Newcomer negotiating Salary, wish to live in Brookline. (Boston: house prices, employment)

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

I have no idea why anyone would want to relocate to Boston to purchase a home unless they weren't fantastically rich. But even if you are, you still get much more elsewhere.

Yup, and earn much less. The Twin Cities are great, but the pay is much lower, as are the rest. Chicago is really struggling in the job department, but yeah, its a good deal of a city if you can get a decent job.


That's the rub. There are always tons of pretty good paying jobs in Boston. I moved away (Vermont), came back, moved away (Wisconsin/IL), came back, moved away again (California), came back... all because there were always jobs.

[BaustinTejas]

I'd call a 800k, 1600 sqft home a shack. The pricing is outrageous no matter the location. The term shack is used to insult what you are getting in return, not to literally mean a "shack."

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Yup, and earn much less. The Twin Cities are great, but the pay is much lower, as are the rest. Chicago is really struggling in the job department, but yeah, its a good deal of a city if you can get a decent job.


That's the rub. There are always tons of pretty good paying jobs in Boston. I moved away (Vermont), came back, moved away (Wisconsin/IL), came back, moved away again (California), came back... all because there were always jobs.

I'm not sure it's actually much less though. I have friends my age in Cleveland, Columbus, Nashville, Minneapolis and a smattering of other places who own homes. None of them doctors or lawyers or anything particularly high paying. The links I posted were just for some relatively higher class homes. The average person in many other places actually can afford to buy. I have zero friends here who own a home.

I'm not one to glorify home ownership, it's a choice. Good reasons to buy and good reasons to rent. But given the context of this thread in particular, I just want to point out that even with salary differences, it's not a good place to buy for the non-super rich.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by BaustinTejas

I'd call a 800k, 1600 sqft home a shack. The pricing is outrageous no matter the location. The term shack is used to insult what you are getting in return, not to literally mean a "shack."

Man, 800k for 1600 sq ft in someplace like SF would be palatial, and a steal, and good return at that.

[Whatsnext75]

I think the whole issue is that yes there are some people here who have a salary of 300k and it's not a problem for them to buy an 800k shack. The issue is the people making 60k to 90k who have very few options here or struggle to buy or rent now. Many of them move to more affordable locations which are further out and have a bad commute...but it doesn't seem fair to keep saying thar boston salaries are always so much more than everywhere else. It isn't always the case and most real estate markets are way less than bostons.

[emm74]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

I'm sorry but there truly are a lot of overpriced shacks in Boston. I don't know about Newton but the overarching point is spot on.

Boston (Brighton)
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sal...17_rect/12_zm/

Now compare that majestic Brighton home to what you could get for considerably less money elsewhere:

Cleveland
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sal...95_rect/13_zm/

St. Paul
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sal...97_rect/12_zm/

Pittsburgh
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sal...84_rect/14_zm/

Columbus
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sal...75_rect/14_zm/

Chicago
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sal...22_rect/11_zm/

I have no idea why anyone would want to relocate to Boston to purchase a home unless they weren't fantastically rich. But even if you are, you still get much more elsewhere.

I looked at the Pittsburgh one because I'm somewhat familiar with that city. Lovely house in a great neighborhood with excellent schools. And you know what? That house has been listed for 338 days. Price has been reduced from 599K to 539K and it still hasn't sold. The jobs aren't there for people to be able afford a house like that. So sure, you get more for your money but very few people have that kind of money. Not everyone on Boston can afford a 600K house but a lot of people can. The market charges what the market will bear. That's just reality.

My own current city of Denver is getting more and more expensive. I built new construction going on 3 years ago and it's increased in value over 30% - I could not afford to buy my own house anymore. It's not just Boston.

[Whatsnext75]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Man, 800k for 1600 sq ft in someplace like SF would be palatial, and a steal, and good return at that.

Why do you always go there with that? 800k for 1600 sq feet is not a good deal anywhere.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Whatsnext75

I think the whole issue is that yes there are some people here who have a salary of 300k and it's not a problem for them to buy an 800k shack. The issue is the people making 60k to 90k who have very few options here or struggle to buy or rent now. Many of them move to more affordable locations which are further out and have a bad commute...but it doesn't seem fair to keep saying thar boston salaries are always so much more than everywhere else. It isn't always the case and most real estate markets are way less than bostons.

It's not just that they pay more, but there are more of them. Even if it is 20% more in salary, if there are that many more of those positions (and even better, a cluster of them within an industry, like biotech, like clean tech, etc so people can hop from company to company to advance), there will be a bigger cohort of people with the aggregate salaries necessary to drive values.


Moving someplace, like a Pittsburgh, where you make take 25% less, but lets say a 40% reduction in housing costs, if there is only one or two companies in your industry there, you might be good short term, but not long term (probably). Also, dating, you're far more likely to match up with an economic peer in Boston than you are in a less affluent city, and more likely here, which will drive values up.


It all makes sense.

Originally Posted by Whatsnext75

Why do you always go there with that? 800k for 1600 sq feet is not a good deal anywhere.

The hell it isn't. It's a good deal several places. 1600 is a lot of space. And that would be well over a million (probably two million) in many desirable neighborhoods with a bidding war to get it.

[chicagoliz]

Originally Posted by emm74

I looked at the Pittsburgh one because I'm somewhat familiar with that city. Lovely house in a great neighborhood with excellent schools. And you know what? That house has been listed for 338 days. Price has been reduced from 599K to 539K and it still hasn't sold. The jobs aren't there for people to be able afford a house like that. So sure, you get more for your money but very few people have that kind of money. Not everyone on Boston can afford a 600K house but a lot of people can. The market charges what the market will bear. That's just reality.

My own current city of Denver is getting more and more expensive. I built new construction going on 3 years ago and it's increased in value over 30% - I could not afford to buy my own house anymore. It's not just Boston.

I looked at the Chicago listing, and it isn't really an apples to apples comparison. The location in Brighton is much more desirable and convenient than the location in Chicago. That particular area in Chicago isn't bad, but it's far out for a city location (despite being within the city limits -- remember, Chicago itself is very large). I wouldn't pick that location, personally.

It's location location location! And you can't just pick random homes in various cities and say that one is a better deal than another.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by chicagoliz

I looked at the Chicago listing, and it isn't really an apples to apples comparison. The location in Brighton is much more desirable and convenient than the location in Chicago. That particular area in Chicago isn't bad, but it's far out for a city location (despite being within the city limits -- remember, Chicago itself is very large). I wouldn't pick that location, personally.

It's location location location! And you can't just pick random homes in various cities and say that one is a better deal than another.

I don't live that far from the Brighton one. I didn't realize how desirable the fringe of Boston was vs fringe of Chicago. Seems pretty fair to me.

If your point is Chicago is bigger, well... yeah...? Clearly. It's also more affordable.

These houses are all in desirable locations. I didn't cheat and go compare a ghetto house to a Brighton home. Come on.