Remember when you could get a 1700 square foot mid century modern palace in the San Mateo Highlands for 35000 in 1968? (Palo Alto: apartment, mortgage)

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by beb0p

Of course the early birds are going to get the best worms.

Trade in close to the ocean with close to the bay and you have plenty of choices from Chicago to Pittsburgh.
.

Those all have crappy weather. Chicago is dying and Pittsburgh is past its prime by decades.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Those all have crappy weather. Chicago is dying and Pittsburgh is past its prime by decades.

Chicago is not dying...where do you get your information? Pittsburgh has had quite a good renaissance, as well, and is a nice place to live.

Weather isn't amazing in either, but there are far worse areas in the U.S. (and the world). If your baseline is coastal CA, you'll likely not be happy anywhere weather-wise, though.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Chicago is not dying...where do you get your information? Pittsburgh has had quite a good renaissance, as well, and is a nice place to live.

Weather isn't amazing in either, but there are far worse areas in the U.S. (and the world). If your baseline is coastal CA, you'll likely not be happy anywhere weather-wise, though.

Chicago has been shrinking since 1950. 1950! It's actually been shrinking just as long as Detroit has despite the new hipster trend where everyone moves to the city. Pittsburgh hasn't been doing well since it's main industry, steel production, left to go to China and a few urban gardens and a company or two won't reverse the trend. If I wanted to take a Gamble I'd put it on Eureka CA since it has the same weather as the Bay Area and has plenty of room to grow into the redwoods.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Those all have crappy weather. Chicago is dying and Pittsburgh is past its prime by decades.

In other words, the problem is not a lack affordable housing in vibrant cities; it's because you are very picky.

And you couldn't be more wrong about those cities.
.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by beb0p

In other words, the problem is not a lack affordable housing in vibrant cities; it's because you are very picky.

And you couldn't be more wrong about those cities.
.

Chicago's population peaked in 1950. Look it up, even the hipsters and their desire to leave the suburbs haven't brought it back. Pittsburgh is definitely a prime example of a rust belt city that can't hold up much longer. With US Steel in its death rattle there's not much hope for it. They just can't compete with the Chinese who will work for 2000 a year.
I am bound to stay here despite how inhospitable it is to the middle class because I am bound here, nowhere else will fill the hole in my heart and I have a duty to help others in my family. I may be able to live in my own house anywhere else but there's no point if I'd be alone.
I don't care if the Bay Area was hit by an economic nuke and all the hipsters left I would stay here no matter how bad it got because I'm not here for the "vibrancy". I know nowhere else.

[TR95]

Originally Posted by AZJD

Lol.

I don't regret trying out living in the Bay Area one bit....but I also don't regret moving my family the hell away from the Bay Area.

I'm in my 30's, have a family, own a primary home and investment home bought by myself on middle class income, money in the bank and can travel all we want to visit the Bay.Everyone I met in California that was my age was broke and one car repair away from emptying their bank account. Place is amazing, but totally not worth it if you have any sense of responsibility for your children's future.

I'll be sure to inform all the parents at my kids high school whose kids got into top UC schools, USC, Stanford other top 50 schools and the Ivy League. By the way I didn't buy my first house until I was 33 and it was NOt in an area We wanted to be long-term, so there's still time for you. I think that seems to be the problem with the 30 year old crowd today that they expect they should be able to buy in the best areas. Glad things are better for you in phoenix. We lived there for a year and I really didn't mind it.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by TR95

I'll be sure to inform all the parents at my kids high school whose kids got into top UC schools, USC, Stanford other top 50 schools and the Ivy League. By the way I didn't buy my first house until I was 33 and it was NOt in an area We wanted to be long-term, so there's still time for you. I think that seems to be the problem with the 30 year old crowd today that they expect they should be able to buy in the best areas. Glad things are better for you in phoenix. We lived there for a year and I really didn't mind it.

Someone can easily buy in the Bay Area, all they have to do is live in a van for 40 years and invest 30k a year in the stock market. By the end they will be able to buy a house cash!

[TR95]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Someone can easily buy in the Bay Area, all they have to do is live in a van for 40 years and invest 30k a year in the stock market. By the end they will be able to buy a house cash!

I wouldn't say easily, but it just won't be in areas with great schools.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by TR95

I wouldn't say easily, but it just won't be in areas with great schools.

My point is 40 years ago a middle class family could throw a dart at a Bay Area map and buy a home that didn't land in Atherton, Woodside, Portola Valley, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, or Palo Alto. It's sick what this area has become.

[TR95]

Originally Posted by msgsing

35k was a lot of money in 1968. A college grad back then probably started a new job at about 7 to 9 k per year.

If they were lucky. My dad was making about $6,500 as a teacher a few years out of college and that was after the military so he would have been about 27/28. But Bear is on to something here. Can't wait to hear more.