5 ms·

Hmm a room in a shared house in mountain view, 10-15 min bike to work along a forest trail, can be rented for $1200-1500. Restaurants are about 30% more expensi

by _cs2017_ 8y ago

Hmm a room in a shared house in mountain view, 10-15 min bike to work along a forest trail, can be rented for $1200-1500. Restaurants are about 30% more expensive than elsewhere, but that's still a tiny amount in absolute terms. Most other expenses here are not that different from other cities. And the jobs pay a little better, and there's more choice of good companies. I really don't understand why SV is considered over priced - unless you want your own house of course.

RandallBrown 8y ago
A room in a shared house for $1500 is pretty insane for a suburb.
- gk1 8y ago
  It should be considered insane for any place.
driverdan 8y ago
For $1200-1500 you can buy a house in most of the country and not have to share it. Most jobs aren't a 10-15 min bike ride from MV either. You've also ignored CA's high tax rates.
- _cs2017_ 8y ago
  MV was just an example. SF is roughly similar, and if your job is in Cupertino or San Jose, it's even cheaper. I guess higher tax rates eat up another 5-10% of pretax income? I think there's still a largish premium in comp after accounting for that. And yes, once you need your own place, it's hard. I meant until that point.
Kluny 8y ago
12-1500 gets you an apartment on your own in Victoria, which is itself considered one of the most expensive rental markets in Canada.
- toephu2 8y ago
  Are there job opportunities in Victoria like there are in Silicon Valley?
bronson 8y ago
That means you're spending at least $24000/year on housing. If that's 1/3 of your income, you're making $72,000/year. For a room in a shared house. That doesn't sound insane to you?
- otalp 8y ago
  But that rent is considered normal in most major cities: NYC, DC, Toronto, Vancouver...
  - jonknee 8y ago
    But we’re talking about renting a room in a suburban house, not about living in a major city. It’s insane.
  - s0rce 8y ago
    A room in a house in a Toronto suburb is not $1500/month, no where close. Even close to downtown looks like its less than $1000/month. While Toronto isn't cheap and is certainly getting more expensive its not bay area expensive (yet).
DoreenMichele 8y ago
Given that the rule of thumb is that housing should be about a third of your income, you are talking about needing $3600-$4500 income a month. That's $43200 to $54000 annually minimum. And you are talking about just renting a room, not getting a place to yourself. That basically means staying single, or at least childless. It isn't a situation conducive to having a family. California per capita income in 2010-2014 was $30,441. Median household income for the same period: $61,933. So, no, most Californians cannot readily afford that kind of rent for just a room, not an apartment. And California is ranked 9th in the US for median family income. In most states, that is an even more mind-boggling figure. All figures from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incom...
- shagie 8y ago
  While true, I find that data lacking. Unfortunately, those statistics aren't broken down by area. No, most Californians cannot really afford to live in San Francisco Bay Area. And most Illinois residents can't afford to buy a place in Chicago. And most New York residents can't afford to buy a place in New York City. This likely extends to other states too... Arizona has a per capita income of $20k and Phoenix rent is about $1000 for an apartment. So, nope, average person in Arizona can't stay in Phoenix. Missouri is right after arizona and also at $20k per capita... and rentals in Saint Louis aren't that much less. https://www.fatherly.com/news/map-average-cost-house-each-state-us/ https://www.fatherly.com/news/map-average-cost-house-each-st... suffers the same problem - statewide data. Going from http://harvard-cga.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=ea1929b8f2bf482dadad173a3f62c27e http://harvard-cga.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html... ( http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/ARH_2017_cost_burdens_by_metro http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/ARH_2017_cost_burdens_by_metro - data by metro) there are very few areas where the there isn't a cost burden (renter spending more than 30% on rental). San Francisco is at 45.6%. San Jose is 46.3%. That puts San Francisco at #317 when sorted by cost burden percent. San Hose is at #281. That's a long way from Iowa City (62.1%) at #5 (#2 in the list for severely burdened renter share at 43.0% meaning 43% of the rentals spend more than 50% of their income on the rental). For that matter, Redding is at 61.1% (#9) and Fresno is at 47.5% (#24). This isn't a uniquely bay area problem... and the bay area is in much better shape than Flint Michigan (#66) at 53.6%.

RandallBrown 8y ago

A room in a shared house for $1500 is pretty insane for a suburb.

gk1 8y ago
It should be considered insane for any place.

driverdan 8y ago

For $1200-1500 you can buy a house in most of the country and not have to share it. Most jobs aren't a 10-15 min bike ride from MV either. You've also ignored CA's high tax rates.

_cs2017_ 8y ago
MV was just an example. SF is roughly similar, and if your job is in Cupertino or San Jose, it's even cheaper. I guess higher tax rates eat up another 5-10% of pretax income? I think there's still a largish premium in comp after accounting for that. And yes, once you need your own place, it's hard. I meant until that point.

Kluny 8y ago

12-1500 gets you an apartment on your own in Victoria, which is itself considered one of the most expensive rental markets in Canada.

toephu2 8y ago
Are there job opportunities in Victoria like there are in Silicon Valley?

bronson 8y ago

That means you're spending at least $24000/year on housing. If that's 1/3 of your income, you're making $72,000/year. For a room in a shared house. That doesn't sound insane to you?

otalp 8y ago
But that rent is considered normal in most major cities: NYC, DC, Toronto, Vancouver...
- jonknee 8y ago
  But we’re talking about renting a room in a suburban house, not about living in a major city. It’s insane.
- s0rce 8y ago
  A room in a house in a Toronto suburb is not $1500/month, no where close. Even close to downtown looks like its less than $1000/month. While Toronto isn't cheap and is certainly getting more expensive its not bay area expensive (yet).

DoreenMichele 8y ago

Given that the rule of thumb is that housing should be about a third of your income, you are talking about needing $3600-$4500 income a month. That's $43200 to $54000 annually minimum. And you are talking about just renting a room, not getting a place to yourself. That basically means staying single, or at least childless. It isn't a situation conducive to having a family. California per capita income in 2010-2014 was $30,441. Median household income for the same period: $61,933. So, no, most Californians cannot readily afford that kind of rent for just a room, not an apartment. And California is ranked 9th in the US for median family income. In most states, that is an even more mind-boggling figure. All figures from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incom...

shagie 8y ago
While true, I find that data lacking. Unfortunately, those statistics aren't broken down by area. No, most Californians cannot really afford to live in San Francisco Bay Area. And most Illinois residents can't afford to buy a place in Chicago. And most New York residents can't afford to buy a place in New York City. This likely extends to other states too... Arizona has a per capita income of $20k and Phoenix rent is about $1000 for an apartment. So, nope, average person in Arizona can't stay in Phoenix. Missouri is right after arizona and also at $20k per capita... and rentals in Saint Louis aren't that much less. https://www.fatherly.com/news/map-average-cost-house-each-state-us/ https://www.fatherly.com/news/map-average-cost-house-each-st... suffers the same problem - statewide data. Going from http://harvard-cga.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=ea1929b8f2bf482dadad173a3f62c27e http://harvard-cga.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html... ( http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/ARH_2017_cost_burdens_by_metro http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/ARH_2017_cost_burdens_by_metro - data by metro) there are very few areas where the there isn't a cost burden (renter spending more than 30% on rental). San Francisco is at 45.6%. San Jose is 46.3%. That puts San Francisco at #317 when sorted by cost burden percent. San Hose is at #281. That's a long way from Iowa City (62.1%) at #5 (#2 in the list for severely burdened renter share at 43.0% meaning 43% of the rentals spend more than 50% of their income on the rental). For that matter, Redding is at 61.1% (#9) and Fresno is at 47.5% (#24). This isn't a uniquely bay area problem... and the bay area is in much better shape than Flint Michigan (#66) at 53.6%.