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

San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

tomdale.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 458 posts

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#221

Post by jusben1369 »

JRobertson wrote: post #132
jusben1369 wrote: post #62

I think this is exactly how to do San Francisco. Go live there as a "young" person. Learn from the best, make great business contacts in life and enjoy it all! Don't sweat the fact you're renting a small place and paying a lot. You're young and it's a trivial point in the big picture of things. After 5 - 10 years your priorities will change. As you start to think about a partner/children etc you'll reassess how great…

Or you could live in one of the more affordable tech hubs like Austin or SLC, work just as hard, and still grow a successful start-up at a fraction of the cost.

If you're going to do the heat and traffic of Austin might as well pay 20% more in life and have the extra bang of SF/Bay Area. SLC - now that is a much smaller market and has much better outdoor options than Austin.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#222

Post by caniszczyk »

cwilson wrote: post #187
michaelochurch wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I regret that I have but one upvote to give you for this. Here, have an Indignation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtCiP8B2xpc#t=7s In the long term, Silicon Valley and SF is eating its young. It's a city built on young entrepreneurs coming there and doing new stuff, but if nobody who hasn't already made it can afford to live there what happens then? The other problem is that these high costs soak up everyone's spar…

I was born and raised in Austin and used to be one of those people who said they would never leave. I fought very hard to make the tech scene in Austin "happen" for years. There are multiple reasons it's taken so long to get to where it is now, which I won't go into here (not relevant to the OP's topic), but one of the main reasons I left to move to the Bay Area is the lack of hustle, or the lack of need to hustle, i…

"All of my friends were leaving their offices by 5pm to go drink $3 beers every single day, and likely go see a band play that evening."

There is nothing wrong with this. When you get older, you'll realize soon how much quality of life is important. Wait until you want to start a family...

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#223

Post by richcollins »

enraged_camel wrote: post #164
api wrote: post #30

I've got a possibly great job offer on the table from SF/SV, but may turn it down. I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. The real estate market is certifiably, utterly bat-dookie insane. NYC is often considered more expensive, and Manhattan is certainly... well... Manhattan. But taken collectively…

>>I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. I've never understood this crazy, if not outright insane obsession with home ownership. Why does everyone want to tie significant amounts of their lifetime earnings into physical property that historically has had very low appreciation in value? It's like pe…

Good luck finding a house for rent in a good neighborhood for under 5k a month. Especially if you have a dog.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#224

Post by diydsp »

greghinch wrote: post #112
jaysonelliot wrote: post #60

I don't understand why the author would move to Portland when we've got our own affordable, culturally rich, tech-friendly cities in the East Bay. Come to Oakland. It's beautiful here. The weather is better than San Francisco, you can ride your bicycle anywhere, public transit is good, and it's easy to get to SF as well as Silicon Valley (which I do regularly). There's no need to leave the entire Bay Area just becaus…

I don't mean this to play into stereotypes etc, but just as a matter of experience, every single person I know who's lived in Oakland for any significant amount of time (say 1 year or more), over the past 5 years, has been robbed at gunpoint at least once, usually while walking within a few blocks of their home. It's not a huge sample, I probably know half a dozen people/couples who live/have lived there. But the fac…

One of my close friends has been living and working in tech from home for about 10 years in various parts of Oakland. I visited him there (from MA) many times and aside from some intimidation from his neighbors (including an 18-year-old who got in my face, lunged his body toward me and provoked me saying "Fuck you," and numerous additional smaller incidents), I found it lovely and enviable.

Things were going well until the last year in which his van was robbed outside his house and a few months later, his band was robbed out on the street while filming a video. It's the kind of situation that makes you want to say, "This is why we can't have nice things."

IOW, if you plan to fit in and live low-key, Oakland may be just fine for a long time. However, if you acquire various types of assets or participate in lifestyles above a certain threshold, you are more likely to experience "equalizing events."

edit: This friend moved to Alameda last month.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#225

Post by superuser2 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #45
king_jester wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason why people don't want new residential development is because it will feed into gentrification and push people out because they can no longer afford to live in SF. NYC has been and is going through this problem right now and it is not pretty. EDIT: There are a lot of comments about increasing supply as a way to make housing/apartments cheaper in SF. This is not at all well demonstrated, as in NYC new r…

Increasing supply will raise prices? Huh?

If developers are holding out for permission to raise prices before they increase supply, then yes.

If new construction wasn't going to raise prices, rent control would be a non-issue.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#226

Post by nightski »

capulcu wrote: post #199
rokhayakebe wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if you are going to work for most of your life for someone else, than it is probably safe to buy a home, and at least recuperate some of the monthly payments you've made when you leave. If you make decent money, and most likely will for the remainder of your life (aka used car dealer), then it is probably a better option to not own because you can always pay for rent.

But again - why would you choose to rent if you can own? Rent is thousands of dollars thrown out the window each year. Mortgage (or buying with cash) is the same, with the exception that at the end 1) you own a property that you could, if need be, sell for roughly the same amount you threw out and 2) you stop paying for housing for the rest of your life (minus repairs, yes, but that's insignificatn compared to paying…

Maintaining a home can cost more than you might imagine. The reason it is profitable for landlords (at least for apartments) is due to the fact there many are paying rent within the same building (economy of scale).

Second, taxes are significant. Where I live (Fargo, ND) property taxes equal a rent payment alone. So it almost makes more sense (monetarily) to pay rent and invest the extra money into something more lucrative than a home.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#227

Post by api »

caniszczyk wrote: post #222
cwilson wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was born and raised in Austin and used to be one of those people who said they would never leave. I fought very hard to make the tech scene in Austin "happen" for years. There are multiple reasons it's taken so long to get to where it is now, which I won't go into here (not relevant to the OP's topic), but one of the main reasons I left to move to the Bay Area is the lack of hustle, or the lack of need to hustle, i…

"All of my friends were leaving their offices by 5pm to go drink $3 beers every single day, and likely go see a band play that evening." There is nothing wrong with this. When you get older, you'll realize soon how much quality of life is important. Wait until you want to start a family...

That's another thing. Some people want to do something with their lives other than just work on tech. That and I've found -- both personally and by observing others -- that workaholism kills creativity. It leads to fixations and mental boxes. To get out you've gotta go drink a beer and hear a band.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#228

Post by Karunamon »

JonFish85 wrote: post #194
enraged_camel wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. I've never understood this crazy, if not outright insane obsession with home ownership. Why does everyone want to tie significant amounts of their lifetime earnings into physical property that historically has had very low appreciation in value? It's like pe…

What, exactly, is "crazy" about it? As a renter, you don't control your own destiny. You're at the whim of your landlord. As a home-owner, or better yet, a property-owner, you have much more control over your living situation. Don't like the paint color? Change it. Don't like your stove? Get a new one. Want to plant some new flowers? Go for it. As a renter, you're going to be dealing with rents rising year over year.…

I've always considered rent as an expensive form of insurance.

Something major happens like the furnace going out mid winter, or a huge roof leak developing, or some other catastrophic event, or heck, even basic maintenance, It's not my problem, and my actual (dirt cheap) renter's insurance will take care of any damage.

$12,000 a year buys a lot of peace of mind. And honestly, unless I'm actually using my house as an investment rather than a place to live, equity is mostly meaningless to me.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#229

Post by princess3000 »

cwilson wrote: post #187
michaelochurch wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I regret that I have but one upvote to give you for this. Here, have an Indignation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtCiP8B2xpc#t=7s In the long term, Silicon Valley and SF is eating its young. It's a city built on young entrepreneurs coming there and doing new stuff, but if nobody who hasn't already made it can afford to live there what happens then? The other problem is that these high costs soak up everyone's spar…

I was born and raised in Austin and used to be one of those people who said they would never leave. I fought very hard to make the tech scene in Austin "happen" for years. There are multiple reasons it's taken so long to get to where it is now, which I won't go into here (not relevant to the OP's topic), but one of the main reasons I left to move to the Bay Area is the lack of hustle, or the lack of need to hustle, i…

I know this probably wasn't your intention but this entire post makes Austin look incredibly attractive.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#230

Post by enraged_camel »

gknoy wrote: post #198
enraged_camel wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. I've never understood this crazy, if not outright insane obsession with home ownership. Why does everyone want to tie significant amounts of their lifetime earnings into physical property that historically has had very low appreciation in value? It's like pe…

As someone who recently (this past year) went from being a renter to a homeowner, and had previously been a home owner for several years, it's not all rational... but here are some of the reasons. I don't have to worry about the rent going up every year / six-months. If I plan to own the house for multiple years, a large chunk of my money goes to equity: I'm banking away value for later that you will get back when yo…

>>If I plan to own the house for multiple years, a large chunk of my money goes to equity: I'm banking away value for later that you will get back when you sell the house. (Assuming the market doesn't go pear-shape: a big assumption.) In contrast, money you spend on rent is a pure cost, and irrevocably lost.

This logic is fundamentally flawed. Contrary to the popular conventional wisdom (repeated by our Baby Boomer parents), renting is not "throwing away" money. You are getting something for that payment, which is a place to live.

Conventional wisdom says that with a mortgage, you are building equity instead of paying the money to someone else and that makes more sense financially. But this is not true. You should read this piece to understand why, specifically the Epilogue part: http://messymatters.com/buyrent/

Post reply on HN