IS the cost of living really that extreme?!?! (San Jose, San Francisco: for sale, loan)

[neutrino78x]

Another example is Fire Island National Seashore. To get there from New York without a car takes a couple of trains and about two hours.

[04kL4nD]

No, SF is a large city. It's not nearly as big as NYC or Chicago, but it's got quite a number of people crammed together. Oakland is a medium sized city, as far as US standards go. Downtown and "central" Oakland are pretty urban, but it's quite the breath of fresh air compared to the chaos of SF. I know it's hard for some people to believe, but many Oaklanders actually prefer living in Oakland than SF. I get the point you're making, but don't try to speak on the behalf of EVERYONE. Some people like more of a balance than 100% urban excitement/insanity. And I know you and other people don't believe it, but NYC isn't just Manhattan or Brooklyn. It can take HOURS to get from one borough to the next.

And LOL at the Fire Island example. 2 hours worth of train rides is exactly what I'm talking about. I can be in a redwood forest in under 20 mins- 15 if I don't have to fight for parking. Hell, I can walk outside my apartment and walk for 15 mins and find a quiet/peaceful spot by Lake Merritt.

[ssmaster]

San Francisco is a great city but being your in mid 40's and renting a room and not being able to afford a car is not a comfortable lifestyle in my opinion.

And all the great nightlife ,restaurants and beautiful women in New York and London that neutrino x mentioned are probably being enjoyed more by the investment bankers and securities traders who live in financial centers NYC and London than the folks making $40 thousand.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

And LOL at the Fire Island example. 2 hours worth of train rides is exactly what I'm talking about. I can be in a redwood forest in under 20 mins- 15 if I don't have to fight for parking. Hell, I can walk outside my apartment and walk for 15 mins and find a quiet/peaceful spot by Lake Merritt.

Well, that would still be true if twice as many people lived in SF. And you can drive to Fire Island in an hour, the two hours is for people without a car.

New York City is actually surrounded by forest, if you want to drive to it. Upstate New York is a lot less dense. I went up there with some shipmates when I was at Sonar "A" School at Groton Naval Submarine Base in Groton, CT. We drove from there up to Ballston Spa where one of the Navy's nuclear reactor training facilities is (Official DoD page about it: MilitaryINSTALLATIONS - U.S. Department of Defense). I didn't really enjoy it that much because it turned out that all they wanted to do along the way was get drunk and stuff and they thought I would be into that, but actually I don't drink. The good thing was that I got to see a lot of the scenery in New York State.

So yeah, in pretty much any big city, you can drive a short distance and find the countryside.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

So yeah, in pretty much any big city, you can drive a short distance and find the countryside.

No, this actually isn't true at all. LOL

At any rate, I'm done quibbling with you over this.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

San Francisco is a great city but being your in mid 40's and renting a room and not being able to afford a car is not a comfortable lifestyle in my opinion.

Huh? A lot of people can afford a car and not a house in SF.

In a big city, middle class is not owning your own building and the land underneath. It is renting a room, or if you're upper middle, owning a condo, and if you're more successful than that, owning a big condo, or maybe your own building if you're rich.

You can go live out in the middle of nowhere and have your own building...but if you want to do anything, you will have to leave your building and drive in your car for 10 miles or 100 miles or more. Plus there won't be as much competition for jobs, so won't advance very much professionally beyond getting to the level where you can buy that building in the middle of nowhere. I guess some would prefer that, but I want to have things to do that are closer. It's also a lot easier on the environment when human creations are kept in a small area and the rest is left in a natural state.

And all the great nightlife ,restaurants and beautiful women in New York and London that neutrino x mentioned are probably being enjoyed more by the investment bankers and securities traders who live in financial centers NYC and London than the folks making $40 thousand.

No, in a big city, there are bars frequented by blue collar people and other bars frequented by white collar people. That's why they call it "cosmopolitan", derived from "cosmos", meaning that all types of people live in a large cosmopolitan city like San Jose, San Francisco or New York.

[ssmaster]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

In a big city, middle class is not owning your own building and the land underneath. It is renting a room, or if you're upper middle, owning a condo, and if you're more successful than that, owning a big condo, or maybe your own building if you're rich.

This is wrong. The trappings and characteristics of middle class and upper middle class LIFESTYLES are the same all over america. What changes is the amount of money needed to achieve that lifestyle.

When you go to a cost of living calculator it says : this is how much money you will need to make to maintain your lifestyle.

If you make $50,000 in San Francisco but live the same lifestyle as someone making $25'000 in Fresno,well you are living a working class lifestyle albiet in a much hipper place.
If you are single you can convince yourself that's not the case however if you have a child reality rears it ugly head.if your cannot afford private schoole and 12 your old daughter is going to school with kids who live in housing project or whose parents are in gangs you realize you are not living a middle class lifestyle.which is why San Francisco has the smallest percentage of children of any city in the USA .

I don't believe renting a room is middle class lifestyle in San Francisco or Fresno .

You also mentioned the restaurants and beautiful women. I don't think think blue collar folks are going to places like NOBU and hanging out with 40 something investment bankers and securities traders and having the same dating life.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

That's why they call it "cosmopolitan", derived from "cosmos", meaning that all types of people live in a large cosmopolitan city like San Jose

San Jose ≠ cosmopolitan city.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

This is wrong. The trappings and characteristics of middle class and upper middle class LIFESTYLES are the same all over america. What changes is the amount of money needed to achieve that lifestyle.

Certainly not. There are only 4 or 5 single family homes on the island of Manhattan. Clearly, a middle class person in Manhattan would not own their own building and the land underneath. To do that you must live away from a major city where the property values are lower.

I don't believe renting a room is middle class lifestyle in San Francisco or Fresno .

Well then explain why people who make $100k rent rooms in San Jose. The median income in San Jose is $80k or something like that. You cannot afford a single family home at that income in San Jose. Therefore, a middle class lifestyle in San Jose does not involve owning a single family home.

I don't think think blue collar folks are going to places like NOBU and hanging out with 40 something investment bankers and securities traders and having the same dating life.

No, they are going to bars in areas where blue collar people live within the big city, and meeting women who go to those bars (if they go to bars to meet women).

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by jade408

San Jose ≠ cosmopolitan city.

It's very cosmopolitan. It has people who make minimum wage sharing bedrooms and also condos that sell for two million dollars. And it is racially diverse also. So I think that's cosmopolitan.