Is San Diego Better Run than LA or SF? (Santa Ana: theater, to live)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by silverkris

A parent of my child's classmate who moved up from San Diego said that SD wages were subject to the "sunshine discount" - such that while the COL is lower than the SF Bay Area, the affordability quotient wasn't appreciably much better (unless you moved from the Bay Area to SD and kept your high salary).

Or you move down with a ton of cash from the equity in your overpriced Bay Area home to help minimize housing costs. I’m starting to explore this option, I’m so tired of this place. The wildfires here are worse than SD’s now.

[NORTY FLATZ]

There are a fair amount of "Bay Area" transplants that buy 2 or 3 houses with their equity, in Sandy Eggo.

It's like "free living."

Anyway, that's the way it is...

[newgensandiego]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

I have lived in both SF and SD (never in LA). It is true that SD has done a better overall job with fiscal governance for what they have. However, I don't think this tells the whole story. Here are areas where I was disappointed with SD's governance:

I think some of the more important issues you noted are rapidly changing in SD.

-Ability to attract top companies for HQ or other locations (Not too many large companies there, aside from Qualcomm.....mainly small to mid sized biotech.....lots of brain drain from local university students moving elsewhere after graduation)

This seems to be changing as more tech and biotech companies locate offices in San Diego.

-Ability to attract/retain professional sports franchises

SD is the 29th largest media market. Frankly, its amazing that SD had 2 major teams at one time (and three before). Cities with that small of a media market typically don't have many major league teams.

-Ability to build world class airport, commensurate with population of metro area (SD's airport is pathetic for city size)

Agree that the destination options are weak. I don't agree that size = better at all. SDIA is moving forward with rebuilding Terminal 1 and providing a transit link. Once that is complete, our airport is going to be a lot nicer than most regions. Nonstop flights are not a dealbreaker for me since we have good connections to hubs LA, SF, and Seattle for longer trips.

-Public transportation (trolley and coaster not commensurate with city size / growth)

SD is the 17th largest metro in the country. Our transit system is surely commiserate with regions of similar size. SD's cohort is Riverside, Seattle, Detroit, Minneapolis, Tampa, Denver, St. Louis, and Baltimore. I think it fits snugly in the middle of this group.

-Smart development - outside of downtown and UTC, not much urban density at all, creating more sprawl, traffic, etc.

How long has it been since you've lived in SD? Many of the suburban downtowns/town centers are experiencing increased density: Escondido, San Marcos (North City), Oceanside, Otay Ranch, Vista, etc. Kearny Mesa and Mission Valley are increasingly dense as well. There's actually been a decent amount of development near trolley stations around the region.

-Cost of living - Lower than SF but purchasing power is also lower due to fewer high paying jobs (need for more top companies located there + additional development not in the exurbs)

I went to college down in SD (UCSD) and am more on the business side vs biotech. I enjoyed my time there, but didn't see this as the greatest place to build my career.

100% agree. SD is really underwhelming in this regard.

[metoque]

SD is definitely run better than LA or SF. Is it any surprise that running a city as more fiscally conservative, with more law and order, is going to yield better results?

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by sav858

Or you move down with a ton of cash from the equity in your overpriced Bay Area home to help minimize housing costs. I’m starting to explore this option, I’m so tired of this place. The wildfires here are worse than SD’s now.

Well, I'm not tired of being in the Bay Area, but perhaps in retirement we could cash in our chips and move to SD. Since I like cooler weather, I'm thinking Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas. La Jolla seems a bit too busy...

[Larry Siegel]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

So, you don't believe gig workers should be entitled to benefits if they work over a certain number of hours per week? How exactly should they provide health coverage for their families? Should the employer not have to pay payroll taxes to the state as they would for FTE's? Keep in mind, the gig economy is going to be more and more of the workforce in the future. Without this type of safety net, employees are on their own.
AB5 was put in place to remove this type of loophole, which is hurting the worker. The fact that Uber and Lyft are saying they can't afford this tells me how flawed their business model was to begin with.

No, I don't. We have Obamacare for people who want to or have to pay for their own medical insurance. A very large number of gig workers have other jobs or their spouses have a job that provides medical insurance. Others are on Medicare. Forcing Uber and Lyft to pay for their drivers' medical insurance would mean the worker is paying twice, once through the insurance they already have and once through the reduced wage they would receive when the company has to buy insurance for them.

If you don't like gig work, get a job. Most people who do gig work, like it because of the freedom to set hours and working conditions.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by silverkris

A parent of my child's classmate who moved up from San Diego said that SD wages were subject to the "sunshine discount" - such that while the COL is lower than the SF Bay Area, the affordability quotient wasn't appreciably much better (unless you moved from the Bay Area to SD and kept your high salary).

This is true. The irony is that SD is not, on average, more sunny than Silicon Valley (though both are sunnier than the city of SF), but people tend to move to SV primarily for jobs (nobody really cares that it's sunny), whereas they move to SD primarily for the weather and then look for a job. That puts employers in the driver's seat.

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by tstieber

This is true. The irony is that SD is not, on average, more sunny than Silicon Valley (though both are sunnier than the city of SF), but people tend to move to SV primarily for jobs (nobody really cares that it's sunny), whereas they move to SD primarily for the weather and then look for a job. That puts employers in the driver's seat.

Good point on the sunshine (though we're getting a bit of smoke now from the fires, sadly). And yes, people move to SV for professional opportunities (the weather is a bonus) first.

SD would be attractive to me because it's slower paced than Santa Clara County and as a retirement location.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by tstieber

This is true. The irony is that SD is not, on average, more sunny than Silicon Valley (though both are sunnier than the city of SF), but people tend to move to SV primarily for jobs (nobody really cares that it's sunny), whereas they move to SD primarily for the weather and then look for a job. That puts employers in the driver's seat.

Yup, SD is a lifestyle destination not a career one. Anecdotally the vast majority of posts it seems in the SF forum are to move there is for a job/better career opportunity while SD seems like mostly the opposite; for the lifestyle.

[TacoSoup]

Originally Posted by sav858

Yup, SD is a lifestyle destination not a career one. Anecdotally the vast majority of posts it seems in the SF forum are to move there is for a job/better career opportunity while SD seems like mostly the opposite; for the lifestyle.

Some people live to work, some work to live. Life is all about balance, and personally I believe the latter gets you closer to it? To each their own.