Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We really love it here in Austin. Life is easier here, and cheaper. The summers are insanely hot but in general I just do so much better with more sun and the weather the rest of the year is great most of the time. There are lakes and rivers here which is nice but I do miss the water and mountains in Seattle sometimes. : ) All in all I've never regretted the move.
So first you say it won't keep shooting up then you say it will go up way faster than one can save? Which is it? Unless there's a drastic change, foreign cash will continue to pour in for the next decade. Once they "find" a place, they don't just leave.
I'm not sure how much you make, but I imagine even you would consider $300K quite a bit of income right? A tech couple together will make that even being just fairly average in talent. Or maybe it's one techie and a semi-professional making 80k a year. That's $230K. There are a ton of these professional couples making $200K+.
I think you're just way used to living on some astronomically high salary that you've forgotten (or never known) how a normal working family gets ahead. You grind, save your ass off, sacrifice some comforts and get yourself into a situation where you can one day retire comfortably. Having ~$2K/mo to spend on food, entertainment & bills really isn't that frugal. That's around $1K/mo on entertainment. Quite reasonable for someone who's only making 80 grand a year.
$300/mo on groceries isn't exactly mac n cheese. He's a single guy. Why would he need more than $70/week for groceries? If he's eating mac n cheese, ramen noodles, etc, he could survive on less than a $100/mo, but I'm not advocating an extreme unhealthy diet by any means.
Stock market, not housing market. Though housing market won't keep shooting up, either - the fact is, somebody starting from jump street right now will never catch up to it unless they get an inheritance.
And now I see you're advocating buying a house based upon combined income by which no single income would actually be able to sustain the payments on its own. That's a brilliant strategy. I mean, with over 55% of all marriages ending in divorce, how could that possibly go wrong? And we all know that people never get laid off or suffer some sort of malady that prevents them from working for a while. Or that kids suddenly appear. Sure, go ahead and strain yourself to the absolute limits between TWO people in order to buy something - that's a much better idea than simply relocating someplace that won't put that stress on you. Everybody should totally effectively double their surface area of risk of default or financial ruin.
$300 a month on groceries is basically $10 a day on food. Sure, I guess you can live on frozen pizza and peanut butter and jelly for that.
Fact is, what you and the other guy are advocating is an extreme case of deprivation for a number of years in your youth for the "privilege" of being saddled with a crippling debt for 30 years (and this doesn't even touch on the fact that a 30 year mortgage is one of the dumbest financial decisions a person can make) so that they can "live it up" in their silver and golden years. Because as we all know, life begins at 50. You're not selling a remotely logical idea.
Stock market, not housing market. Though housing market won't keep shooting up, either - the fact is, somebody starting from jump street right now will never catch up to it unless they get an inheritance.
And now I see you're advocating buying a house based upon combined income by which no single income would actually be able to sustain the payments on its own. That's a brilliant strategy. I mean, with over 55% of all marriages ending in divorce, how could that possibly go wrong? And we all know that people never get laid off or suffer some sort of malady that prevents them from working for a while. Or that kids suddenly appear. Sure, go ahead and strain yourself to the absolute limits between TWO people in order to buy something - that's a much better idea than simply relocating someplace that won't put that stress on you. Everybody should totally effectively double their surface area of risk of default or financial ruin.
$300 a month on groceries is basically $10 a day on food. Sure, I guess you can live on frozen pizza and peanut butter and jelly for that.
Fact is, what you and the other guy are advocating is an extreme case of deprivation for a number of years in your youth for the "privilege" of being saddled with a crippling debt for 30 years (and this doesn't even touch on the fact that a 30 year mortgage is one of the dumbest financial decisions a person can make) so that they can "live it up" in their silver and golden years. Because as we all know, life begins at 50. You're not selling a remotely logical idea.
You obviously don't cook.
The whole point of cooking and packing lunch is that it is not only more nutritious and healthier, but also cheaper than eating out. If I'm spending 30 bucks a day on food, I might as well just eat out every single day instead of wasting time with groceries.
Buying a 500K home with 230-300K of income...how is that "strain[ing] yourself"?
And it's not doubling the risk. If there's a divorce, each takes a portion of the debt. If someone passes, that's what life insurance is for (most employers have benefit plans covering 2-3x annual salary even if you don't buy personal life insurance).
What is wrong with you. Are you seriously that bad at math?
You have got some serious spending issues if you think a couple making 230k can't afford a $500K home + kids.
I make 150 a year. I've already paid off one townhome and I'm a quarter through my second. I'm in my early 30s. I've done all this while travelling at least once or twice a year, eating healthy (incl. organic fruits and veggies), and going out with friends 1-2x a week.
I hear ya.....and notice the same... This can be said of many/any cities, and people in-general. I think the same thing about San Diego. I'm guessing it's all about perspective and how you relate to your city and the things that mean most *to you*, affect you most day-to-day, in balancing pros & cons....or core issues driving you to stay or want to relocate....if that's what you want to do.
We have a chit-ton of people constantly moving here (from EVERYwhere) and the growth and redevelopment is monumental, traffic already very L.A.-like. Many people leave here just for that reason. However, obviously many continue to love San Diego, stay, and despite our checklist of issues that pretty much ANYone would agree exist, would never want to live anywhere else. (Maybe they've been enough others places that they finally feel "here" is better than "there"--wherever "there" was). Interestingly, you don't hear a lot of people here blaming (out loud) anyone in particular for "ruining" our city the way many WA-tonians seem to like to blame CA-ians for problems there.....especially ex-CA-ians relocated to WA...hahaha! People here seem more likely to "get it" that the same things that brought our own selves here to San Diego, is what attracts others as well and not "hold it against them".
My husband is out IN traffic much of his normal workday, so he comes home majorly stressed-out and angry about it, BIG issue to him--affects his productivity BIG TIME. But as a native, he always compares to *the good old days* when what is now a major freeway near us was a two-lane highway through a cow farm. DOH!
ME? I work from home, rarely drive anywhere, most my shopping is done online...so the whole traffic thing, while I'm aware of it, especially listening to my husband complain about it every night....it doesn't bother me even half as much as it bothers him. Conversely, other issues bother me that don't bother him. So for instance.....I would not move to a place like Seattle (proper) and expect traffic is going to be any better than it is here, and if I did, would obviously be sorely disappointed. Our oldest son lives near Seattle and tells us constantly how in his opinion, it's even WORSE than San Diego.
I think a more interesting focus would be...which people relocate and are ever completely happy with their new city or town? The realization has GOT to hit them sooner or later that no matter where you live, you've probably just traded one set of issues for another set. Maybe more or less to a degree.....but even that traffic-less (for example) city (does such a thing exist anymore?) has got some demon in it's closet you're going to have to deal with *instead*. Pick your poison.
For my own self.....if/when we relocate, I can honestly say it's not cuz I *hate San Diego*...I truly do not. I love San Diego. I do MISS the San Diego I first knew 40 years ago that had way less people! And moving, for me, is not to escape anything so much as to find a new adventure. But I fully expect either new or same issues to exist in our new landing spot.
I think a lot of how two people can view the same city, ANY city so differently has a lot to do with their general outlook.....
I think a more interesting focus would be...which people relocate and are ever completely happy with their new city or town?
Good question. I might offer that having lived in Seattle for more than thirty years, the people who relocate here and seem to love it are the young high-techies who enjoy being in a city that offers a lot of expensive food and entertainment amenities.
I read that Amazon plans to hire another 71,000 Seattle employees (have to check that number as it seems impossible). Imagine all those tens of thousands of tech workers on top of the overcrowding that exists now. We really don't have the infrastructure support, housing, and mass transportation necessary to accommodate Amazon's insatiable need to expand. On top of that, we have 1,000 people moving to the Seattle/Tacoma/Eastside every week.
So, even though at present the young highly paid tech workers most enjoy Seattle, one has to ask what will happen after another 100,000 are packed into the city and the region, and how that will affect even their appreciation of the city. I have met already one Amazon hire who is asking himself if moving here from the Midwest to pay $1400 for a tiny apartment was worth it.
The whole point of cooking and packing lunch is that it is not only more nutritious and healthier, but also cheaper than eating out. If I'm spending 30 bucks a day on food, I might as well just eat out every single day instead of wasting time with groceries.
Buying a 500K home with 230-300K of income...how is that "strain[ing] yourself"?
And it's not doubling the risk. If there's a divorce, each takes a portion of the debt. If someone passes, that's what life insurance is for (most employers have benefit plans covering 2-3x annual salary even if you don't buy personal life insurance).
What is wrong with you. Are you seriously that bad at math?
You have got some serious spending issues if you think a couple making 230k can't afford a $500K home + kids.
I make 150 a year. I've already paid off one townhome and I'm a quarter through my second. I'm in my early 30s. I've done all this while travelling at least once or twice a year, eating healthy (incl. organic fruits and veggies), and going out with friends 1-2x a week.
Did I say they couldn't afford it at that point? No - I said that neither of them could reasonably support it by themselves, which means that now instead of having one single point of failure to default, there are 2 single points of failure. You know, because twice the risk is twice the fun. And when the divorce happens, neither individual is going to have the financial means to buy the other person out. This all works out so splendidly, eh?
You're cherry picking and contorting data in order to try and fit a preconceived (very bad) bias. Have you considered a career in journalism?
Did I say they couldn't afford it at that point? No - I said that neither of them could reasonably support it by themselves, which means that now instead of having one single point of failure to default, there are 2 single points of failure. You know, because twice the risk is twice the fun. And when the divorce happens, neither individual is going to have the financial means to buy the other person out. This all works out so splendidly, eh?
You're cherry picking and contorting data in order to try and fit a preconceived (very bad) bias. Have you considered a career in journalism?
Or they could just sell the house. Why would they need to buy the other person out.
I'm not cherry picking or contorting anything. These are all facts.
Fact: most banks only require you to keep DTI below 40%. He can do that with a 80k income on 400k debt.
You are the one cherry-picking data by coming up with silly what-ifs.
What if they got divorced?
What if he gets hit by a hit and run?
What if he gets fired?
There are a ton of scenarios that could change the situation for the worse.
With 230K to support only a 500k mortgage, they should be putting away a TON for rainy days. They'll just have to have faith they won't be another divorce statistic.
I didn't like being black in this city. Educated and told i have a good personality but it seemed that a good amount of women refused to even think about dating me, as well as tons of comments from my peers. I have recently relocated and I found a girlfriend and a social network within a month. Didn't mind the rain, but no job in the world is worth feeling so isolated.
This argument about the calculus of home ownership in a bubble is amusing and short sighted. As someone who invests in real estate I can tell you I almost certainly won't be buying in Seattle until after Cascadia hits, and then only as something to pass onto heirs. I'm guessing in about 50-100 years the region may be a bit more habitable.
This argument about the calculus of home ownership in a bubble is amusing and short sighted. As someone who invests in real estate I can tell you I almost certainly won't be buying in Seattle until after Cascadia hits, and then only as something to pass onto heirs. I'm guessing in about 50-100 years the region may be a bit more habitable.
Pretty obvious you didn't invest in Seattle or anywhere north of it.
Seattle was the 6th hottest market in the US last year.
Vancouver was #1 in North America.
Guess that just about sums up your knowledge of real estate investing (btw, buying a $50K house in middle of nowhere America doesn't count as "investing").
One more thing: you must be on drugs if you think Cascadia is a reality. British Columbians have zero interest in Cascadia as a sovereign. Since the 90s, the only people who have still floated this idea around are Seattleites. Even Oregonians have largely disassociated themselves from this ludicrous endeavor.
With a few exceptions, the two commonalities among the people who left are (1) whiny attitude and (2) trouble adjusting to new realities (e.g. real estate prices). Those of us to happen to like the city can only hope that you will all eventually be displaced by immigrants and highly educated tech workers with happy dispositions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So for instance.....I would not move to a place like Seattle (proper) and expect traffic is going to be any better than it is here, and if I did, would obviously be sorely disappointed. Our oldest son lives near Seattle and tells us constantly how in his opinion, it's even WORSE than San Diego. 
