Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mean, really, renting your whole life? I guess that might work, but have you ever though of owning where you live so you can actually retire? Unless you want to be placed in the "average" american family snapshot with virtually no retirement plan, savings, or holdings, renting forever isn't an option.
I rent, yet.....I could tomorrow go buy a home cash in a cheap area of the country.
Now I don't I'll rent forever, but its certainly a viable option....
SV was a (nominally) relatively costly part of US even back in '70s when engineers (often def/aerospace back then) generally had far less income potential than less intellectually (or economically) productive surgeons or business owners (like car dealers), in the era before boom of Wall Street in '80s and SV in latter '90s and today
That said, would argue, even back in pre-'70s, SV was (and remains) world's most intellectually and economically interesting place to work or live or raise kids
Many of today's wealthiest engineers in SV are themselves kids (consider goog co-founders) of modest engineers (often academics from the prior era), some from CA, many from elsewhere in US suburbia or RoW...very few kids from trust funds or kids from slums of cities are relevant in today's SV
Arguably far more useful to have been a kid of a $100K/yr engineer in SV (and being inspired by characters like Jobs or Ellison whom one may have seen in PaloAlto or Menlo on occasion, dining at some crappy local restaurant or picking up dry cleaning) than a kid of a $1MM+/yr cardiologist or orthopedic surgeon or car dealer in suburban Cleveland or Chic or Dall...
Perhaps Jobs' own upbringing in modest SV of '50s-'60s...and Larry's entry to SV in '70s as a college dropout fleeing Chic and as a low-paid freelance coder speaks volumes abt ethos of entrepreneurial yet incredibly intellectual SV...an ethos which no other place in US or Germany or Japan or Chindia has yet been able to dupe despite many futile attempts over the decades...and thus why smartest from anywhere continually migrate to SV to pursue their careers and the inevitable wealth which follows either real innovation/productivity or sheer dumb luck of being an early employee of some eventually lucrative new tech co.
So here's the situation: Young, married professional with a newborn on the way, $130K+ combined earnings (wife only works part time), and renting.
The problem is, my lease just expired, and the landlord wants to bump up rent by $300 / mo. This might be the proverbial straw on the camels back, because it's getting tougher to live in the bay area financially.
It's not that I can't afford to live here - it's just that I'm not sure if I want to anymore. The commute, long hours and stress from the job, extremely high living costs all contribute to an environment that makes it kind of a family un-friendly area.
If I was still single, this would be fine. But trying to start a family in the bay area as a young couple seems very difficult, and so I've thought about going to Boise, ID, or somewhere in Colorado, where cost of living is much more reasonable, and can use some of the money I've accumulated to actually buy a decent home and start a family.
Anyone else been in the same boat? What did you do?
If you read the CD California forums, you'll see that your situation is repeated quite often in coastal CA metro areas. As you said, some can still afford it but they don't think it's worth the price, espeically those with kids who want to own homes.
So yes, if you're in your 40's +, maybe even late 30's, it can be ok if both spouses are working full-time, kids are in day-care, and family is earning 200K+ - otherwise, I'm not sure who else fits that criteria of happy in the bay area, and not in the rat race.
200K income or not. 2 spouses working full time with kids in day care sounds like a rat race to me.
Only thing that keeps me in the bay area is that all of my extended family, on both sides, lives nearby...which will probably play a factor in whatever I choose.
That's rough. I love California, but I've got a good business in PA and I'm glad I kept it. I guess I've got the best of both worlds now. As much as I love it here, I really don't see this place ever recovering from the colossal disaster that is the housing market here.
I mean, really, renting your whole life? I guess that might work, but have you ever though of owning where you live so you can actually retire? Unless you want to be placed in the "average" american family snapshot with virtually no retirement plan, savings, or holdings, renting forever isn't an option.
Believe it or not, some of us don't care about home ownership. What I save in rent vs paying a mortgage, property taxes & maintenance on a condo, I put toward my 401k plan. I know I am not the norm and that most renters don't save the difference between the two, but there are a few of us out there who do (such as folks like user_id).
But I do agree, if I was going to have kids, I would not want to live in an apartment like I do now, so my priorities would be living where real estate was more affordable and where I might actually have a work/life balance where I and my spouse could actually raise the kids without them being in day care. So that would most likely mean I wouldn't stay in CA.
Believe it or not, some of us don't care about home ownership. What I save in rent vs paying a mortgage, property taxes & maintenance on a condo, I put toward my 401k plan. I know I am not the norm and that most renters don't save the difference between the two, but there are a few of us out there who do (such as folks like user_id).
But I do agree, if I was going to have kids, I would not want to live in an apartment like I do now, so my priorities would be living where real estate was more affordable and where I might actually have a work life balance where I could actually raise the kids without them being in day care. So that would most likely mean I wouldn't stay in CA.
Easy to say when you're in your 30's or even 40's. Not so easy to say when you're in your 50's or 60's.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,182,127 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy
Sometimes some places can be expensive because everyone buys into the silly hype advertised w.r.t to the locations.... The biggest reason is the supply constraining geography (in that it doesn't afford for many homes) .. Supply is limited and thus decent demand drives up prices. Expensive doesn't always equate to better ... Anyone who understands anything about real world markets would understand this... and from the level of ignorant comments people are making about states they've never been to, you can see how brainwashed a lot of the demand side is ...
-> dive bars, parks, restaurants, views, people .....
I've been many places in the world and have found this almost anywhere.
If you are renting, your asset is cash .. In my case I generally trade/invest my cash positions. I have no hard assets tied to California as I never intended to make this home after observing the prices. Capital Gains money goes a much longer way when it is not subject to California's 9% income tax.
Cashing out and never coming back after having a wealth of experiences while you are young sounds like a good strategy. The dollars will translate .. The experiences will translate... and get you something in cash somewhere and there is no need to come back except for the occasional vacation. You have a family at that point and their well being and a big chunk of your life centers around them.
Jobs are everywhere.. As much as people try to act like opportunities are boiling over in CA, it has the 1st or 2nd highest unemployment among states in the country ...
Long term, the habits and mindset of this state spell problems for people w/ homes (Prop 13 changes) ... and spell problems for people who make decent money (tax hikes) ...
As gentrification spreads as it has to SF, the many characteristics that define the interesting culture disappear anywhere and what you are left w/ is a bunch of people whom, while I enjoy working with, are turds when it comes to social interaction ...
Meh, my best times were in Europe in various places in Germany ...
I have no doubt that there are better places to live in Europe, but I'm saying that as far as big city life goes I'd rate SF the top place for me to live in if I had a lot of money. Heck, I loved it even when I was living in the freakin' Tenderloin during the 90s crack epidemic.
I'm a loner so I can't comment on any alleged difference in the people, other than not noticing a lot of rightwing creeps or fundies at that time.
It's a beautiful city, at least to my tastes. I enjoyed walking up to any good vista point and just looking at it all.
I didn't complete my thought with listing the amenities ...... I was just pointing out that it has all the best of what any big city has to offer but then I meant to point out all that it has within easy driving distance for recreation. The beaches - not for swimming, but for fishing or getting naked or just walking along in the fog ...... the nearby redwoods to the south in Santa Cruz, with its world-class surfing and Boardwalk for the kiddies ..... great hiking all around the boundaries of the Bay Area, with a variety of marshlands and easily accessible small mountains, boating, Golden Gate park, romantic getaways to Tahoe, wine-growing regions, or old gold-mining towns in the Sierra foothills, etc.
I'm getting a bit old for big city life, but I think most people in their twenties really like it better than more relaxed places with nothing all that interesting happening most times. Right now I like rural life better, wandering around the lake or the mountain, being able to get away from everyone with their buzzing minds churning the local fields of consciousness.
Easy to say when you're in your 30's or even 40's. Not so easy to say when you're in your 50's or 60's.
I put over 1/4 of my salary in my 401K and IRAs. My portfolio should have anough to pay my rent and basic living expenses by the time I'm 55 in 14 years. If not, I can always move somewhere else where the rent is cheaper. I don't see the problem. If we get a complete financial collapse, it probably won't matter whether I own a home or not.
I put over 1/4 of my salary in my 401K and IRAs. My portfolio should have anough to pay my rent and basic living expenses by the time I'm 55 in 14 years. If not, I can always move somewhere else where the rent is cheaper. I don't see the problem. If we get a complete financial collapse, it probably won't matter whether I own a home or not.
My situation .. Make $125k plus.. Dating and progressing towards starting a family .. Max my 401k every year (have since I started working) .. Trade/invest substantially w/ money that I save outside retirement accounts .. Rent in the valley.. Have a roommate which is already annoying given that I have a girlfriend that is over often and prefer my privacy.
Investing/trading - Getting very tired of paying California 9.xx% on top of federal 15% capital gains .. This is getting old very quick.
Don't own a home but could easily put a 20% down payment on one of these $700k shacks and pursue a 30 year mortgage...
Run an 8-9% return on my 401k annually (my company allows me to self manage) ... Retirement will be secure.
Why am I looking at exiting the rat race?
-> Getting tired of paying 9% capital gains on top of federal 15% for my investments
-> Getting tired of paying 9% on my income .. this will only get worse as my career progresses
-> Getting tired of paying 9% sales tax when I decide to enjoy my money on a purchase.
-> Getting tired of shelling out ~ $13,000 in rent a year for a very uncomfortable renting situation .. Refuse to throw away more on a better situation .. It's rent .. I am not a fan of shelling away premium dollars for something I will never own
-> Why work for 30 years for something I can buy in cash elsewhere w/ just as much to do/see/enjoy?
-> Renting your whole life at the rate of rent in California is absurd... For a home that I would find suitable for my family 3/2.5 (nothing absurd) - 1,330 pitiful square feet rent would be about be about $2,9995 .. That's $36,000 a year x 30 .. That's over $1 million dollars $1,080,000 to be exact .. that's beyond stupid.
-> A country/state full of people who want to raise taxes on people making a decent living .. Idea would be to lower your income needs (lower COL) and lower your tax exposure in these money grabbing times ahead..
So, yes.. Owning a home is a priority. I can afford one in cash in the place I am targeting... and be far ahead of the curve. Hard to justify throwing over a million dollars away in rent for the same suburban life I can find elsewhere.. or being a slave to a job for 30 years to afford what I can buy in cash elsewhere.
Rent your whole life, have nothing to show for it but a retirement account that will barely get you buy in the state you lived your life in ...
Not to mention nothing to give to your kids.. Doesn't sound like an optimal plan to me.
Last edited by yeahthatguy; 12-08-2011 at 04:57 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
