5 ms·

Omaha has no homes that are comparable to Bay Area homes, because all the homes in Omaha are in Omaha. Some people like Omaha. That's fine. But if you want a m

Omaha has no homes that are comparable to Bay Area homes, because all the homes in Omaha are in Omaha. Some people like Omaha. That's fine. But if you want a mix of city culture, a range of excellent restaurants, bars, a reasonable public transit system, and the particular outdoor options that the Bay Area has, then Omaha isn't an option. Maube this sounds facile, but it's important. It's not like San Francisco is expensive purely because of the economy or the government or whatever. It's expensive because lots of people want the things it has to offer.

liquidise 10y ago
It is facile. You can insert any 2 areas for "Omaha" and "Bay Area" and much if not all of what you says remains true. Denver is also known for nearly everything you mention except valley companies. Our housing is a fraction of bay area prices. Heck, even places like Portland, ME offer all but similar ethnic diversity and their home costs are a small fraction bay area prices. The difference at play is not culture. The difference is housing market restrictions, median wages and company + worker density. Every city has cultural, food and geographic advantages. To word it that the Bay Area is nearly strictly superior is to frankly confuse the issue entirely.
- matthewowen 10y ago
  I didn't say it was strictly superior. Denver has snow. It doesn't have a comparable food scene. Portland, ME is small and has cold winters. Did you mean Portland, OR? Again, big climate difference. Again, it's not whether one is better or not. That's personal preference. But the Bay Area has excellent cultural amenities and a pleasant climate. There are many people for whom that is important. There's a reason so many people say that they'd love to live in Chicago if it weren't for the winters. If that doesn't apply to you, congratulations! You can save money! Personally, I like being in the Bay Area, and the things I like about it aren't available in Omaha or Denver.
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    "and the things I like about it aren't available in Omaha or Denver" Like $4 gas and $6 bagels? Or is the the ability to belong to a group of people that can afford $4 gas and $6 bagels that's notably missing from other places?
    - Johnny555 10y ago
      You don't have to pay for $4 gas (because public transit in the Bay Area is generally pretty good by American standards, or you can easily bike year-round due to the mild climate), nor do you need to pay $6 for a bagel, there are lots of more reasonable options. But the high housing prices are hard to escape if you don't want to live far from work.
    - matthewowen 10y ago
      It's the height of irony that your post (which seems to be suggesting that the only reason I prefer San Francisco is snobbishness) is fundamentally predicated on a disbelief that anyone could reasonably have preferences different from your own. If you don't think the Bay Area has amenities worth paying for, that's ok. I do. Many other people do too. Different people like different things. That's ok. This is obviously besides the point that I've never paid $4 for gas or $6 for a bagel in San Francisco.
sliverstorm 10y ago
Don't discount the hype/brand. The Bay Area isn't the only place with great restaurants and ethnic diversity, but it gets all the attention.
- matthewowen 10y ago
  I want to live in a place where I can ride my bicycle year round in dry weather, where I don't have to drive to get to work or do stuff, where there's a vibrant cultural life, and where there's a wide range of excellent restaurants (with a sufficiently lively scene that there are often new things to try). I'd also like to be able to easily go skiing in the winter. Would genuinely love to hear your suggestions on where else I can get all that.
dionidium 10y ago
This is exactly right, but the conclusion to draw is that a lot of regular people would be better off leaving San Francisco for the same reason that they should drive a Honda and not a Tesla.
- matthewowen 10y ago
  And yet they don't. Revealed preference?
  - dionidium 10y ago
    I wouldn't be so sure. The reverse migration of blacks may be a harbinger. I get why young, single programmers still think it's worth it to pursue a life in San Francisco, but the pressure on regular families has to break at some point. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/02/census-great-migration-reversal/21818127/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/02/census-...
ameen 10y ago
I hope there were a list of alternatives compared to the Bay Area, can't really think of many that have tech jobs.
gjolund 10y ago
As a former SF resident, SF isn't that great and there are plenty of areas that offer a lot more for a lot less.
- matthewowen 10y ago
  I gotta be honest: I don't see how your point adds anything. You didn't think San Francisco was worth paying a premium for you, so you left. That was sensible. My post is purely making the point that there are combinations of things that this area offers that you don't get elsewhere, and for some people that's a compelling reason to stay. If you don't want those things, you shouldn't. My belief is that the fact that so many people do say despite the cost reveals that said combination is important to many people.

liquidise 10y ago

It is facile. You can insert any 2 areas for "Omaha" and "Bay Area" and much if not all of what you says remains true. Denver is also known for nearly everything you mention except valley companies. Our housing is a fraction of bay area prices. Heck, even places like Portland, ME offer all but similar ethnic diversity and their home costs are a small fraction bay area prices. The difference at play is not culture. The difference is housing market restrictions, median wages and company + worker density. Every city has cultural, food and geographic advantages. To word it that the Bay Area is nearly strictly superior is to frankly confuse the issue entirely.

matthewowen 10y ago
I didn't say it was strictly superior. Denver has snow. It doesn't have a comparable food scene. Portland, ME is small and has cold winters. Did you mean Portland, OR? Again, big climate difference. Again, it's not whether one is better or not. That's personal preference. But the Bay Area has excellent cultural amenities and a pleasant climate. There are many people for whom that is important. There's a reason so many people say that they'd love to live in Chicago if it weren't for the winters. If that doesn't apply to you, congratulations! You can save money! Personally, I like being in the Bay Area, and the things I like about it aren't available in Omaha or Denver.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  "and the things I like about it aren't available in Omaha or Denver" Like $4 gas and $6 bagels? Or is the the ability to belong to a group of people that can afford $4 gas and $6 bagels that's notably missing from other places?
  - Johnny555 10y ago
    You don't have to pay for $4 gas (because public transit in the Bay Area is generally pretty good by American standards, or you can easily bike year-round due to the mild climate), nor do you need to pay $6 for a bagel, there are lots of more reasonable options. But the high housing prices are hard to escape if you don't want to live far from work.
  - matthewowen 10y ago
    It's the height of irony that your post (which seems to be suggesting that the only reason I prefer San Francisco is snobbishness) is fundamentally predicated on a disbelief that anyone could reasonably have preferences different from your own. If you don't think the Bay Area has amenities worth paying for, that's ok. I do. Many other people do too. Different people like different things. That's ok. This is obviously besides the point that I've never paid $4 for gas or $6 for a bagel in San Francisco.

sliverstorm 10y ago

Don't discount the hype/brand. The Bay Area isn't the only place with great restaurants and ethnic diversity, but it gets all the attention.

matthewowen 10y ago
I want to live in a place where I can ride my bicycle year round in dry weather, where I don't have to drive to get to work or do stuff, where there's a vibrant cultural life, and where there's a wide range of excellent restaurants (with a sufficiently lively scene that there are often new things to try). I'd also like to be able to easily go skiing in the winter. Would genuinely love to hear your suggestions on where else I can get all that.

dionidium 10y ago

This is exactly right, but the conclusion to draw is that a lot of regular people would be better off leaving San Francisco for the same reason that they should drive a Honda and not a Tesla.

matthewowen 10y ago
And yet they don't. Revealed preference?
- dionidium 10y ago
  I wouldn't be so sure. The reverse migration of blacks may be a harbinger. I get why young, single programmers still think it's worth it to pursue a life in San Francisco, but the pressure on regular families has to break at some point. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/02/census-great-migration-reversal/21818127/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/02/census-...

ameen 10y ago

I hope there were a list of alternatives compared to the Bay Area, can't really think of many that have tech jobs.

gjolund 10y ago

As a former SF resident, SF isn't that great and there are plenty of areas that offer a lot more for a lot less.

matthewowen 10y ago
I gotta be honest: I don't see how your point adds anything. You didn't think San Francisco was worth paying a premium for you, so you left. That was sensible. My post is purely making the point that there are combinations of things that this area offers that you don't get elsewhere, and for some people that's a compelling reason to stay. If you don't want those things, you shouldn't. My belief is that the fact that so many people do say despite the cost reveals that said combination is important to many people.