Houston to Bayarea (questions) NON TECH JOBS (San Jose, Oakland: renting, condo)

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Nope, not in 1980. But in 2016 if you can afford to buy a one million dollar house that's not middle class, that's upper class. People who in the middle class can live here, but they buy/rent places that one can afford on the median income (middle class is defined as those people who make approximately the median income).

The gardener would be making less than median but owns the home

[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree with this for SF, but San Jose is not a city in the same league as London, Hong Kong, NYC, etc. much less the suburbs around it. And this is why people get sticker shock here... it's very expensive for a sprawling suburb.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

I agree with this for SF, but San Jose is not a city in the same league as London, Hong Kong, NYC, etc. much less the suburbs around it.

Not in your opinion. Obviously those of us who live here don't agree with you on that. Silicon Valley is one of the world's great centers of innovation. We are not as old as London, but we are still known through the world. Tell someone in London that you live in Silicon Valley and they will know what you're talking about.

And this is why people get sticker shock here... it's very expensive for a sprawling suburb.

But not expensive considering that:

Apple
Intel
AMD
Facebook
Google
Cisco
Tesla
nVIDIA
Made in Space
Cypress Semiconductor
SunPower

and many, many others are based here in Silicon Valley.

Do you realize that San Jose is larger than SF? For hundreds of years, San Francisco was the largest city in a 300 mile radius. Now it is San Jose that is largest. We have a million people, just in San Jose alone. So it stands to reason that land would be expensive here.

Your conception of San Jose seems to be stuck in 1950, when it was a small town south of San Francisco. A lot has changed since then.

[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Not in your opinion. Obviously those of us who live here don't agree with you on that. Silicon Valley is one of the world's great centers of innovation. We are not as old as London, but we are still known through the world. Tell someone in London that you live in Silicon Valley and they will know what you're talking about.



But not expensive considering that:

Apple
Intel
AMD
Facebook
Google
Cisco
Tesla
nVIDIA
Made in Space
Cypress Semiconductor
SunPower

and many, many others are based here in Silicon Valley.

Do you realize that San Jose is larger than SF? For hundreds of years, San Francisco was the largest city in a 300 mile radius. Now it is San Jose that is largest. We have a million people, just in San Jose alone. So it stands to reason that land would be expensive here.

Your conception of San Jose seems to be stuck in 1950, when it was a small town south of San Francisco. A lot has changed since then.

What does land size or how well-known it is have anything to do with cost of living? Buffalo, NY is bigger than Manhattan in land size and the Atlanta urban area has more people.... Obviously Manhattan has a much higher cost of living. And Atlanta, Seattle, etc. are just as well-known as San Jose but the cost of living is a lot lower. And San Jose doesn't have a monopoly on well-paying companies.

No one's saying San Jose is provincial or not pleasant but.... sorry, it's not in the same league as London, NYC, Hong Kong, etc. It's more like Atlanta, Seattle, Raleigh, etc... as in wealthy city that attracts people for jobs but not a major international hub. And let me add San Jose is not TRYING to be a dense, bustling, ultra-expensive city. It seems to like being a suburb and retain that slower pace, so I don't know why you're getting offended.

[eye state your name]

Originally Posted by houstonview

Do you live in the Bayarea ? if you read the thread I stated were not trying to buy just thinking about trying it out there for 1-2yrs and keep it moving, wife is a travel nurse and we want to live different places in the US. Bay areas came up first because I can get a job there.

4000 square foot house we don't have but would trade it for a 1000 foot 2 bed 1 bath in a safe area in Southern California any day!!!!

My hubby and I just moved here about 1 year ago. We live in the East Bay area and rent is $2800 for a 1300 sq. ft. Condo. I work in SF and he works in Oakland. He is working around 25-30 hours a week in a contract job and is still looking for a full time job. Neither of us are in the Tech industry and we gross around $120K. We make ends meet, but we gave up living in a 2500 sq. foot house that was $2100 a month and my commute is around $300 a month. I find other areas of COL comparable to Seattle, where we came from.

I am funding my 401K and still paying substantial amount of Child Support that ends this year. That will ease the budget quite a bit, but that being said, this is NOT a place to come if you want to get ahead, unless you are in the high paid tech sector.

I came here for the sunshine and weather and knew I would have to pay for it. Also, I cannot convince my husband to move back to Texas (where I grew up and we met).

[RMESMH]

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.

Great post.

I can afford to live in either area (I'm a Bay Area native who lives in the Houston metro). I disagree with how (in a governmental sense) California is run...from the state level, county level, and sometimes city/town level....the level of taxation, and far, far more importantly how those tax dollars are distributed, and the specific nature of the expenditures. Living in Texas, I can see the difference (I also like NV, FL, WA, and TN). I would never move back to California for such reasons alone...and would never move to NY, NJ, CT, etc. for the same reasons.

But that is how I feel, not the OP.

I may be wrong, but with your post above, I think you have captured the mindset of the OP and successfully fast forwarded it, which (IMO) gives the OP some insight. I think the OP should pay attention to your post above.

Some friends of my family made the same move the OP is considering, so that the wife could work with a past mentor. However, her salary alone was double what the OP and his wife hope to make together, and they also have income from investment properties in Texas, not to mention the husband's income once he adjusted his career a bit.

I live in The Woodlands. Last year (IIRC), while taking a shortcut, I drove by a house in one of the older areas of The Woodlands (similar to some parts of San Ramon). The house had been completely rehabbed, and was for sale.. I checked out the house on the Internet. Just out of curiosity. I did a similar search for San Ramon. I found a similar property. It was 5x the price. Yes, 5x the price.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

as in wealthy city that attracts people for jobs but not a major international hub.

It is #20 in the top 20 US cities in terms of the number of international tourists. Not as high on the list as SF but we're getting there.

https://skift.com/2014/06/18/20-most...elers-in-2013/

People are attracted to the greatness of Silicon Valley, and a major industry that drives the world is based here. So it is understandable that home prices would be comparable to London. It is a large, dense, developed and desirable city.

[mkdude_08]

Why do you want to leave Houston and move to California? Curious.

[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

It is #20 in the top 20 US cities in terms of the number of international tourists. Not as high on the list as SF but we're getting there.

https://skift.com/2014/06/18/20-most...elers-in-2013/

People are attracted to the greatness of Silicon Valley, and a major industry that drives the world is based here. So it is understandable that home prices would be comparable to London. It is a large, dense, developed and desirable city.

There are 18 cities higher up on this list than San Jose that are less expensive than San Jose, so this list does nothing to further your point. The reason San Jose itself is expensive doesn't have anything to do with how many international travelers it attracts.

But obviously it is an opinion whether San Jose is or is not of a certain caliber and it's futile to argue it. All I'll say is if you think San Jose is among one of the best cities in the world and it is affordable for you, then you are luckier than many who come here so kudos to you sir.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

Great post.

I can afford to live in either area (I'm a Bay Area native who lives in the Houston metro). I disagree with how (in a governmental sense) California is run...from the state level, county level, and sometimes city/town level....the level of taxation, and far, far more importantly how those tax dollars are distributed, and the specific nature of the expenditures.

Well, you are obviously right wing. California is run by the left wing. We prefer to live how we live over here. And Silicon Valley companies are massively successful; some of the most successful companies in the history of the world are based here. So California must be doing something right.

Unlike you I agree with California's politics, and I grew up here in Silicon Valley, so I can't imagine moving somewhere else. Seattle maybe, but not the surrounding state of Washington.

Many can afford to buy a SFH in San Jose, but I'm not one of them. It doesn't matter because I don't want a SFH. If I had the money I might buy a condo, but that's it. I'm fine with renting a room in a shared apartment.

And again, anywhere in the world, it is more expensive to live in the developed city than it is out in the countryside. But personally I would much rather live in London than I would in Wales, and I would much rather live in San Jose than Podunk, Mississippi. Obviously many other people agree with me, or the population of San Jose and San Francisco wouldn't be as high as they are.

Have fun out there in the middle of nowhere, rmesmh. I will stay here where it all happens.