4 ms·

Having spent a year in the Bay Area after living in Portland for 10, I really do feel there is much more creative energy in places like Portland, and also that

Having spent a year in the Bay Area after living in Portland for 10, I really do feel there is much more creative energy in places like Portland, and also that it's a far better place to start most companies. The problem is that the Bay Area might be full of more creative, interesting people, but the quality and cost of life down there is terrible (and nobody's fixing it), and the problems associated with that more than mitigates the benefits. You meet smart people, but in order to pay their exorbitant rent they need to work long hours for companies that can pay them an enormous salary, and that's usually the big ones you know about already. That financial burdon, combined with chronic transportation issues, prevents the congealing of people and free time required to form the really creative new ideas and companies, and you just end up with whatever the VCs want to throw a pile of money onto. So naturally, the thing I do find the area useful for is companies that could be considered VC/10x plays. But I feel like most companies, even very successful ones, don't fall under that criteria. And it only works for companies VCs are willing to fund, limiting your ability to get creative and outside the box. My advice would be to go there for 1-2 years after college, then decide if all the problems with the area are worth it. Anecdotally, most people I've known eventually get sick of it and leave. And infact the problems are so bad now that the area has started losing population. I think in order for the Bay Area (and California in general) to really become good for creatives, they need to take a deep existential look at themselves and really decide that they're willing to solve the problems. That means making radical, Marshall Plan levels of reform to zoning and property tax laws, establishment of strong regional metropolitan governments, and significant investments in better transportation. I have zero confidence in the idea that the region will continue to be successful unless they aggressively tackle these problems.

aphextron 8y ago
>I think in order for the Bay Area (and California in general) to really become good for creatives, they need to take a deep existential look at themselves and really decide that they're willing to solve the problems. That means making radical, Marshall Plan levels of reform to zoning and property tax laws, establishment of strong regional metropolitan governments, and significant investments in better transportation. And this will never, ever happen. California is going to continue it's slide into something resembling the third world, where the ultra-rich elite 10% live in their exurban gated communities with armed guards, and a permanent underclass of service workers provides for their every need while barely scraping out an existence. The incentives pushing things in this direction are simply too great for any kind of change to happen. I've been here for 4 years now and have seen it visibly getting worse in that time. The place is completely unlivable. I'm now just biding my time to save for a down payment in Seattle or Portland, because the thought of buying a house here has literally become a punchline for even high income earners.
- jonbarker 8y ago
  Having lived there and now living in a cheaper real estate market I am grateful for having lived there, where I could not afford a house. I am now no longer interested in owning residential real estate no matter where I go!
  - kyledrake 8y ago
    The housing market is flooded with buyers right now, all-cash offers and waived inspections. It's obvious to me that most buyers don't realize the risks associated with their investment, don't understand how to monetize them against rents from long-term buyers, and are just generally thinking emotionally and irrationally. Terrible market to buy in if you don't like spending the rest of your life paying off a money pit, unless you're somewhere like Cleveland where there's a lot of decent supply and less demand (I saw some pretty solid houses there for ~50k). Good general rule of thumb is your cost of housing shouldn't exceed 30% of your income.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - jonbarker 8y ago
      To that I'd add if you buy make sure you are pretty sure you will be in the local market for work for 6-7 years, so even if the mortgage is below 30% and rent is more like 50% if you aren't confident you'll stay put for a while you still shouldn't buy. I think there is an irrational scramble to buy going on now too although I think it is not at the scale that caused the global financial crisis.
    - tedmiston 8y ago
      > Good general rule of thumb is your cost of housing shouldn't exceed 30% of your income. The 40x rule in New York (annual income must be at least 40x monthly rent) conveniently works out to be 30% too. https://www.nakedapartments.com/guides/nyc/beginning-your-search/calculate-your-maximum-rent https://www.nakedapartments.com/guides/nyc/beginning-your-se...
- 8y ago

aphextron 8y ago

>I think in order for the Bay Area (and California in general) to really become good for creatives, they need to take a deep existential look at themselves and really decide that they're willing to solve the problems. That means making radical, Marshall Plan levels of reform to zoning and property tax laws, establishment of strong regional metropolitan governments, and significant investments in better transportation. And this will never, ever happen. California is going to continue it's slide into something resembling the third world, where the ultra-rich elite 10% live in their exurban gated communities with armed guards, and a permanent underclass of service workers provides for their every need while barely scraping out an existence. The incentives pushing things in this direction are simply too great for any kind of change to happen. I've been here for 4 years now and have seen it visibly getting worse in that time. The place is completely unlivable. I'm now just biding my time to save for a down payment in Seattle or Portland, because the thought of buying a house here has literally become a punchline for even high income earners.

jonbarker 8y ago
Having lived there and now living in a cheaper real estate market I am grateful for having lived there, where I could not afford a house. I am now no longer interested in owning residential real estate no matter where I go!
- kyledrake 8y ago
  The housing market is flooded with buyers right now, all-cash offers and waived inspections. It's obvious to me that most buyers don't realize the risks associated with their investment, don't understand how to monetize them against rents from long-term buyers, and are just generally thinking emotionally and irrationally. Terrible market to buy in if you don't like spending the rest of your life paying off a money pit, unless you're somewhere like Cleveland where there's a lot of decent supply and less demand (I saw some pretty solid houses there for ~50k). Good general rule of thumb is your cost of housing shouldn't exceed 30% of your income.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonbarker 8y ago
    To that I'd add if you buy make sure you are pretty sure you will be in the local market for work for 6-7 years, so even if the mortgage is below 30% and rent is more like 50% if you aren't confident you'll stay put for a while you still shouldn't buy. I think there is an irrational scramble to buy going on now too although I think it is not at the scale that caused the global financial crisis.
  - tedmiston 8y ago
    > Good general rule of thumb is your cost of housing shouldn't exceed 30% of your income. The 40x rule in New York (annual income must be at least 40x monthly rent) conveniently works out to be 30% too. https://www.nakedapartments.com/guides/nyc/beginning-your-search/calculate-your-maximum-rent https://www.nakedapartments.com/guides/nyc/beginning-your-se...
8y ago