San Francisco • Hacker News Board

Re: San Francisco

#201

Post by nilkn » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 1:50 AM UTC

jamesaguilar wrote: post #175

nilkn wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For comparison, my roommate and I in Houston pay $1950/month for our apartment (or $975/person). 1300 sq ft, brand new hardwood floor, granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, huge windows, rain showers, full-sized washer/dryer in-unit, concierge service, etc. I also walk to work; it takes me about 5 minutes. So we're paying almost exactly half what the rent would be in SF, assuming the apartment you had in m…

> We individually make a lot more than half the wage we'd get if we went to SF, though. But, you live in a place where it is unpleasant to be outside well more than half the year, and the typical dev in your area gets paid a lot less than the typical dev in SF (and, remember that ratios aren't really important when it comes to saving, only net [1]). Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Houston is a fine place for you, but it…

Honestly, the weather here is great. I don't mind it at all. Your mileage may vary of course, but I find most people here do not find the weather to be a problem.

> remember that ratios aren't really important when it comes to saving, only net

Agreed, but the ratios have a big impact on what the net is. Right now, I wouldn't really be any better off going to SF in terms of saving potential. From talking with friends, the pay raise I'd get wouldn't be enough to justify it, from a purely financial viewpoint. If I stayed there for long enough, though, my salary would probably rise enough to put things in favor of SF in the end.

But that's assuming I rent my whole life. At some point I'd like to buy a house. Now things are in favor of Houston--hugely so. The average home price in SF has went above $1M recently, but in Houston it's in the 100s.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/san-francisco-media...

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2013/05/median-home-pric...

In Houston, a $1M house gets you one of two things, depending on where you buy: (1) if you buy in a suburb, you'll get a mansion; (2) if you buy in the city ("in the loop"), you'll get a very nice house in probably a place like River Oaks (unambiguously the best neighborhood of Houston and possibly Texas).

IMHO, you need an income of well over $300k to afford a $1M house. How many developers in SF make that kind of money? Even in the HN demographic, it's got to be a very, very small number. Yet I could easily afford a median-priced Houston home on my starting salary out of college. I choose to rent just because I enjoy walking to work.

Anyway, strictly speaking the best strategy might be to go to SF for some of your twenties, live a crappy life but save like crazy, and then come somewhere more cost effective and buy a house, maybe also using your higher SF income to negotiate a higher wage here as well.

Re: San Francisco

#202

Post by w1ntermute » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 1:54 AM UTC

jusben1369 wrote: post #170

rdouble wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what you mean. The microclimates there are just a fact of life. The sunset is going to be cooler and foggier than the Mission simply because of the topography. Berkeley and Oakland are actually 10 degrees warmer with only occasional fog all year round. The whole area gets like 300 days of sun per year. I just wonder where people are from when they say that the bay areas weather is "terrible." It seems hi…

Given we're talking about the weather some of this is in jest. And you've somewhat turned this around as "what do you mean the weather is terrible". I was objecting to the "the weather in SF is fantastic!" crowd who blow by Mark Twain's keen observation. Places I have lived for more than a year include the Bay Area, Boston, Melbourne Australia, Istanbul, Chapel Hill, London. I found the fog to be very annoying as I h…

> Mark Twain's keen observation

If you're talking about "The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco.", Twain never actually said it: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/twain.asp

Re: San Francisco

#203

Post by corford » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 1:56 AM UTC

Just out of curiosity... I assume the waiters, waitresses, receptionists, taxi drivers etc. of San Francisco are not all on $70K+ salaries? And if the answer to that is yes, how do they manage to make it work? Either there's a lot of #firstworlproblem esque moaning going on in this thread or taxi drivers in SanFran are the best paid cabbies in the world.

Re: San Francisco

#204

Post by bifrost » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 1:56 AM UTC

rdouble wrote: post #152

davidw wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

There are actually a lot of kids, and people with average jobs in SF. They just aren't white so tech people don't notice them. Regarding old people, retired people are actually the fastest growing demographic in the city.

There really aren't. I live in one of the few "family" neighborhoods in this city and there are maybe 2-3 families with kids within blocks of here. Plenty of non-white people around here too. If you go out to the "burbs", everyone has kids...

Re: San Francisco

#205

Post by jamesaguilar » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 1:57 AM UTC

nilkn wrote: post #201

jamesaguilar wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We individually make a lot more than half the wage we'd get if we went to SF, though. But, you live in a place where it is unpleasant to be outside well more than half the year, and the typical dev in your area gets paid a lot less than the typical dev in SF (and, remember that ratios aren't really important when it comes to saving, only net [1]). Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Houston is a fine place for you, but it…

Honestly, the weather here is great. I don't mind it at all. Your mileage may vary of course, but I find most people here do not find the weather to be a problem. > remember that ratios aren't really important when it comes to saving, only net Agreed, but the ratios have a big impact on what the net is. Right now, I wouldn't really be any better off going to SF in terms of saving potential. From talking with friends,…

It is certainly not the case that you need $300k a year to afford a $1M house. $800k for a thirty year term on 3.5% gives you around $3k/mo payments. That could be reasonably carried by someone making $120k after taxes (1/3rd net income rule).

That said, for a lifetime home in this market you might need a little more than $1M, depending on what you're looking for and where you'd want to live.

I don't think we actually disagree about anything. Except the weather (^_^ I couldn't bear it). Houston vs. SF is a tradeoff. We'd need more data to know exactly where it crosses over for each person.

Re: San Francisco

#206

Post by rdouble » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 2:17 AM UTC

bifrost wrote: post #204

rdouble wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are actually a lot of kids, and people with average jobs in SF. They just aren't white so tech people don't notice them. Regarding old people, retired people are actually the fastest growing demographic in the city.

There really aren't. I live in one of the few "family" neighborhoods in this city and there are maybe 2-3 families with kids within blocks of here. Plenty of non-white people around here too. If you go out to the "burbs", everyone has kids...

I guess I lived next to an elementary school so it seemed like there were a lot of kids. I know statistically it's low but I chalked this up to the large numbers of transient workers and singles. Amongst groups who seemed more rooted in the city (like, say Chinese people in the Richmond) it seemed like the number of kids was about the same as anywhere.

Re: San Francisco

#207

Post by ryanSrich » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 2:17 AM UTC

nilkn wrote: post #198

potatolicious wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your math is reasonably fair, IMO. That being said, the type of work being done in DC and SF is vastly different. I attended an iOS conference in DC a few months ago (I'm based out of NYC) and was shocked at how few "tech company" people were present. Nearly everyone was working for a government agency, a government contractor, or freelancing with a primarily government client-base. Personally I don't think I can do…

Overall, SF makes me feel like the standard of living for developers is really going down, not up. For all that the startup culture has produced, it has also encouraged lots of people to basically save no money and significantly reduce their living standards all for the sake of "doing a startup." I'm always shocked to hear so many stories of people living in near poverty to work on a startup idea which is, in total h…

I'm totally generalizing here but I often find that young entrepreneurs, especially those living in or wanting to move into the valley, lack the financial aptitude that it takes to run a profitable business. You also have the engineers moving there that harbor much of the same mentality.

This has always puzzled me. It's certainly not the salary as many cities around the country pay more in terms of the relative cost of living. My only thought is that it must be the companies that are headquartered there; which in turn takes a severe lack of financial foresight from said engineer. It's almost like these people don't know how to balance a check book, or rather, they don't care to.

Re: San Francisco

#208

Post by ahoyhere » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 2:37 AM UTC

gyc wrote: post #166

philsnow wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in SF, summer is often colder than winter. I've never lived in DC, but - presence of good chinese food - weather (even though I love winter weather, DC summers would not be worth it) - jobs (which companies have large presences in SF vs DC-area) all conspire to make me completely incurious as to whether DC is "$11k/year" nicer than SF.

DC, especially in the suburbs, also has very good Chinese food.

And, as much as I hate DC, all kinds of other foods, including really great Ethiopian and Moroccan. But not good sushi (back when I lived there 7 years ago).

Re: San Francisco

#209

Post by _pius » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 2:43 AM UTC

jusben1369 wrote: post #143

lobotryas wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are forgetting the weather. DC winters: cold, snow, sometimes blizzard, have to scrape your car free from ice if you don't have indoor parking. SF winters: sometimes you have to put in a jacket and sometimes it rains. That's it. This is just one example of many. It's pointless to compare two cities on rent and cost of living alone. Now, if the extra 11k is worth the winter challenges to you then I'm happy. Person…

SF people have to stop quoting the weather. The summer's are miserable with fog. It's as annoying as snow or sleet.

SF people have to stop quoting the weather.

SF weather is awesome: ~50-75 all year round with specific neighborhoods that stay warm and sunny all the time if you're into that sort of thing. Heavenly compared to Pittsburgh, Boston, NYC, or DC.

The summer's are miserable with fog. It's as annoying as snow or sleet.

Bizarre claim. Also, avoiding fog is simple: move to a different neighborhood.

And let's not forget that DC during the latter part of summer is swamp-like, with high humidity and 80-90 degree weather. The city largely shuts down in August.

Re: San Francisco

#210

Post by _pius » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 2:58 AM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #182

hack_edu wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa-whoa-whoa hold up. The spiraling cost of rent 'threatens the well-being of our industry?' I say this as an engineer who's worked in the local industry during both booms and as a native-born "local." Sure, perhaps but only just like it does for every other industry besides fancy restaurants and cafes. Rent is too damn high and no one wants to pay it, and we seem to be the only ones who can. But lets get some pers…

I disagree. The rising cost of living will have nothing but detrimental impact on startups. When $1m used to buy a year of runway, now it's $2m, and you're not really getting any more for your money, you're just making sure your engineers have a decent roof over their heads. Your theory is sound except for one little problem: the Bay Area's transportation system is fucked. FUCKED . Completely, utterly, irredeemably f…

Your theory is sound except for one little problem: the Bay Area's transportation system is fucked. FUCKED. Completely, utterly, irredeemably fucked. BART is a joke, MUNI is like a fevered bad dream, Caltrain woefully inadequate.

A little hyperbolic, I think.