Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco

antirez.com

51–60 of 267 posts

Re: San Francisco

#51
post #39
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like London, UK where I currently reside with three children... Expensive: check. Bad schools: check. Disfunctional government: check. Drugs on streets: check. Lots of crazies: check. The thing I hate is that people wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Going to move out to the countryside I think... As for the nutter on BART, I got urinated on whilst on the tube in London .... twice. And no I was not on f…

SF is way worse (I used to live in Finsbury Park, now live in the Mission).

Seriously? I lived in a crap hotel in Finsbury Park for a few weeks and it was a dive.

Re: San Francisco

#52
post #37
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a great place for raising a family: expensive, bad schools, disfunctional government, drugs on streets, and lots of crazies[1]. Pretty much everyone I have ever know who had kids in SF moved away within a few years. The demographics always reminded me of China where you did not see as many girls because of the one child policy. In SF children of both sexes (10% of population) are just missing: Persons under 18 (2…

I agree, SF is a fun place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. I also don't like how some San Franciscans like to put down other areas. You can have pride in your city without insulting other people and places. As someone who grew up in a poorer area, it left a very bad taste in my mouth. Most SF people are nice, but it's those other few people who ruin it for me.

[deleted]

Re: San Francisco

#53
post #5

> The coffee is very different than the Italian one I've heard this many times :) His point about SF lacking children is very very accurate. SF basically forces people with families out because its so expensive and the school situation is bad (your kids don't get to go to the neighborhood school). One of these days SF will wise up and at least fix the school problem, but until then the peninsula will get families and…

One of the things that I really noticed when I moved from San Francisco to Italy was that here (Padua, Italy), there are young people, old people, rich people, and people not so well off. San Francisco is this kind of weird bubble where everyone has to have money to be there, so "regular people" don't exist. No kids, no old people, no people with sort of average jobs. I didn't like it, it felt too strange to me. I prefer to have a mix of people from all walks of life.

Also, some people - a minority, but "anecdotally significant" - seem to be a bit smug: like living in San Francisco makes them better somehow.

That said... I don't regret the time I spent there, and it's a city I heartily recommend to Europeans visiting the US, as it'll be a lot more familiar to them than something like Los Angeles, and it has a ton of stuff to do and see. And California in general has probably the most variety of any one US state in terms of geography, so if you get bored of the city, you can go the mountains, or the "lost coast" up north, or Death Valley, or pretty much whatever suits your fancy.

Re: San Francisco

#54

I enjoyed reading this as I'm planning on visiting CA next summer with my wife and son. I wanted to look at Palo Alto etc and consider emigrating there. If he and the other commenters on this thread are right and the schools suck, there's not a lot of families and the cost of living is really that high, it probably won't be a good idea.

Palo Alto is about 30 miles away from San Francisco and it's a very different place. Those 30 miles will probably take you somewhere between 45 minutes and an hour depending on traffic.

Palo Alto is the traditional headquarters of the venture capital business. Sand Hill Road in particular is famous for its concentration of VC offices, and people use expressions like "the view from Sand Hill Road" to describe how VCs see the world around here. As you might expect, there are a lot of golf courses, excellent restaurants, and some really nice clubs. The Stanford campus is nice, but you'll need a bike or a car to get around (it's over 6000 acres). It is not walkable, but it is a nice place to bike.

Palo Alto has two downtown areas. There are a bunch of places catering to students which are kind of fun, like the Nut House. Palo Alto has a lot of families, at least relative to SF, and it doesn't have that many homeless. But you will probably need to be loaded to get an actual house there.

If you just want to move somewhere in the Bay Area, and you're middle class, I recommend Campbell or perhaps the Willow Glen neighborhood. There are also some nice places in the East Bay. The penninsula and SF are overpriced unless you need to be there for business reasons, or you have so much money it doesn't matter.

Re: San Francisco

#55
kryten:

Sounds like London, UK where I currently reside with three children...

Does your experience of life in London in recent years (since around late nineties) reflect that of this writer? I think this is one of the few writers (on the topic) I've found balanced and non-alarmist. That's the reason I've used her piece to moot a point that has been posited by many others in a more judgmental and accusative tone. So I ask, is this what London increasingly feels like for secular, middle-income families and individuals?

  "Of the 8.17 million people in London, one million are Muslim,
  with the majority of them young families. That is
  not, in reality, a great number. But because so many Muslims
  increasingly insist on emphasising their separateness, 
  it feels as if they have taken over; my female neighbours 
  flap past in full niqab, some so heavily veiled that I can’t
  see their eyes. I’ve made an effort to communicate by smiling
  deliberately at the ones I thought I was seeing out and about
  regularly, but this didn’t lead to conversation because they
  never look me in the face.

  I recently went to the plainly named “Curtain Shop” and asked
  if they would put some up for me. Inside were a lot of 
  elderly Muslim men. I was told that they don’t do that kind 
  of work, and was back on the pavement within a few moments.
  I felt sure I had suffered discrimination and was bewildered
  as I had been there previously when the Muslim owners had 
  been very friendly. Things have changed. I am living in a 
  place where I am a stranger.

  I was brought up in a village in Staffordshire, and although
  I have been in London for a quarter of a century I have kept
  the habit of chatting to shopkeepers and neighbours, despite
  it not being the done thing in metropolitan life. Nowadays,
  though, most of the tills in my local shops are manned by 
  young Muslim men who mutter into their mobiles as they are
  serving. They have no interest in talking to me and rarely 
  meet my gaze. I find this situation dismal. I miss banter, 
  the hail fellow, well met chat about the weather, or what 
  was on TV last night."

  "In the Nineties, when I arrived, this part of Acton was a
  traditional working-class area. Now there is no trace of 
  any kind of community – that word so cherished by the Left.
  Instead it has been transformed into a giant transit camp 
  and is home to no one. The scale of immigration over recent
  years has created communities throughout London that never 
  need to – or want to – interact with outsiders.

  It wasn’t always the case: since the 1890s thousands of 
  Jewish, Irish, Afro-Caribbean, Asian and Chinese workers, 
  among others, have arrived in the capital, often displacing
  the indigenous population. Yes, there was hateful overt 
  racism and discrimination, I’m not denying that. But, 
  over time, I believe we settled down into a happy mix of
  incorporation and shared aspiration, with disparate 
  peoples walking the same pavements but returning to 
  very different homes – something the Americans call
  “sundown segregation”.

  But now, despite the wishful thinking of multiculturalists,
  wilful segregation by immigrants is increasingly echoed by
  the white population – the rate of white flight from our 
  cities is soaring. According to the Office for National 
  Statistics, 600,000 white Britons have left London in the
  past 10 years. The latest census data shows the breakdown
  in telling detail: some London boroughs have lost a quarter
  of their population of white, British people. The number in
  Redbridge, north London, for example, has fallen by 40,844
  (to 96,253) in this period, while the total population has
  risen by more than 40,335 to 278,970. It isn’t only London
  boroughs. The market town of Wokingham in Berkshire has 
  lost nearly 5 per cent of its white British population.
  I suspect that many white people in London and the Home 
  Counties now move house on the basis of ethnicity, 
  especially if they have children. Estate agents don’t 
  advertise this self-segregation, of course. Instead there
  are polite codes for that kind of thing, such as the mention
  of “a good school”, which I believe is code for “mainly 
  white English”. Not surprising when you learn that nearly
  one million pupils do not have English as a first language. 

  I, too, have decided to leave my area, following in the
  footsteps of so many of my neighbours. I don’t really want 
  to go. I worked long and hard to get to London, to find a 
  good job and buy a home and I’d like to stay here. But I’m
  a stranger on these streets and all the “good” areas, with 
  safe streets, nice housing and pleasant cafés, are beyond 
  my reach. I see London turning into a place almost 
  exclusively for poor immigrants and the very rich.
  It’s sad that I am moving not for a positive reason, but to
  escape something. I wonder whether I’ll tell the truth, if 
  I’m asked. I can’t pretend that I’m worried about local 
  schools, so perhaps I’ll say it’s for the chance of a 
  conversation over the garden fence. But really I no longer 
  need an excuse: mass immigration is making reluctant 
  racists of us all."
Source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9831912/I...

Edit: Cleanup

Re: San Francisco

#56
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Taxes are pretty high, so making $100k w/ benefits, you take home roughly $63k/yr. Then factor in rent and utilities: 1br ($2500+/mo), 2br w/ roomie ($1800+/mo), 3br w/roomies ($1500/mo). So let's assume 2br. You walk away with around $40k/yr. Then take out transport, cell phone, random monthly bills like student loans, etc and you're down to $28k disposable. Take out food and random living expenses and you don'…

> $28k disposable... don't have much left. For some context: > In 2010, in the United States, the poverty threshold for one person under 65 was US$11,344 (annual income); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold and > Half of Americans live below or at the poverty line http://www.salon.com/2013/05/30/half_of_americans_living_bel... Now, I know that SF is one of the more expensive places to live in this country…

You misquoted Salon - they said below or /near/ the poverty line. And near is highly subjective. The census number they cite in the article is 15% which is a long way from half, and there is nothing in the article that gets the number to half the population.

Re: San Francisco

#57

Is it a common experience that, as a single person in SF, you'd make $100K and end the year without any money saved? I'm not asking with any judgment or critique implied. I'm genuinely curious if that's normal in SF.

I'm not sure if it's normal, but I can at least offer my own anecdotal experience: I'm a single guy who's been out of school for almost 10 years, living in SF for the past 3 years. I make a bit more than the $100k figure you're asking about, but if I were to adjust my income down, I'd still be saving ~35% of my take-home pay every month. And this is including eating out 8-10 times a week and going out to bars 3-4 times a week. I've since paid off my college loans, but while I was paying them I was tossing close to $1k at them per month while maintaining my savings rate. I'm not frugal, but neither am I a crazy spender either. At this point I've developed enough of a cushion that I could take 2-2.5 years off work if I wanted to.

So it's definitely doable. I think as another poster commented, it's more about priorities than ability. There's certainly enough to do here and spend money on that you could spend all your money with nothing to save, but you'd have to work at it. Especially for someone working in tech and making 6 figures, living in SF and not saving is a choice, and by no means a necessity.

Re: San Francisco

#58
post #55

kryten: Sounds like London, UK where I currently reside with three children... Does your experience of life in London in recent years (since around late nineties) reflect that of this writer? I think this is one of the few writers (on the topic) I've found balanced and non-alarmist. That's the reason I've used her piece to moot a point that has been posited by many others in a more judgmental and accusative tone. So…

I'm struggling to find what this has to do with San Francisco? Are you saying SF has been taken over by hipsters and is no longer recognizable as it once were?

Re: San Francisco

#59
post #5

> The coffee is very different than the Italian one I've heard this many times :) His point about SF lacking children is very very accurate. SF basically forces people with families out because its so expensive and the school situation is bad (your kids don't get to go to the neighborhood school). One of these days SF will wise up and at least fix the school problem, but until then the peninsula will get families and…

I think that this argument about kids in San Francisco is totally wrong. There are tons of kids in San Francisco...just not in the neighborhood that he went! Go to the Richmond, the Sunset, the Marina, Cole Valley, or especially Noe Valley...and you will see tons of kids. But sure, in SOMA or Union Square/Financial District...not so much.

Why is that ? Because San Francisco is a very neighborhood-focused city - where kids stay in kid friendly neighborhoods, and where younger hipsters or developers live in more fun neighborhoods with typically less babies.

Re: San Francisco

#60
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Taxes are pretty high, so making $100k w/ benefits, you take home roughly $63k/yr. Then factor in rent and utilities: 1br ($2500+/mo), 2br w/ roomie ($1800+/mo), 3br w/roomies ($1500/mo). So let's assume 2br. You walk away with around $40k/yr. Then take out transport, cell phone, random monthly bills like student loans, etc and you're down to $28k disposable. Take out food and random living expenses and you don'…

> $28k disposable... don't have much left. For some context: > In 2010, in the United States, the poverty threshold for one person under 65 was US$11,344 (annual income); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold and > Half of Americans live below or at the poverty line http://www.salon.com/2013/05/30/half_of_americans_living_bel... Now, I know that SF is one of the more expensive places to live in this country…

The Salon article has a strongly biased and is inconsistent with the Wikipedia link.

Some facts from the US Census: The US median annual household income is $52,762 for the 2007-2011 period, the latest available [1]. This means half of US household made less than $52,762 and half made more than $52,762 during this period. The Census often averages over multi-year periods to adjust for the economic cycle. In 2011 alone the media was $50,502, down due to the recession.

By Census definition income does not include either reductions for taxes or additions for noncash assistance (food, housing, medical). A household is defined as a group of one or more people living together regardless of relationship (marriage, birth). The average household size is 2.60 people in 2007-2001.

[1] http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Post reply on HN