> “My client was maxed out,” Wang said. “He wanted to be self-sufficient: `I’m independent. I don’t want my parents to help me.’ But now he’s realized he’s got to have that conversation with his mother to borrow a couple of hundred thousand dollars, just in case that situation happens again.”
Must be nice to have parents who can just loan you ~$200k to make an offer on a 2 million dollar house in Sunnyvale of all places.
I can't get over how ridiculous the market in the bay area is right now.
>"the median home value is $961,600, according to Zillow."
Being from the Midwest, this is such a foreign concept to me. Looking at Des Moines, $955,000 will get you a 5 bedroom with 3 full and 2 half bathrooms, 1.26 acres, 7037 square feet, and a 5 car garage. And that house has a really nice interior too!
That house in the first picture of the article would probably be $100,000 or so based on its size.
I understand larger cities offer a higher salary, and that the salary can more than offset the cost of living increase, but it would pain me to think about spending that much money on housing (whether renting or buying).
Born and raised in the South Bay and it's really hard for me to justify spending even 1M on a house in Sunnyvale. Wages are higher, yes, but it's still a huge shock. I imagine if you grew up elsewhere in the USA it's even more unbelievable (aside from NYC).
edit: looks like I got a downvote - did I break a rule? Didn't mean to offend anyone. Sunnyvale is a decent area but when I think 'one million dollars' I don't think Sunnyvale :)
It's part of the Pacific Ring Asian hot-money bubble. Same as in Vancouver and Sydney. /r/vancouver has some good investigatory articles
$2 trillion left China illegally, and this is where some went
This doesn't end well, by the way. Neighborhoods turn into ghost towns because "renters damage property". Great businesses close. Vancouver had something like 30 empty multimillion dollar houses burn down last year.
Bay Area has a housing affordability issue for people who are in non-tech sectors.
For those in the tech sector, there is no affordability issue, only entitlement issue
If they are married, both in tech, their salary will be in the 300k-400k range, that's about 25k - 33k/month before tax, or about 15 - 20k/month after tax. with today's interest rate, $1MM house will need a monthly payment $4k - $5k/month including property tax. The couple will still have about 10k/month left after paying the mortgage.
Assuming they are renting and are fiscally responsible, they should be able to save about 70 - 100k on 300 - 400k income/year. which means they will just need 2 years before they can save up for the down payment.
So where is the issue? The issue is they jumped their league - Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain View, SF are the 'major leagues' - foreign cash buyers, tech execs or, more commonly , average Joe who sold their first house with $500k+ gain in tax free equity - (not hard to do in the bay area btw). First time home buyer will have a tough time competing in this league.
Try the minor league instead, try east bay, dublin($900k), livermore still in the $700k - both good schools but 60min+ away, or how about places like Newark or Union City, still in the $700k, both within 30 mins drive (but so so schools).
If they are struggling to buy a $2MM home because they have to buy in these neighborhoods. it's an entitlement problem, not an affordability issue.
I live in the Bay Area. My wife and I, early thirties and a few years out of grad school, make about $300k combined and in our area (Sunnyvale) there are maybe 2 or 3 houses for sale at any given time under our rough budget of $1.2 million, which would be below the median list value for a house in the city. I say this as dispassionately as possible, but I would really like to know more about who is able to afford these houses. The article gives one example (doctor married to an engineer, no age given), but I wonder if that case is typical.
I hear from real estate agents that the typical buyer is a couple making $300k/year. They've just been in the workforce longer and have the downpayment by now. Your profile would suggest "a few years working and a decade of student debt".
This is typically only a problem for first time home buyers. If you already own a home in the bay area for more than a few years, you will have a significate amount of equity that will allow you to move up in more expensive area with a larger downpayment and a similar monthly payment.
So try buy a home in the less expensive area first.
Your mortgage on that 1.2M house is 5k a month (assuming 20% down). And most of that is tax deducatable. How did you determine 1.2M is the most you can afford?
Fun fact: in Tokyo prices are 3x lower than in the bay area, in large part because new housing is legally much easier to build.
If you want to make the bay area more affordable, check out the great work these folks are doing to legalize building new housing: http://www.sfyimby.org.
1 - low interest rates and speciality jumbo programs to lock in high earners are providing balloon capital. When this pops people won't lose houses because they have fixed rates, but they will be equity poor or underwater as prices will correct at least 20% with interest rates rising.
2 - cash investors chasing yield and security. The "cash" offers clogging every market are disproportionally inbound from foreign nationals and now even starting to be private placement. Blackstone and other huge PE firms now consider "single family" to be a category akin to multi-family and are placing billions to buy and rent homes for yield. All this blows up when interest rates normalize - eg investors would rather own treasuries / CDs / etc at 5% vs homes at 5%.
Sam Zell - an infamous CRE investor nw $5b - has recently said he believes there is a material value of 10-15% a year of holding CASH - eg that the market is just about ready for a major correction and I agree wholeheartedly(1)
I wonder what the thought process of people buying $1MM+ houses in SV really is. I mean how much more are the prices going to go, so that's clearly not an investment. Even if the only job you could get was in SV, required you to stay close by _and_ paid enough, you are still paying a big chunk of it towards housing! Oh and you're going to live in a smaller house too!
It makes little financial sense. You'd be much better off earning less in the southeast or midwest and living big. Also wonder what the sweet spot is wrt city/jobs/salary/savings/housing.
> I wonder what the thought process of people buying $1MM+ houses in SV really is.
I think at that order of magnitude, it you would have to consider it a true investment, and you should be really bummed if you're holding on to it when the prices drop. I would be hesitant to question how much more the prices can go up. People say the same thing with the stock market all the time, but the long term trend remains up.
I'm from the Midwest, so I'm not exactly up on everything in California, but from a number of articles I've read I understand that San Francisco is really worried about maintaining their skyline. Because of this they don't want to develop anything really tall.
Venture capital firms are mostly in the same area (San Jose?), and the further out your startup is from there, the less likely they are to consider you. I'm guessing it's a waiting game for a big tech bust leading to a housing bust of some sort.
I'll take my $830/month rent for a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom (cable and internet included) in Iowa for the time being.
It just entirely depends on people's priorities. Some may feel that the particular career opportunities they have access to here are a very high priority for them.
Also, if someone had built a social circle over the early part of their careers, and are now thinking of these need for a larger place to raise a family, the social ties may be hard to give up. If they have no ties to the Midwest, done may be adverse to building a social circle and foundation from scratch again, even if the economics are favorable.
That is simply not true. Even if you bought at the peak in 2007 in Sunnyvale you are likely up 50% or more on your investment. If you were lucky and bought in 2005 or 2009 your house is probably worth 60-70% more than when you bought it. This has been true for the past 25-30 years in much of SV. That doesn't mean it will continue forever, of course, but the trend has been there for a very long time now.
Real estate speculation by putting all your money in a your own house is generally not a good investment. You aren't diversifying, you don't have any information advantage over the market, you're unlikely to be objective about the value, and there are high friction costs in buying/selling it.
Maybe a bit like driving an classic car in everyday use. Except the car has low friction.
Edit: Not saying you should not buy a house, just that you should be honest about what it is - you get value from owning and living in it, and the market risk is unwanted for most people.
> I mean how much more are the prices going to go, so that's clearly not an investment.
Except it is.
You forget that in most scenarios your initial capital and what you paid toward the place is still there, and you'll keep paying it even if you wind up underwater, and you can generate cash flow from the place, and a lot of that is tax deductible, resulting in decent windfalls from the government annually.
I used to live in Back Bay, Boston, where prices are well over $1000/sq ft, so I'm not shocked by the prices at all.
Weather is nicer in SV. Not everything in life is about financial decisions. Living "big" in midwest means you need to live in midwest, which will decrease my standard of living tremendously, the social aspect at least.
Places that are equally nice are also expensive, e.g., LA, Zurich, NYC, London. I just prefer to live in a nicer area than to live in a 7 bedroom house with a 10 car garage.
You'd be much better off earning less in the southeast or midwest and living big.
I recently bought a fairly expensive house and happily sacrificed square feet for a shorter commute and being closer to the city center. We looked at several houses that where in the 2000-3000 sq ft range and most felt way to big for what we needed/wanted. A smaller house was at no point in the process seen as a negative. We eventually got a house that's just under 1500 sq ft with a small, but very nice, garden and we've so far not once wished that it was bigger (although we might add a small conservatory, bringing it to just over 1500 sq ft). Bigger house just means more work keeping it cleaned and maintained. Living in a huge house far out in some dull suburb with a long commute to work sounds like my perfect nightmare.
As for our 'financial' reasoning. It was a house we really wanted to live in, in an area we really wanted to live in and we could afford it, so we bought it.
Because consumers are primarily used to buying consumables, it results in them not having an intuitive sense when it comes to investments. Buying a house is essentially mostly an asset allocation problem, not a purchasing problem.
Think of it this way, would you rather buy 1 house in Palo Alto or 5 houses in Des Moine? What would 5 houses in Des Moine get you? Well, you could rent the other 4 houses out and get some sort of rental income but you get a higher salary working in Palo Alto, both are income streams.
After X number of years, your 5 houses in Des Moine will be worth some amount and your 1 house in Palo Alto will be worth a different amount. Your houses in Des Moine are probably $600,000 worth of brick and concrete which are guaranteed to depreciate over time and $400,000 worth of land which may appreciate. Your Palo Alto home is like, $200,000 of brick and concrete and $800,000 worth of land so much more likely the growth in land will make up for the depreciation in house. Plus, in Palo Alto, you can be a part of the NIMBY coalition that defends against any law that threatens the value of your house while encouraging office space to be built that increases it's value.
You can apply the same calculus to say, buying a $200K Des Moine house and $800K of index funds or renting in Palo Alto and buying $1000K of index funds or any other asset allocation mix you like.
At the end of the day, even though they look like big scary numbers, the relative impacts are much tinier because you're just shifting assets between different classes. Most asset classes grow at about the same risk adjusted rate because the market is efficient (excepting brick and concrete which is guaranteed to depreciate as a consumable).
Of course, this is assuming every person has essentially access to infinite amounts of credit providing they can put up the collateral to back it up. Once you get into the nitty gritty of who can and cannot gain access to credit, then issues of privilege also get involved.
I understand not everyone works in tech but it's not unusual for Bay Area couples to make $300k-$400k per year 6-8 years out of college working in tech.
Consider an example of new grad with CS major working in major software company. Currently new grads start at $120k total package (base + RSU/stock + bonus). After maxing out 401k, taxes, rent(with roomates), car payments etc., one can save $35k-$40k per year. So for a couple having worked for 5 years each could save $35k * 5 * 2 = $350k in total. Use $250k to make downpayment to buy $1.25M home making most of mortgage interest deduction. That's how myself and most of my Indian tech friends in Bay Area bought homes. Being lucky in an IPO also helps. Above calculation assumes no student or credit card debt.
What are all the people going to the bay area planning on doing long term? Was it never a long term place for most people? Just not thinking about it? Renting and living with roomates forever?
Several of my coworkers are entering "long term" and having their first kids.
Among this cohort, a 90-minute commute is luxuriously short. They walk at least a mile to their nearest BART stations (BART won't provide even close to adequate parking, or price it high enough to bring the waitlists under 3+ years), then stand elbow-to-elbow on the fully packed trains for 50+ minutes.
They are the front lines, gentrifying the furthest places from San Francisco that are still part of its transit ecosystem. As they bid up property, their strategy will stop working soon, but by then they'll be owners. Extremely leveraged, house-poor owners, but owners. And they'll convince themselves that 3+ hours of dead time every day isn't a huge waste of life.
I do something similar because my mental health goes down the toilet when I come home to the inescapable sound of other people's TV and phone conversations (and I already blast headphones all day at my open-plan office). The only people on my team with sub-30-minute commutes share apartments in the stabbier neighborhoods in the city.
Oh, how I wish I could be content in a low-rise cube farm in the rust belt where I grew up. The scenery isn't pretty, but commuting on a freeway that actually moves is incredible. And the average door-to-door time is like 25 minutes.
Some of us have always lived here, and find it hard to move away from friends/family. I'm in that camp at the moment, but if I ever want to own a 'middle class' house, my partner and I will undoubtedly move (she teaches preschool and I'm a software engineer). Renting seems like the more 'sane' option because home loans are front-loaded with interest and non-equity payments anyways.
It's a combination of a number of reasons but yes, it is in large part due to zoning and NIMBYism. SF and the Bay Area as a whole are incredibly expensive places to build housing. Much of the peninsula is completely hostile to density, and to an only slightly lesser extent, so is SF. It doesn't help that through subsidies such as Prop 13 and rent control, a large part of the voting block is essentially insulated from the horrible policy decisions they support.
In addition, you shouldn't be so surprised that this is what has become of the former hippy capital of the world. SF style liberals aren't actually nearly as progressive as they would like the world to think. Many of those who you might identify as hippies are simply self entitled white people from middle class and above childhoods. The real working class of this country didn't have the ability to move to SF in the 60's to be part of the whole counter culture movement. It should come as no surprise that those who did aren't too fond of poor working class people living in "their" city.
Hopefully, otherwise remote working will increase in popularity at about the same rate it is currently but people will just continue to leave such high rent areas.
At least you're not in Singapore. Here, 1 million USD won't even get you a small condo. A house will cost you around 2 million USD,and that would be a cheap one. In a prime location the price goes up to several times that amount.
This isn't just Silicon Valley, the same is happening in many parts of the world, like London, Vancouver and Sydney. At least in SV there are still a lot of people that can afford those inflated prices, the rest of us have to wait until the bubble pops.
[+] [-] fourstar|9 years ago|reply
Must be nice to have parents who can just loan you ~$200k to make an offer on a 2 million dollar house in Sunnyvale of all places.
I can't get over how ridiculous the market in the bay area is right now.
[+] [-] froindt|9 years ago|reply
Being from the Midwest, this is such a foreign concept to me. Looking at Des Moines, $955,000 will get you a 5 bedroom with 3 full and 2 half bathrooms, 1.26 acres, 7037 square feet, and a 5 car garage. And that house has a really nice interior too!
That house in the first picture of the article would probably be $100,000 or so based on its size.
I understand larger cities offer a higher salary, and that the salary can more than offset the cost of living increase, but it would pain me to think about spending that much money on housing (whether renting or buying).
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/15-Greenwood-Ter-Des-Moine...
[+] [-] kylestlb|9 years ago|reply
edit: looks like I got a downvote - did I break a rule? Didn't mean to offend anyone. Sunnyvale is a decent area but when I think 'one million dollars' I don't think Sunnyvale :)
[+] [-] pfarnsworth|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigtex|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elchief|9 years ago|reply
It's part of the Pacific Ring Asian hot-money bubble. Same as in Vancouver and Sydney. /r/vancouver has some good investigatory articles
$2 trillion left China illegally, and this is where some went
This doesn't end well, by the way. Neighborhoods turn into ghost towns because "renters damage property". Great businesses close. Vancouver had something like 30 empty multimillion dollar houses burn down last year.
[+] [-] shshhdhs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tnt128|9 years ago|reply
For those in the tech sector, there is no affordability issue, only entitlement issue
If they are married, both in tech, their salary will be in the 300k-400k range, that's about 25k - 33k/month before tax, or about 15 - 20k/month after tax. with today's interest rate, $1MM house will need a monthly payment $4k - $5k/month including property tax. The couple will still have about 10k/month left after paying the mortgage.
Assuming they are renting and are fiscally responsible, they should be able to save about 70 - 100k on 300 - 400k income/year. which means they will just need 2 years before they can save up for the down payment.
So where is the issue? The issue is they jumped their league - Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Mountain View, SF are the 'major leagues' - foreign cash buyers, tech execs or, more commonly , average Joe who sold their first house with $500k+ gain in tax free equity - (not hard to do in the bay area btw). First time home buyer will have a tough time competing in this league.
Try the minor league instead, try east bay, dublin($900k), livermore still in the $700k - both good schools but 60min+ away, or how about places like Newark or Union City, still in the $700k, both within 30 mins drive (but so so schools).
If they are struggling to buy a $2MM home because they have to buy in these neighborhoods. it's an entitlement problem, not an affordability issue.
[+] [-] edblarney|9 years ago|reply
No, it's rare to have both couples in tech AND making 150K plus each.
Avg Engineer salary is not even quite that high at Google.
A 150K job is still a 'pretty good job' and a little more rare than you'd imagine.
Also, there's a lot of moving around, and that means a few months every few years of not working.
[+] [-] aaronblohowiak|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgeburdell|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elastic_church|9 years ago|reply
well there's your problem.
I hear from real estate agents that the typical buyer is a couple making $300k/year. They've just been in the workforce longer and have the downpayment by now. Your profile would suggest "a few years working and a decade of student debt".
[+] [-] tnt128|9 years ago|reply
So try buy a home in the less expensive area first.
[+] [-] ec109685|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] merkleee|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dbroockman|9 years ago|reply
If you want to make the bay area more affordable, check out the great work these folks are doing to legalize building new housing: http://www.sfyimby.org.
[+] [-] hkmurakami|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekianjo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flukus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bbcbasic|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aresant|9 years ago|reply
1 - low interest rates and speciality jumbo programs to lock in high earners are providing balloon capital. When this pops people won't lose houses because they have fixed rates, but they will be equity poor or underwater as prices will correct at least 20% with interest rates rising.
2 - cash investors chasing yield and security. The "cash" offers clogging every market are disproportionally inbound from foreign nationals and now even starting to be private placement. Blackstone and other huge PE firms now consider "single family" to be a category akin to multi-family and are placing billions to buy and rent homes for yield. All this blows up when interest rates normalize - eg investors would rather own treasuries / CDs / etc at 5% vs homes at 5%.
Sam Zell - an infamous CRE investor nw $5b - has recently said he believes there is a material value of 10-15% a year of holding CASH - eg that the market is just about ready for a major correction and I agree wholeheartedly(1)
(1) http://www.horizonkinetics.com/sm_cash_as_liability_zell.asp
PS - Some further evidence around interest rates driving home prices from this bloomberg article last year outlining the 0% down and "equity as collateral" from bay area landers -=> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-27/zero-down...
[+] [-] bbcbasic|9 years ago|reply
Here in Sydney you are lucky to get gross 4% on an apartment, 3% on a house.
It kind of implies that there isn't "too many people" because if so the rents would shoot up too.
[+] [-] blinkingled|9 years ago|reply
It makes little financial sense. You'd be much better off earning less in the southeast or midwest and living big. Also wonder what the sweet spot is wrt city/jobs/salary/savings/housing.
[+] [-] froindt|9 years ago|reply
I think at that order of magnitude, it you would have to consider it a true investment, and you should be really bummed if you're holding on to it when the prices drop. I would be hesitant to question how much more the prices can go up. People say the same thing with the stock market all the time, but the long term trend remains up.
I'm from the Midwest, so I'm not exactly up on everything in California, but from a number of articles I've read I understand that San Francisco is really worried about maintaining their skyline. Because of this they don't want to develop anything really tall.
Venture capital firms are mostly in the same area (San Jose?), and the further out your startup is from there, the less likely they are to consider you. I'm guessing it's a waiting game for a big tech bust leading to a housing bust of some sort.
I'll take my $830/month rent for a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom (cable and internet included) in Iowa for the time being.
[+] [-] hkmurakami|9 years ago|reply
Also, if someone had built a social circle over the early part of their careers, and are now thinking of these need for a larger place to raise a family, the social ties may be hard to give up. If they have no ties to the Midwest, done may be adverse to building a social circle and foundation from scratch again, even if the economics are favorable.
[+] [-] rll|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fulafel|9 years ago|reply
Maybe a bit like driving an classic car in everyday use. Except the car has low friction.
Edit: Not saying you should not buy a house, just that you should be honest about what it is - you get value from owning and living in it, and the market risk is unwanted for most people.
[+] [-] elastic_church|9 years ago|reply
Except it is.
You forget that in most scenarios your initial capital and what you paid toward the place is still there, and you'll keep paying it even if you wind up underwater, and you can generate cash flow from the place, and a lot of that is tax deductible, resulting in decent windfalls from the government annually.
Its an ok place to park your money.
Yes, there is risk of loss and illiquidity.
[+] [-] btian|9 years ago|reply
I used to live in Back Bay, Boston, where prices are well over $1000/sq ft, so I'm not shocked by the prices at all.
Weather is nicer in SV. Not everything in life is about financial decisions. Living "big" in midwest means you need to live in midwest, which will decrease my standard of living tremendously, the social aspect at least.
Places that are equally nice are also expensive, e.g., LA, Zurich, NYC, London. I just prefer to live in a nicer area than to live in a 7 bedroom house with a 10 car garage.
[+] [-] jayjay71|9 years ago|reply
People have been saying that for years, and yet they keep going up.
[+] [-] dagw|9 years ago|reply
I recently bought a fairly expensive house and happily sacrificed square feet for a shorter commute and being closer to the city center. We looked at several houses that where in the 2000-3000 sq ft range and most felt way to big for what we needed/wanted. A smaller house was at no point in the process seen as a negative. We eventually got a house that's just under 1500 sq ft with a small, but very nice, garden and we've so far not once wished that it was bigger (although we might add a small conservatory, bringing it to just over 1500 sq ft). Bigger house just means more work keeping it cleaned and maintained. Living in a huge house far out in some dull suburb with a long commute to work sounds like my perfect nightmare.
As for our 'financial' reasoning. It was a house we really wanted to live in, in an area we really wanted to live in and we could afford it, so we bought it.
[+] [-] losteric|9 years ago|reply
Wouldn't they benefit from lower salaries (due to lower rent/costs of living) and higher productivity/lower turnover due to shorter commutes?
[+] [-] shalmanese|9 years ago|reply
Think of it this way, would you rather buy 1 house in Palo Alto or 5 houses in Des Moine? What would 5 houses in Des Moine get you? Well, you could rent the other 4 houses out and get some sort of rental income but you get a higher salary working in Palo Alto, both are income streams.
After X number of years, your 5 houses in Des Moine will be worth some amount and your 1 house in Palo Alto will be worth a different amount. Your houses in Des Moine are probably $600,000 worth of brick and concrete which are guaranteed to depreciate over time and $400,000 worth of land which may appreciate. Your Palo Alto home is like, $200,000 of brick and concrete and $800,000 worth of land so much more likely the growth in land will make up for the depreciation in house. Plus, in Palo Alto, you can be a part of the NIMBY coalition that defends against any law that threatens the value of your house while encouraging office space to be built that increases it's value.
You can apply the same calculus to say, buying a $200K Des Moine house and $800K of index funds or renting in Palo Alto and buying $1000K of index funds or any other asset allocation mix you like.
At the end of the day, even though they look like big scary numbers, the relative impacts are much tinier because you're just shifting assets between different classes. Most asset classes grow at about the same risk adjusted rate because the market is efficient (excepting brick and concrete which is guaranteed to depreciate as a consumable).
Of course, this is assuming every person has essentially access to infinite amounts of credit providing they can put up the collateral to back it up. Once you get into the nitty gritty of who can and cannot gain access to credit, then issues of privilege also get involved.
[+] [-] bankim|9 years ago|reply
Consider an example of new grad with CS major working in major software company. Currently new grads start at $120k total package (base + RSU/stock + bonus). After maxing out 401k, taxes, rent(with roomates), car payments etc., one can save $35k-$40k per year. So for a couple having worked for 5 years each could save $35k * 5 * 2 = $350k in total. Use $250k to make downpayment to buy $1.25M home making most of mortgage interest deduction. That's how myself and most of my Indian tech friends in Bay Area bought homes. Being lucky in an IPO also helps. Above calculation assumes no student or credit card debt.
[+] [-] tayo42|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] closeparen|9 years ago|reply
Among this cohort, a 90-minute commute is luxuriously short. They walk at least a mile to their nearest BART stations (BART won't provide even close to adequate parking, or price it high enough to bring the waitlists under 3+ years), then stand elbow-to-elbow on the fully packed trains for 50+ minutes.
They are the front lines, gentrifying the furthest places from San Francisco that are still part of its transit ecosystem. As they bid up property, their strategy will stop working soon, but by then they'll be owners. Extremely leveraged, house-poor owners, but owners. And they'll convince themselves that 3+ hours of dead time every day isn't a huge waste of life.
I do something similar because my mental health goes down the toilet when I come home to the inescapable sound of other people's TV and phone conversations (and I already blast headphones all day at my open-plan office). The only people on my team with sub-30-minute commutes share apartments in the stabbier neighborhoods in the city.
Oh, how I wish I could be content in a low-rise cube farm in the rust belt where I grew up. The scenery isn't pretty, but commuting on a freeway that actually moves is incredible. And the average door-to-door time is like 25 minutes.
[+] [-] kylestlb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] opportune|9 years ago|reply
Seems kind of ironic for the former hippy capital of the world (speaking of the bay in general here) to be pricing non-millionaires out of the area.
[+] [-] Inconel|9 years ago|reply
In addition, you shouldn't be so surprised that this is what has become of the former hippy capital of the world. SF style liberals aren't actually nearly as progressive as they would like the world to think. Many of those who you might identify as hippies are simply self entitled white people from middle class and above childhoods. The real working class of this country didn't have the ability to move to SF in the 60's to be part of the whole counter culture movement. It should come as no surprise that those who did aren't too fond of poor working class people living in "their" city.
[+] [-] hkmurakami|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] __derek__|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NTDF9|9 years ago|reply
A home worth $1M means $200,000 liquid cash + $800,000 in mortgage principal + $570,000 in interest + $300,000 in taxes...over 30 years.
Will house values keep growing to offset $570,000+$300,000? At what point does this greater fool theory end?
[+] [-] peteretep|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] milesokeefe|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lokedhs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] flukus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shoefly|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] homakov|9 years ago|reply