Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-06-2010, 12:06 AM
 
1,650 posts, read 3,519,120 times
Reputation: 1142

Advertisements

Compare someone earning 60K in Dallas to 100K in the Bay. The person in Dallas is wealthier and lives a better lifestyle.

> And the definition of better lifestyle is what? A large house that cost $400 a month to heat or cool, surrounded by cracked concrete pavements and closest entertainment being a strip-mall with a gas station, 7-11, fast food restaurants and drive through ATMs? I lived in Dallas and it is cheap and thats that! You really have to define what you mean by a better lifestyle.

 
Old 01-06-2010, 12:41 AM
 
2,957 posts, read 6,475,685 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayDude View Post
The folks here will continue to live in la-la land no matter how many 3rd world folks move in, rents and house prices go up, taxes and fees go up, schools and roads suck etc. Thats just the nature of the people in this area. Its the same stubborn liberalism and political correctness and never changes or responds to reality, economy or any other stimuli. They've pretty much shut reality out. The value proposition of the Bay Area is just not like it used to be and they refuse to acknowlege any changes.

In short, they're delusional.

Texas is adding 150,000+ people per year! The fastest growing state in the country and it has a 8.2% unemployment rate compared to Californias dismal 12%. California is actually losing net population even as masses of immigrants move in. The value proposition Texas has is clear and people are ofcourse voting with their feet like always. Many of them from California, including the Bay Area-ites (maybe even some wealthy ex-elites thrown in, escaping the high tax burden).

And contrary to what the elites will say, Texas does have wine-tasting, nice scenery etc. Added to that the COL and you have a no-brainer. But don't tell the obvious to the coastal california elites on this sub-forum. They desire to deny and evade reality as always.
I find it hilarious that you would talk all this mess about Bay Area people and how awful CA is, yet you spend all this time trolling a Bay Area forum. And you actually think your opinion is somehow valid? Talk about delusional. LOL.

You're pathetic, and the fact that you would dedicate so much time to being a nuisance in this forum speaks volumes about you as a person. If CA sucks so much why aren't you doing everything you possibly can to distance yourself from it? You're actually OPTING to interact with Californians in your personal spare time. You're a joke LOL.
 
Old 01-06-2010, 12:44 AM
 
2,957 posts, read 6,475,685 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo View Post
Wow, you really know nothing at all about the Bay Area do you? Let me see if I understand you correctly; One the one hand, the Bay Area is too expensive to live in. But on the other hand, everyone is living a third world lifestyle??? WTF? LOL I get the feeling that you are simply not able to make it in the BA so, it must be the Bay Area's fault as far as you're concerned. Some of the highest income communities are located in the BA so I cannot understand what you're calling third world? You make the BA sound like Mississippi or something LOL.

Also when I mentioned Detroit, you missed my point entirely, doesn't surprise me but you missed it. What I was referring to was the fact that you said the BA is emptying out. That people are leaving in droves. This can't be. If that were the case, there would be whole neighborhoods with nothing but deserted houses and business. Not just one or two here and there, but entire deserted communities. That is what happened in Detroit. Is this clear now?
You hit the nail on the head!
 
Old 01-06-2010, 12:47 AM
 
2,957 posts, read 6,475,685 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by bay090 View Post
Bay Area is too expensive for the vast majority of people who live here. High income communities? Mexico City has lots of high income communities too. So?

Not make it? hah, I make more than what most people make in the San Francisco, so no.

Let me make it clear. To those in the middle class, i.e. the vast majority of the people who live here, our standards of living are far below that of the cities people are fleeing here for.

If you are very wealthy, ANYWHERE is inhabitable. Rich people can live great lives anywhere...even Baghdad. It's like Moscow, a few rich and a very large poor population. But truly wealthy people are a very tiny minority of the people who live here. This was never about rich people, this is about the AVERAGE person as in, the majority of people who live here. Read the title of the thread.

The average person here lives lousy compared to other cities in the US. That's why everyone is running for the hills aka places in the south! Many people I know want out too, but this is a very transient city too so most leave quickly regardless.
Last time I checked CA was the most populous state by a wide margin.

Maybe its time for you to put the crack pipe down.
 
Old 01-06-2010, 12:49 AM
 
2,957 posts, read 6,475,685 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmaster View Post
compared to other cities it does cost more to live an upscale lifestyle in the bay area.if the OP thought he would be living "le dolce vida" in san francisco on $120,000/yr i am sorry he did not do more research before relocating.
I'm not, nor am I surprised. He sounds like a bitter, negative person and he deserves to hate his life. I'm glad he came here and found nothing but misery. He brought this on himself anyways. Lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmaster View Post
that said the bay area has a lot of things going for it to help ease the sting of the high cost of living.great sailing weather,access to winter sports in tahoe,great restaurants,world class symphony ,plays,ballet,musuems ,very tolerant and diverse.etc.
It sure does, and if this is all wasted on a handful of idiots who don't know how to enjoy life then their loss is our gain. I wish we could be completely rid of all these types of people. Let them wallow in their misery and small-mindedness.
 
Old 01-06-2010, 12:50 AM
 
2,957 posts, read 6,475,685 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
The short version: The state wastes it.

Here's a slightly longer version:

A lot of the money is being blown on over generous pensions for public sector workers. I work in the public sector. Unlike most public sector workers, I choose not to live in denial of financial reality. The pension benfits promised most public sector workers are not sustainable.

The state also blows a lot of other money. We have a lot of illegal immigrants who don't contribute much to the tax base but take a lot in services (especially, but not limited to, the schools). The state makes little or no effort to deport illegal immigrants or deny them services. (Yes, I know it's a Federal issue. But lets be honest, other states work harder to find ways to discourage illegal immigrantion than CA does.

The state also expanded eligibility for state sponsored health care coverage for lower income people in the late 1990s without a long term way to fund it. Since health care costs have been going up at double the rate of inflation for decades, it's hardly a surprise that the costs of this keep mounting.

In general, California's legislature (and much of the populace) thinks the answer to solving problems is by spending more money, instead of changing/streamlining the way services are delivered.
As opposed to the lunacy displayed by the OP, this is a realistic criticism of things that are wrong with the state. I have no beef whatsoever with someone speaking truth like this. If only the haters knew how to come across rational people might actually take them seriously. Of course if they had that capability it would be highly unlikely they would be so hateful in the first place!
 
Old 01-06-2010, 12:54 AM
 
30,897 posts, read 36,958,653 times
Reputation: 34526
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Uh, no.
Many areas in East Oakland would be considered rich by third world standards. Maxwell Park, Frick, Merritt, Laurel etc.

Even many areas considered ghetto in Oakland, if they were suddenly uprooted and plopped in the middle of Rio, would be considered wealthier than average.

The entire stretch of Bancroft from High Street all the way to the border of San Leandro(that's actually a huge area) would be well above average for Latin America.

Furthermore, Im referring more to the creature comforts many people enjoy even in poorer urban areas. A Cadillac Escalade for example would be only driven by a Multi-Millionaire in Brazil, is common in East Oakland. Same goes for Mercedes, Jaguar, Lexus and so on.

The US may have its poor areas, but poor in the first world is very different from poor in the third world.
Allow me to remind you of what you said in your previous post and what I was responding to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
East Oakland's worst would be considered wealthy and upscale by third world standards.

You're saying/implying middle class people in 3rd world countries would want to live in East Oakland's WORST neighborhoods...(not just any neighborhood in East Oakland). I'm saying "No, they wouldn't". We're not comparing 3rd World slum with 1st world slum here. We're comparing 3rd World middle class with 1st World slum. Big difference.


As far as luxury cars goes, my answer is...."who the hell cares?". They really contribute nothing to a perseon's well being. And in Brazil, (as in most other countries in the world except the US), you can actually get places without having to drive...and in other parts of the world, that's considered a good thing. Cars, while certainly useful for some things, have become an expensive pain in the *ss and long ago reached the point where they began detracting from our quality of life instead of adding to it. That is especially true because in many places there is no viable alternative to driving, effectively forcing people into owning them.

Last edited by mysticaltyger; 01-06-2010 at 01:03 AM..
 
Old 01-06-2010, 12:56 AM
 
2,957 posts, read 6,475,685 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by eon-krate32 View Post
How about Colorado? Minus the coastline/beaches Colorado has everything you listed and more. More being less pollution, less overcrowded cities, less deterioration of natural scenery, less population...the list goes on.

Or perhaps Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington State and Oregon?
Are you actually being serious here in trying to compare all the natural beauty of CA to what exists in Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia?? LMFAO!! There is SOME beauty in every single state in this country, but few can even come close to rivaling CA. I can vouch for VA being pretty, but its not even in the same league, let alone ballpark, as CA. (And I've driven all over VA several times, from VA Beach to Williamsburg to NoVa to Blacksburg.) All of those states are a fraction of the size of CA, and CA has beauty in abundance from end to end. And Washington and Oregon are like extensions of the northern quarter of CA anyway.
 
Old 01-06-2010, 01:11 AM
 
2,957 posts, read 6,475,685 times
Reputation: 1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyadhi01 View Post
I am highly qualified to comment on this because I recently moved from Dallas,TX to San Francisco,CA. I agree with some comments of the poster but not all. So here is my take:

Bay area cons:
1. Extremely overpriced housing and very crappy quality of housing. Housing in bay area is very third world like. No modern ammenities or appliances, poor structural quality, generally shabby and basically ugly compared to house/apartments in Texas.
2. The physical infrastructure like roads, highways etc are very third world in bay area. Dare I say that any modern city in a poor country like India or China will have better roads and highways. For whatever reason CA cannot build anything that looks nice!
3. People look poor in the bay area.
4. Over-reaching government that regulates everything.

Pros of the bay area:
1. How does the quality of housing really matter? Does your 3000 sq. ft house in the middle of nowhere in Plano, TX really make you happy? You may not have a large backyard in San Francisco but you have excellent parks and outdoor places that are way nicer than your large backyard in Texas. Within 1 hr of driving from anywhere in the bay area you have extraordinarily beautiful scenery, mountains, beaches, redwood forests, wineries, hiking and biking trails. If you are not in to outdoors, you will not like bay area.
2. If you go out to eat what is more important? an upscale ambiance of the restaurant or the taste of the food? In Dallas the ambiance will be upscale but very vanilla. In San Francisco, the ambiance might be crappy but the food will taste excellent.
3. Unlike what the poster said, bay area is not full of poor immigrants. In fact, Texas is full of uneducated and low-skill immigrants. Bay area is full of highly educated professional immigrants from Asia who are very wealthy and influential in the bay area. If you don't like wealthy minorities, please move to some redneck paradise in the south.
4. People in the bay area are less pretentious and materialistic compared to Texas. Thats why they don't look too rich. But I can gurantee that most of these folks can afford nice cars and expensive clothes if they want to, but they chose to save money and not live in debt. People in the bay area are usually frugal and well-balanced in their life-style.
5. This is the big surprise! San Francisco is very affordable if you forget about rent. I moved here from Texas and I noticed other than the apartment rent and cost of processed food in grocery store everything costs same or less in San Francisco. My higher salary in SF compensates for the rent. You just have to know where to shop and be more open to living like the local immigrant population.

I like many things about the bay area and also dislike many things. I still compare everything with Texas. But overall, even with the poor infrastructure, crappy economy, unemployment and all, people in CA seem very happy and content with their surroundings. People also seem better educated and way more progressive here in CA.

I hate moving to SF from Dallas from time to time, but then once in a week I wake up to a beautiful, fog-less, sunny morning...and I see the blue pacific from my living room and the ships getting in the bay...the hills and the colorful houses...and I can tell you for that very moment I feel nothing but very happy and humbled that I live in this beautiful and majestic place.
Very good post and I appreciate your perspectives, but I have a couple of questions about some of the cons:

"1. Extremely overpriced housing and very crappy quality of housing. Housing in bay area is very third world like. No modern ammenities or appliances, poor structural quality, generally shabby and basically ugly compared to house/apartments in Texas."

Where are you talking about specifically? You used a pretty broad brush here and there are many places in the Bay Area that don't fit your description. Obviously I'm sure you aren't referring to our very affluent communities like Hillsborough or Atherton, but were you thinking more specifically about SF and Daly City? Just curious, because there are plenty of places that have the modern amenities you claim are lacking, such as Milpitas and American Canyon.

"3. People look poor in the bay area."

Not sure what this exactly means, especially with TX being your barometer for comparison. Poor people look poor, but all the yuppies and soccer moms definitely do not. So I'm just wondering if you could elaborate.
 
Old 01-06-2010, 01:39 AM
 
1,650 posts, read 3,519,120 times
Reputation: 1142
"1. Extremely overpriced housing and very crappy quality of housing. Housing in bay area is very third world like. No modern ammenities or appliances, poor structural quality, generally shabby and basically ugly compared to house/apartments in Texas."

Where are you talking about specifically? You used a pretty broad brush here and there are many places in the Bay Area that don't fit your description. Obviously I'm sure you aren't referring to our very affluent communities like Hillsborough or Atherton, but were you thinking more specifically about SF and Daly City? Just curious, because there are plenty of places that have the modern amenities you claim are lacking, such as Milpitas and American Canyon.

> Yes I was referring to SF city in particular. In the city the rent does not seem to have any correlation with the quality. You can pay 2K a month for an one bedroom and still may not have a dishwasher, parking spot, centralized heat etc. The quality of house/apartments in the city is undeniably very third-world like. This is also true in south bay. I have seen people with 2 six figure income families live in apartments that someone making 50K in Dallas would not even bother looking into. Its not just apartment buildings, the interior, quality of appliances inside etc. are very poor in the bay area. Pardon me if it sounds like exaggeration, but some of the subsidized low income apartments in Dallas look way nicer than most apartments in the bay area. This is a fact! Somehow, the high income in the area does not translate to modern, good quality housing. This is my biggest gripe about the bay area. With all the money and technology I just don't get why people accept very poor housing quality. Most people here seem completely clueless that apartments can actually look nice, shiny and classy. You have to see Texas to realize why bay area housing looks so third-world. This also applies to pretty much every building like stores, office buildings, which also look really shabby compared to anything in Texas.

"3. People look poor in the bay area."

Not sure what this exactly means, especially with TX being your barometer for comparison. Poor people look poor, but all the yuppies and soccer moms definitely do not. So I'm just wondering if you could elaborate.

> If you compare say the Marina neighborhood in SF with a similar yuppie neighborhood in Dallas, the one in Dallas definitely looks wealthier. I do not know why this is the case, but SF seems to have a very high proportion of shabbily dressed people with junky cars (or no cars) regardless of their income level. I guess it is a life-style issue! It is not necessarily a bad thing but when it comes to fashionable people, SF is definitely not going to be in the top of the list.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top