[MediocreButArrogant]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

That is VERY far from the truth. Moreover, to actually live here & work there, you have to take the earliest flight of the day, and return on an evening flight. Round trip this will cost you close to $300 each day. Less expensive round trips are available, but only at times of the day that pretty much prevent you from actually working in an office.

I've done SJC-LAS-SJC and LAS-SJC-LAS at least 150 times (maybe even 200), which is actually not that many when you consider it's over a 15 year period. You also need to consider the cost of airport parking and/or airport transportation, and the same to get from SFO to your job. SFO is a 30 minute BART ride into San Francisco and then at least another ten minutes of walking/skateboarding to your office, and that's if you're lucky.

It would actually be better to just stay in a cheap hotel rather than return in the evening. I knew someone who lived in Las Vegas who did M-W in Silicon Valley every week for a couple years, and stayed in a moderately priced hotel for two nights a week.

Actually, every new grad I know working in tech can afford $1750 a month for rent, and if you have a roommate, you can find something livable in the city for $3500, and actually something decent in Silicon Valley. These stories make the news when rents are high, but they don't have much to do with reality. There's also a story floating around about a girl living in her VW van.

//www.city-data.com/forum/san-f...ancisco-i.html

Rent is so high in San Francisco that I’m a software engineer and I live in a van - Quartz

[Wolfpacker]

Originally Posted by MediocreButArrogant

The Bay Area is where the human capital (for Tech) is located.

Yes, of course, because that's where the money and risk tolerance for start-ups is.

When the bubble turns south and burst, and I think it's starting to start, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[winter-rabbit]

Another commute from LV to SF article.

It

[ScoopLV]

The above article nails it with this point:

You’d have to live 10 miles outside Las Vegas

All due respect to residents of this fine region, of course.






Why are the expensive places of the world so expensive? Because they're worth it. I would move to SF if I planned to move to another city. Everything Las Vegas lacks, San Francisco has.

[LuisSuarez]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

The above article nails it with this point:

You’d have to live 10 miles outside Las Vegas

All due respect to residents of this fine region, of course.






Why are the expensive places of the world so expensive? Because they're worth it. I would move to SF if I planned to move to another city. Everything Las Vegas lacks, San Francisco has.

Awful place which is overdue a major earthquake. No thanks

[EA]

I don't know if I just missed it, but I don't see any explanation about why you'd have to live 10 miles outside of Vegas?

[winter-rabbit]

To keep rent low so that you are $1000 below a typical $3000/rent living in SF to justify LV to SF commute.

Originally Posted by EA

I don't know if I just missed it, but I don't see any explanation about why you'd have to live 10 miles outside of Vegas?

[winter-rabbit]

Worth it in what sense?

If you are a tech millionaire multiple times over, SF is the destination.

Seems to me you like closed quarter / congested living.

For me, I don't like having neighbors close.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

The above article nails it with this point:

You’d have to live 10 miles outside Las Vegas

All due respect to residents of this fine region, of course.






Why are the expensive places of the world so expensive? Because they're worth it. I would move to SF if I planned to move to another city. Everything Las Vegas lacks, San Francisco has.

[ScoopLV]

Worth it in the sense that there is more to do, more to see, more variety, and better neighbors. If I was having a stranger over for dinner, I would rather invite a random wino from my hometown over the average Las Vegan. The conversation would be better. This isn't sarcasm or hyperbole.

As for close-quarter, congested living: No, I don't prefer that. And you don't have to live that way, even in the Bay area. Just buy a place with a large lot. Sure, that's very expensive. But not needing a car offsets the increased real estate prices. I didn't drive for almost 20 years back home. That's how I was able to afford it.

[MediocreButArrogant]

Originally Posted by winter-rabbit

If you are a tech millionaire multiple times over, SF is the destination.

Seems to me you like closed quarter / congested living.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

As for close-quarter, congested living: No, I don't prefer that. And you don't have to live that way, even in the Bay area. Just buy a place with a large lot. Sure, that's very expensive. But not needing a car offsets the increased real estate prices. I didn't drive for almost 20 years back home. That's how I was able to afford it.

SF vs SF Bay Area is a huge difference.

Large lot in the SF Bay Area is affordable by mere mortals. Large lot in SF is a whole different story. The first can be had for around $1.5M in the less expensive locations. A house on a large lot (10,000 sq ft) in SF will run you around $12M, and probably has a name and history attached.