Why the long commutes?

[clongirl]

House prices out in the boonies is just a lot more affordable for someone making 40k a yr with kids and a wife. It's just not housing. It's the price of gas, insurance, property tax, food etc. For some people it's just not ever going to be possible to EVER buy a newer/or older house anywhere near Silicon Valley.

My husband makes really good money and works in Silicon Valley but there is no way we'd really be able to ever afford (or even WANT) to spend that sort of money on a dinky house similar to what my grandmother had. This is not even considering border cities like Burlingame, San Carlos etc. (even the 2bd 1100 sf homes are still going for 1.3 million). It's pretty easy to understand why someone would venture out that far to commute into the inner Bay Area. It might also seem safer, with better schools than places like Oakland, Hayward etc. Also, keep in mind that gas prices just started getting outrageous- maybe a lot of these areas grew before of all of these rising prices.

I also want to add that places like Pleasanton and Dublin are still not affordable for someone making an average salary. 700-800k is the going price and that's still an awful lot of money for someone (especially the new home buyers) that don't have that 20% down.

[Nella925]

I see nothing wrong with it.

if you commute, then commute.
I take bart and bus for 2 hrs from contra costa county to san jose.
You just have to do what you have to do,
just because your job is in one place, doesnt mean you WANT to live there.

But if I remember correctly the bay area doesnt have the worst commute in the country, so hey its not so bad.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by clongirl

House prices out in the boonies is just a lot more affordable for someone making 40k a yr with kids and a wife. It's just not housing. It's the price of gas, insurance, property tax, food etc. For some people it's just not ever going to be possible to EVER buy a newer/or older house anywhere near Silicon Valley.

My husband makes really good money and works in Silicon Valley but there is no way we'd really be able to ever afford (or even WANT) to spend that sort of money on a dinky house similar to what my grandmother had. This is not even considering border cities like Burlingame, San Carlos etc. (even the 2bd 1100 sf homes are still going for 1.3 million). It's pretty easy to understand why someone would venture out that far to commute into the inner Bay Area. It might also seem safer, with better schools than places like Oakland, Hayward etc. Also, keep in mind that gas prices just started getting outrageous- maybe a lot of these areas grew before of all of these rising prices.

I also want to add that places like Pleasanton and Dublin are still not affordable for someone making an average salary. 700-800k is the going price and that's still an awful lot of money for someone (especially the new home buyers) that don't have that 20% down.

Pleasanton wasn't the best example. Considering the Santa Rosa to San Francisco commute might illustrate the intent of my original post a little better, which didn't flesh out the way I meant it to.

It usually works like this: people find low to moderate-pay jobs in The Big City. Said job is not enough to live there in the kind of comfort they want. So they get out a map and check all the cities straight to the east. Where they can "afford it," it's too dangerous, too much crime, and the demographics make them uncomfortable. So they check to the south. Still expensive as far as the eye can see, even the ghettoes. Finally they start looking to the north, and they start liking what they see in Santa Rosa. Compared to San Francisco, it's very inexpensive, open, old-style California.

So they resign themselves to this terrible, 55 mile commute. They might do this for their entire working careers. At current prices - they will surely continue to rise - that will cost them roughly $150,000 over 30 years, not including the cost of a new car every five years or so, not including the effective reduction in pay per hour, not including the inconvenience since you're tied up on the road all the time and have to do most of your day-to-day life by proxy, and not including the insurance bills associated with driving over 30,000 miles a year.

I see a lot of people coming here trying to walk into that trap. It's just not worth it. If that job offer in San Francisco doesn't pay you well enough to live reasonably close, that job is not a good deal for you and you should walk away from it.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

I see a lot of people coming here trying to walk into that trap. It's just not worth it. If that job offer in San Francisco doesn't pay you well enough to live reasonably close, that job is not a good deal for you and you should walk away from it.

Obviously it's worth it to a lot of people that do that every day. It's not worth it to you and we get that. But different people have different preferences and might be able to tolerate and put up with that commute b/c they see it as worth it to them. You can try to crunch numbers and stats all you want and assume a bunch of things, but you don't know what all these people make, what they do, and where they commute from. I'm assuming most have done the cost benefit analysis themselves since it's a major decision and they still have chosen to endure the long commute. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

[clongirl]

Yes, but consider that if you are in the "high tech" industry like many people around the Bay Area are. Basically there are no jobs/opportunities anywhere outside of the immediate Bay Area. So what's someone with a very specific skill set to do? Become a plumber or insurance salesperson where there might be jobs in that field outside of the Bay Area?

Again, I'm sure if people could afford that 20% down payment on a million dollar condo then they would much rather do that than commute. Jobs, generally are still concentrated in big cities- whether the pay is great or not so great. Maybe I am not understanding your posts still? I can use other examples of careers where people might not make big bucks but my reasoning still applies. I can use the example of scientist, media, journalist, restaurant manager, graphic designer, interior designer, fashion industry, etc. I just don't think that there are many opportunities outside of the City. So do you think that these sorts of people should just give up the horrible commutes and find jobs where they are living- like Modesto? What choice do people have? Am I missing something?

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

The rules are changing. We got away with it for a while, but now the vise is tightening. There are a lot of overpriced shoeboxes out here, but the way you write, you'd think everything was a 900 square foot bungalow with a converted garage. The homes are there, but the prices just seem puzzling to most. They shouldn't be. How much more will it cost you over 30 years, compared with living 50 miles out? But then - this is the big question - how much more will that 50-mile commute cost you over the course of 30 years? And is there a better alternative, like getting a job closer to that home 50 miles out?

The only person I knew who did the crazy commute did it because where she lived she couldn't make any money and she wanted a decent living. She also couldn't move closer because her whole extended family was in Galt, where she was.

However -- she commuted with 3 other people to Walnut Creek to make it work for her. But honestly -- they were LONG days....

But I thought the big news was people were moving closer in -- walking away from the homes they bought and coudln't sell....

[stingray427]

At one point it was ok to move further away from the city but shortly thereafter everyone did that and now it is just as croweded in the surrounding areas of SF and expensive. Given the cost of transportation, risk of getting killed in a car collision it's not worth it anymore. As you get older spending all that time commuting gets old and you get tired of it. We got too many people here. Like too many fish in the tank which brings the quality of life down and depletes the resources faster.

[Sassberto]

The general trend is more balanced towards urban re-gentrification, and inner-suburban infill in addition to tradittional suburban and exurban development. This is why you see such stratospheric costs in the "big city" despite it's crime and bad schools. Similarly this is why inner-ring, wealthy traditional suburbs have gone sky-high as well. This is a national trend. The "extreme commuter" is really more of an outlier statistically. The cost of gas will continue to put a lot of pressure on the exurbs.

Remember most exurban tracts are built on the promise of jobs coming to follow the workforce in 10-20 years. In many cases that has happened, look at Irvine or Costa Mesa as an example. However there are just as many cases where it has not happened.

Californian's love for large homes and new development will continue to push development out past the current exurban fringe unless some external force arrives that makes it more impractical or uneconomical to do so. The reality is that suburban and exurban development is very sustainable if there is a transportation infrastructure that supports it - take a look at almost any suffolk county NY LIRR station on a weekday for proof of that.

[gizmo980]

I should throw in a few thoughts here, since I've done some ridiculous commutes in recent years - East Palo Alto to San Francisco, San Francisco to Napa, and now SF to Richmond & Oakland (by car, unfortunately). Sometimes life throws a curveball at you, and there is no logical choice but to commute... I moved to SF for a job, got laid off 5 months later, and could only find a temporary job in Napa to replace it. They only guaranteed the position for 6 months, so was it worth the cost & hassle of moving for a 6-month position? Not to mention I have a GREAT house in SF for a GREAT price, so it would be really dumb to give that up for a short-term job. I was able to negotiate my schedule to only working later hours (12-9 or 11-8), so traffic wasn't a problem & I did the drive in 50-60 minutes. If that job had gone permanent, I definitely would have moved closer to Napa, but still would probably have lived in a different town. Why? Because Napa, while it's a very nice place, would bore me to tears as a young single person - plus my family & friends are all in SF & the Peninsula, so I don't want to be so far from them. As luck would have it, I was offered a permanent job in the East Bay 4 months into my job at Napa, so it's a good thing I didn't move! So that's my story, and I'm sure it's not a rare one... you gotta do what you gotta do, and the "right solution" is different for everyone.

P.S. I'm not planning to move closer to my new job, at least not for a while, since once again it wouldn't be logical... I can't find anything cheaper in the East Bay (I pay very little) and have a large dog, which complicates things. Plus you have to pay deposits, moving truck/helpers, pet fees, and so forth. Not worth it IMO!