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.
This is kind of a funny and sad question. Take a look at the avg age of the employees at many of the SV companies. Facebook is building condos/apartments right on their new campus. So you could potentially just walk to work. But those places are really for your 25 year olds. That's the thing many people don't realize about SV and the bay area and the tech industry. It's a predominately young white male from upper class industry. Or it's become a visa worker from India industry.
The truth is many of the employees at those companies don't have families and aren't even close to having families. Hell, for a long time, Facebook had an avg employee age of about 26. If you make a few bucks and start a family and are 35 and you're not a multi-millionaire, you probably left the bay area. Or you live 2+ hours away from work. Or you work remotely half the week.
When I worked up there, most of the people who did have kids didn't live close to work. Many lived out on the East Bay and drove into San Mateo or Redwood Shores. And they didn't come into work till like 10 or 11am so they'd miss the traffic and take their kids to school in the morning. But they also stayed till 10-11pm.
And therein lies the money issue. Many people are young or they sacrifice to work up there for the money. Especially in the tech industry. When I worked up there I stayed at some house that was a 10 mile bike ride from work. The retired woman bought that house in like the 60s and then started renting out rooms to random tech employees like me. I paid her like 30 bucks per day and had my own room, own bathroom, could use the kitchen anytime I liked and she was rarely around anyway. And she was not renting any of the other rooms out when I stayed there. So really, if I only stuck around for 4 days a week, I paid 120 bucks for a room and bathroom. I didn't need much more and saved a hell of a lot of money that way.
I knew a lot of other people who stayed close to work and had a few roommates. People do the same thing in San diego. So if you have a 3K apartment close to work but its split 3-4 ways, and you're gettiing paid 2-3X more than you would in San diego, you are going to have a lot more money to spend.
I use my example because I wasn't the only one doing those kinds of things. At most I'd spend 900 bucks a month on a room in a house, I bought a 150 buck bike and rode that back/forth to work (10 miles each way) every day and at the end of the day, there was nothing close to that in San diego. It's all about what you do and what you don't do. I could never come close to any of that in San diego, even if I was paying 300 bucks a month sharing a condo.
Yeah the bay area is ridiculous in how much it costs to live, but San Diego isn't exactly one of the more affordable places to live either, and San diego pays far less.
I totally agree with everything you said and came to the same conclusion as well. For the single 20-something, bay area is the better place. You can live in a bedroom and call it a day. Once you get a family though, that changes everything. Which is why I mentioned good school. If you have a wife and 2+ kids, it gets kinda hard living in a bedroom in someone's house.
For those who are not single 20-something, as you said, either you've made your millions and can afford to live there, or left the bay, or live 2+ hours away in the east bay. The thing with living 2 hours away is that, even living 2 hours away, it's still pretty expensive. Not to mention the addition cost of commuting 2 hours+ each day. Also, to give some perspective, Temecula is only 45-60 minutes from major job center in San Diego. San Marcos and Chula Vista is even closer. Something that's $500k in Chula Vista or San Marcos is probably $1m+ in Santa Clara County.
You are correct, San Diego isn't affordable when compare to most places in America. But if you're coming from the Bay area or comparing it to the bay, then it really is more affordable. Unless you can find a job that pays 70-100% more. I've tried to run the number 2-3 times in the last 5+ years and checking to see what the pay is up there. Every time I do that, I find SD to be the cheaper place for a family who expect good schools and short commute. Maybe it's my requirements (good school and w/in 3-5 miles from work) or maybe it's my profession. But I just can't seem to make the numbers work. The last time I tried to run the numbers was 2 months ago. Talked to friends who works up there, spent countless hours on Redfin.com, glassdoor.com, salary.com, etc..
I agree with you doc. and I think pedro actually outlined many of the reasons people DON'T want to be in the bay area. I would add an exception, I still maintain that most 20-30 year olds are not clamoring to be in the Bay Area. Many are, sure but its certainly not the only place to get a good start in technology. There are plenty of good places, good companies with less competition for great spots there are also a lot of sub areas where subject matter is the more important component and the Bay Area does not have the patent on that...
San Diego is for sure cheaper than the Bay area which is what the Op was stating, he wasn't saying its cheaper than Kansas.
I've mentioned this in other threads but sooner or later the posters here are going to realize how many tech "remote commuters" are going to choose San Diego over other places. We have good salaries but would rather spend our money in places like San Diego than the Bay Area.
You see people like me on these boards all the time (I work from home, can live where I want) and this cohort is growing. They are not moving in herds to the Bay Area I can tell you that. In fact I know quite a few scattered across the south, and all over the country....none in the Bay Area actually.
Our salaries are based on a number of factors but usually not on where we live, unless it was based on a certain contract in a certain area at the time of hire. It's not based on an San Diego company, for instance.
I don't understand the argument that all young people want to work in the Bay area or if you didn't want to work at Google you weren't in tech. Just not true, and if it were the "bar" for all to be compared to, the fact remains that many talented people just do not want to go to that extreme....work/life balance is more important to them, many people marry and settle in wherever town and then start careers, what not. It feels a bit silly to write this as if we all don't know plenty of successful family people all over the country working in technology (at least I do). And not all of them are (or need to be) earning 200k a year.
Many talented people want stability, not to be the next facebook ceo or whatever. This is obvious, no?
rgb123, I totally agree. I also like the emphasize the work life balance that I didn't mention before. There is a reason why Google provide free food and Facebook provide dorm. One can easily go on Glassdoor.com and read the 1st hand review of the company to see what kind of work/life balance there are. When you have to work 10-12 hrs a day and commute another 1-2 hrs a day. It's almost like getting a part time job and working 8 hours a day. Some are OK w/ that, I'm not one of those people. I rather get paid a little less and only work 8 hrs. a day. One thing I've learn after having kids is that, the time you have with them is short and you can't make it up later. That's another intangible that is hard to measure and is different for everyone.
Another point that I haven't seen brought up is taxes. The more you make, the more you get taxed. Especially as a W-2 worker bee, there's almost nowhere to hide your $. So, making a lot of W-2 income IMHO isn't the best way to make your $. Once you cross over the $150k mark, there are also several deductions that you can no longer take. Also, there's AMT to worry about as well. Too bad there's nowhere we can find data about net savings (income - taxes - COL).
tell me about it...as a single person, not a home owner I get killed in taxes. This is why I was saying the other day a home owner with a family at 70k is probably making a similar income to me!!! It feels like robbery what I pay in taxes.
rgb123, I totally agree. I also like the emphasize the work life balance that I didn't mention before. There is a reason why Google provide free food and Facebook provide dorm. One can easily go on Glassdoor.com and read the 1st hand review of the company to see what kind of work/life balance there are. When you have to work 10-12 hrs a day and commute another 1-2 hrs a day. It's almost like getting a part time job and working 8 hours a day. Some are OK w/ that, I'm not one of those people. I rather get paid a little less and only work 8 hrs. a day. One thing I've learn after having kids is that, the time you have with them is short and you can't make it up later. That's another intangible that is hard to measure and is different for everyone.
Another point that I haven't seen brought up is taxes. The more you make, the more you get taxed. Especially as a W-2 worker bee, there's almost nowhere to hide your $. So, making a lot of W-2 income IMHO isn't the best way to make your $. Once you cross over the $150k mark, there are also several deductions that you can no longer take. Also, there's AMT to worry about as well. Too bad there's nowhere we can find data about net savings (income - taxes - COL).
I have a different perspective. Work/Life balances mean something when you have a family, when you're older, and so on, but when you are fresh out of college or around that age there are a few choices you can make and you kind of live with them. Some people want that '9-5' job and have plenty of time to party and live it up. Hell, a lot of people like to do that in high school and college as well. Other people would rather work their behinds off so by the time they are 40 they are at a place where they want to be.
Does it always turn out that way? No, but a 23 year old who decides to party it up in PB for a few years so they can avoid the real world and a 23 year old who jumps in and works 100 hours a week at whatever job they do are probably going to be at far different places by the time they are 30. Now if you are 40 and still working 100 hours a week and aren't exactly sitting pretty and have been doing that your entire life, well, you are just married to your job/career and have no other life even if you should. Or there are those who are working 100 hours a week at multiple jobs just to survive because they were the ones living in places like PB in their twenties enjoying life.
Everybody makes choices and has to live with them. Some people never accept that fact. There were those of us who rarely partied in our youths. Yes we did go out and have fun now and again, but nothing like the 24/7 lifestyles of some. I know plenty of people who have lived the PB style of life all over the world. Some live that kind of life forever, except they wind up in some other country because a place like PB or South Beach or Huntington Beach aren't exactly a great place to live that party forever lifestyle. It's far to expensive. So they move to some island or a few people moved down to Colombia or Brazil and wind up living the simple life and partying until they die. It is a fun lifestyle for some, but again, you don't live that lifestyle in places like PB for very long.
There are those who don't want to become an adult. So they delay it. They were the confused ones who missed classes in college. They were the ones paying other people do do their papers. They were the ones who knew all the parties to go to, and they were the ones taking the easy classes and easy majors. Nothing wrong with that. But as time goes on, they are still the ones in their late twenties still trying to find their lives. If you have a trust fund, hell why not. But most people don't and they wind up in a place they never expected in their thirties or forties.
The reality is you'll work because it costs money to live, especially in a state like California. So working 100 hours a week in your twenties and then spending the other hours trying to learn even more things isn't all that bad. Especially years down the road when you have a family and can spend time with them and take care of them instead of needing to be in an office 24/7. And it's especially nice knowing some of those people who told you that you were missing out years ago are the same ones complaining about life and how it sucks now.
Like I said, it doesn't happen like that for everybody, but there are plenty of wall streeters, lawyers, doctors, techies, and so on who choose to have no life in their twenties because they were working, studying, etc. And as time goes on, there are those who spent more time partying in their youth that become envious or jealous or downright mean because "you are lucky you can work remote or don't have to work 100 hours a week."
The reality is everybody usually needs to work at some point in their life to have the life they want. It's just some of us decided the 'no life' aspect was far easier and better to do in your twenties than it would be in your forties or fifties or sixties.
One thing I've learn after having kids is that, the time you have with them is short and you can't make it up later. That's another intangible that is hard to measure and is different for everyone.
Once you cross over the $150k mark, there are also several deductions that you can no longer take. Also, there's AMT to worry about as well. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro2000
And it's especially nice knowing some of those people who told you that you were missing out years ago are the same ones complaining about life and how it sucks now.
There are some real gems on this thread. Some really great points.
Doc, you nailed it about the kids part and your time with them being short and not being to make it up later. It's absolutely scary how fast time goes by. To see your kids born one day then the next they are in school. Just mind boggling to me.
And SO true about the AMT. No where to really escape if you are a high wage earner and have W-2 income.
Pedro, spot on target about the people being the ones complaining now or totally broke. I know several people in this category like you mentioned that were living the life earlier but now are pretty much broke and they thought the "party" would keep rolling but it hasn't. They are basically stuck now.
I've really enjoyed reading this thread. I lived in San Diego (UCSD) many years ago before I started working up in the Bay Area. After visiting again and seeing how beautiful, spacious, and affordable living here (comparatively, of course) is, I decided to move down.
I am happy to be a SV-tech-expatriot and glad to be one of the "remote" workers spending their money in SD instead of up in the bay.
The reality is everybody usually needs to work at some point in their life to have the life they want. It's just some of us decided the 'no life' aspect was far easier and better to do in your twenties than it would be in your forties or fifties or sixties.
Pedro, you've had some excellent points in this discussion, and this one sums up your thought train very well. Appreciate your contributions, homie!
And if you're busting your butt working in your 20's/30's and good with money/savings, then by the time you get ready to settle down, you should have a paid for car, sizeable downpayment for a home (or cash to purchase a home), your invested money is working for you, etc. Although not infallible, those types of things can bring a TON of security when you have a family, especially if you take a pay cut and/or move to a lower cost of living area.
Random stat....I mean, what are the comparisons? SFO is not short on homeless supply. And somemight say weather is a factor...If you are implying 9k are homeless in SD b/c of the cost of real estate, well, that's kind of hilarious...Were you making a joke?
People choose SD if they want this lifestyle and values. Bay area has more innovation and better pay, as mentioned...This translates into vibrancy, ambition and a creative mindset. These factors contribute to an individual's lifestyle desires as much as making more money or creating a new product. If you are in remote Maine, you probably don't have the community of peers or cultural oppoturnities. The bay area as a whole is a creative, vibrant area, outside of the tech world and SV. It's a great place, also, to 'start one's career', just as NYC would be for some.
As far as someone mentioning their SF friend won't come to SD: SD has certainly become more vibrant, diverse and culturally interesting in recent decades. I lived in SFO and loved it, AT THAT TIME in my life. I'd never want to deal with that place with children (though I know people who were raised in the city, but it's gotten worse. There are only a few areas around the city itself that would be cool spots for a family, IMO-Marin, a couple of places on the Peninsula.).
That said, SFO and nor cal has a known snobbery towards so cal. While so cal couldn't care less/doesn't even think about it. In summary, I can definately understand why someone would choose SV/bay area for their career; I can equally understand why someone would prefer the SD lifestyle. What I do not understand is why SV has become increasingly pretentious and ridiculous, as though the sun rises and sets on whatever they do, seemingly w/o recognition of the fact that one needs a population to serve through technology. One's innovation means nothing if it's not applied in the world. Or can you sit in your office and use it by yourself? The self importance in that area is astounding to me. And it's sadly misguided. The area is reliant on the people it looks down upon (namely, anyone/place not operating within the SV bubble).
Pedro, you've had some excellent points in this discussion, and this one sums up your thought train very well. Appreciate your contributions, homie!
And if you're busting your butt working in your 20's/30's and good with money/savings, then by the time you get ready to settle down, you should have a paid for car, sizeable downpayment for a home (or cash to purchase a home), your invested money is working for you, etc. Although not infallible, those types of things can bring a TON of security when you have a family, especially if you take a pay cut and/or move to a lower cost of living area.
Well, I know someone who was an attorney for a well known fortune 500 company...got transferred from the SV area to SD. 2 kids, worked for years and owned a home in SV area...That home was less than 1500 sq feet and cost far more than the beautiful home they were able to buy in the wealthiest area of SD, where they had far better schools [top district], more land/yard, more neighbhorhood/community feel, much bigger home (no, not a mcmansion, just a nicer home, not a run down, dated architecture with no yard) and commute less than 20 min. for work, plus be a few miles from wide, clean beaches, etc. So your assertion that someone can work hard and save in the bay area, then buy a nice home, is not really accurate. You can get MUCH more for your real estate dollar in SD than in the bay area.
Also, your priorities really do change when you have children, most of the time. It's logical. Being a parent is stressful; if you can choose surroundings where your child can roam, ride bikes, enjoy friends, then you the parent can relax just a little bit more. If you know that your school district is suitable, your neighborhood is safe and your neighbors are friendly, yep, you're relaxing just a little bit more still. Sure, there is the theoretical 'oh you can take kids anywhere, etc etc'. We are well traveled and our children have enjoyed different kinds of experiences. At the end of the day, however, our daily priorities will never be what they were when I lived in SFo as a newly married professional.
So I'd rather visit the bay area to enjoy the cultural amenities. In fact, we just drove to nor cal for the holidays and stayed in sonoma, stopped in SFO, etc. If you don't have children/don't plan to, or are in a different stage of your life, it's only theoretical for you. I've also lived in two Rocky Mtn states and grew up in MA, so I am not speaking from a strictly so-cal centric position or anything.
Side note: SD has ALWAYS been known for it's poor pay relative to COL. My spouse is a SD native and says it's always been this way, even before the real estate spike in the late 1990's.
Before that time, real estate was actually on the lower end for many of the centrally located neigbhorhoods. First hand example: 4/3 in clairemont, central to beaches and the 5, family neighborhood with homes built in the 60's/70's mostly, good size lots for SD: Appraised in 1999 for 240k. By 2002, it was appraising at close to 700k, with no upgrades.
Anyway, 'the sunshine tax' is well known for the SD market/salaries. Research IT threads for SD on this forum; you'll find a lot of useful information, especially posts by 'Sassberto'.
Last edited by lrmsd; 01-03-2014 at 01:37 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.
