Houston to Bayarea (questions) NON TECH JOBS (San Jose, San Francisco: 2015, rent)

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Chuck5000

Sorry for misunderstanding income - sure, you will do fine as a renter in the areas you mentioned on 180k.

Overall, I'd say 135k lifestyle in Houston (including home size, home condition, location, etc) would definitely mean a bare minimum of 200k here, and considerably more if one wanted to rent or buy a comparable home in an area with good schools.

Agreed, you should have plenty of options for rent. But you need to give us more insight onto what sort of neighborhood you are looking for. It'll be light if you want to have kids and buy a home though.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by jade408

For example, my friend lucked out when he was here last, he has a friend with a room to rent for like $600.

Gasp! But that's an unacceptable "roommate situation"!

Your friend can't live here, he is priced out of any safe area!

Minimum wage is 200k!

Being able to afford a room in an apartment but not being able to buy a single family home does not count as being able to afford living in the Bay Area!

::rolling my eyes::

[neutrino78x]

And, plenty of people raise families without living in a single family home. They rent their place or they own a small condo (like a two bedroom), etc. If it were true that no one can afford to live here unless they make 200k, the population of San Jose and San Francisco would be A LOT smaller. The vast majority of us who live here do not make 200k. The median is 100k which means that half of us make less than that, a lot less in some cases, yet we still live here. Get real people! Sheesh.

[Chuck5000]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

And, plenty of people raise families without living in a single family home. They rent their place or they own a small condo (like a two bedroom), etc. If it were true that no one can afford to live here unless they make 200k, the population of San Jose and San Francisco would be A LOT smaller. The vast majority of us who live here do not make 200k. The median is 100k which means that half of us make less than that, a lot less in some cases, yet we still live here. Get real people! Sheesh.

You are the one who needs to get real. Citing the median income as evidence that it's affordable to get by on the median income is simply stupid. It ignores that the vast, vast majority of homeowners are incumbents - they bought their homes years and years ago. And even 5 years ago homes were significantly more affordable.

Oh, and go look at how much cheaper middle class quality condos (i.e. not thin walled, soft story, tiny junk properties with outdated layouts/infrastructure) are than SFH's. (Hint: not that much cheaper, and not much availability. )

You're just disconnected from how actual people out there are doing, and you're disconnected from the fact that somebody who moves here and earns, say 100k in one state, is going to want to match that lifestyle. How complicated is that for you to understand?

Now you'd be right if someone came here and said, "I just want to live in the Bay Area, I want to squeeze by and don't mind downgrading my home standards 3 or 4 levels" - but nobody other than maybe 24 year olds say this.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Chuck5000

You are the one who needs to get real. Citing the median income as evidence that it's affordable to get by on the median income is simply stupid. It ignores that the vast, vast majority of homeowners are incumbents - they bought their homes years and years ago. And even 5 years ago homes were significantly more affordable.

Oh, and go look at how much cheaper middle class quality condos (i.e. not thin walled, soft story, tiny junk properties with outdated layouts/infrastructure) are than SFH's. (Hint: not that much cheaper, and not much availability. )

You're just disconnected from how actual people out there are doing, and you're disconnected from the fact that somebody who moves here and earns, say 100k in one state, is going to want to match that lifestyle. How complicated is that for you to understand?

Now you'd be right if someone came here and said, "I just want to live in the Bay Area, I want to squeeze by and don't mind downgrading my home standards 3 or 4 levels" - but nobody other than maybe 24 year olds say this.

Even 24 year olds have higher standards than that. Living like neutrino suggests is no different than tenement living.

[BicoastalAnn]

I was looking for housing as early as 3 months ago to rent and it seemed like the San Jose area was the cheapest of all the options I had - about $2600-2900 for a 2bed 2bath with laundry in-unit. You may not need all that but it seemed like 1beds weren't too much cheaper. Just keep in mind rent control is not really common in that area and rent increases can be very unpredictable. I think it might get tight before your wife finds a job but once she does you'll be fine. You're not trying to buy anyway so come, enjoy your time in the area, and move on in a few years.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Chuck5000

You are the one who needs to get real. Citing the median income as evidence that it's affordable to get by on the median income is simply stupid.

No, you're being stupid. I make FAR LESS than the median income and I get by. Therefore you can get by on the median income which is like five times what I make.

Oh, and go look at how much cheaper middle class quality condos (i.e. not thin walled, soft story, tiny junk properties with outdated layouts/infrastructure) are than SFH's. (Hint: not that much cheaper, and not much availability. )

lol so basically it doesn't count unless you can't afford it. That's circular logic.

Now you'd be right if someone came here and said, "I just want to live in the Bay Area, I want to squeeze by and don't mind downgrading my home standards 3 or 4 levels" - but nobody other than maybe 24 year olds say this.

Everybody says that dude. If you want to live in a big city, expect that you are not going to be able to afford the same housing that you could out in the middle of nowhere. That's just common sense.

Middle class housing in a large, developed, desirable city is different from what middle class housing is in Podunk, Arkansas.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Even 24 year olds have higher standards than that. Living like neutrino suggests is no different than tenement living.

A two bedroom condo is "tenement living"? Like I said, circular logic. You want to move into a large, developed, dense, desirable place and yet you want to be able to afford a big house by itself on a huge plot of land.

Out in the middle of nowhere, middle class might mean you own your own single family home. In a big city, middle class is renting an apartment, or owning a small condo.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

A two bedroom condo is "tenement living"? Like I said, circular logic. You want to move into a large, developed, dense, desirable place and yet you want to be able to afford a big house by itself on a huge plot of land.

Out in the middle of nowhere, middle class might mean you own your own single family home. In a big city, middle class is renting an apartment, or owning a small condo.

It is when you're sharing the 2 bedroom with 5 people

[neutrino78x]

It's true anywhere. The median income in London is 70k. The median home price is 700k. Therefore, just like other dense, developed, desirable places, most people do not own their own SFH in London. Middle class in London would be like middle class in San Jose: if you own your own place, it is a small condo, and it is more likely the case that you rent an apartment or "flat" as they call it there.