Could Atlanta be in the running for second Amazon headquarters? (Boston: lenders, roach)

[jhtrico1850]

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.

https://www.paycheckcity.com/calculator/dual/salary/

Your math is wrong. First off, you should be quoting realistic gross incomes, not after tax. You would need to make $350k a year to net $15k a month in SF and that's exec level $.

$100k in Georgia is $5.8k after tax a month, $3k housing, $2.8k net
$180k in California is $9.3k after tax a month, $6k housing, $3.3k net

After the higher food, transportation, etc., that marginal difference gets washed.

[brown_dog_us]

Originally Posted by tikigod311

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.

I think this is why the regional transit plan came together so fast. There is no way a company like Amazon could locate at the Gulch and get 50k employees to work in less than 30 mins without transit to the suburbs.

[jhtrico1850]

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.

https://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/

After a 30 year mortgage, $12k payments per month, and $4.6m in payments for the $2m house, vs $3.2k payments per month, $1.2m in payments for the $500k house, how do you figure the San Francisco house is ahead, when the ATL house spent $3.4m less?

At least with the $500k, you're probably able to prepay some of it and save a lot of interest.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by jhtrico1850

https://www.paycheckcity.com/calculator/dual/salary/

Your math is wrong. First off, you should be quoting realistic gross incomes, not after tax. You would need to make $350k a year to net $15k a month in SF and that's exec level $.

$100k in Georgia is $5.8k after tax a month, $3k housing, $2.8k net
$180k in California is $9.3k after tax a month, $6k housing, $3.3k net

After the higher food, transportation, etc., that marginal difference gets washed.

Yeah, I have to agree, $170k is nowhere near enough to live comfortably in San Francisco while owning a $1 million + home. $350k will barely do it... barely.

[stoxdiamond]

$170K is not possible to own a home in SF but if your spouse has a $170K job then your combined incomes may be enough to get you something. Not everyone in SF is buying homes on single incomes.

If you are comparing median salaries then yes Bay Area is definitely not as attractive but a bay area startup has immense upside. You would get a salary + equity. If you get in early and your company successful IPOs or you get bought out you become an overnight millionaire. Yes it is very hard to do that and most startups fail but the upside is there.

[jhtrico1850]

I would not tie myself up on a million dollar mortgage in the hopes that I may get rich from a startup.

But definitely, if I were eligible for $170k jobs (to be among Google, Facebook elite), I would rent there, build up my resume at the very least.

[RorMc]

Originally Posted by stoxdiamond

$170K is not possible to own a home in SF but if your spouse has a $170K job then your combined incomes may be enough to get you something. Not everyone in SF is buying homes on single incomes.

If you are comparing median salaries then yes Bay Area is definitely not as attractive but a bay area startup has immense upside. You would get a salary + equity. If you get in early and your company successful IPOs or you get bought out you become an overnight millionaire. Yes it is very hard to do that and most startups fail but the upside is there.

Equity is the only mathematical reason why it would work. Salaries are (from what we've seen in IT) perhaps 20% higher than Atlanta. Plus if you talk to anyone that lives there, they say to stay here and ride the wave. It's incredibly expensive out there, even on 2 salaries. Throw in needing to have good schools and you've got a monster commute.

[stoxdiamond]

Originally Posted by jhtrico1850

I would not tie myself up on a million dollar mortgage in the hopes that I may get rich from a startup.

But definitely, if I were eligible for $170k jobs (to be among Google, Facebook elite), I would rent there, build up my resume at the very least.

You wouldn't tie yourself up with a mortgage. You would live cheaply and rent. If your company strikes gold, then you buy a house with cash straight up.

Those who fail at achieving the above will eventually leave the bay area as COL is unsustainable to raise a family in. As a result, metros like Seattle, SLC, and Denver have experienced a lot of growth.

There will always be starry eyed college grads looking to be part of the next Facebook or Google. Rinse and repeat.

[Atlwarrior]

Rumors are flying that an announcement for HQ2 is imminent within the next couple weeks.

[Otakumaster]

Originally Posted by Atlwarrior

Rumors are flying that an announcement for HQ2 is imminent within the next couple weeks.

It will finally be over. I wonder what the actual plans are for the Gultch.