San Francisco's Rent Hits a New Peak of $3,690, Highest in the US (cnet.com) 314
An anonymous reader shares a report: The median rent for a one bedroom apartment in San Francisco has reached a new peak of $3,690, according to survey data from Zumper, a home and apartment rental app. That's also a rise of nearly 9 percent from the same time last year, the survey found. Not only are those figures high enough to make your bank account cringe, but they're also nearly 30 percent higher than New York City and more than double the prices in Miami. Seattle, home to Amazon and Microsoft, rang in at $1,970 and Washington, DC, hit $2,150.
Oh, and by the way, while San Francisco's prices rose, the median price of one bedroom apartments across the US dropped nearly half a percent during this same time. That means while San Francisco's prices climbed, the country's prices fell. "Though there may be a ton of cash flowing through the city and surrounding areas soon, many of these workers will not immediately invest in a home and may, instead, take their money to both travel and upgrade their rental situation," Zumper wrote in a blog post Thursday.
Oh, and by the way, while San Francisco's prices rose, the median price of one bedroom apartments across the US dropped nearly half a percent during this same time. That means while San Francisco's prices climbed, the country's prices fell. "Though there may be a ton of cash flowing through the city and surrounding areas soon, many of these workers will not immediately invest in a home and may, instead, take their money to both travel and upgrade their rental situation," Zumper wrote in a blog post Thursday.
This isn't hard to solve. (Score:5, Insightful)
If your tech company cannot support remote work in the year 2019, then you're working for the wrong damn tech company.
There's only one way you're going to get prices to revert to semi-reasonable levels in the Bay area; stop feeding that fucking stupidity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This isn't hard to solve. (Score:5, Insightful)
If your tech company cannot support remote work in the year 2019, then you're working for the wrong damn tech company.
Isn't this the damn truth. I drive 30 minutes to work every day, to sit in a office, and manage 6,500 virtual machines all around the world. I don't have to touch hardware any where because we rent space in data centers where they have their own tech-monkies do the hands on. I can do my job from my home just as well as the office. Hell, I can do it from the Starbucks down the road, or even the Starbucks mens room if I needed too.
The only reason that most of us have to drive in is because we have to many PHB that don't understand the how the technical infrastructure works.
Re:This isn't hard to solve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some tech companies don't like you checking your email about 10:00 AM. Let's see wake up in pajamas. Watch some youtube videos, maybe twitter a bit. Maybe some early morning pr0n. Go to lunch. Check some more email about 1:00 PM. Watch some more pr0n. Maybe send some twitters out. Check some more emails. Stop doing anything related to work around 3:00 PM. This is what most work at home tech workers do. Productivity goes to hell yet these types of people manage to stay on the payrolls for months before they are weeded out. Then the cycle continues,
Trying to preach the problems of managing remote workers is like trying to preach the problems of raising a 2-year old. Nothing is a surprise anymore, and if you haven't figured out yet how to properly manage an employee and hold them accountable, then it doesn't really matter how far away they are; you've already proven to be an incompetent manager.
Re: (Score:2)
Managing isn't easy. Few if any are ever trained on how to do it properly. Most managers get a starter job, show they are good at that job, and get promoted to managing others without any expertise on how to do it. At best, they are sent to a 1-2 day manager boot camp. This is especially true for tech managers.
Think about high school and college. How much of your education was spent on learning to be an effective manager? Especially for managing others. I never had a formal class address that for a single s
Re: (Score:2)
The _worst_ managers have degrees in management. I blame the frontal lobotomy givin business majors, the follow up electroshock for MBAs.
The problem isn't the things they don't know, it's the wrong things they think they know. Management training is largely a bad joke. Incompetents training the ignorant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"This is what most work at home tech workers do."
Citation needed. And while you are researching that, compare it with the do-nothings who show up to an office.
Every employee needs to meet certain productivity levels, local or remote, if you're managing properly.
I've been working remotely for a decade and am one of the most productive people on the team. The company doesn't have to pay for office space for me which saves a lot of money over time.
There are a number of books on the subject if you'd like to l
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Some tech companies don't like you checking your email about 10:00 AM. Let's see wake up in pajamas. Watch some youtube videos, maybe twitter a bit. Maybe some early morning pr0n. Go to lunch. Check some more email about 1:00 PM. Watch some more pr0n. Maybe send some twitters out. Check some more emails. Stop doing anything related to work around 3:00 PM. This is what most work at home tech workers do. Productivity goes to hell yet these types of people manage to stay on the payrolls for months before they are weeded out. Then the cycle continues,
Obviously you've never worked remotely. Or maybe you did, and that is how you "worked", and you still don't know why you got fired.
I worked remotely for a while - best job I ever had. Great teamwork, and everyone busted their ass to get the work done. We were the best of four help desks, and the one with the most remote workers. The other three help desk sent their unfixables to us, and we fixed all of it. BUT - when it came time to cut costs, which help desk got shut down? Ours, of course! Because we were
Re: (Score:2)
For many young people city living is far more desirable than remote work. Cities offer a wide variety of social, entertainment, cultural and educational opportunities. My own view is that any sufficiently talented young person is foolish for not trying to make it in a big city.
You're right. Cities do offer a wide variety of social, entertainment, cultural and educational opportunities.
That's also why we built them fucking everywhere. Remote work doesn't mean that remote.
Bubble burst in 3 ... 2 ... 1.5 ... 1.25 ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect a bubble or two will pop and rents will be almost normal again. For example, the revenue received by AI companies does not justify the investment money pouring into them compared to other industry returns. Either they will start spewing forth great products soon, or investors will get a clue and pop the bubble. We are overdue for a general market and economy correction anyhow, AI aside.
Re: (Score:2)
You know nothing about business. Chewy has been growing for years now. You're a moron.
I've been growing for years now, middle age and all, but Chewbacca is the same size as always.
Re: (Score:2)
So did Pets.com, you fucking genius.
You must like their 'burn to book ratio'. I suggest you invest your life savings, in a single share.
It's beyond ridiculous anywhere in California (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
An honest question. Why don't you consider moving out of the Cites to more Suburban or Rural areas. Are those areas cheaper, and you will just need to increase your commute. I live in Upstate New York, and the cost to Live in the nearby cities, is very high, so I live 30 miles out where I have a good sized home and property. It does take me an hour to get to work, but the higher quality of life, seems to counter act having two hours each day on the road.
Oh My God! (Score:5, Informative)
I love this little nugget from the article:
>>Add in the fact that there isn't enough housing to go around, and prices have naturally skyrocketed. The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development said last year that a family of four earning up to $117,400 qualified as "low income" in the city.
You got to be kidding me!! That town needs to slide into the ocean. That is nuts! SMH
Re:Oh My God! (Score:4, Insightful)
Where's is the rent is too damn high guy? (Score:5, Funny)
Remember the guy who ran for NYC mayor on the sole platform of "The rent is too damn high!" Perhaps he should move San Francisco?
Most expensive? Or most unaffordable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Something is out of whack; there are empty houses in the Rust Belt, yet not enough housing in CA. Whenever an industry fades, we throw entire communities under the bus, to be burned at the Altar of Capitalism. We don't just punish individuals for picking the wrong industry at the wrong time, we punish entire regions. Is there no way to rebalance the Country? Should we "just accept" this silliness?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, something is out of whack. The economy is going strong but only at Wall St area and Silicon Valley. Everyone in between is declining. PBS documentary highlighted Dayton OH where population has dropped 50% what it used to be back in the days, manufacturing including NCR have offshored, downtown is modern but ***no traffic***, coroner's office getting overloaded with bodies from drug overdoses, people that are still there making much less and no benefits like they had before.
Yep, same place where Trump
Re:Most expensive? Or most unaffordable? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's a terrible system (or lack of a system), so I vote to change it, and I'm going to continue to vote to change the system until I eventually leave the country for somewhere more civilized.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there no way to rebalance the Country?
Occasionally a region is hit hard by a decline in the industry that supported them (coal mining, automobile manufacturing, etc.), but despite the headlines, those are rare events and are solved by people moving away and finding work elsewhere. And sometimes the region recovers by finding another industry (e.g. Pittsburgh after the steel mills closed). Life goes on.
Real estate is becoming .... (Score:5, Interesting)
... the true scarce resource.
Same thing here in Germany. Prices are rising and there seems no end to it. I expect this to get worse with climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect this to get worse with climate change.
If sea levels displace the ridiculous coastal cities, it may well cause land values in unpopular flyover country to go way up, but likely to something still a lot lower than the current big coastal cities. Why do we need to live in big cities on the coast, again? Al those jobs in heavy industry that needs water-based shipping?
Re:Real estate is becoming .... (Score:5, Informative)
Because that's where all of the other educated people live. If you're 100% anti-social, and you don't leave your house, and all you care about is money, by all means, move to the middle of nowhere. That's a great option for a person like that. But if you care to interact with other people, and do interesting things involving other people, you probably want to live on the coasts for now, because that's where the greatest concentration of educated people live.
No, it would get better (Score:2)
Prices are rising and there seems no end to it. I expect this to get worse with climate change.
If the Earth is getting warming it would mean a lot of Northern areas that are currently more undesirable to live in would have a better climate.
What that means is vastly more livable land areas than the relatively tiny amount of coast lost fo rising oceans.
If you really think the world is warming the smart move is to buy real estate somewhere overly cold now and reap the benefits later.
Simple solution, live there only if it pays off. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see a problem. There are other places to live. I don't have urban problems because I refuse to live in a city. I planned my career to avoid them.
If you're smart enough to succeed, you're smart enough to succeed elsewhere. You cannot have affordable housing in many cities. Understand what you cannot have then focus on what you can accomplish.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that's in doubt. Highly educated people generally can succeed anywhere. The question is, do you want to succeed in the middle of nowhere? Personally, I don't. I like great universities and great museums and great restaurants. All of those things are generally concentrated in and near large cities or metro areas.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, do you want to succeed in the middle of nowhere? Personally, I don't. I like great universities and great museums and great restaurants. All of those things are generally concentrated in and near large cities or metro areas.
Same. Besides, some parts of the country are not capable of supporting certain industries. For instance, reliable internet is not available in many rural areas. It would be hard to find certain jobs in the first place.
Social mobility is a big promise of the American Dream. For some that's the Great Plains and for others it's the Big Apple. I wouldn't mind moving to Manhattan - allegedly a recruiter promises me I could get a job tomorrow if I made the move up there. However, by the time I could afford to
I have the solution! (Score:2, Funny)
The median rent for a one bedroom apartment in San Francisco has reached a new peak of $3,690
San Francisco needs to immediately implement a rent control ordinance to stop the rent prices from shooting up so much.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're being sarcastic.
Because rent control only sounds like a good idea until you realize that it is fully able to keep the price of rent below that of mortgage + tax. When landlords cannot collect sufficient rent to pay property taxes or mortgages, you can image what happens next.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Rent control as practiced in SF, Berkeley, etc has absolutely added to the increased price. I know of multiple apartment units on my street that are vacant or only occasionally airbnb'd because the owners are older, their property taxes are like $1000/year, and they aren't willing to risk renting their until for what could be the rest of their lives. Literally they are forgoing $36k per year in income because the rights of the renter are so absolute in SF, the risk isn't worth it. So those rent controlle
Re: (Score:2)
What happens next is that their best out is to sell the rental house, but no other potential landlords will be buying (for the same reasons they're selling), only people who need the housing to live in, and they'll only be able to pay what they can actually afford without relying on someone else to pay their mortgage for them like a landlord wordl, so the former landlords will have to sell at those affordable prices (or else not sell at all and take a total loss), meaning the cost of housing drops back down
simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Supply and demand. A lot of people want to live here. If you come to California, you will understand.
The median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Decatur, Alabama is $599. If you go there, you will understand. As with everything in life, you get what you pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
The real shit Decatur is in Illinois. It's where ADM processes 90% of the USA's soy crop. The whole town smells like a tofu eater puked in the corner (of every room).
You don't even want to be downwind of it.
Re: (Score:2)
But the median one-bedroom apartment in Decatur, Illinois is only $670/month! That's why everybody is fleeing San Francisco and moving to Decatur.
That won't even get a 1BR in Vancouver BC (Score:2)
Silly rabbits, you can't afford to live in a real city.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not a case of free market failure. This is a case of local government putting restrictions on building affordable housing. You got the NIMBY part correct, though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not a case of free market failure. This is a case of local government putting restrictions on building affordable housing.
Which is a free market failure, isn't it? Seeing as it, among other things, requires low barriers to entry, which doesn't seem to be satisfied here.
Re: Thanks to... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The free market puts the poors where they belong, at the far end of BART.
Nobody in their right mind builds new slums. You build new high end and existing inventory tinkles down. As always, sucks to be poor, sucks worse to be poor and be waiting for someone else to do something about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The free market puts the poors where they belong, at the far end of BART.
Nobody in their right mind builds new slums. You build new high end and existing inventory tinkles down. As always, sucks to be poor, sucks worse to be poor and be waiting for someone else to do something about it.
I think you meant "trickles down"... but I like "tinkles down" more as it is more accurate- the rich piss on the poor.
Re: (Score:2)
I typed what I meant.
The poors are 'on fire', they should be grateful they get pissed on
The point remains, nobody in their right mind will purpose build a slum. Slums are the luxury housing of 1910, and that works.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody builds new slums. When it's time to doze, they aren't going to build crackhouses. Duh.
Poors get whatever is leftover, sucks to be you, living in clearlake.
Re:That is not entirely true (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a definitive failure on free market, NOT because of the restriction as you think, but because there is NO REASON whatsoever for the free market to invest in cheap condo for poor folk at a small ROI when they can have a huge ROI with expansive condo. And this is where the free market will always fail.
If you ask a developer whether he'd like to build cheap housing with a 20% ROI or expensive housing with a 30% ROI, his answer will be both. If both are clearly profitable businesses, then there's no reason in the world why developers shouldn't do both... except that there is: Artificial restrictions on the number of building permits.
The "market failure" you cite arises only because the city restricts the amount of building that can be done. Obviously, if the government says you can build only one building, you're going to build the most lucrative one you can. But without that restriction, the free market will build housing for all price points down to a floor that is dictated by natural limits (scarcity of land and cost of building higher). But clearly those natural limits are not creating the ultra-high cost in SFO, because other cities (e.g. NYC) are similarly constrained by the amount of available land, and have similar building costs, and yet have much lower rents.
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't Google working on building a giant floating barge with office space in San Francisco's harbor in order to get around these insane housing prices? What ever happened to that idea?
Re:That's a contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
NIMBY means there's not a free market; governments are preventing the market from operating.
As the rent goes up, it becomes a lucrative business deal to buy up properties, demolish what's there, and build housing. That's what a free market would lead to, but that's not allowed to happen.
Calling it "the government" just hides the blame. Existing property owners are blocking new construction. And no wonder: the value of their property skyrockets thereby.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nowhere in the city left to build, you have to knock something down to put something else up there.
Every dense city in the world is this way. In most places, this happens routinely. When I was in Seattle, I could consistently see 14 high-rise construction cranes out the break room window. As one building would finish, another would start. There were always 30 or so mid- and high-rises going up, replacing shorter buildings. When I visited London, it was that on steroids: construction cranes as far as the eye could see.
So obviously there's NIMBY type stuff in every city
Yes, but it's extreme in SF. Seattle's mayor was proud that "we're not going to be
Re: That's a contradiction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't have anything to point to, fuck off and die having lost the argument. The system works.
For values of "works" exceeding $3500/month for one bedroom.
Re: That's a contradiction (Score:4, Interesting)
I fit pretty squarely into the slightly-above-median bracket for SF incomes, living in Seattle paying not much less than their peak in rent.
I'm still shoveling a G or more a month to my family in the midwest, living their high life with their low cost of living, and while people may poop somewhere in the streets around here, the air isn't inundated with the smell of chicken shit, I'm not playing the will-I-get-killed-by-a-tornado-this-year lottery, and oh right- my house doesn't look like what would be a condemned building here. So there's that.
It's different, but I've been on both sides of the comparison. I'll keep the west coast, thanks. I may pay a shit-ton of money to live, but what I have left over is still more than the median take-home income of anyone in the south, and I live better for that.
Re:That's a contradiction (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a desperate need in some circles to make California sound like a third world country. I think it's a bit of the good-old fashioned penis envy. California is one of the largest economies on the planet, and folks living in a lot of Red States just have never been able to deal with the fact that a state can by and large be democrat and liberal, and actually have an economy of such significance that it outguns most of the Red States combined.
Re:That's a contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
And they can keep their significant economy.
What good is making more money than red states when 1 bedroom apartments costs $3,690? That is more than 3 times the cost of apartments in San Antonio. And no, your minimum wage is not 3 times higher than minimum wages in San Antonio.
Re:That's a contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
And they can keep their significant economy.
What good is making more money than red states when 1 bedroom apartments costs $3,690? That is more than 3 times the cost of apartments in San Antonio. And no, your minimum wage is not 3 times higher than minimum wages in San Antonio.
Minimum wage is not enough to pay for a home in the most desirable part of any City. Typically only the most well off live in the most expensive areas. Plenty of Californians CAN afford their mortgage and rent with money left to spare, because the wages are higher (and/or they live out of the most expensive areas).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I pay $980 for my house which includes property taxes and home owner's insurance without the 36 mile commute.
Re:That's a contradiction (Score:4, Informative)
Is that why California ranks almost dead-bottom for education and bottom for poverty level?
As much as I hate Cali: educational results can usually be explained by demographics, and Cali is no exception. This is especially true of states with a sizable ESL population: you're never going to get the same statistical educational outcomes from native English speakers and those who enter the educational system not speaking English.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that why California ranks almost dead-bottom for education and bottom for poverty level?
As much as I hate Cali: educational results can usually be explained by demographics, and Cali is no exception. This is especially true of states with a sizable ESL population: you're never going to get the same statistical educational outcomes from native English speakers and those who enter the educational system not speaking English.
Clearly the solution to this is to expand that ESL population via open borders.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, clearly that's California's solution. And heck, they might be better off for it in 50 years. But I won't be living there in the meantime.
dead last? try again (Score:3, Informative)
California is 18th for poverty rate. Beating Oregon, Texas and every Southern state and most of the Southwest.
For education, California is ranked 26th. Making it pretty typical of the US as a whole.
Re: (Score:3)
He's probably talking about the supplemental poverty measure [curbed.com], which takes into account things like the local cost of living, including cost of housing, rather than your measurement which considers someone in rural Mississippi and NYC as being on the same dollar scale, when $X/year in one is a great living, while scraping by in the other.
In terms of education quality, you're referencing their US News and World Report ranking. If you take another look at that page [usnews.com], you may notice that's entirely driven by the
Re: That's a contradiction (Score:3)
Humans poop in the streets in NYC, SLC, Miami, Detroit, and every city. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Can we get some english editors in here.
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Can we get some english editors in here.
Well, if you want to volunteer, have at it...
I would suggest that you avoid making English and grammar mistakes of your own.... Like capitalization of proper nouns like "English" and proper punctuation when completing an interrogative sentence ("?").
And I'm just a lowly EE who cannot spell very well and didn't like English classes at all..
That's not how it's "supposed" to work. (Score:5, Informative)
"This is how it's _supposed_ to work."
No it's not. How it is supposed to work is that when rental prices start to spike in a community developers see the increasing profit potential of an area and increase development. It's classic supply and demand economics and is literally how all of our major cities formed.
What is happening in San Francisco (and in many parts of California) is that supply isn't being allowed to increase or increase fast enough by local government. The biggest offender is the valley but their problem has become so severe (with a modest single family homes selling for over a million) that it's spilling over and exacerbating already existing problems in places like San Francisco and beyond.
Re: (Score:2)
The same people that led to this problem are working on the "move" issue. It's a competive race to the bottom, see, and they want a nationwide standard, with them writing it, so it is pointless to "vote with your feet" anymore.
The solution, in other words, to their terrible situation, is to make every place like that rather than them becoming more like other places, such as much lower and cheaper and faster building red tape.
Re:You're wrong. They ARE being forced. (Score:4, Insightful)
and thus people are being forced to live in an increasingly dire situation
No one is forcing tech employees to come to SF and compete with each other to push rents into the stratosphere. I'm not denying the role of SF government in the supply/demand disconnect, but rents would not be where they are if people simply refused to pay that much.
Re: (Score:2)
SF has been the realm of the idle rich for _many_decades_. It's not like the poors were able to spend $3k/month a few years ago.
There are many reasons why people like SF. The Chinese are superstitious, SF has awesome Fungsi, that's not going to change. They're not there for the (turd burglary/artsy fartsy reasons) in the first place.
What makes SF and Manhattan so strong for entertainment? People with money being served, same as London and Paris.
Re: (Score:2)
The only poors in SF for the last 50 years have been homeless and 'Hunters Point'. Haight Ashbury was a LONG time ago, and it ended very badly. Hunters Point is gone and good riddance.
Retail workers live at the end of BART, their commute isn't my problem. Market rates for unskilled work in SF will creep up, it's already crept up, just enough to cover rent in Benicia. All as it should work. Even Oakland is becoming a decent neighborhood.
SF isn't even a 'nice place to visit'. The twits can have it, but f
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, it’s in the people of San Francisco’s right to keep San Francisco from turning into a concrete jungle. God knows no one is moving there for the weather. San Francisco is “cool” BECAUSE the old architecture has been preserved, BECAUSE there a large immigrant, artist and gay communities. Tech, like all temporarily concentrated and wealthy industries is destroying(or attempting to) the very thing they love, with money. Like many neighborhoods in New York, someday it’ll be a jungle of dated high rise luxury apartments and a few houses and museums in remembrance of the vibrant low income communities that made that area famous enough to attract the attention of the wealthy.
If SFers choose to do this (ignoring issues of market freedom to build more units) they they should stop whining at the price increases. "Only a few specials a year may enter" is a brutally silly policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Price goes up, demand decreases. All working as it should.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that new high-rise apartments are expensive to build and have high operating costs. You aren’t going to be able to build a building for less than $700/Square Foot (SF), which will work out to $3.50/SF in rent, plus you have about $1.5/SF of operating expenses for a total of $5/SF at the lower end. You also have land costs, but they can factor out with enough stories.
So, 6-700SF gets you to $3,690. If you want the cost cut in half you need to either reduce unit size, or dramatically r
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That is why proper high-rise buildings have footings that go down to bedrock.
Re:You're wrong. They ARE being forced. (Score:5, Insightful)
How is anyone forced to live there?
If you can afford that rent, you can afford a bus ticket out of there.
And that's EXACTLY what's happening. Folks are leaving both the cities AND the state because it's too expensive to live there. They are heading to places where the cost of living is lower. Places like Texas, Florida and other places where an $800K house isn't a two bedroom shack.
Wait, so people are moving away in droves, and prices continue to rise! That's crazy! It goes against pretty much everything written about supply and demand! Imagine how much apartments will cost when EVERYONE has moved away!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No. California out-migration is second-lowest in the nation. Only Texas is lower, which is why that comparison works, but doens't mean anything.
https://medium.com/ca-rising/the-great-migration-myth-bda59595dfa2
Re: (Score:3)
I raise your left wing social science site and see you the California Legislative Analyst Office which claims a loss of 2.5 % of its population in the last 15 years, and growing.
https://lao.ca.gov/laoecontax/article/detail/265
As a matter of fact on line the only source I can find for your contention is the site you mention. Every other source agress California has a negative population growth, even with undocumented counted.
Re: (Score:2)
Austin always sucked, you've just grown up and can't stand the fucking posers anymore.
They were never cool, you just thought they were, now you see what they've always been ('they can get the same vibe just about anywhere').
Abe Simpson said it best. Everybody 'gets over' being 'hip and withit', realizes it's phony bullshit and always was.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you have 'clients' you will never go back to 'job'.
You might understand, once you get your first job.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that's the thing with clients. They sometimes make you wait. But the hourly rate makes up for it.
You've been here for the last two years. Basically non-stop idiocy. Get a McJob.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to live in Austin, quaint place in the 90's... I didn't like it and moved out as soon as I could... Horrible traffic, weird people, really weird, and already too expensive. I see how some would like it, but it just wasn't for me.
I see the current revitalization of the areas around the river and new convention center as an improvement myself. They really needed to knock down the weird factor a bit and that sure helped. I get that some of the stranger stuff has died out and it's more of a posh swan
Re: (Score:2)
Property values fall, venues and stores are sold or just left to rot.
And then the new generation of counter-culture types moves in to places the landlords will give away just to keep them from being squatted and destroyed and they setup their little hand-to-mouth businesses. And with a little luck and perhaps the right confluence of trends, a new quirky little alt-neighborhood will be born again and begin drawing in 20-somethings.
But then they too will age a bit, some will move away, but some will stick around, rehabbing a house or two. Word will get around about the great
Re: Is that a typo? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a typo, and that sounds about right.
So, Fuck That. We live in a world now where most jobs that don't involved physically laying hands on hardware can be done any where in the world now. If I was inclined I could rent out a 1 bedroom shack in bumfuck Alabama, and as long as I had a good internet connection, manage thousands of servers any where in the world.
No, I'm not inclined to move back to bumfuck Alabama.
That's six bedroom, 6,500 SQ feet in Dallas (Score:4, Insightful)
I live in Dallas, in a $3,500 square foot house that costs less than $2,000 / month.
As far as jobs go, there are a lot of big companies here. A lot of aerospace, technology, financial services ...
I'm not in management, I'm a techie, and earn well into six figures.
Of course, here in Dallas they build based on need. When prices went up for a few years 2014-2018, they built like crazy, which kept prices under control. You don't have local and state government saying nobody is allowed to build any housing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
SF is surrounded by water, Dallas is surrounded by shit. Shit is easier to build on.
SF isn't an independent city. Think Manhattan, it can only exist in context.
The bay area in general is building out. Just the core is full, the good tech isn't in SF anyhow, just the new bubble companies (Uber etc).
SF has plenty of space to build in (Score:4, Insightful)
"SF is surrounded by water, Dallas is surrounded by shit. Shit is easier to build on."
Building "out" is hardly the only option for growth for a community. San Francisco has plenty of vertical space to build into. ...And before people claim "no" because of earthquakes, tall buildings can be safely built in earth quake zones. Japan and many other countries have a long, safe history of doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Add to that the insane traffic that the sprawling "growth" spurs, and you can keep Dallas, and the like.
Lol. You win (Score:2)
A couple of people poked fun at my stray dollar sign.
Yours was the funniest, imho.
Re:Cost of living vs salary (Score:5, Informative)
I work in IT in California and pay $1300 a month on my 4 bedroom house.
California is a big state of which San Francisco is only a small part.
Re: (Score:2)
I left the Midwest because - like this week - it will be -30 degrees. F*ck that. I'm in Seattle...
You moved to Seattle for the weather? The last time I was there it was late summer, I had to wear a jacket, the sky was perpetually overcast, and the mountains still had passes closed with 7 feet of snow. Now, eastern Washington had some amazing weather and was actually pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I was there it was late summer, I had to wear a jacket, the sky was perpetually overcast, and the mountains still had passes closed with 7 feet of snow.
That must have been quite a while ago - last ice-age maybe? Mid-late summer is near perfect in Seattle, and there would be absolutely no snow in the passes at that time of year. I live here, and I don't like (more accurately, hate) the weather for 9 months of the year. But those three summer months are spectacular.
Re: (Score:2)
Not for the last two years they haven't been.
The forests are burning.
Re: (Score:2)
I left the Midwest because - like this week - it will be -30 degrees. F*ck that. I'm in Seattle...
You moved to Seattle for the weather? The last time I was there it was late summer, I had to wear a jacket, the sky was perpetually overcast, and the mountains still had passes closed with 7 feet of snow. Now, eastern Washington had some amazing weather and was actually pretty.
No, that was smoke from the massive forest fires. I even uploaded pics - the sun was this hazy orange ball and you couldn't see three blocks away.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to stop making homes an investment, but a place to live.
There are too many people who are worried about their homes resell value, because of something being built. Like Low cost housing, As well too many people buying multi-family homes and not living there, but only use them for investment purposes.
If not build more, at least fix the driving conditions so people can commute from cheaper areas easier, or California based companies, allows for more work from home options.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps the companies can pay a wage to their employees that covers the cost of living for the area they live? If they can't do that, then they don't really deserve to be in business.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to pay up, people.
If you are being unfairly compensated, Maybe it's time to switch places of employment.
We ARE in a seller's market for labor these days. I suggest you take advantage of the market.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine, one side of the building has an automated robotic system that, picks up a shipping container housing unit, from a truck waiting below the building & carries it & inserts it into any target slot in the building, or does the opposite, whenever needed!
(& imagine, the building itself (of any size) is also build from standard design parts, just like LEGO!)
I saw that movie! The part where it all fell over was cool. And of course it would - someone would save 50 cents per bolt and falsify the records to meet code, and be long gone when it mattered.