Want to move to Bay Area... Need suggestions (Los Angeles, San Diego: apartments, crime)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by ComfortablyNumb

Madison is indeed a pretty neat city. Way too small for me, though. Good restaurants, nice scenery, nice people, but just way too small. Also, I'd argue the price of living is not that fantastic. I'm paying $850 a month for a 425-square-foot studio on campus. But if you move away from downtown prices are of course a lot better.

Would I be able to get jobs that pay over 50,000 a year with a history degree, do you think? I mean, I'd be okay with living somewhat meagerly as long as I could go out to some nice restaurants and whatnot. We shall see.

I don't want to sound ignorant here either, but I haven't been in San Francisco enough to tell. Is the dating scene in San Francisco okay for single heterosexual guys?

It's probably the best of any city in California.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by ComfortablyNumb

No problem, it's not like I'm offended or anything. You were the second person to say teaching, so it just made me think that was actually a possibility. Is it? What kind of teaching did you mean?

I also asked you about teaching, since it's the most logical step from a History major... UNLESS you're planning to attend grad school, which apparently you are. I totally understand, because my undergrad major was English Literature - and as my grandmother said, "what are you gonna do, open a literature store?" I ended up getting a master's in Library Science, so now I'm officially a librarian! You still might want to consider teaching, at least until finishing an advanced degree... we do have lots of jobs available, but of course the pay isn't great. You can go a few routes for that:
1. Take the CBEST (Calif. teaching assessment test, which is very easy), and find a job in a private school;
2. Take the CBEST and substitute-teach;
3. Get an emergency or permanent credential, and look for jobs in public schools;
4. Become a private tutor, which I do for extra money - $60/hour!!

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by ComfortablyNumb

Madison is indeed a pretty neat city. Way too small for me, though. Good restaurants, nice scenery, nice people, but just way too small. Also, I'd argue the price of living is not that fantastic. I'm paying $850 a month for a 425-square-foot studio on campus. But if you move away from downtown prices are of course a lot better.

Would I be able to get jobs that pay over 50,000 a year with a history degree, do you think? I mean, I'd be okay with living somewhat meagerly as long as I could go out to some nice restaurants and whatnot. We shall see.

I think you could find something over $50K, but it really depends on what you'd like to do... History major aside, you could always get a high-tech job, which can pay upwards of $60-80K. Teachers generally make about $35-40K, depending on where you work - pretty pathetic, huh?? Yes, this is an incredibly expensive area, but people manage to get by on less than that... I'm not one to give advice on finances, but I guess it's possible!

I don't want to sound ignorant here either, but I haven't been in San Francisco enough to tell. Is the dating scene in San Francisco okay for single heterosexual guys?

I'm a woman, so I can't give you the guy's perspective... but the dating scene is alright here! Like "fishstix" said, it's not all about "gay life", so you won't be lacking in available women. In fact, I'd guess that hetero guys have it much easier, since we (straight women) outnumber you. But there are plenty of social opportunities, and I don't think you'll have any trouble meeting people.

[fishstix3]

Originally Posted by ComfortablyNumb

No problem, it's not like I'm offended or anything. You were the second person to say teaching, so it just made me think that was actually a possibility. Is it? What kind of teaching did you mean?

I didn't have any particular age group in mind; in my daftness, I just was not sure what you planned to do with a HIstory degree -- there may be tons of things and I am just lame about it! I sort of just figured that anyone who knew that much about History would probably be a great teacher and went from there!! Parts of the Bay Area are DESPERATE for good teachers. Anyhow, if you are planning on going to grad school, did you have an idea of where, and what you would like to do for income while you did that if you are going to have a place where you need to pay rent? You might consider bringing an adventurous friend out with you so that you could SHARE rent and then have more possibilities of where you could live and not be breaking your neck trying to make rent payments.... One other random thought -- if you are planning on making some trips into the City for the nightlife and some late nights (very fun to do!), be aware that the trek back up to Santa Rosa late at night STINKS (trust me, I lived in Napa and did that, and Santa Rosa is even further!), and cab fare would be ludicrous. Just a thought -- you might want to check out east of the tunnel, where you could at least hop on BART if you've been hitting the town late (Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Concord).

[KittyBurglar]

Originally Posted by ComfortablyNumb

I live in Wisconsin currently and as soon as I graduate (From UW-Madison) I want to get the hell out and move to the Bay Area, which I find absolutely amazing. Problem is, I'm a history major and I haven't worked that much in college. Out of my 4 years in college, I will have only worked a shade over 2 with some volunteer work.

Could I realistically find a decent job in the bay are (40,000+, preferably?) I really want to live there. I could live in not great areas as long as they were safe and decent. I would ultimately like living near the BART, but this isn't necessary. Is Santa Rosa a nice town? I think it's about an hour north of San Francisco, and I would have no objections to living there other than I would really probably like to be in San Francisco every weekend.

Berkeley would be awesome too, as I eventually would like to go to graduate school there. (Madison is called "The Berkeley of the Midwest" on top of it, mainly for it's loony level of liberalism). I fear, however, that Berkeley is far too expensive for me. I lean toward Oakland, but I've heard horror stories, and one of my sisters friends boyfriends actually got randomly shot there walking home from a bar.

I really, really don't want to live in prefab, cut-and-paste, suburbia "Housing Communities" as Suburbia *cough* San Jose *cough* makes me throw up in my mouth.

Sorry for how discursively the e-mail is written.

Thanks for any help

No offense, but you must be out of your mind.

If you think Madison is loony liberal, you just have no idea what the fullness of that term can mean. If you move to S.F. or Berkeley, you will find out in short order.

Oakland is indeed horrible, as are Alameda, Richmond and most of the towns in the near east bay, all of which would be the only towns you could afford on $40k a year, unless you were willing to live in a run-down dump in an unsavory S.F. neighborhood.

Yes, you can find a job paying $40k+ per year with a college degree, but you will need more than that to live very well. Rents are very high and gas is among the highest in the country - it's third in price per gallon, I think. Entertainment, attractions, etc. and restaurants are very high. Parking is out of sight and there is practically no street parking in downtown S.F.. I have been to most major cities in the U.S., including NYC, and SF is one of the most difficult cities to get in and out of, and right at the top when it comes to expense. The cost for two people to drive into the city for a nice dinner and an ordinary movie would be close to $100 with bridge tolls and parking. But there are free things, too, is you just want to hang out, shop, walk around, just like any other city, but there's parking costs and traffic to deal with.

I grew up in the Bay Area and graduated from Cal. Looking back, I wish I'd attended college someplace less full of lunatics and am grateful to be gone from the area.

Berkeley is cheaper than S.F., and Oakland is even cheaper, but you're taking your life in your hands if you choose Oakland. I agree San Jose is the pits. Santa Rosa is a nice enough town, and would be more affordable than S.F. or Berkeley. If you are willing to be as far away from S.F. as Santa Rosa, there are many other towns you can look at as well. Check out some small towns such as Crockett, Port Costa, Novato, and some points in between those towns and the city. They're cheaper, safer and less radical, and many are older towns that don't have the cookie-cutter look, Crockett being particularly not so. I used to own a house there.

If you live outside the city and have to commute to work, just understand that the commute will be a living misery if you have to arrive between 6am and 10am, or have to leave between 2pm and 6pm, and that's true for most of the Bay Area.

If you would be going into the city a lot or working there, you'd be better off paying the higher rent and living there since you'll spend the net rent savings from living elsewhere on gas, tolls and parking. Therefore, you at least would not be wasting so much time getting there and back, which was why I eventually moved into the city when I worked there.

The weather is beautiful and there is a lot to do there, but most of the denizens are Marxist nuts who wish Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro or Ahmadinejad were president of the U.S.. Close to half are foreigners, many don't speak English, and a good portion of the people in the area generally hate America.

If that sounds like the place for you, by all means, go for it. Personally, I'd rather eat ground glass than live there again.

Our reputation for earthquakes is not all it's "cracked" up to be, but the Bay Area is quite vulnerable to them.

[fishstix3]

Give me a break -- that's a pretty rough review, KB! Wow -- I grew up in the Bay Area, but have also lived in Orlando, Chicago, LA, and Seattle. While every area had its ups and downs, you're way off the mark. I can understand your view of politics having gone to Cal, but even that was a wide and unfair generalization. As far as living areas, parts of Oakland are FABULOUS, and Richmond is not so good overall (I've lived there too). But since we all have our own opinions and seem to be sharing them liberally (pun intended), I'd have to disagree with you on Crockett -- what a dump! It's cold, foggy, and not too scenic. I think it does have one distinction -- it manages to be in the middle of nowhere while being in the middle of it all. How does that work? Most Californians who read this will also take great offense at your sweeping generalization that we all hate America -- I sure take offense! Yep, nearly half of us are "foreigners", whatever that means. Guess what? There are very few "natives" in California -- I hate that whole argument. Who gives a crap? I hope that you have ended up somewhere where you all eat white bread, look alike, and live in white houses -- sounds like that's just what you are looking for!

[KittyBurglar]

Originally Posted by ComfortablyNumb

Madison is indeed a pretty neat city. Way too small for me, though. Good restaurants, nice scenery, nice people, but just way too small. Also, I'd argue the price of living is not that fantastic. I'm paying $850 a month for a 425-square-foot studio on campus. But if you move away from downtown prices are of course a lot better.

Would I be able to get jobs that pay over 50,000 a year with a history degree, do you think? I mean, I'd be okay with living somewhat meagerly as long as I could go out to some nice restaurants and whatnot. We shall see.

I don't want to sound ignorant here either, but I haven't been in San Francisco enough to tell. Is the dating scene in San Francisco okay for single heterosexual guys?

I doubt that you could start out at $50k with a history degree and little or no work experience most anywhere, let alone in SF or the Bay Area.

If I was a single, HETEROSEXUAL guy, SF would be one of the last places on my list. Berkeley, on the other hand, being the original "free-love" capitol of the west, would be perfect, as long as you adore Marxist women, Ché Guevara, peace signs and tofu.

By the way, $50k per year in SF will not buy you very many nice restaurant dinners and whatnot.

[KittyBurglar]

Originally Posted by fishstix3

Give me a break -- that's a pretty rough review, KB! Wow -- I grew up in the Bay Area, but have also lived in Orlando, Chicago, LA, and Seattle. While every area had its ups and downs, you're way off the mark. I can understand your view of politics having gone to Cal, but even that was a wide and unfair generalization. As far as living areas, parts of Oakland are FABULOUS, and Richmond is not so good overall (I've lived there too). But since we all have our own opinions and seem to be sharing them liberally (pun intended), I'd have to disagree with you on Crockett -- what a dump! It's cold, foggy, and not too scenic. I think it does have one distinction -- it manages to be in the middle of nowhere while being in the middle of it all. How does that work? Most Californians who read this will also take great offense at your sweeping generalization that we all hate America -- I sure take offense! Yep, nearly half of us are "foreigners", whatever that means. Guess what? There are very few "natives" in California -- I hate that whole argument. Who gives a crap? I hope that you have ended up somewhere where you all eat white bread, look alike, and live in white houses -- sounds like that's just what you are looking for!

The parts of Oakland that are fabulous are not affordable on $40-$50k per year, and you know it.

Unless you lived and went to school in Berkeley, you have no idea of what that town is really like.

The SF City Council has declared that the U.S. should not have a military at all. I don't think you know enough about it to be commenting on it.

My house in Crockett was right on the water, and had a beautiful view of the straits with wonderful walking and hiking down to the waterfront. There is less fog there than there is further inland, and it was also affordable, which is what the original poster is looking for.

The foreigners I'm speaking of are the variety who come here with no intention of assimilating, won't learn English, the Bay Area is full of them, and you know it.

My comments were specific to the Bay Area, not CA in general, where I still live.

As far as who gives a crap, lots of people do. Apparently you don't pay taxes.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by KittyBurglar

If I was a single, HETEROSEXUAL guy, SF would be one of the last places on my list. Berkeley, on the other hand, being the original "free-love" capitol of the west, would be perfect, as long as you adore Marxist women, Ché Guevara, peace signs and tofu..

Actually, SF is a much better place to be a hetero guy than most of the rest of the state. The heavy concentration of men who aren't interested in women does work in a straight man's favor. Berkeley has more of a concentration of women who aren't interested in men than S.F.

The worst places for a hetero guy in Cal. ? L.A. has to be the worst, followed by O.C. and San Diego.

[fishstix3]

Originally Posted by KittyBurglar

The parts of Oakland that are fabulous are not affordable on $40-$50k per year, and you know it.

Unless you lived and went to school in Berkeley, you have no idea of what that town is really like.

The SF City Council has declared that the U.S. should not have a military at all. I don't think you know enough about it to be commenting on it.

My house in Crockett was right on the water, and had a beautiful view of the straits with wonderful walking and hiking down to the waterfront. There is less fog there than there is further inland, and it was also affordable, which is what the original poster is looking for.

The foreigners I'm speaking of are the variety who come here with no intention of assimilating, won't learn English, the Bay Area is full of them, and you know it.

My comments were specific to the Bay Area, not CA in general, where I still live.

As far as who gives a crap, lots of people do. Apparently you don't pay taxes.

Ok, I'm going to try to address your comments without making it look like you just hopped on the thread to rant -- I'll do my best.

1) I actually DID go to Cal, but no, I didn't live there -- I chose not to, which it sounds like you should have done. If you hate the environment and cannot live and let live, why immerse yourself in it?
2)Since when does the SF City Council speak for the "Bay Area"? See last statement in #1 ...
3)The original poster is clearly a single guy looking for an area in proximity to some sort of social life. Crockett has no public transportation nearby to speak of which would allow him to get into the City, nor does it have any sort of nightlife at all. WITH A ROOMATE (as I suggested if you read earlier posts), nice parts of Berkeley and Oakland are affordable -- so are Concord, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, ... these towns also at least have some sort of nightlife on their own nearby.
4)There are more "natives" who refuse to assimilate in this area then there are "foreigners" -- the Bay Area is about celebrating diversity, so let people identify with their own cultures -- why is it up to you to be concerned about who "assimilates"? Why is it your problem that someone refuses to speak English? Unless you are Native American, your family was "foreign" at some point too, right?
5) I pay taxes -- what does that have to do with your close mindedness? People generally choose to live where they feel they are part of their community. If you don't, you move. Hopefully those who spend all of their energy worrying about who is paying taxes/who is not, who "assimilates" and who does not, do not belong here. Glad you found some uptight corner of CA. that makes you feel special.