Which goes further- 90K in San Jose or 45K in Bakersfield? (home, income)

[nagleepark]

Most lives are not linear: you can't forecast the end based on the start. But living in San Jose gives somebody a much better chance of having a "lucky break" (in income or housing or something else) sometime in their 40 year long working life than living in Bakersfield. If they get that lucky break, it can totally overwhelm the benefits of cheap housing and QOL of living in Bakersfield. Avoiding risk is sometimes the riskiest course.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Despite decades of complaints about costly housing and insufficient incomes, it seems that most people beat the odds and get an opportunity to become homeowners at some point. To assume that somebody will never be a homeowner is to bet that nothing ever changes. That's a bad bet because things change all the time.

Many, many items have approximately the same price regardless of where you buy them, be it California, Nebraska or Thailand. To me, choosing a high income so you can more easily afford those many, many items far outweighs the benefits of the relatively few items whose prices are location dependent.

In a way, renting is a way of betting that housing prices will stay the same or go down. That's a horrible bet historically. Not to mention that we generally have inflation, not deflation, and there's a huge imbalance between massive political forces that encourage rising house prices and almost no political forces that encourage falling house prices.

In the end, my vote goes to San Jose.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

This is such an interesting thread. The most interesting thing for me, is that it is not a slam dunk either way. It's about priorities, etc., but not an obvious winner one way or the other. I didn't expect that.

[zombocom]

Another point - In 2004, the median home price in San Jose was 615k, in Bakersfield it was 176k. Today the S.J price is 715k, and in Bakersfield it is 143k.

So, the person in S.J has made money off their house, and the person in Bakersfield has not.

Additionally, are living costs beyond home prices much different between Bakersfield and San Jose? If not...

[NickB1967]

45 K in Bakersfield, clearly. Which is why so many of us have moved out to the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley "hinterlands" Even though we would all rather live in San Jose.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by NickB1967

45 K in Bakersfield, clearly. Which is why so many of us have moved out to the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley "hinterlands" Even though we would all rather live in San Jose.

But are so many of you happy out there? If not, what is the reward?

[zombocom]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

But are so many of you happy out there? If not, what is the reward?

Well, a person making 90k in San Jose would probably be making more than 45k in Bakersfield... If they were doing an analogous job.

It's just that San Jose is one of the most educated places in the U.S, and Bakersfield is one of the least educated.

As such, would a person making minimum wage be better off in Bakersfield at 8 bucks an hour, or San Jose at 10 bucks an hour?

A top step Bakersfield cop makes 70k a year, a top step SJPD cop makes 100k (but has a worse pension right now, of course...) - of those two, whose dollar goes further? And thus, maybe one could be happier? Although, happiness cannot be bought (entirely).

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

But are so many of you happy out there? If not, what is the reward?

Some people are happier out there, especially if they have kids. I lived in Sac. and I can vouch for the fact that it's a decent place to live. If you are a median income earner trying to raise a family in Sac, it is a much nicer life there than trying to raise kids in San Jose on a Silicon Valley median income.

Now Bakersfield? Heh, I think I'd move out of state before I'd move there.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

But are so many of you happy out there? If not, what is the reward?

Well, it is not what you want in this world that makes you happy, it is what you get. And a lot of us would just *never* have had a place of our own in San Jose, had we stayed there.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by zombocom

It's just that San Jose is one of the most educated places in the U.S, and Bakersfield is one of the least educated.

Ding Ding Ding!

You are a prisoner in your McMansion or little SFH in the boonies if you can't go out your front door without being under overwhelming assault by WalMart Nation. Which ain't the kind folk we want the kiddies to aspire to, no? "Look ma - I'm a welfare mom! Yay!"

[Azmordean]

The way I like to explain it to folks is this:

- In most cases, a good job in the Bay Area (e.g., in tech) will leave you "cash rich" and "house poor." So you'll live in some apartment or condo that to the rest of the country is way below your income level. But you'll be saving more in your 401K, have more money to travel, and probably drive a nicer car.

- By the same token, somewhere like Bakersfield would probably leave you "house rich" and "cash poor." So you'll live in a great 4br 2ba home with a yard, but have very little extra money to eat out or travel, and probably drive a used minivan.

So the question becomes, which is your priority. And the answer to that really varies from person to person. Some people are true "my home is my castle" types who have no particular desire to travel, eat out, and so forth. They are happy at home. For that person, the Bakersfield scenario is better.

There are others who of course like a nice home but value experiences and "cash flow" more - for that person, clearly the San Jose scenario.

I am in the latter camp, and to me it's a no brainer that the San Jose scenario is preferable. But I'm also single. If I was married with 3 kids and faced with stuffing a family into a 2br apartment, I might make a different choice.

And of course none of this takes into account intangibles (family, geographical considerations, weather, etc).