3 ms·

Yeah, but unless you were from the area, you wouldn't start a new business there. Nor would you look for employment there if you weren't from the area. > This

by exelius 11y ago

Yeah, but unless you were from the area, you wouldn't start a new business there. Nor would you look for employment there if you weren't from the area. > This is a great region to start a family, and at the end of the day, your best employees are the ones tied to your office and location, not mercenary college grads shopping around every couple years for a raise. In other words, you take what you can get from the local hiring pool and hope your best people don't have better options. This is great if you're looking to bootstrap a small business, but once you get past that stage it can be difficult to recruit executives with the market savvy you need to a small town. I'm all for remote work arrangements, but when developing a product strategy, colocation is a huge help. Don't get me wrong; I don't mean to shit all over Buffalo -- I only used it as an example because the weather is awful. But as a city to build a tech startup in 2016, it's not high on the list. Hell, the list pretty much stops after "Silicon Valley" and "New York City" -- which leads to its own problems (like how you can't really afford to live in either city on less than $125k/yr).

ElysianEagle 11y ago
I can't speak for SF, but for a single person at least, $125k/yr is easily doable in NYC. Sure, you won't have a spacious loft all to yourself in SoHo perhaps, but you'll get by just fine on that salary. Now if you're talking about raising a family on a single income of that much, that's a different story...
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  You were almost there, but your last sentence is ridiculous. The median household income for families with children in NYC was $50,800 in 2014. Even for Manhattan alone that figure is $99,000. It is certainly "doable" to raise a family on $125,000 a year or less in NYC as evidenced by the fact that millions of people are doing so.
  - exelius 11y ago
    > It is certainly "doable" to raise a family on $125,000 a year or less in NYC as evidenced by the fact that millions of people are doing so. Sure, living in NYC for less than $125k is doable under the following circumstances: 1. You have a rent controlled apartment. 2. You are on welfare or other government assistance programs (which often come with public housing). 3. You have other income (like a trust fund). 4. You live in New Jersey, Long Island or Yonkers and commute an hour each way. 5. You pay the high rent anyway, build no savings because you're spending $2,000/mo on a studio you split with a roommate, regret living in NYC - and move away a few years later. At least among my friends, NYC is a revolving door of "Yeah, New York is awesome!" and "New York is awesome but I'm a successful 30-year-old professional can't afford more than a studio" to "Fuck this place, I'm moving to Austin." The only reason there are any poor people left in Manhattan is because the city essentially subsidizes them living there. I have nothing against that, but Manhattan real estate is unaffordable for mere mortals otherwise.
    - bradleyjg 11y ago
      Manhattan != NYC One can live in e.g. Kew Gardens, have a 35 minute commute to midtown, and pay $2000 / month for a spacious two bedroom shared with spouse and child. No trust fund needed. If your friends prefer Austin to Queens, more power to them. But they ought not to go around saying it is impossible to live/raise a family in NYC on less than $125k when it isn't true.
- wutbrodo 11y ago
  SF is complicated because the housing prices are so in flux, but as of a few years ago I was living in SF in a decent place with a single roommate for about ~$25k/yr (it's a couple K higher now). I'm still rent-controlled at that place but market rate on that same apartment is roughly double now, and that's far far more than any of my friends are paying (my location is pretty great). So even worst-case (i.e. if I was paying market and chose not to move into a cheaper place), I would be paying maybe $40k? So the long and short of it is, $125k, even before tax, is far more than you need to live in SF for a single person. That isn't to say it's wonderful to have to spend so much on rent, but it's beyond hyperbole to say you need $125k+ to survive.

by exelius 11y ago

ElysianEagle 11y ago

I can't speak for SF, but for a single person at least, $125k/yr is easily doable in NYC. Sure, you won't have a spacious loft all to yourself in SoHo perhaps, but you'll get by just fine on that salary. Now if you're talking about raising a family on a single income of that much, that's a different story...

bradleyjg 11y ago
You were almost there, but your last sentence is ridiculous. The median household income for families with children in NYC was $50,800 in 2014. Even for Manhattan alone that figure is $99,000. It is certainly "doable" to raise a family on $125,000 a year or less in NYC as evidenced by the fact that millions of people are doing so.
- exelius 11y ago
  > It is certainly "doable" to raise a family on $125,000 a year or less in NYC as evidenced by the fact that millions of people are doing so. Sure, living in NYC for less than $125k is doable under the following circumstances: 1. You have a rent controlled apartment. 2. You are on welfare or other government assistance programs (which often come with public housing). 3. You have other income (like a trust fund). 4. You live in New Jersey, Long Island or Yonkers and commute an hour each way. 5. You pay the high rent anyway, build no savings because you're spending $2,000/mo on a studio you split with a roommate, regret living in NYC - and move away a few years later. At least among my friends, NYC is a revolving door of "Yeah, New York is awesome!" and "New York is awesome but I'm a successful 30-year-old professional can't afford more than a studio" to "Fuck this place, I'm moving to Austin." The only reason there are any poor people left in Manhattan is because the city essentially subsidizes them living there. I have nothing against that, but Manhattan real estate is unaffordable for mere mortals otherwise.
  - bradleyjg 11y ago
    Manhattan != NYC One can live in e.g. Kew Gardens, have a 35 minute commute to midtown, and pay $2000 / month for a spacious two bedroom shared with spouse and child. No trust fund needed. If your friends prefer Austin to Queens, more power to them. But they ought not to go around saying it is impossible to live/raise a family in NYC on less than $125k when it isn't true.
wutbrodo 11y ago
SF is complicated because the housing prices are so in flux, but as of a few years ago I was living in SF in a decent place with a single roommate for about ~$25k/yr (it's a couple K higher now). I'm still rent-controlled at that place but market rate on that same apartment is roughly double now, and that's far far more than any of my friends are paying (my location is pretty great). So even worst-case (i.e. if I was paying market and chose not to move into a cheaper place), I would be paying maybe $40k? So the long and short of it is, $125k, even before tax, is far more than you need to live in SF for a single person. That isn't to say it's wonderful to have to spend so much on rent, but it's beyond hyperbole to say you need $125k+ to survive.