Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 428 posts

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#371

Post by geebee »

dragonwriter wrote: post #339
geebee wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 her…

> 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.

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.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#372

Post by tunesmith »

Veelox wrote: post #360
tunesmith wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 back…

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.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#373

Post by sdflkd »

archeantus wrote: post #173
sedky wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#374

Post by sdflkd »

davidjnelson wrote: post #354
majani wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Any thoughts on why?

"Tech people" usually don't think outside of the context of producing code.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#375

Post by kmonsen »

tropo wrote: post #361
kmonsen wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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'…

My plan is for sure to retire somewhere cheaper, but life sometimes have it's own plans.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#376

Post by shawndumas »

chaostheory wrote: post #224
ransom1538 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... WARNI…

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 walkin…

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!").

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#377

Post by ryandrake »

theparanoid wrote: post #259
chaostheory wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 walkin…

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.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#378

Post by nradov »

Danihan wrote: post #102
BadassFractal wrote: post #22

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.

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.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#379

Post by ithinkinstereo »

dogma1138 wrote: post #319
ithinkinstereo wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#380

Post by DougN7 »

tunesmith wrote: post #338
stmfreak wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN