Could Atlanta be in the running for second Amazon headquarters? (student loan, vacations)

[Otakumaster]

Originally Posted by Forhall

Housing may be cheaper in Atlanta, but that's only relevant if you rent. If you buy, getting a higher salary and putting it towards a more expensive house is still preferable to a lower salary and a cheaper house, because it means you're building more equity. The same home may cost 4x as much in San Francisco, but that also means that person is getting 4x equity. After a 30 year mortgage the person selling the 2 million dollar home is much better off than the person selling the 500k home.

This is all fine and dandy in some fantasy world where everything balanced out. In reality, you would have to make nearly double your salary you made in ATL to afford any decent home in San Fran, but obviously that isn't going to happen( expect maybe 50% increase if that) for most people or there wouldn't be an affordability crisis there and we wound't be having this conversation.

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by Otakumaster

The reality is most of those employees probably won’t live in the city and of those that do most aren’t going to the most expensive places in the city.

Everyone seems to think that all these folks are going to try to live in Virgina4thward .

Definitely doesn't have to be that close in. Most places that are less than a 30 min drive to where Amazon likely would be and have a good QoL, are already well on their way to pricing out those making less than 150-200k. If Amazon comes in, talk about throwing gas on that fire.

This is the #1 reason why I hope Amazon doesn't come here. Well, that and I know our city will not be prepared nor will it take the proper actions to mitigate the issues that will come with it.

[Otakumaster]

Originally Posted by tikigod311

Definitely doesn't have to be that close in. Most places that are less than a 30 min drive to where Amazon likely would be and have a good QoL, are already well on their way to pricing out those making less than 150-200k. If Amazon comes in, talk about throwing gas on that fire.

This is the #1 reason why I hope Amazon doesn't come here. Well, that and I know our city will not be prepared nor will it take the proper actions to mitigate the issues that will come with it.

Hard disagree with the bold unless you are talking about far in the future with no inventory changes or you are excluding huge swaths of areas in the south, west, north east and southeast suburbs or ITP/ATP.

Plenty of homes to be had in safe areas under 300k in Tucker, Stone Mountain, Mableton, Lilburn,Norcross, McDonough, Cascade, etc.

[citidata18]

Originally Posted by Otakumaster

Hard disagree with the bold unless you are talking about far in the future with no inventory changes or you are excluding huge swaths of areas in the south, west, north east and southeast suburbs or ITP/ATP.

Plenty of homes to be had in safe areas under 300k in Tucker, Stone Mountain, Mableton, Lilburn,Norcross, McDonough, Cascade, etc.

Agreed.

Unless of course, by good QoL, the poster meant having a ton of upscale restaurants and retailers nearby. If so, by that standard, they may be correct.

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by Otakumaster

Hard disagree with the bold unless you are talking about far in the future with no inventory changes or you are excluding huge swaths of areas in the south, west, north east and southeast suburbs or ITP/ATP.

Plenty of homes to be had in safe areas under 300k in Tucker, Stone Mountain, Mableton, Lilburn,Norcross, McDonough, Cascade, etc.

Well, out of those places, only Cascade (Mabelton only in the best case scenario) is 30 mins or less to the Gulch in normal commuting hours. And I'm pretty sure most places off Cascade that would fit the QoL of someone that makes 100k + are out of the price range of people making less than 150k. So my point stands.

There's plenty of space available within 30 mins of downtown. But the city isn't ready to accommodate people who have the privilege in housing choice in those areas. And I do not think the CoA will handle this situation well AT ALL. We can't even handle what we have. Does anyone need further proof of that?!?

We have a lot of growing up to do before we can take on something like Amazon without significant consequences.

[Otakumaster]

Originally Posted by tikigod311

Well, out of those places, only Cascade (Mabelton only in the best case scenario) is 30 mins or less to the Gulch in normal commuting hours. And I'm pretty sure most places off Cascade that would fit the QoL of someone that makes 100k + are out of the price range of people making less than 150k. So my point stands.

There's plenty of space available within 30 mins of downtown. But the city isn't ready to accommodate people who have the privilege in housing choice in those areas. And I do not think the CoA will handle this situation well AT ALL. We can't even handle what we have. Does anyone need further proof of that?!?

We have a lot of growing up to do before we can take on something like Amazon without significant consequences.

Those are some really strict criteria you are using. 30 minutes during rush hour would even take a lot of the ITP out of the picture if you are talking about the gultch location and mostly leaving the south side which is still very affordable with many safe areas.


The fact that you think there is some standard QoL and lifestyle for someone making 100k+ but less than 150k is weird too. People have so many different priorities that I’ve never met 2 people in that range looking for same things. Some have multiple kids, some like big yards, some want lofts, some like cheaper black neighborhoods etc. These 50,000 employees won’t all come in a single day so there is time.

[SAAN]

Originally Posted by tikigod311

Absolutely. This is the #1 asset Atlanta has in this competition. The true cost of attracting talent and employment will be much higher if they want to base in any of those cities.


People that are accepting 100k+ jobs are not going to live where 30-50k people live.

Unless you're looking for one bedroom places, even 100k barely cuts it to live in desirable intown Atlanta areas.

If one cant live off 100K in Atlanta, they have some SERIOUS budgeting problems they need to take care of. Even if one had a $1800 Rent/Mortgage, $500 Car Payment, and the typical other expenses, that would require $60K to get by, so 100K would leave them with atleast $30K plus extra cash aside, unless they are eye balls deep in credit card and student loan debt.

Amazon in Atlanta would be good for the people who work there, but drive up housing costs for the people that dont and make the connector absolutely gridlocked for people trying to get to the gulch, if thats where it would go.

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by Otakumaster

Those are some really strict criteria you are using. 30 minutes during rush hour would even take a lot of the ITP out of the picture if you are talking about the gultch location and mostly leaving the south side which is still very affordable with many safe areas.


The fact that you think there is some standard QoL and lifestyle for someone making 100k+ but less than 150k is weird too. People have so many different priorities that I’ve never met 2 people in that range looking for same things. Some have multiple kids, some like big yards, some want lofts, some like cheaper black neighborhoods etc. These 50,000 employees won’t all come in a single day so there is time.

Most of ITP would be within 30 mins of the Gulch. There are exceptions, but there's ton existing and underutilized land within 30mins and the city has no significant plans to take advantage. And if you think they will suddenly respond with anything effective for something like an Amazon coming to town, I would say you're overly optimistic.

A primary factor of a good QoL is 30 mins or less from work, lets not lose sight of that. Older generations thoughtlessly (or for worse reasons) compromised on this. But 30 mins really should be the top end for everyone, it's not a good thing that people have to stretch that to afford a decent QoL (schools and safety as a baseline).

I absolutely realize that the potential is here. But realistically, I recognize that the CoA will handle this very poorly and there will be a lot of consequences that will take way too long to address.

[Forhall]

Originally Posted by Otakumaster

This is all fine and dandy in some fantasy world where everything balanced out. In reality, you would have to make nearly double your salary you made in ATL to afford any decent home in San Fran, but obviously that isn't going to happen( expect maybe 50% increase if that) for most people or there wouldn't be an affordability crisis there and we wound't be having this conversation.

My point is that employers like to point to "low cost of living" as justification for paying less money for the same job, but the reality is is still LESS money in absolute terms, regardless of whether it buys more in the surrounding area. Imagine two people hired as software developers, one in Atlanta and one in SF. Atlanta makes 100k, SF makes 175k. After 30 years, SF will have a much higher net worth, despite the higher cost of living. SF can choose to retire and move to Atlanta with money to spare. Atlanta guy cannot do the opposite.

In other words, imagine Atlanta guy makes 10k a month after tax and SF guy makes 15k. Atlanta spends 3k on housing, SF spends 6k. That still leaves SF more money left over each month. He can still afford more non-housing costs. Cars, student loans, vacations, etc don't change in price based on where someone lives. That's ignoring the fact that the 6k per month housing costs = more equity over time.

[Otakumaster]

Originally Posted by Forhall

My point is that employers like to point to "low cost of living" as justification for paying less money for the same job, but the reality is is still LESS money in absolute terms, regardless of whether it buys more in the surrounding area. Imagine two people hired as software developers, one in Atlanta and one in SF. Atlanta makes 100k, SF makes 175k. After 30 years, SF will have a much higher net worth, despite the higher cost of living. SF can choose to retire and move to Atlanta with money to spare. Atlanta guy cannot do the opposite.

In other words, imagine Atlanta guy makes 10k a month after tax and SF guy makes 15k. Atlanta spends 3k on housing, SF spends 6k. That still leaves SF more money left over each month. He can still afford more non-housing costs. Cars, student loans, vacations, etc don't change in price based on where someone lives. That's ignoring the fact that the 6k per month housing costs = more equity over time.

I don’t know man. If this all equals out then how are people being priced out?