Moved to the Bay for 1 year from out of state, moved back. My review of it. (San Jose: renting, condos)

[livinfairfax]

Land lots are fixed while population grows. I'm not sure if the OP's expectation of owning a home no matter where you are in this country is very reasonable in the future.

If you really want to own land, perhaps look at mid-west or Mars. People need to come to grips with reality.

[boulder2015]

You may want to reread the op.

1. He already owns 2 homes in az.

2. He did not whine about his inability to buy in sf area (unlike, say perma bear), he just pointed out the crazy expense of doing so. Nor did he claim to have any right to buy "anywhere in the country". He is merely pointing out the foolishness of paying high prices to live in a place like concord when you could have a far better lifestyle in most of the country. Overpaying for carmel, pac heights, marin, sure i get it. Overpaying for hayward, concord, east pa, san leandro, oakland? Sorry dont get it...

[livinfairfax]

Originally Posted by boulder2015

You may want to reread the op.

1. He already owns 2 homes in az.

2. He did not whine about his inability to buy in sf area (unlike, say perma bear), he just pointed out the crazy expense of doing so. Nor did he claim to have any right to buy "anywhere in the country". He is merely pointing out the foolishness of paying high prices to live in a place like concord when you could have a far better lifestyle in most of the country. Overpaying for carmel, pac heights, marin, sure i get it. Overpaying for hayward, concord, east pa, san leandro, oakland? Sorry dont get it...

Ok, I hastily read his post. I assumed it was many posts that I read here about American Dream automatically equivalent to owning a house. I read pages 1 and 4, skipped 2 and 3.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Fine, so do a mortgage and get a 400k (or whatever) two bedroom condo. Same amount of spending.

No, it leaves you living in the Bay Area. That's priceless. Again, I'll take a shack in the Bay Area, New York City, Tokyo, London, or Paris over a single family home in MiddleOfNowhere, Arizona. There are things more important to me than how large my living space is, and you only get them in certain places. Sure, you can have a nice building if you live in LongNoseHairs, Kansas. But you can't do anything except what you have in your nice house. That's the opposite of what I want.

Eh, 2000-3000, something like that. I'll go with 2200, sure.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you make 100k, you should be able to get a mortgage on a 300-500k place, which would be a two or three bedroom condo. Or you can rent for about the same amount. It's not "living like that". It's a two or three bedroom condo, no roommates, good neighborhood.

https://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calc...affordability/

According to the above, 100k = 460k mortgage.

So something like this is middle class housing:

573 Valley Forge Way #1, Campbell, CA For Sale | Trulia.com

440k. Trulia says the mortgage payment would be under 2000/month.

I think your issue is that you insist on a huge house and a huge plot of land with a big spa and a big swimming pool and yard workers. I had all that growing up in Silicon Valley, but we were higher than middle class. We were upper class. Around here that's upper class housing. A one million dollar house is not middle class housing.

Middle class housing around here is a two or three bedroom condo or apartment. A two bedroom one if you have one kid, or two kids that are the same gender (so they can share a room). Three bedrooms if you have two kids or four kids of the same gender. You can afford that on 100k at 1/3 of your income after taxes.

You have a twisted sense of socioeconomic strata that is way out of whack with normal metrics and operational definitions.

[WanderingFar]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

There appear to be posters who feel as if good schools,retirement savings ,college savings for children and a stable safe home for their children are frivolous luxuries. If people move out of the area to supply these things for there families they are told about the world class entertainment and dining they will miss out on.

If I take my wife out to the opera and dinner at jardiniere it will run around $800
So my question is how often is a San Francisco family of four going to do that on $100k salary and supply the schools,retirement etc?
More than a Sacramento couple who come done for a weekend of it ?
I don't think so.

The only thing I found offensive about his posts was when he complained about having to live next to people making $30k because he makes more than 3x as much money.

Well, my household income is more than 3x as much as his ... what's his point?? Economic diversity is part of what makes all cities the vibrant, wonderful places they are. I'm sad we're losing the middle class. Not sad if we lose some elitists in the process.

[AZJD]

Originally Posted by WanderingFar

The only thing I found offensive about his posts was when he complained about having to live next to people making $30k because he makes more than 3x as much money.

Well, my household income is more than 3x as much as his ... what's his point?? Economic diversity is part of what makes all cities the vibrant, wonderful places they are. I'm sad we're losing the middle class. Not sad if we lose some elitists in the process.

I didn't mean it in in a demeaning way, but there's no ifs ands or buts around the facts. I meant it in the fact I do not desire to live in a community with high crime, poor schools, and neighbors who have absolutely nothing in common with us bc they bought in 1980 and camped out for decades.

[gnomatic]

Originally Posted by boulder2015

When did they buy? You dont mention that.

Two within the last year, another within the last 3 months. Few (myself included) did so at the peak of the last real estate bubble (was able to hold on to their homes because they bought within their means). Most people buy the best (the amenities and location, needs vs. wants) that they can afford at the time, been that way forever and everywhere. They didn't do it hoping for a real estate jackpot. It's not unique to SF bay area.

Problem I have with some posters are that they deem people who chose to stay and raise families in the Bay Area as "foolish" (words of another poster, not my words).

People have different priorities, and values. There is no ONE RIGHT WAY to live and/or raise a family. It's not that hard to "get".

I will be the first to admit that I am bias towards raising families in cities. I was raise in cities (much bigger than SF) in working class neighborhoods. I am really glad that my parents DIDN'T choose to buy (and raise us) in the suburbs (bigger house, yard, more "safe" neighborhood, better schools).

It wasn't a weekend "event" to go to festivals, museums, art gallery, art films or even to the opera, it was "normal" activities for us. You don't need to spend hundreds of dollars to appreciate the opera (student pricing woohoo!), and frankly I probably wouldn't appreciate dining at Jardiniere as a teenager (the foodie thing didn't kick in till my twenties), but was able to appreciate all the diverse food options a city offered for a working class kid who didn't (could afford) have a car.

While my peers in the suburbs were going to movies at the mall, I was going out for pho and then to the opera after school with my friends (our parents didn't need to "expose" us to "culture" we found it ourselves) . Sure, there was a crack house across the street from my junior high, and it was not out of the ordinary to find drug needles in my high school's yard..but surprisingly we never got into trouble. The teenagers that were getting into/causing trouble in the city were always the one who came down from the suburbs looking for "adventure".

But I also know plenty of people who grew up in leafy priivleged suburbs who turned out perfectly fine...which goes to show perhaps where one lives and how much money isn't the most important thing when it comes raising a family.

To call people foolish for making the choice to live where they do, be it Arizona, Palo Alto, Hayward, Concord only reflects your own limited view of the world.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by AZJD

I didn't mean it in in a demeaning way, but there's no ifs ands or buts around the facts. I meant it in the fact I do not desire to live in a community with high crime, poor schools, and neighbors who have absolutely nothing in common with us bc they bought in 1980 and camped out for decades.

Then don't. Buy a small two bedroom condo in a good neighborhood with good schools for 400k, like the one I linked earlier. Or rent a two bedroom apartment in a good neighborhood with good schools.

Again, if you're middle class, you should not expect to be able to purchase the most expensive type of housing in the area. If you're middle class in Arizona, you don't expect to be able to purchase a ten room mansion on a 50 acre farm with an olympic size swimming pool and a four car garage.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

You have a twisted sense of socioeconomic strata that is way out of whack with normal metrics and operational definitions.

How so?

What's the median income in Silicon Valley? 100k.

What is a reasonable purchase price for such an income? 300-500k, somewhere around there.

So whatever is available in your area that one could afford to purchase or rent, if they are paid the median salary, is middle class housing.

In a flyover state like Arizona or Texas, the median income will allow you to purchase a single family home in an excellent school district. In a desirable area, it means a two bedroom condo or apartment.

We don't live in the middle of nowhere. This isn't a flyover state. It is a desirable area. People who are paid high salaries want to live here and are willing to pay a price that others cannot afford in order to get a single family home in the exact location where they want to live. That means the SFH is going to be the most expensive housing option. Therefore someone who is paid a middle class salary -- the median salary in the area -- should not expect to be able to purchase that.

[WizardOfRadical]

The Bay Area does not really offer anything tangible that cannot be found in most other large metropolitan areas. And basically every metro area is cheaper. Unless you are in tech or have deep family Roots, there is no reason to live there.

Homeowners are basically new money types, the last of the Baby Boomers still putting off retirement, and absentee landlords. A few lucky folks purchased between 2010 through 2012 when the housing market was at rock bottom and real unemployment was like 20%. And even back then, most of the cheap homes were being swooped by speculators.

The entire west coast and Denver now even, are specuflipper driven markets for real estate.