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.
Yes, I moved to SF without a job, too, about a year and a half ago, so things were still pretty tough. My point was not to say it can't be done. My point was to say it is intimidating for many in inexpensive cities to do.
Oh gotcha, I was reading it differently b/c you were saving money. Yes many are intimidated, but many employers probably also value people that are willing to risk it to be somewhere. If I was an employer I would say, OK, you really want to be here. I would probably hire them over somebody who just happens to be born into being a local.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,134,833 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
Oh gotcha, I was reading it differently b/c you were saving money. Yes many are intimidated, but many employers probably also value people that are willing to risk it to be somewhere. If I was an employer I would say, OK, you really want to be here. I would probably hire them over somebody who just happens to be born into being a local.
The flip side of that is that employers in highly competive markets like these are often hesitant to hire people from out of their area because, if a new employee arrives into the environment and can't hack it, he may leave. They will have wasted the time and money it took to hire him.
To me, San Francisco and maybe Chicago are the two cities in the US that do not care to be counted as "peer cities" of New York (whatever that means), especially by someone in Atlanta. You describe us as living in a bubble. I wear that as a badge. There is nowhere like SF and nowhere I'd rather be.
I do love New York, and have always enjoyed being there. It is a fantastic place, and one of my favorite cities in the world. I am not for an instant envious of my friends who live there, though. They like it there, which I understand, but for me, I would miss my California life if i were in NYC.
It's just different here. I agree that NYC is a bigger, more influential city. Lots of places like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc. sometimes seem to waste a lot of energy wishing they were more like NYC. I get that. SF actively resists this thinking, though. We are quite fond of our "charming little village" as you New Yorkers and others with half the character style and energy this city smugly like call it. NYC's prominence isn't a threat to me or my city. I am thankful every day I step out into the clean, clear Pacific air. I don't even care if anyone on CD thinks it's better. People who experience the lifestyle beyond an Internet discussion group fall in love with SF every day. Sure, they do with NY, too. Perhaps even in greater numbers. Many who love one of these cities also love the other, though often for different reasons.
I completely understand someone's preference for New York. My question is, why are New Yorkers so threatened or incredulous when someone shows a preference for San Francisco? Is it so beyond your realm of comprehension that one of the most strikingly beautiful and vibrant cities in the world might have the power to draw someone in different and more captivating ways than NYC?
I think you might have gotten things turned around--most people haven't argued that it is somehow impossible to have a preference for San Francisco. San Francisco is a fantastic city. What people have argued is that NYC is much more powerful overall. Tangential to that, some people have even argued that Brooklyn is in some ways more fun, more exciting and greatly preferred to San Francisco--however, that got on the SF posters's nerves and they then started to bring in the number of millionaires, real estate prices, size of downtown, number of corporate headquarters, etc., which is ridiculous to bring up rather than personal preference since on those counts NYC is obviously much bigger.
Someone can absolutely be drawn to SF and not NYC. Hell, I love Montreal, Suzhou and Taipei but those aren't the world's most powerful cities by any stretch. The problem is the kind of shifting values that boosters have where all that matters is that their city comes out on top no matter how unreasonable or hypocritical the arguments.
Posts like this really, really bug me. Show me where "Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc.", waste energy wishing they were like NYC. This is a forum of people's dreams, thoughts, aspirations...whatever. It's NOT the real world. I have family in Chicago, and I have NEVER, EVER heard them talk about wishing their city was more like ANY other city. IN THE REAL WORLD, people don't do this. People aren't threatened by the prominence of another city. Really, people, the real world differs drastically from what you are thinking. Just...please...enough.
Are San Franciscans WISHING their city was like New York or stating what aspects they like more about SF and things SF excels at? San Francisco is nothing like NYC and NYC is nothing like San Francisco. I have stated that many times, 18Montclair has stated that many times and most SF posters have stated that many times.
-Actually, you'd be surprised. People probably think of Miami and Boston much moreso then you think. I mean, Harvard is the #1 ranked university in the world and Miami beach is actually a very popular area known worldwide.
-As I said, there are two cities that foreigners think of most when America is brought up: Los Angeles and NYC...after this, it drops off big time. Again, overrating SF. Miami is probably just as known worldwide of SF is. Europeans love Miami and Los Angeles.
-And NYC hardly relies on Long Island LOL. What? When the NYC metro GDP is brought up, I'm sure the first thing people think of is Manhattan bringing in the vast majority of it. For SF, San Jose ups it's GDP by a lot. Without San Jose, Houston would be beating SF by a lot. The difference is Houston doesn't rely on cities 50-60 miles away.
-SF is more of a tourist city then a business city IMHO. NYC brings all of that together in a grand and magical way.
-Main point is, stop comparing SF to NYC as a city overall. They don't compare. Now, if you personally like SF better, then that's on you.
Have you ever been to the financial area of San Francisco? It is definitely business oriented. Much more so than I have seen in other US cities. Is it NYC or Chicago? No.
Have you ever been to the financial area of San Francisco? It is definitely business oriented. Much more so than I have seen in other US cities. Is it NYC or Chicago? No.
What is this thread about... Who has the largest financial district in the country... And how much larger is it than SF... Those are the questions you should be asking, not if SF is pretty good... We all know it is pretty good. It's a nonpoint. Personally I don't give a crap about finance or F500 companies.
You must have a different definition of booming. Unless unemployment is sub 3-4% you aren't booming. People are still leaving SF b/c of rising costs and lack of jobs. It's still better than 9.6% unemployment you had in 2011. But 6.5% isn't "booming", maybe if this was Europe. Late 90s, SF was booming. Mid 2000s, SF was booming. Alameda is still over 8% unemployment, is that booming? The Bay Area has the worst average income to cost of living of the top 12 metropolitan areas in the country.
well, hate to break it to you but Bay Area CSA is picking up Stockton into your CSA, boosting up your population and decreasing your precious per capita income. I'm sure in the future people will probably tout the total CSA population then give a per capita based on MSA data... as you have shown you can't get your numbers right already in this thread.
Stalking likely wont be apart of the CSA for a very long time. And the population of San Francisco is actually at its highest level ever. The population started to go down around 2000-2003, but its picked up again. And there is a lot of building downtown, including many condos, to offset the high cost of living. As of right now 22,000 housing units in the downtown area are being built, with thousands more under review.
Are San Franciscans WISHING their city was like New York or stating what aspects they like more about SF and things SF excels at? San Francisco is nothing like NYC and NYC is nothing like San Francisco. I have stated that many times, 18Montclair has stated that many times and most SF posters have stated that many times.
Thanks for the clarification, now I know it's correct
On the topic, there is no need to convince anyone. People are free to choose any place over another and SF has a ton of qualities that would make perfect sense to me as to why its better for someone
Per Oy above, there is an over zelousness for some bay posters that I dont think they see, but then again its always easier to see from afar and am sure many on here are also guilty of this, including myself
Stalking likely wont be apart of the CSA for a very long time. And the population of San Francisco is actually at its highest level ever. The population started to go down around 2000-2003, but its picked up again. And there is a lot of building downtown, including many condos, to offset the high cost of living. As of right now 22,000 housing units in the downtown area are being built, with thousands more under review.
What?
As for Stockton it will be official this year. Bay Area is going over 8 mil and picking up Stockton MSA to it's CSA. Lock it. In my opinion it's a good thing as The Bay Area actually DOES feel that large regardless if it brings other stats down such as per capita income. It could also get the Bay Area off the backs of all the "most expensive" places to live lists a notch or so.
OMB already put it in there. You will most likely eventually get Modesto also bringing the population up, and the numbers down. That is just what happens when cities grow... and why per capita metro wide #'s aren't really the best way to these things.
The best is always raw #'s when it comes to wealth, and raw #'s still holds up really well for the Bay Area.
You don't think LA would have higher per capita #'s if it didn't have so much extra space added in with all the low wage immigrants bringing these stats down? Or NYC?
Last edited by grapico; 03-12-2013 at 12:04 PM..
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.
