Feedback on moving back to the Bay Area from Sacramento (San Jose: apartment complex, home)

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Actually, you are the one who is misinterpreting that number.

If they earn 53% of what other commuters earn, they are definitely not poor. That would make them middle class. Poor would be, say, 15%.

I'm not sure why you want to convince yourself that transit is beneath you. Lots of people with a similar job ride transit.

What, you're proud of driving in bumper to bumper traffic at 0.01 mph? My commute takes about two hours (to go 20 miles from work), but you see....I'm not driving. I'm not stressed out, I can do other stuff, I can take a nap if I want. Whereas you have to concentrate on driving.

100% is the middle.

If middle = 80K, 100% of 80K = 80K.

50% of 80K = 40K.

That statistic is showing that the average riders on SJ-area transit make 53% of the average (0.53 * whatever the average is).

Some areas of the Bay Area actually are in the opposite situation: average income of transit riders is above average for the area (i.e. they seem to attract more affluent riders). This is likely driven by BART/Transbay bus service to SF (where transit is most efficient/makes the most financial sense).

[sav858]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Actually, you are the one who is misinterpreting that number.

If they earn 53% of what other commuters earn, they are definitely not poor. That would make them middle class. Poor would be, say, 15%.

I'm not sure why you want to convince yourself that transit is beneath you. Lots of people with a similar job ride transit.

What, you're proud of driving in bumper to bumper traffic at 0.01 mph? My commute takes about two hours (to go 20 miles from work), but you see....I'm not driving. I'm not stressed out, I can do other stuff, I can take a nap if I want. Whereas you have to concentrate on driving.

I also said "or LOWER middle class, did you miss that part?

WTF are you talking about? I already said I take transit to work everyday. How am I trying to convince myself transit is beneath me if I take it everyday? How am I sitting in bumper to bumper traffic when I take transit?

Clearly transit is beneath your average commuter in San Jose considering how much poorer your average PT user is there. That is what I was pointing out, do you understand now?

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

100% is the middle.

That's not how I read it. 100 would be average, as opposed to median (middle).

Difference Between Average and Median | Difference Between

For sav858 to be right, the figure would have to be 15% or so. As it stands, it seems that the average rider of transit in Silicon Valley is middle class.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by sav858

I also said "or LOWER middle class, did you miss that part?

lol...but the tone of your statement implied that you viewed lower middle class as not being part of middle class, which is not correct.

WTF are you talking about? I already said I take transit to work everyday. How am I trying to convince myself transit is beneath me if I take it everyday?

You keep trying to tell me that most people who ride it are poor. In other words you look down at people riding it.

How am I sitting in bumper to bumper traffic when I take transit?

You're advocating for people to do that rather than ride transit in Silicon Valley.

Clearly transit is beneath your average commuter in San Jose

lol you just proved my point.

The average commuter does perceive it as being beneath them, I agree. But I would rather ride transit than drive for my commute.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Go back and read again. The very first link provided you want. Brookings says that San Jose is one of the most financially and economically influential regions in the world.

You mean this:

"San Jose ranks 10th on Cities of the Future North American rankings, which measure the future economic prospects of global cities. In that same publication, San Jose ranks fourth for economic potential, sixth for human resources, and 10th for quality of life. On measures of global firm connectivity, San Jose was measured a "Gamma+" – or eighth-tier – global city by researchers at the Globalization and World Cities Research Network based on connectivity to multinational advanced services firms"

I like how your source is citing another source that I used that you said wasn't credible! LOL.

Anyways, it still doesn't show what other cities ranks next to and what cities they are looking at. National worldwide? And it's mainly about economics, outside of that San Jose really has nothing of significance, certainly not culture.


Two of those rankings are about it's "potential" too, not current state. Ranking behind Houston, congrats lol.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

lol...but the tone of your statement implied that you viewed lower middle class as not being part of middle class, which is not correct.

You keep trying to tell me that most people who ride it are poor. In other words you look down at people riding it.

You're advocating for people to do that rather than ride transit in Silicon Valley.

lol you just proved my point.

The average commuter does perceive it as being beneath them, I agree. But I would rather ride transit than drive for my commute.

That's just your overly sensitive interpretation. I used the word "middle class" but the middle class is a broad category that I narrowed down. I would define middle class as the median HH income. Anything significantly below that, which 53% of would be, is lower middle class and below (aka "poor").

In San Jose they are poorer than your average commuter, not where I live though. Or other cities in the Bay Area.

I'm not advocating anything, I'm simply stating FACTS. You have a bizarre way of reading into statements way too much and pulling BS out of it. How the hell am I advocating people shouldn't use transit? I simply stated that in San Jose most do not. It would be great if more people used transit, but because it's such a pain in that sprawl suburban mess that is Silicon Valley many don't.

Your point has no basis. I simply stated a fact about transit in San Jose.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by sav858

You mean this:

"San Jose ranks 10th on Cities of the Future North American rankings, which measure the future economic prospects of global cities.

Right, in other words we are in the same pantheon as Paris and London. Removing Silicon Valley would be a disaster for the world economy.

outside of that San Jose really has nothing of significance, certainly not culture.

What are we missing that the rest of the Bay Area has? We have museums, ballet, symphony, live theater. What, because we don't have the Golden Gate we therefore have no culture? We can't have large buildings because of the airport approach pattern, but what we have are beautiful buildings like the headquarters of Adobe, and the Basilica of St. Joseph, and the Buddhist Society in East San Jose.

There is a strong multicultural society in Silicon Valley, as in the rest of the Bay Area. Latinos, Indians, Asians, middle easterners and African-Americans are all present and contributing.

You don't find this to the same extent in Denver. You would have to go to another real city, like New York, London, Paris, or Tokyo.

Two of those rankings are about it's "potential" too, not current state. Ranking behind Houston, congrats lol.

Ranking approximately that of New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by sav858

I'm not advocating anything, I'm simply stating FACTS.

No, you think Silicon Valley transit is not sufficient and therefore no one should use it.

But all of this is really off topic for the thread. The thread says BAY AREA not necessarily Silicon Valley.

I personally love Silicon Valley. I would never move to Sacramento. But if you prefer San Francisco to Silicon Valley, you can substitute San Francisco in your mind whenever I say Silicon Valley in this thread. We're supposed to be talking about which is preferable between Sacramento and The Bay Area. Silicon Valley is one part of the Bay Area. There are other parts.

[neutrino78x]

London Telegraph is quoting this list from Forbes and places the Bay Area (including Silicon Valley) as the 10th most influential city in the world, alongside London and Paris.

In pictures: the ten most influential cities in the world according to Forbes - Telegraph

Most sites which make these lists are not credible and are just basing them on tourist attractions etc. which is why I didn't list any of them before. The London Telegraph is very credible, though.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Right, in other words we are in the same pantheon as Paris and London. Removing Silicon Valley would be a disaster for the world economy.

Um London and Paris are not in North America lol.

What are we missing that the rest of the Bay Area has?

Culture, vibrancy, urbanity, etc...for starters

Ranking approximately that of New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc.

You don't even know what cities are on those lists, you just assume based on your wishful thinking that San Jose is on the level of Paris.

And again since you want to give credit to those studies in the Brookings article, then here is what cities San Jose ranks with according the GaWC:

Valencia (SP), Glasgow, San Jose (US), San Juan, Marseille, Cincinnatti, Guadalajara, Leeds, Baku, Tallinn, Vilnius, Colombo, Raleigh, Ankara, Belfast, Milwaukee, Muscat, Ljubljana