoff for "affordable" housing subsidies is ~80k for a family of four. 104k in the Bay Area seems about right.
Boulder managed to copy a lot of the good stuff about Silicon Valley - but also seems to have copied the brutal, rampant NIMBYism
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-...
Great place, and I understand not wanting sprawl, but... build up and in?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-...
Great place, and I understand not wanting sprawl, but... build up and in?
Boulder didn't copy that, Boulder has been that way since the late 70's, tech just happened to move here and the culture was already in place.
Fair enough. It just struck me how they've managed to get a lot of the good stuff right when so many places are trying - and not doing a great job - to copy Silicon Valley, but also have that exact same NIMBY problem.
William Fischel draws some links with environmentalism in Zoning Rules! ( http://amzn.to/2oIKbyM ) which make sense. Not that he's against it, but just that it sometimes gets a bit perverted to further the ends of NIMBYs rather than actually protecting much of anything. Making people drive 15 miles back and forth to Longmont isn't terribly great for the planet in some ways. In any event, both SF and Boulder are both places that do have a strong sense of environmentalism (in a lot of good ways too, I think), so that could well be the connection.
Edit:
Exhibit A: SF's Sierra Club fighting to save... a parking garage.
http://thebaycitybeacon.com/32740/282282/a/the-sierra-club-f...
William Fischel draws some links with environmentalism in Zoning Rules! ( http://amzn.to/2oIKbyM ) which make sense. Not that he's against it, but just that it sometimes gets a bit perverted to further the ends of NIMBYs rather than actually protecting much of anything. Making people drive 15 miles back and forth to Longmont isn't terribly great for the planet in some ways. In any event, both SF and Boulder are both places that do have a strong sense of environmentalism (in a lot of good ways too, I think), so that could well be the connection.
Edit:
Exhibit A: SF's Sierra Club fighting to save... a parking garage.
http://thebaycitybeacon.com/32740/282282/a/the-sierra-club-f...
it's probably worse, in a sense. you can't build up in boulder because there are height restrictions on buildings.
Color me a NIMBYist, but I love the height restriction. It gives me amazing views from my little apartment.
Edit to add: An image from my balcony [0].
[0] https://storage.googleapis.com/lee-salminen-fileshare/IMG_24...
Edit to add: An image from my balcony [0].
[0] https://storage.googleapis.com/lee-salminen-fileshare/IMG_24...
hmm, i can tell exactly what building you're in.
and it makes you one of the new people who've crowded in and made my grocery store obnoxiously busy. :(
and it makes you one of the new people who've crowded in and made my grocery store obnoxiously busy. :(
Heh. I hate what's happened to the King Soopers up in Gunbarrel. Been here since 2012, which predates the new apartment complexes. Not exactly "new" but I will concede you deserve to have a more NIMBYish attitude than I.
Philadelphia used to have those. It used to be that you weren't allowed to build any taller than William Penn's hat[0]. Now it has a population of 1.56 million compared to boulders 105,112.
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_City_Hall
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_City_Hall
Why would a young professional person want to live anywhere where earning 100k + is not enough when they could live in quite a few other states and earn a 100k + enjoying a cost of living that is 1/3 of what it is in SF or NYC?
My wife and I both make well into the 6 figures working at boring corporations enjoying a lifestyle where we would have to earn the equivalent of 7 figures in the Bay Area or NYC.
There are a lot of great boring corporations that pay extremely well. They don't provide couches or hammocks and you have to drink regular coffee and sure you have to sit in a cube (no open spaces) but it sure beats having to scrape by on 100k + a year.
My wife and I both make well into the 6 figures working at boring corporations enjoying a lifestyle where we would have to earn the equivalent of 7 figures in the Bay Area or NYC.
There are a lot of great boring corporations that pay extremely well. They don't provide couches or hammocks and you have to drink regular coffee and sure you have to sit in a cube (no open spaces) but it sure beats having to scrape by on 100k + a year.
Well, one reason is that it is possible to make a lot more than $100k in places like NYC and SF with a bit of luck/talent/hard work. Plenty of people in NYC make $1mm+ per year. But that is simply not going to happen in most parts of the country if you're not an entrepreneur. So you have to consider that "option value". Plus, NYC attracts some of the best and brightest, has great cultural offerings, is diverse in many respects, doesn't require driving, etc. It's a no brainer for me to live there.
Because when you're young you can live cheap and still have plenty of disposable income. There's also a huge benefit of spending a few years in the heart of the tech industry. Once you've been able to hack it there you can move wherever and take that experience/knowledge with you.
I'm in a similar situation but there are fewer opportunities in non tech hub cities. There may be 100 sr dev openings in my area vs 5000 in the bay for instance. When ever I'm on the market I usually see openings at the same 5-10 companies, and like you said most of them are boring.
Young people are likely to trade away living standards for living where they see the largest future potential, professional or otherwise. I think that's quite natural.
[deleted]
Probably because young people don't know about those positions or how to find them.
Yep, that's my situation. Been in the valley for a few years now since graduating. The work experience is good for now, but you quickly realize that affording a house here is mostly impossible unless you're on top of the bell curve or you have high combined incomes.
I want a garage, a driveway, a dog, the ability to really customize my living space, etc, but I don't think its going to happen here. I'd like to magically move somewhere else but its a somewhat intimidating process.
I want a garage, a driveway, a dog, the ability to really customize my living space, etc, but I don't think its going to happen here. I'd like to magically move somewhere else but its a somewhat intimidating process.
Other people want different things than you. The job market is better in SF than in most places in the country. There's more stuff to do and more diversity, leading to a bigger variety of things to do and things to eat.
I like my job. A lot. So we make sacrifices.
I feel this pain everyday. Getting a house in the bay (because 3-4br apts are super rare) in a decent school district is right around a million dollars. That's a $5k/mo mortgage (not to mention every new development has some insane HOA fee). No way to afford that on a 100k salary. Even at a 200k salary that's pretty uncomfortable.
I make just over six figures in the southeast, and I definitely have a blessed and comfortable lifestyle (no kids, no debt). I can imagine the equation changes drastically once kids/family are involved. I've visited San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle, and LOVE the cities. But according to CNN's cost of living calculator, I'd have to make a base salary of almost $190k to have a similar lifestyle in San Fran and Seattle. That seems borderline absurd!
Even at $190k it wouldn't be completely comparable. Higher taxes eat up a lot of the additional income, and even then things like car ownership and house ownership that are taken for granted in most of the US carry huge costs in places like SF/NYC. To have a comparably sized home you would probably need 5-10 million in NYC for the home alone, as an example.
Cue the standard responses about lack of development, rampant NIMBYism, Prop 13 and rent control.
There's really nothing to add at this point.
All of this is also why I really prefer living in NYC, which actually has the infrastructure for this sort of thing (meaning if you're a lower to middle income earner in the tri-state area you're not totally hosed like you are in the Bay Area).
There's really nothing to add at this point.
All of this is also why I really prefer living in NYC, which actually has the infrastructure for this sort of thing (meaning if you're a lower to middle income earner in the tri-state area you're not totally hosed like you are in the Bay Area).
There is something to add, which is the tech community is remarkably complacent about all of it, and the leaders in our community aren't doing much to support pro-housing causes.
Higher up I posted a list of actions we can take today to help make housing more affordable in the Bay Area.
Higher up I posted a list of actions we can take today to help make housing more affordable in the Bay Area.
Recently moved to NYC from the bay myself and could not be happier with the decision. At almost any price point, NYC is a more ergonomic place to live.
what are your options then? legit curious
Live on the other side of a subway or commuter train line. New Jersey, Brooklyn, Queens, that sort of thing.
> Brooklyn
Hahahahahahahaha, good one. Maybe you're in some alternate dimension Brooklyn, but the one I live in is full on crazygonuts expensive.
Hahahahahahahaha, good one. Maybe you're in some alternate dimension Brooklyn, but the one I live in is full on crazygonuts expensive.
Maybe you should try leaving wburg sometime.
I know Greenpoint / Williamsburg / Dumbo / Brooklyn Heights / etc. are but what about Bushwick or other parts further inland?
Bushwick is expensive now. It's not even safe (for the price) yet but it sure it expensive.
One of my remote coworkers moved to rural Georgia and bought 6 acres of land with an 8 bedroom house on it for the same price a parking space would cost in my city.
Where do all the SV teachers, garbage truck drivers, police etc live? How long is the commute for a single person working at a grocery store checkout in SV?
I believe the average wage for jobs like nurses and firefighters is over 100k in California... some firefighters can pull in 400k with overtime [1].
[1] http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/03/02/firefighters-ear...
[1] http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/03/02/firefighters-ear...
I pay $2,500 a month in rent. I also get paid more by my employer to cover exactly that. I have plenty of money to live the way I want to live and still save money. If everyone is claiming just 2k in rent, how are they not making a living on 120k+ a year?
The simplest explanation is that the expenses for a family of four aren't 4x the expenses of a single man.
Can you estimate how much it would cost for a 4 member family, with school going kids ? It might help you prepare if you plan to have one.
Why doesn't someone just buy up most of Detroit and create a massive campus with affordable Victorian homes everywhere.
No one wants to live in Detroit. Uber couldn't even convince its workforce to commute to Oakland; they backed out of a deal to move their office there a month ago.
Oakland is great except for the poverty and side-effects of poverty. An influx of capital and ownership drives away poverty and makes it a non-issue.
I don't really get what you are trying to say here.
This is pretty much what the Quicken Loans guy, Dan Gilbert, is doing.
Hopefully this will encourage more Bay Area companies to allow full remote working. I moved to Oregon a decade ago and I love it, but remote work options are limited.
For those who are interested in looking at the raw data: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2017/select_Geo...
The figures that the article cites are for a family of four. The thresholds for individuals are noticeably lower.
The figures that the article cites are for a family of four. The thresholds for individuals are noticeably lower.
Note that this is "low income" for the purposes of eligibility for HUD programs. Through the Obama administration, those programs have had the goal of dispersing black and hispanic families into white (and usually high income) areas, particularly suburbs, rather than providing "affordable housing" per se in poorer / cheaper areas.
BTW, for those interested in trying to fix things in the Bay Area:
* http://www.sfyimby.org/
* https://techforhousing.org/
* http://www.sfyimby.org/
* https://techforhousing.org/
I have been in bay area for the last 4 years. I moved to bay area for better opportunity. As an Indian, I find bay area more conducive. I moved from deep south (Alabama). Our combined family income is around 350K and with that we were able to afford a very good home in east bay in good school district. I think, the perspective needs to change. If you come to bay area, you are coming here for opportunity in the tech world and it's not going to be easy here. There are many talented people here and to make it here, you have to compete and compete hard.
Congrats on winning.
I've been in the bay area for a few decades. I've gone from my salary paying for my family to have a nice rental house in Cupertino to renting rooms from friends so we have a place to live. And I make double what I did back then. It's fucking awful.
Rent always roughly costs as much as median person has left after feeding himself.
Let's set aside cost of living in the Bay for a second. Here's a completely taboo subject. At what point do we hold people accountable for their reproductive choices? You want to have 2, 4, 6 children in the most expensive slice of land in the US?
Great, but please bear in mind that choice comes with real financial consequences to your lifestyle and you should not expect the state to bail you out of it.
Great, but please bear in mind that choice comes with real financial consequences to your lifestyle and you should not expect the state to bail you out of it.
A professional worker should be able to support a reasonable sized family without living in a slum or being a millionaire.
I'm not sure what "holding people accountable" means to you. What it means to the Valley is that these companies have basically colonized the region and created an environment where you need to be single or dink. They like that because it means it's easier to make you work more without a family.
In my case, it means my services aren't available to those companies at any price. No big deal individually, but there are many people like me.
I'm not sure what "holding people accountable" means to you. What it means to the Valley is that these companies have basically colonized the region and created an environment where you need to be single or dink. They like that because it means it's easier to make you work more without a family.
In my case, it means my services aren't available to those companies at any price. No big deal individually, but there are many people like me.
There are many places in the US where you can live, it doesn't have to be Silicon Valley.
Nobody owes you a house and a comfortable lifestyle with a large family in the Bay Area without you providing enough value to the market to live in the most expensive place in the country.
There are many other states in the US where you could live, and many other places even in CA that you could move to. If you want to live comfortably right in the eye of the storm, that's your personal choice and the market won't bend over backwards for you.
Nobody owes you a house and a comfortable lifestyle with a large family in the Bay Area without you providing enough value to the market to live in the most expensive place in the country.
There are many other states in the US where you could live, and many other places even in CA that you could move to. If you want to live comfortably right in the eye of the storm, that's your personal choice and the market won't bend over backwards for you.
The Bay Area is the most expensive place in the US for no real reason except for regulation.
It's kinda like everyone cheering for Uber and Lyft because medallion rules in SF prevented ever having enough cabs.
There's no real reason and that's the problem.
Also maybe they had those kids in the 1990s when things were a bit more affordable ? The Bay Area wasn't always the most expensive place in the US
It's kinda like everyone cheering for Uber and Lyft because medallion rules in SF prevented ever having enough cabs.
There's no real reason and that's the problem.
Also maybe they had those kids in the 1990s when things were a bit more affordable ? The Bay Area wasn't always the most expensive place in the US
> The Bay Area is the most expensive place in the US for no real reason except for regulation.
Isn't it more about supply and demand? There are many people here making big salaries at the tech companies, so there is not a shortage of people who can pony up $1-1.5M for a 1200 sq. ft. house. If the demand wasn't there, the prices would come down to meet it.
Isn't it more about supply and demand? There are many people here making big salaries at the tech companies, so there is not a shortage of people who can pony up $1-1.5M for a 1200 sq. ft. house. If the demand wasn't there, the prices would come down to meet it.
Exactly. Singles and DINKs moving in, chasing the gold rush, willing to pay whatever it takes to be part of the action. The market adjusts itself accordingly. Nothing new here.
I have mixed feelings about this. People say that state shouldn't have to pay for your kids, but the state can send your kids to war. If the state sends your kids to war and they get killed who reimburses the parent for $100K they invested in the kid?
it looks like the default death benefit for the US Army serviceman or woman is $100K.
http://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Home/Benefit_Library/Feder...
There were additional sums added for those who died in the Iraq War, with a range from 250K to 800K that varied depending upon the rank and dependent family members. http://articles.latimes.com/2003/apr/05/news/war-benefits5
There were additional sums added for those who died in the Iraq War, with a range from 250K to 800K that varied depending upon the rank and dependent family members. http://articles.latimes.com/2003/apr/05/news/war-benefits5
There's much more than just the one-time death benefit. On top of that SGLI (servicemember group life insurance) has a maximum payout of $400,000 and surviving spouses get ongoing payments and other benefits as long as they remain unmarried.
>who reimburses the parent for $100K they invested in the kid?
The state pays death benefits.
Plus SGLI is around half a million dollars, last I knew. Plus ongoing payments to surviving spouses, I don't know about parents though. There's a small premium for SGLI though, around ~$300/year I think
The state pays death benefits.
Plus SGLI is around half a million dollars, last I knew. Plus ongoing payments to surviving spouses, I don't know about parents though. There's a small premium for SGLI though, around ~$300/year I think
Can the state currently send your kids to war? By this, I mean forcefully via a draft. I was under the impression that it's a no for now and for the foreseeable future.
Every male has to register for the selective service (the draft) at 18 in the US allowing the government to draft you. If you got a student loan from the government in the US, you registered. You can't get federal loans without it.
Just because they can do it at any time doesn't mean they ever will. We have a large and expensive professional army and people reacted badly to the draft in 1960s I can only imagine what today's kids would do if they were drafted. It would be political suicide to enact a draft.
So technically yes the state can forcefully draft any male between 18-28 to go fight in a war. But practically no, it will never happen again.
Just because they can do it at any time doesn't mean they ever will. We have a large and expensive professional army and people reacted badly to the draft in 1960s I can only imagine what today's kids would do if they were drafted. It would be political suicide to enact a draft.
So technically yes the state can forcefully draft any male between 18-28 to go fight in a war. But practically no, it will never happen again.
Yes, they can. Every male between 18 and 25 is still required to register for the draft. The database is sitting there ready to go. The president just has to declare an emergency and convince congress to approve activation of the selective service system.
In practice, will they? Probably not. But weirder things have happened.
In practice, will they? Probably not. But weirder things have happened.
That's true, my comment was probably short-sighted. I received federal loans, so my name is in that database. Like you said, crazier things have happened.
Absolutely, under the right procedures. Just recently, women became required to register for selective service too, so everyone gets an equal shot now.
Yes, all the smartest, most capable people should stop having kids. Considering intelligence is something like 85% hereditary, that will work out excellently!
There is no reliable evidence of people in the Bay Area being smarter or more capable on average than other major metropolitan areas. The average Bay Area resident may be slightly more educated but that doesn't necessarily prove anything about their level of heritable intelligence.
> There is no reliable evidence of people in the Bay Area being smarter or more capable on average than other major metropolitan areas.
There may not be conclusive evidence, but there is fairly suggestive evidence given known correlates of intelligence.
> The average Bay Area resident may be slightly more educated but that doesn't necessarily prove anything about their level of heritable intelligence.
It doesn't necessarily prove that, but both access to and success in higher education is gated by selective filters for, among other factors, intelligence, so a region with higher average level of education would, itself, suggest (though not necessarily prove) higher average intelligence.
There may not be conclusive evidence, but there is fairly suggestive evidence given known correlates of intelligence.
> The average Bay Area resident may be slightly more educated but that doesn't necessarily prove anything about their level of heritable intelligence.
It doesn't necessarily prove that, but both access to and success in higher education is gated by selective filters for, among other factors, intelligence, so a region with higher average level of education would, itself, suggest (though not necessarily prove) higher average intelligence.
What would you consider reliable evidence? I'd say the Bay Area GDP and tax base alone would point that way.
Reliable evidence would be a large scale, double blind clinical study establishing statistically significant correlations between particular genes and high scores on multiple standardized intelligence tests, followed by a finding that those genes are significantly more common in the Bay Area than in other regions. Without something like that you can't legitimately make any claims about heritable intelligence. There are many alternative hypotheses which could potentially explain the GDP per capita differential.
The smartest and most capable people will not be making 100k in the Bay area with a family of 4.
In your mind, what would the smartest and most capable people be doing?
Of course people should be responsible for their choices. However that doesn't mean we can't be more accommodating to people making 100k or less. You think Starbucks will stick around if they have to pay their employees 100k or make them commute a couple hours?
The bay needs more housing to meet the needs of all the companies that need employees here.
The bay needs more housing to meet the needs of all the companies that need employees here.
Section 8 is destroying our housing market. All these subsidies just encourage people to stay in CA/Bay area and push up the cost of housing for everyone else to unsustainable levels.
Of course the solution is to have a massive increase in the supply of housing. That will never happen. The next best option is to have mass exodus of people leaving the bay area.
Of course the solution is to have a massive increase in the supply of housing. That will never happen. The next best option is to have mass exodus of people leaving the bay area.
> Section 8 is destroying our housing market.
That's flagrantly false, and a dog whistle. If anything, the existence of Section 8 should encourage more housing supply, since there's more money for rent.
NIMBY's have an unusually large say in the approval process here, and we've been underbuilding for decades. NIMBY's are very well organized and they have huge incentives to invest tons of money in their homes due to Prop 13, and to block new housing development so existing property values keep going up. CEQA gives NIMBY's and environmental groups wide latitude to file lawsuits to block projects they don't like, and they succeed in about half the lawsuits they file. Cities prioritize office building over residential due to Prop 13.
That's flagrantly false, and a dog whistle. If anything, the existence of Section 8 should encourage more housing supply, since there's more money for rent.
NIMBY's have an unusually large say in the approval process here, and we've been underbuilding for decades. NIMBY's are very well organized and they have huge incentives to invest tons of money in their homes due to Prop 13, and to block new housing development so existing property values keep going up. CEQA gives NIMBY's and environmental groups wide latitude to file lawsuits to block projects they don't like, and they succeed in about half the lawsuits they file. Cities prioritize office building over residential due to Prop 13.
Everything you said is true, except one thing. You assume that the supply can increase if there's more money for rent. But, that's not entirely true. As you said, NIMBYs are blocking developments at every turn. The supply is not being allowed to increase. And by hamstringing developers with affordability requirements, that's going to decrease supply even further.
I was approached on LinkedIn to take a job with matching pay but that was fully remote. I could live anywhere I wanted in the entire country. I jumped at the chance and felt like I became rich overnight! I miss working at Apple, and would definitely jump at the chance to work remotely for them, but I don't think I could ever afford to move back to California.