NYC vs. San Francisco - convince me why SF is better

[yiplong]

Originally Posted by jade408

I am not. But you have a wider range of commutable options: like CT, NJ and PA. Although NYC is generally more expensive. Schools are better than CA. Your "good" is far superior to our "good." Spending $400k in the Bay is putting yourself in a condo or a crappy school district. Oh and there actually is a train to Manhattan or non-car option. Not true here. Places with commuter trains in good school districts start at $700k. We do have lower property taxes. CA doesn't have any 2% taxes anywhere as far as I know.

Serious, I have no idea what this person is talking about. There is no way you can get a house for $400k in decent area around NYC with a 30 minute commute into Manhattan. Do you even know the geography of the area? PA is about 2+ hours away. CT is closer, about 45-60 minutes, but expect 70+ minutes door to door from even Greenwich, CT (closest CT town to NYC, pls also check the average house price in Greenwich). You shouldn't want to live in the parts of NJ that are within 30 minutes of Manhattan, where you can buy a house for $400k, unless you want to get mugged or worse.

[MichiVegas]

Originally Posted by yiplong

You shouldn't want to live in the parts of NJ that are within 30 minutes of Manhattan, where you can buy a house for $400k, unless you want to get mugged or worse.

This is a really stupid comment. Outside of some parts of Newark and East Orange, 100% of NJ within 30 minutes of Manhattan is safe, and the vast majority has real estate available at the 400k level.

There are so many towns where this is true it would be easier naming the towns where it wouldn't be true (Alpine, Cliffside Park, and one or two others). But basically any random town (from Fort Lee to Palisades Park to Ridgefield to Lyndhurst to Leonia) will have real estate at the 400k level, and will be safe with decent schools.