Can middle class people really survive in the Bay Area? (Palo Alto: health insurance, job market)

[ryanthegoldengod]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

What an absolute load of crap! But why am I not surprised to see revisionist history in play here.

Yeah, Government had no involvement whatsoever in the financial crisis. Nope, no manipulation of interest rates, no subsidies or regulations involving housing, redlining never happened, and no, there wasn't any moral hazard promoting reckless financial policies. Nope, you can't make this stuff up.

Some people just can't beyond one sided, brainwashed politics and propaganda.

No worries though. The financial crisis has been talked to death so I won't be wasting pages upon pages arguing about it as it won't change a damn thing. Those who didn't panic are smelling like a rose right now and those who did panic and refused to purchase in what was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity are on forums whining that prices are too high. Continue on with the Henny Penny comments and I'll continue to watch SF turn into the land of elitism.

Oh I see. It was the government. Nothing whatsoever to do with bond market machinations through deliberately misleading credit default swaps. Thank you for the clarification, oh wise one. It's your world, the rest of us are just paying rent. (See what I did there?).

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by ryanthegoldengod

Oh I see. It was the government. Nothing whatsoever to do with bond market machinations through deliberately misleading credit default swaps. Thank you for the clarification, oh wise one. It's your world, the rest of us are just paying rent. (See what I did there?).

Nope didn't say that either (but I know you have a problem with comprehension). Unlike you, I don't sit there and blindly blame Capitalism when there was plenty of government involvement also. And do continue to try and make everyone believe that databases on government employees salaries are all wrong also (guess you need to make up things when your arguments keep getting eviscerated). No ulterior motive on your part, is there. Cue the Ad Hominem.

[ssmaster]

Just to be clear If you can't afford a home, live comfortably or save for retirement
The answer is not to make more money or move to a lower cost of living area.
The answer is to hope that as more rental units are built rents will come down?

This ignores developers have to be forced to build for the lower end market.
There appear to be a lot of people able to afford $5000 one bedrooms and $9500 single family homes and that's who landlords and developers want as their market not someone who is hoping to get locked into a rent control unit for the next 10-15 years.
They want someone who is going to eventually move out and purchase a $2-4 million home and then they can rent to someone else.

That SAN Francisco had to prohibit triplexes and duplexes being converted to single family homes is an indication of the ridiculous amount of money available in the housing market and the focus on the high end of the market

By the time those units are built there could be a lot more high income earners around needing units.

[ssmaster]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...isco-expansion

Facebook is leasing a new office tower in downtown SF in addition to the office tower at 181 Fremont.
Another post stated they average around $250,000 salary. They have to live somewhere
If not enough luxury units are built rents will go up.
And if you own a house in a desirable urban core Bay Area neighborhood your property values have just increased. Merry Christmas!

[Finper]

What's going on with that tower that's sinking?? Are people still living there? Are the condos being sold at a reduced price?

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

What an absolute load of crap! But why am I not surprised to see revisionist history in play here.

Yeah, Government had no involvement whatsoever in the financial crisis. Nope, no manipulation of interest rates, no subsidies or regulations involving housing, redlining never happened, and no, there wasn't any moral hazard promoting reckless financial policies. Nope, you can't make this stuff up.

Some people just can't beyond one sided, brainwashed politics and propaganda.

No worries though. The financial crisis has been talked to death so I won't be wasting pages upon pages arguing about it as it won't change a damn thing. Those who didn't panic are smelling like a rose right now and those who did panic and refused to purchase in what was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity are on forums whining that prices are too high. Continue on with the Henny Penny comments and I'll continue to watch SF turn into the land of elitism.

I'd say that your politics and propaganda are equally one-sided, if not more. I'd swear that you genuflect and grovel before your Capitolism statue at least five times a day..

[harrishawke]

The short answer is no.

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by MassVt

I'd say that your politics and propaganda are equally one-sided, if not more. I'd swear that you genuflect and grovel before your Capitolism statue at least five times a day..

Yawn

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."


Keep pounding that table

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

Of course firefighters and police make good money. And it's laughable that anyone would claim that these two groups would be run out of town when their income level is in the top 10% (if not 5%) of income earners in the country (hyperbole). Not sure what you're talking about regarding "benefits" as it's clearly labeled on the site (I am talking about column 4..."total pay", not column 6 "total pay with benefits"). I know people that have been on their site also and they claim it is very accurate on their pay. Not saying they couldn't have a mistake or two, but in general, I believe it's accurate (and other sources claim the validity of the high pay among firefighters and police).

I'm not saying it is inaccurate, just that you have to consider how it includes things like pension and benefits - which are nice to have, of course, but they don't help when it comes time to pay the rent. And while you might be looking at the details, many people just grab the TOTAL (with benefits) amount and use that against us. The Palo Alto Daily News does that every year, which inevitably leads to people asking us what we're complaining about! Sure, if I grossed $100K+ in actual salary, I would be just fine here as a single person. But in reality I get much less, which is what really matters in terms of budgeting our regular expenses.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

Watch out there Lockdev. That kind of logic will make some heads explode here (as it's apparent that many of them don't know how a market works).

Ironically, these type of Henny Penny "sky is falling" comments have been made for years to no avail. The Police and Firefighters certainly make enough so they're not going anywhere. And as you said for the rest of them, someone is taking these jobs. Most people I know don't give a rats ass in regards to the education in the city of San Francisco, because they know it's terrible (shy of one diamond in the rough with Lowell). They all send their kids to Parochial schools.

Eventually they WILL (do) have trouble filling those jobs, as evidenced by the increases in pay over the last 6-10 years... unfortunately the housing prices have increased more rapidly than the salaries, so we're getting to another point where things are too imbalanced. And with union jobs you have to wait for one (usually 3-year) contract to expire, before anything major like that can be adjusted. Will it ever balance out again? Who knows! But if it doesn't, they're going to see a lot of talented people retire or quit very soon.

All practical matters aside, is it worth losing good workers over a salary vs COL imbalance? Maybe there will be people ready to take those jobs regardless, but I'd rather keep the quality of applicants/employees over settling for "anyone who's desperate enough (or has other sources of income)." Especially when it comes to fields like education, where quality of the workers really should matter. Perhaps you disagree, though.

No one has a gun to your head. If the prices are too high...leave (screw the preferential treatment on jobs). As stated, there are certainly other "good" jobs that are just as honorable that don't get any breaks either.

First off, I'm not sure why you keep referring to "preferential treatment on jobs." Which jobs do you think are getting preferential treatment, and how do you define that? By "preference" do you mean a fair living wage for the position? Because if that's the measure, I would just call it PROPER treatment, which every job should get in relation to its specifications and value to society. If anyone is getting special treatment it's the tech workers, seeing as they make way more than other jobs with similar or higher requirements.

Finally, relocating is much easier said than done! When you're barely earning enough to stay afloat here, how do you save money for the move - let alone a cushion to tide you over, if you can't find a job before moving? I've been trying for years to find a practical way to do this, and so far have come up short (only one offer for a part-time lower-level position). It gets even more complicated if you have a spouse/partner, who also needs to find work before relocation. Have you ever relocated? If so, what was your situation before and after the move?