20 ms·

San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

• tn13 13y ago
  I moved to SFBay area from India and despite an above american average salary find it hard to get a decent apartment to live in with say 30% of my income. This is ridiculous. I was much better off in India. I paid only 1/10th of my salary to get a twice bigger apartment.
• jseliger 13y ago
  Even I, who makes a decent salary, have seen the great American dream of home ownership recede into the distance. That's a policy choice. I lived in Tucson for for years, and nice houses there could be bought for $200,000. Sometimes less. SF has made a choice about not allowing people to live there: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/facebook_george_lucas_and_nimbyism_the_idiotic_rules_preventing_silicon_valley_from_building_the_houses_and_offices_we_need_to_power_american_innovation_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... , and in this respect it's like many other major cities: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-of-two-town-houses/6334 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-o... . The cost-of-living issue is really a political, regulatory, and legal problem. There are some people in some places that are trying to solve this problem (Smart Growth Seattle is one that I know: http://www.smartgrowthseattle.org/ http://www.smartgrowthseattle.org/), but so far those efforts are pretty small.
  • necubi 13y ago
    That's pretty reductionist. San Francisco's housing policies are definitely responsible for some of the price difference between here and Tucson, but you can't ignore the geography. SF is a 7x7 mile square surrounded by water on three sides. Tucson is a sprawling mess that go on for dozens of miles. Dense, desirable, naturally bound cities are always going to be more expensive than endless exurbs. Look at housing prices in Hong Kong if you think that looser zoning is a cure-all for high prices.
    • cynicalkane 13y ago
      Hong Kong is one of the wealthiest, most space-constrained places on the planet, and remains far cheaper than areas of similar population density and economic role. Compare Hong Kong to Manhattan, Tokyo, London.
      • pekk 13y ago
        Would this remain true if salaries inflated to SV levels?
    • Jgrubb 13y ago
      Phoenix is the mess you're thinking of. Tucson is fairly reasonable as far as size goes.
      • ebiester 13y ago
        Tucson is approximately the same size as Chicago, when talking about the actual city. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by... -- Tucson is both giant and sparse.
        • davidw 13y ago
          https://maps.google.com/maps?q=tucson,+az&hl=en&ll=32.176194,-110.800552&spn=0.488776,1.056747&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=57.684464,135.263672&hnear=Tucson,+Pima,+Arizona&t=m&z=11 https://maps.google.com/maps?q=tucson,+az&hl=en&ll=32.176194... Looks like they include a lot of land for whatever reason that's not really "city" - and don't include some that is. I don't know what the job climate is like there, or life in general, but it seems like a fairly nice place: college town, desert climate, but they also have a ski resort (!) just out of town, because to the north east they have a 3000 meter mountain that juts up out of the plain.
          • ebiester 13y ago
            It used to be much worse -- a lot of the land grab was due to Arizona law years ago. But Tucson, as it has grown, has seen a lot of infill. Even so, places that look empty often have 1 per 3 acre housing.
  • ebiester 13y ago
    Yes, but the job market sucks there, especially if you don't want to work in Defense. :) If you want to live where life is remotely walkable (a la San Francisco), the prices jump considerably. A decent house in a decent neighborhood comfortably around downtown will run 300k. Making half what you do in SF and paying 300k isn't so grand. I love Tucson. I grew up there. It's just a bad place to be a software developer.
• dmix 13y ago
  > The recent BART strikes are just a single data point in a larger trend: we’re alienating everyone who isn’t in technology. I'm not from SF but from an outside perspective: Taxes have increased 33% in the bay area since 2008 [1] and BART is "running at a surplus"...but BART transit workers have not had a pay raise since 2008? Can someone explain to me why the SF tech community are the bad guys here? ...Besides a few smug tech workers who get sound bites in the news. Also notably, rent/housing is usually around 25-30% of cost of living and SF regulators are famous for not building affordable high-rise buildings. [1] http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/07/00/72/1838722/9/628x471.jpg http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/07/00/72/1838722/9/628x471.jpg
  • taway2012 13y ago
    Taxes went up by 33% from 2008 through 2011? Doesn't seem credible to me. Can you post the article in which the image you posted occurs?
    • jusben1369 13y ago
      Probably referring to state taxes which are a smaller % of your total tax burden.
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    • dmix 13y ago
      It was linked from the article posted in Tom Dale's blog post. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Report-Basic-cost-of-living-soars-in-Bay-Area-2328452.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Report-Basic-cost-of-livi...
    • wmil 13y ago
      I have one possible explanation. Proposition 13 limits property tax increases to 2% per year in California. As a result, many homes are taxed at far below their market value. If a lot of long term residents with dirt cheap property tax sold during that period you could see a dramatic bump in average tax per household.
• gms 13y ago
  The wealthy tech people aren't the ones ruining San Francisco. You have to ask yourself: in what universe would constant increases in tax revenues and wealthy consumers be bad for a city? The answer, sadly, is a universe where said city has an utterly incompetent government.
  • king_jester 13y ago
    > The wealthy tech people aren't the ones ruining San Francisco. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification
    • DannyBee 13y ago
      You didn't actually address any of his points, except to point out that some folks view gentrification as a problem in SF. I actually agree with the comment you replied to. Severe governmental incompetence in SF has been worse for the city than gentrification.
      • king_jester 13y ago
        Both of those things are bad in general for cities. However, OP expressed doubt that increased presence of wealthy residents couldn't be anything but good for a city when clearly it is not so obvious.
        • DannyBee 13y ago
          Except that when it related to san francisco, some of the things on that wikipedia page are directly contradictory to the point i think parent was trying to make: IE "When wealthy people move into low-income working-class neighborhoods, the resulting class conflict sometimes involves vandalism and arson targeting the property of the gentrifiers. During the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, the gentrification of San Francisco's predominantly working class Mission District led some long-term neighborhood residents to create what they called the "Mission Yuppie Eradication Project.(image)" This group allegedly destroyed property and called for property destruction as part of a strategy to oppose gentrification. Their activities drew hostile responses from the San Francisco Police Department, real estate interests, and "work-within-the-system" housing activists.[37]" This is not a problem with the wealthy people! Now you could argue this is still "not good", but there was no real argument made at all, just an implication of "you should read this wikipedia page since it comprehensively responds to your ideas", and it really doesn't. Basically, i'm trying to understand whether he actually wanted to participate in the discussion and had substantive points, or just thought it was obvious and covered by this wikipedia page.
• caniszczyk 13y ago
  This blog post sums up why I choose to live in Austin these days... and commute to SF a couple times a month for work. I just find SF overrated, crazy, dirty and unbalanced. This also reminds me a bit of al3x's post about San Francisco awhile ago... http://al3x.net/2009/10/04/so-youre-moving-to-san-francisco.html http://al3x.net/2009/10/04/so-youre-moving-to-san-francisco....
• RyanZAG 13y ago
  Doesn't seem like a great solution. If the tech guys leave SF, it would be like Detroit. SF and tech are now linked in the way Detroit and cars were. If you try pull the tech out, you'll be left with a husk fighting over crumbs. I don't even live in SF and this is clear to me. Or maybe it's clear to me because I don't live in SF?
  • rdl 13y ago
    I think even sans the tech industry, SF would still be a desirable enough place for people to live that it wouldn't have much of a problem. Even clearer if tech just remained in Silicon Valley; plenty of people would live in SF and commute. Even just finance is probably strong enough to support SF. Or, like Vancouver, lots of people from Asia. The tolerant/hippie/gay/etc. angle might be enough as well.
    • mc32 13y ago
      SF in '89, before tech started hitting, was not a pretty place. The Dirty Harry movies of the 70s, I think, were inspired to some extent by the decaying city. Technology breathed life into the Bay Area (San Jose was not much better back then either).
      • nickv 13y ago
        You have to understand that nearly all cities were shitholes in 1989 until the Urban Revitalization of the late 90s. This wasn't an SF specific thing. NYC, for example, had over 1200 murders in 1992 (!!!) compared to last year's 414. SF's revitalization has more to do with that than with "tech" jobs. I know in the Hacker News echo-chamber its hard to think there's anything but Internet Tech in SF but it's got ALOT more business than that -- It's the largest banking center on the west coast, got a massive bio-tech footprint, has some major apparel companies (Levi and Gap and a bunch of smaller ones), etc, etc. It's pretty diversified.
        • rdl 13y ago
          What caused the "urban revitalization"? Was it just that people who hadn't been around during the 1968-~1980 urban hell were finally in a position to be buying their first homes?
• yid 13y ago
  Sorry to see you leave San Francisco. I've had a similar introduction to the city and don't intend to leave. One subtext that I'm reading into your article (incorrectly, perhaps), and seeing lots of elsewhere, is a subtle guilt among tech works for the salaries they make in the Bay Area. I understand that as techies we're inclined towards a sort of egalitarianism, but perhaps there's an inherent conflict somewhere between that and the exits and acqui-hires and searches for small fortunes.
• DanBlake 13y ago
  The reason for San Francisco's high rent/home price is very simple, despite how others like to complicate it more: 1: Its desirable for most people to live here. Possibly the most desirable place in the USA, depending on your tastes. As a result, people are willing to pay more to live here. There are jobs, culture, food, art and much more all in this great city. 2: Rent Control. I wont get too much into it, but my take as a real estate investor is that it greatly entices residents to stay put once they have rented. As a result, there is significantly higher rent (due to less supply) for new residents. Many apartments are not rented at all because of the owners fear of rent control. SF needs to get over its "you have a right to live at your same address forever" attitude. 3: No new housing/construction. SF is a 7x7 plot of land which through both NIMBY-like behavior and heavy legislation/bureaucracy, has pushed a extremely anti-developer agenda. Every year, thousands and thousands of people move to SF. Unfortunately, there is less than 1 new housing unit built for every 25 new residents. The common thread that is thrown around is "We dont want SF to turn into a mini tokyo with skyscrapers and tiny apartments" so instead we have 3 floor victorians being used to house 10 roommates at $1500/pop.
  • deadfall 13y ago
    SF approved "tiny apartments" http://www.wired.com/design/2012/11/san-francisco-micro-apartments/ http://www.wired.com/design/2012/11/san-francisco-micro-apar...
    • DanBlake 13y ago
      My understanding is that this is a special 'trial phase' for Kennedy. The planning department is not approving other similar projects until it studies/weighs the outcome of these.
    • fyolnish 13y ago
      Interesting title, considering that 20m^2 is considered pretty roomy in Tokyo
  • king_jester 13y ago
    The main reason why people don't want new residential development is because it will feed into gentrification and push people out because they can no longer afford to live in SF. NYC has been and is going through this problem right now and it is not pretty. EDIT: There are a lot of comments about increasing supply as a way to make housing/apartments cheaper in SF. This is not at all well demonstrated, as in NYC new real estate development as continually raised prices and priced out those who had previously resided in those neighborhoods (if they need to move they can no longer afford the cost of living in said neighborhood, esp. if they lived in a rent stabilized or controlled place). New real estate development can make things cheaper, but we are seeing cities have population influxes and those cities traditionally are land limited for new construction. Those two factors work together to ensure that properties are renovated or rebuilt at higher cost to a wealth class that can afford it. It should be obvious that this is not sustainable, cities that do not provide a sustainable way to live for all classes will collapse.
• alxbrun 13y ago
  SF is great for two categories of people: - The wealthy - The homeless (yes, social services and tolerance is much better here than in any other big city in the US) People caught in the middle who own a house will survive 10 years before quitting. If they don't own a house they have already left. I'm doing more than $100K and I had to leave the day I started a family (try to find a rent below $6K for something suitable for a couple + 2 children). I think it's sad that the city will progressively become a strange place where the very rich and the bums stare at each other. If you want to have a preview, spend one hour on Market and 7th.
  • rdl 13y ago
    I know absurdly rich people with children who moved out of the city, even when they could afford an $8mm house suitable for a family, because of the schools, too. (and weather, but mainly schools); the mortgage differential between SF and a place like Hillsborough or Palo Alto, combined with $30-50k/yr per child for 14 years or so of schools (to go to private schools in SF, vs. good public schools), is a lot of money. You'll end up with the homeless, the super wealthy, and maybe the $70-200k/yr earning singles or (young) couples without kids. Tech seems to mostly hire from that third group.
    • alxbrun 13y ago
      Cannot agree more -- I actually moved to Palo Alto :)
  • typicalrunt 13y ago
    I feel exactly the same way except that I'm in another city, Vancouver BC. There is an odd assortment of people in Vancouver consisting of the obscenely rich, wannabe rich, obscenely poor, and singles/couples with no children. Once you have children, you are pushed out of the Vancouver area and into the suburbs due to cost of adequate living conditions [1]. But people say, "oh, it's just the suburbs, it's not that far to drive" and not realize that we have the 2nd worst traffic in North America [2]. I really shudder to think what 10-20 years will do to a city where the middle class (whatever that word means nowadays) has been completely hollowed out. [1] http://www.vancouversun.com/news/East+Families+leave+Vancouver+suburbs+Surrey+Coquitlam+Langley+school+enrolments+rise+while+more+expensive+areas+decline/8614517/story.html http://www.vancouversun.com/news/East+Families+leave+Vancouv... [2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/01/08/bc-vancouver-traffic-congestion.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/01...
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• VladRussian2 13y ago
  was SF better during the Gold Rush? I mean the Rush of 160 years ago, not that of today.
• hayward2 13y ago
  I don't understand why tech workers in the Bay Area feel guilty about receiving 'high' salaries of $100 - $200k/year. This is not a lot of money... People on Wall street laugh at these amounts. So do specialized doctors, corporate lawyers, investment bankers, etc. Software engineering is unfortunately a very middle class occupation at this point. I'd love to see it get up into the ranks of the upper class (at least for very experienced engineers!), but it has a long way to go...
  • indspenceable 13y ago
    Yes, it is a lot of money. Those professions make a lot of money too. I feel a little guilty because I have friends who are doing things which are way better for society (teachers, for instance) and are damn good at what they do, but making only a fraction of what I make. I feel good about what my company does, but I don't think we (or especially other companies that are adding so little value to people who actually need it, rather than essentially just the tech elite in SF/NYC/etc) are adding so much more that it justifies the huge disparity in salary.
    • johnward 13y ago
      If you feel guilty you could always go do those other things that benefit society more or even do some volunteer work so you feel less guilty about making a decent living.
      • indspenceable 13y ago
        That's my point: I feel like software salaries are so much more than decent living wages. I don't feel bad about what I do personally, but I feel bad about our industry as a whole.
    • jongraehl 13y ago
      It's not that teaching is better for society than whatever you do (is it? how would we really know?) - it's that you get immediate "helping someone out" feedback all the time. It must be gratifying on that level (aside from the fact that it's hard to actually reach anyone who feels compelled to "do time" in your classroom). If you feel like you're missing that "good person" feeling, I'm sure you can figure out ways to get it.
• fingerprinter 13y ago
  My wife and I made a very conscious decision to NOT move to SF when we were looking to move back to the US from Australia. Frankly, SF and the whole valley were not where we wanted to raise our three kids (6, 2.5 and newborn). Doing cost comparisons, quality of life and education we just couldn't justify SF over other places. This is, by all accounts, a career limiting move for me (I'm in tech, but I work remote right now), but it is the right decision for our family. Perhaps in 10-15 years when the kids are older, though right now, !SF feels like the right decision for our family. My big hope for the next 10-15 years is that remote work becomes more and more common.
  • jedmeyers 13y ago
    It will be nice to see your comparison of the cost of living between Bay Area and, let's say, Sydney. Can you please provide one? Starting with the assumption that AUD 80k salary in IT in Sydney for the software engineer position will be equal to around $100k in SF.
    • timcederman 13y ago
      Cost of living in Sydney is just as high, if not higher than the Bay Area. I moved my family to the Bay Area from Australia and am very happy with the decision.
  • peferron 13y ago
    Out of curiosity: I've often heard that Australia is a great place to live. Did you move back to the US because you were missing "home", or was there anything in Australia you felt unhappy about for raising a family?
• dreamdu5t 13y ago
  Cry me a river. San Francisco is expensive. It's not the tech workers fault. Nobody owes you a home in San Francisco. The American dream is not home ownership. Where'd you hear that? A countrywide home loan commercial?
  • johnward 13y ago
    As an Ohio home owner who is thinking about moving to California and renting I agree. The dream of home ownership often overlooks the costs and insane amount of work involved in owning home and keeping it nice. I love having a 4 acre yard, but it takes me 7 hours to cut grass.
    • jusben1369 13y ago
      Well CA will certainly take care of that 4 acre yard problem for you :-) And the climate is sooo mild you'll be shocked by how little house work you need to do vs the rest of the country. No hard freezes or high humidity, no real bugs of infestations. A good exterior paint job will get you 10 - 15 years not 5 - 10.
      • johnward 13y ago
        I'm cool with just a few days of sunshine :). Even in the summer that's a rare occurrence here.
  • typicalrunt 13y ago
    Why do you feel that it is okay to dismiss someone's opinion outright? He's not suggesting that home ownership is a right, but merely that it would be nice to be able to have the possibility to own a home. Those are two very different things.
    • nether 13y ago
      The dream of home ownership is largely a manufactured one, like the desire for diamond rings, from William Levitt [0] and his Levittowns during the post-WW2 suburban boom. Before that, most Americans were quite content renting for their entire lives. Even today, countries with standards of living otherwise close to that of the US (western Europe, Australia) have much lower rates of home ownership with no reduction in quality of life (many would say it's an increase). Those countries never experienced the push for private living driven by homebuilders and carmakers in the US in the 1950s. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Levitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Levitt
• zzzeek 13y ago
  Move to New York City. Your uppity tech salary will again be paltry peanuts compared to the all the hedge fund guys that "turn the market upside down" here.
  • johnward 13y ago
    I imagine wall street conversations being something like "Coder: I make 200k. Trader: Oh me too. Per day"
    • abat 13y ago
      No, just comments about wasting 1K on alcohol in a single night.
• grbalaffa 13y ago
  This weekend I spent some time walking around SF and was astounded at how many new apartments are under construction. Even more interesting were the old run-down buildings which were apparently being shuttered in preparation for even more new places to live. There will be a lot of hand-wringing about the city's loss of character, but in the end the new construction will probably ease things. The city in essence put a moratorium on new housing after the real estate bubble burst in 2008. For several years afterwards there were virtually no new housing units added to the city at all.[1] Now that the de-facto ban has been lifted, there can actually be some new units to help give all the newcomers and old residents places to live.[2] [1] Go here and scroll down to "Previous releases": http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1691 http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1691 Note the difference between 2009-2011 and now. [2] Of course there will some who claim that no amount of new housing will fix things, or that new construction will only make things worse. It remains to be seen what the longer-term outcome will be. Rents in the Bay Area actually went down after the last two bubbles burst (the original dot-com boom in 2000 and the real estate boom in the mid-2000s), so it is clearly not impossible for the housing market to change direction.
• woah 13y ago
  The really interesting thing about SF is that it's not 7x7 as people claim- it's actually more like 3x3. The "City" is confined to a tiny area downtown and in the Mission and SOMA. The entire southern and western parts of SF are low-density suburban sprawl. This is a result of terrible planning in the 50's and shortsighted opposition to new housing and transit ever since.
  • RickHull 13y ago
    > it's actually more like 3x3. The "City" is confined to a tiny area downtown and in the Mission and SOMA. What about Nob Hill, Russian Hill, and North Beach? Pacific Heights, Marina, Haight? These aren't examples low-density suburban sprawl.
    • woah 13y ago
      Good point, I guess I was lumping them in with downtown. But still, it's basically just the northeast.
  • geebee 13y ago
    I'm guessing you're talking mainly about the outer richmond, outer sunset, and maybe the excelsior? There are a few truly suburban-ish spots in the hilly parts in the middle of the city (like Monterey Heights, for instance), but I don't think those are very extensive. Population density of the outer sunset is: 16,489 Monterey heights: 9,639 btw, I'm getting these from http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Monterey-Heights-San-Francisco-CA.html http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Monterey-Heights-San-F... Now let's take a really sprawly place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch,_California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch,_California about 3,500/sq mi This might not be completely fair, since I'm taking all of antioch whereas I'm doing SF in a neighborhood-by-neighborhood way... but all in all, I just don't think you can call any part of san francisco "suburban sprawl" without stretching the term beyond what people typically mean when they say it.
• johnward 13y ago
  I wouldn't underestimate the effects a lack of sunlight will have on you. This coming from a part of the country that receives a little bit less sunlight that Seattle (Pittsburgh area). Seasonal depression can really make life suck. I'm also probably a little bit upset because it's been raining for something like 12 days straight.
  • davidw 13y ago
    I'm a native Oregonian - born and raised in the Willamette valley. The weather made me want to get the hell out, though. It's not that it rains that much, it's just that it's gray and bleak so often. During the winter, it's usually around 5C or maybe up to 10C (that's about 40-50F). The cold and drizzly weather is absolutely miserable if you like the outdoors, because you can't really do much. Too warm for snow and "winter" activities, but too cold to do much without a lot of expensive gear that, at best keeps you "not cold" in a clammy, squishy, sodden sort of way. Here's a bit of street view that feels very "Western Oregon" to me: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Eugene,+Oregon&hl=en&ll=43.917155,-123.449206&spn=0.026122,0.066047&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=57.684464,135.263672&hnear=Eugene,+Lane,+Oregon&t=p&z=15&layer=c&cbll=43.917106,-123.449759&panoid=tSr3EKPTwRZhlz9KAnFZtA&cbp=12,85.38,,0,5.5 https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Eugene,+Oregon&hl=en&ll=43.91... Nothing so extreme as to be exciting, just that solid, slate gray sky.
    • johnward 13y ago
      That's pretty much Pittsburgh summer weather too. Sunshine is a rarity even in the summer. It's always grey and cloudy. Although it gets cold enough for snow but I don't enjoy snow like I did when I was a kid.
    • cbosch 13y ago
      ha! that's wolf creek road in eugene. an awesome road for cycling. I live in san francisco but I visit my friends in eugene in july. luckily, in july, the weather in eugene is typically superb. I think it'd be pretty tough for me to handle all the grey during the rest of the year. the bay area has a lot of paradise weather - I grew up in marin - and when I went to the east coast for school I had trouble with the grey and interminable springs. it just sucked in comparison.
• api 13y ago
  I've got a possibly great job offer on the table from SF/SV, but may turn it down. I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. The real estate market is certifiably, utterly bat-dookie insane. NYC is often considered more expensive, and Manhattan is certainly... well... Manhattan. But taken collectively the NYC metro area is actually much more affordable. You can find places to live that are nice, friendly to someone older than 25-30, and at least sanely priced. They might not be in the closest or most fashionable neighborhoods, but they'll be reachable by NYC's excellent transit system. In SF you have nowhere good to go unless you want an absurd commute, and its transit is horrible compared to NYC. So you're either rich or you're in a crummy apartment or with roommates. That doesn't work for people who aren't kids in their 20s. My suspicion is that it's part policy choice -- a lot of protectionism from existing property owners who want to keep riding the property bubble and a lot of NIMBYism -- and part irresponsibility on the part of homebuyers. I suspect that many homebuyers in SF are doing the irresponsible thing of squeezing into a home by spending upwards of 40%, even 50+% of their income on mortgage payments instead of the usually fiscally responsible number of ~30%. And this is punishing everyone and sucking the soul from the city. In the long term, Silicon Valley and SF is eating its young. It's a city built on young entrepreneurs coming there and doing new stuff, but if nobody who hasn't already made it can afford to live there what happens then? The other problem is that these high costs soak up everyone's spare time and money, leaving them with the requirement to work like crazy for other people to afford to live instead of on their own innovative projects. It sucks away the marginal "play time" when innovation really happens. If this isn't remedied, SF/SV will become an echo chamber of already-made-its and already-know-it-alls. Then it will stagnate and be left behind. Edit: real estate hyperinflation in general is a social ill that deserves to be tackled directly as such. It seems as if real estate has mutated into this hungry sponge that sucks up all surplus economic vitality from any region that experiences success. Imagine what all that money in SV could be doing if it weren't all sucked up by real estate. It's like beyond a certain point, people no longer get wealthier. Their houses do. The home -- the "American dream" -- has become a tool of indentured servitude and bank fiefdom.
  • RKoutnik 13y ago
    Have you looked into Alameda? It's hundreds cheaper than anywhere in SF proper, quieter/cleaner and my commute's only 20 min.
• ryanobjc 13y ago
  Congrats on the big move! Hopefully it works out well for you. I used to live in Seattle. And there was much griping about people from California (usually half-whispered) ruining everything. Between the influx of California-types running up the housing market, to just general growth it was a background thread up there. Portland is a pretty small city with a moderate cost of living. With your new salary and income, aren't you distorting the market in the same way as in San Francisco? Only even more so, due to the small market size?
• drstewart 13y ago
  There's a certain amount of irony in someone complaining about how rich techies ruined SF, and then gloat about how you move to another city to do the very same thing. In 10 years, people will be complaining about how people like the author "ruined" Portland (and Austin). Actually, this already happens.
  • jaggederest 13y ago
    As a Portland resident, I agree, rents are rising rapidly. I think people will find it a bit harder than they imagine - there's a huge level of alienation. Obviously the original writer has a job nailed down, but if you don't, trying to find work for a good company here, or remotely into SF, is quite a bit harder than being wine-and-dined by 20 people in the SF area.
• bifrost 13y ago
  As an actual native to San Francisco, I think I can put a few things into perspective. Its always been expensive to live here, it doesn't have much to do with tech, it has more to do with SF being a center for finance AND technology. That said, having a mortgage lower than your rent is true for many people who bought at "the right time" rather than at the peak of demand. Demand is outstripping supply due to the insane people who get elected to the city government, which is largely driven by fresh but naive stream of tech workers and the radicalized longterm residents. The only way to fix this is to oust people who do not support fiscal security and personal freedoms (Leeland Yee is at the top of my list) and replace them with people who eschew cronyism and support a balanced approach (Sean Elsbernd comes to mind). The so called BART divide is really more about greed and institutionalized mediocracy. Station agents should make minimum wage, the people who make BART actually run are the maintenance staff and the conductors. The conductors shouldn't be people in trains, they should be people in offices as the technology for having fully automated trains has existed for decades. The safety issue is a red herring, as the issue as posed is not for more transit police, but for more lighting. Management is also not blameless as they should be putting less money towards bureaucratic salaries and returning it to the ridership in the form of lower fares and upgrades to cars. If you feel guilt about living and working in SF, stop it. Spending money is what keeps the economy of SF moving, and what keeps people who don't work in the tech industry employed.
  • mawk 13y ago
    y are there so many douches in SF?
• ececconi 13y ago
  One of the things that I love about living in Tampa while doing technology consulting traveling around the country is the cost of living. The cost of living is so low that I can afford to do anything that I want to do while still having a lot left over for savings.
  • obviouslygreen 13y ago
    This was by far the best thing about living just outside of Orlando (and, in the long run, the only good thing). I spend more now to live in Minnesota, and the tunnel vision exhibited by Silicon Valley and San Francisco residents is an ever-nagging reminder of how vastly different perspectives are within just this profession, and how difficult it can be to see solutions when you're mired too deeply in the problem.
    • ececconi 13y ago
      One of the things that makes it difficult living in this area is the lack of people with similar interests. I usually spend time with some friends from high school who are motivated in similar ways to me. Random bars, though, forget it. I get too much of my social interactions that I identify with during the week with coworkers.
  • jdminhbg 13y ago
    Yeah, I don't entirely understand why people are so fixated on California uber alles for tech jobs. It's so easy to do development from anywhere, especially a US timezone, that it boggles my mind that people will pay $3k for a one bedroom in SF to make low six figures at a startup and act as if that's the only choice available. Rent is high in SF because more people want to live there than there is room for. If you want to spend that much of your salary for that privilege, then feel free. Personally, visiting is good enough for me, and I have plenty left over to visit the rest of the world as well.
    • coolsunglasses 13y ago
      I'm here for the startups and investment money. I don't want to consult anymore.
• jaysonelliot 13y ago
  I don't understand why the author would move to Portland when we've got our own affordable, culturally rich, tech-friendly cities in the East Bay. Come to Oakland. It's beautiful here. The weather is better than San Francisco, you can ride your bicycle anywhere, public transit is good, and it's easy to get to SF as well as Silicon Valley (which I do regularly). There's no need to leave the entire Bay Area just because San Francisco is an overpriced and overcrowded city. I recently came back to the Bay Area after a decade+ in NYC, and my wife and I decided we'd be returning for the East Bay, not SF. For us, it's the best of all possible worlds.
  • fibbery 13y ago
    houses are impossibly expensive in Oakland also.
    • api 13y ago
      And Oakland can get stabby. So it's stabby and overpriced. No thanks. If I wanted stabby I'd go to Detroit and get a Victorian for $25k.
      • GFischer 13y ago
        I had to look up "stabby".. Is this what you were talking about? www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stabby‎ or http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stabby http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stabby ?
        • jaggederest 13y ago
          Stabby as in "You might get stabbed".
        • Kickmr 13y ago
          They mean to get stabbed by a knife, a common misconception about the east bay. Yes there's violence, but theres also beauty, you just need to know where to go and where not to go (san francisco is the same).
• jusben1369 13y ago
  I think this is exactly how to do San Francisco. Go live there as a "young" person. Learn from the best, make great business contacts in life and enjoy it all! Don't sweat the fact you're renting a small place and paying a lot. You're young and it's a trivial point in the big picture of things. After 5 - 10 years your priorities will change. As you start to think about a partner/children etc you'll reassess how great it is to be there. You'll be better able to go somewhere else and be successful due to what you've learned and who you know. For 100+ years young people have gone to NY/Manhattan with the same dream of making a lot of money. Very few had their heart set on living in Manhattan though forever. SF is just struggling because it's morphing into that place too now. I suspect, though don't know, that there was some point in NY's history where people wrung their hands about how it was becoming impossible to be middle class and buy a home and raise a family there due to rising costs/education etc.
  • JRobertson 13y ago
    Or you could live in one of the more affordable tech hubs like Austin or SLC, work just as hard, and still grow a successful start-up at a fraction of the cost.
    • jusben1369 13y ago
      If you're going to do the heat and traffic of Austin might as well pay 20% more in life and have the extra bang of SF/Bay Area. SLC - now that is a much smaller market and has much better outdoor options than Austin.
• seivan 13y ago
  I'll be doing the same thing, just doing remote work and leaving Stockholm. Not only expensive as fuck but close to impossible to actually get a place. Rent control is a problem in Sweden as well, not to mention limited supply and queueing system. It's not the price that's the problem to be honest.
• rayiner 13y ago
  San Francisco is dealing with the same problem that New York had with finance. New York seems to have gotten over it, mostly: everyone realizes that finance pays the bills in New York, and finance people are mostly content with paying their taxes and leaving it at that. I wonder if San Francisco will come to terms with its reality before it's too late. As for moving to Portland, it's a great idea. Wonderful city if you can find work there. I'd love to live there if it had more of an economy.
  • michael_miller 13y ago
    One caveat I'd add is that in NY, finance might pay the bills, but it doesn't dominate the city. There are plenty of other industries which play significant roles in the city: fashion, publishing, filmmaking, etc. In SF, tech dominates the culture of the city. Countless times, I've gone to bars and heard pitches about startups, or discussions about some new technology. In NY, I've seldom heard people talk about i-banking, or anything finance related. It just feels way less like a monoculture.
• sivanmz 13y ago
  If everyone in your tech-skewed job market is making comparable salaries, nominal values are far less important when competing for the same resources.
• gregd 13y ago
  I'm moving to Portland Except the bourgeois cannot afford to live in Portland anymore either. Rentals are ungodly expensive, water is expensive (in the PNW no less), garbage is expensive, electricity is expensive and last but not least, parking is expensive. Please don't bring your San Francisco salary to Portland.
  • jaggederest 13y ago
    I'm pretty bourgeois and it's entirely affordable to me. Rent is 50% less. My total monthly bills for utilities are $245 for a house, with AC. Electricity is half the price it is in the bay area. Parking is a quarter of the price.
    • gregd 13y ago
      Do you have children? The problems OP complains about with San Fran, won't be made any better if he brings his SF salary here. That's the problem. It's pricing locals out of affordable housing. Rentals here in Sellwood/Westmoreland start at $2000/mo. When we got to Portland two years ago, rentals here started at $1100/mo. Portland is THE most expensive place we've lived in in Oregon. A family of four pays between 150-200/mo for electric/natural gas and water. We've lived in Salem and Eugene for comparisons sake. Our electric bill in Eugene, with central AC (that ran from pretty much March - September) would max out at $75/mo.
      • larrykubin 13y ago
        Our apartment is 900/month near the 28th St. and E Burnside restaurants. Great area and we find it very affordable. No kids though. Last I looked, if you can put 10-20% down, you can get a nice house in the area for 1500-1750 a month mortgage payment.
      • heyheyhey 13y ago
        Portland being the most expensive city in Oregon is expected... It's like comparing Seattle to Tacoma/Pullman in Washington.
• gerftime 13y ago
  greeeaaaat, now I have to leave Portland soon.....just when I thought I could escape the egos of SanFran
• patio11 13y ago
  At the risk of unsolicited dating advice: is the reason one is embarassed to mention one's occupation to a woman at the bar caused by tech salaries being too high, or by years of social conditioning telling you that geeks are low status? (Or by learning that the way one signals high status is by constructing a low status outgroup and then explaining how you're unlike them?) An alternative: just pretend society really likes rich people who make things, and start talking about something more interesting than your work.
  • potatolicious 13y ago
    Can't speak for OP, but for me it's much more of the former than the latter. When I lived in Seattle, and later SF, I loathed to tell someone my job. Firstly because in that city it automatically paints a "has a truckload of cash" target on one's head, regardless of whether or not it's true. Secondly because the tech folks in the city are blamed for basically all of the city's woes (this is true in both Seattle and SF). It has little to do with how "low status" software work is (because in those places, it's not really). Now that I'm in NYC I feel much more free about telling people my job. For one thing, the response is generally "oh that's cool, tell me more" instead of "[eyeroll] yet another one", and secondly I'm not the biggest species in the pond anymore. The response to "I'm a software engineer" isn't automatically "you must make a lot of money".
    • patio11 13y ago
      Being blamed for things they self-evidently do not control? Eye rolls? These are classic markers of low status.
      • potatolicious 13y ago
        It's tricky I think. There are really two orthogonal statuses at play. There's the status conferred by being far wealthier than typical for the area. There's also the status conferred by having a respected/liked job. In Seattle/SF your wealth status is high, but your interestingness status is low. Dirt low even. In NYC your wealth status is middling, but your interestingness status is relatively high. I prefer this setup far, far more. But I'm also not a sociologist - maybe we're defining status differently.
• kokey 13y ago
  I have a similar relationship with London. Not because of the tech scene though some of my most challenging but rewarding jobs has been in London, but purely because nothing beats being at the heart of a lot of things, especially culture. After a few years I leave London to go somewhere where my quality of life increases massively, but then London draws me back again. I've moved there three times already and I won't be surprised if I end up back there again one day.
• davidf18 13y ago
  The reason for the high cost of living in SF, Manhattan (where I live) and other cities is caused by politically induced market scarcity (also called economic rent by economists) through land use regulations in zoning that artificially regulates housing density to favor wealthy landlords so that rents and housing costs increase. To make housing more affording, deregulate the zoning ordinances which artificially constrain housing supply. This article in today's NY Times is about finding the only apartment less than $600K in the West Village ($595K for 408 sq feet) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/nyregion/amid-housing-scarcity-many-buyers-are-going-home-empty-handed.html?hp&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/nyregion/amid-housing-scar... The issue is simply politics and nothing more.
• pkananen 13y ago
  Basic Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373312433&sr=8-1&keywords=basic+economics http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/d...). It's a thing.
• michaelochurch 13y ago
  Whatever large numbers of talented people get into seems to have a Clump Phase and a Chump Phase. Clump Phase comes out of highly intelligent peoples' natural desire to be around each other (clumping) even at economic cost. This goes back to the medieval universities, but now is seen in technology companies where people would rather be a average fish in a huge pond than be the big fish elsewhere. Now you have a lot of big fish in a school, or "clump". Then the spearfishers, usually rich, fat white men, spot it, then come along and start getting their take. Those are the MBAs who swept into Silicon Valley and are now the most powerful players, despite most of them having not written a line of code since college. When there are more spearfishers than fish, the ecosystem gets to a point where decline is obvious and rent-seeking/musical-chairs behavior sets in. That's the Chump Phase. That's where the Silicon Valley ecosystem, with its high rents and VC supercapitalists, is now.
  • arh68 13y ago
    And the spearfishers will maintain SV is still in 'clump' phase as long as plausible to attract more chumps, right? So as someone who's interested in finding his own clump, I've got to filter out the suits from the shirts myself. This seems non-trivial, and frustrating..
• ianstallings 13y ago
  Hey if everyone in the tech scene wants to make Portland the place to be count me in. I'm in NYC right now but I could really use some fresh air. I mean that quite literally.
• frankcaron 13y ago
  This is a sobering read as I prepare to move down to the Valley for work after years of talking about, and to a lesser extent dreaming about, it. One would hope that the experience for those of us who haven't had our stint there yet would still be worth it. What say you, veterans? And what of San Mateo? That's where my new work is, and I wonder if I'd be better off living there than San Fran proper.
  • mesh 13y ago
    I live in Burlingame which is in San Mateo county, and about 5 minutes north of San Mateo city (I work in SF and from home). We absolutely love it. We moved down here from San Francisco about 6 years ago when we had kids. San Mateo is very convenient to San Francisco on both US 101 and Caltrane (there are stops in both Burlingame and San Mateo) and is about 5 minutes from the airport. Burlingame and San Mateo both have central downtown districts that are both very pedestrian friendly, with a ton of great restaurants. Burlingame restaurants are a tad more upscale family oriented, and San Mateo has more affordable ethnic food (especially Japanese, as there is a large Japanese community in the area). Burlingame public schools are considered very good (I don't know about San Mateo). Feel free to ping me directly if you have any questions.
  • sabat 13y ago
    Definitely. You can always visit SF, but remember that from SJ <-> SF is a series of populated cities, some of which you've heard of (e.g. Palo Alto). San Mateo is nice (great downtown), as is Foster City, parts of Redwood City, San Carlos, even Half Moon Bay.
  • miker64 13y ago
    I loved living in San Mateo. I've lived all over the Bay Area, and that still rates as my favorite. It's a reasonable drive to both SF and the South Bay (and not painful to get to the ocean in Santa Cruz either), the downtown is walkable, and moderately interesting. There's not lots of options for things, but the options are generally decent. There is zero reason to live in San Francisco, I don't really understand why people are so hung up on it. Live nearby, but not in. You reap all the benefits of the City, without the negatives. Nobody is shitting on your doorstep in San Mateo...
• moron4hire 13y ago
  I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who want to work in a faddy industry for faddy companies in a faddy town. If you want to do real work and make a real difference in the world, get out of the coffee shop.
• dr_ 13y ago
  Honestly, it is the tech mecca of the world, so what would one expect? If you move elsewhere, like Portland, and if you hope the tech community continues to grow there - then eventually wouldn't you be hearing about series A rounds in the coffee shops there as well? And about home ownership being the "American Dream"....the jury is still out on that one. It seems more like the "American Debt". Unless you have a family with children, and want a place for them to grow in to with good school systems and all, there's really no need to jump in to home ownership. The first several years you are mostly paying interest, so you're not building equity. Not too much mention all the money you've put down already. So unless you plan on living there for the long haul, just rent. Having a reasonably priced roof over your head should be part of the American Dream, not necessarily home ownership.
• xradionut 13y ago
  If it's an big issue, don't move there! And stop bitching about it. You made the choice. There's thousands of jobs/careers/ventures/opportunities elsewhere. Plus you can work remotely or in a office share/incubator in hundreds of cities.
• jmcatani 13y ago
  I appreciated the LCD Soundsystem reference, Tom.
• capulcu 13y ago
  What I'm curious about is how the low-income class is living in/around SF. I mean, there are waiters, cashiers, plumbers, assistants... where do they find affordable housing?
  • felisGoodman 13y ago
    living in tenderloin/bayview/hunters point, furiously searching craigslist for gems, living in the east bay, being a live-in boyfriend/girlfriend
• sabat 13y ago
  Say it with me: San Francisco is NOT the same as the Bay Area. No, most of us wouldn't be able to afford a decent home in SF proper. But SF is just one city in a large metro area, with plenty of places you would and could want to own a home. Those of you who are 20-something: the day is coming, sooner than you'd imagine, when you're going to want to raise kids. And unless you've knocked the ball out of the park and are worth $20 million, you're not going to want to raise your kids in SF anyway. if nobody who hasn't already made it can afford to live there what happens then? You can afford it. It's an expensive area for sure, but there is much more to the Bay Area than "Silicon Valley" (whatever that means nowdays) and SF. I see this attitude a lot among recent "immigrants": this myopic view, apparently based on experience in other, very different metro areas, that there is One Big City and a few "suburbs." Things aren't like that here, and the reason you feel so frustrated is that you barely understand the place you live. The "great" schools in the Bay Area are pretty much exclusively in places with $1m+ house prices Wrong. For e.g., Pleasanton has (arguably) the best public schools in the Bay Area, and you don't need to pay $1 million for a house. But you've barely heard of it, because the only places your friends talk about are Redwood Shores, Mountain View, and SF, right? Expand your understanding. San Francisco real-estate is absurdly corrupt. So don't live there. It's just one city in the Bay Area. See above. giving me the ability to pursue my own dream projects for more of the time. SF and SV were built on that, and it's not possible there anymore unless you've got big investors. Of course it's possible, and people do it all the time. More than ever, you do not need Big VC Cash to bootstrap a good startup. You could theoretically do it anywhere, but the tech-oriented population combined with the free-thinking culture will come in handy if/when your company grows.
• methehack 13y ago
  Well come on down, Tom Dale! Portland, on behalf of me, welcomes you. With regard to the tech scene here, a few things. First, it's a little sleepy, sure -- but it's not groggy, more waking up. I'm sure it will appreciate whatever leadership you can contribute. Second, as you'll soon be demonstrating, living in Portland and working for a company in SFO should be a pretty good combination. The flight down is frequent, quick, and cheap. I would think that given remote working capabilities now and being able to visit SFO for f2f right now! if needed should make things pretty smooth. I've seen some warnings in some of the comments about the Portland job scene... I'm sure it's not the bay area, but nowhere is. My experience with finding tech jobs here has been excellent. And now that remote work is more and more viable, it's all the better. This is so personal and depends on so many factors that I don't think you can generalize except at the extremes, but I thought it was worth a word from someone who has had zero (knock on wood) trouble. I know, some haters may hate on me for pointing out how great Portland is for fear that its preciousness will be peed on. But I'd like to think portland's welcoming arms are more generous than that. At least for the foreseeable future. Two more things: portlandia (the show) is mostly true, and wait until you arrive to buy a bike :) See you soon!
  • njonsson 13y ago
    I have to admit that the “OVER!” scene from “Portlandia” came to mind as I read Tom’s post. http://youtu.be/YlGqN3AKOsA http://youtu.be/YlGqN3AKOsA
• ltcoleman 13y ago
  I have never understood the fascination with San Francisco for tech. I am a senior developer in Arkansas, and cannot imagine having to deal with any of that B.S. I have a mortgage of <$2000 for a 3,600sq ft house on an acre of land with an in-ground pool. My commute is 40 minutes of relaxing country-side when I go into the main office, and about 4 minutes when I work at the remote office. A tech salary of 90k in San Fran ~= 36k in Arkansas when looking at cost of living, plus you can buy a starter home (~1100sq ft) for about ~100k. Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and the list keeps going. Tech professionals should really look outside the normal huge tech city box. I personally believe that is where most will find happiness.
• JeremySchneider 13y ago
  "Useless liberal arts degree"? The recipient of said degree seems to have done OK, perhaps in part due to his broad education.
• larsonf 13y ago
  I think there might be an interesting point underneath this. If everyone who feels like the author actually stayed then SF might not have the high rents/excitement/cultural contact that you get with large amounts of young, single, employed, relatively unstable individuals. Part of the reason SF is probably so desirable in the first place is that the type of people who live there are the types that actually think the cultural experience is worth the money.
• jrochkind1 13y ago
  You feel bad about helping to gentrify San Francisco... so you're going to move to Portland and help gentrify Portland instead.... because girls at bars won't judge you as harshly in Portland? I don't think you are wrong to be self-analytical and self-critical about the economic role you play in your city, and possible harm you can cause. But moving to a new city isn't a solution to anything except possibly your ego.
• yankoff 13y ago
  He said he was a complete noob in 2009, and in 2011 he cofounded a company with two very famous people in Ruby community. How?
• felisGoodman 13y ago
  "San Francisco, I love you But I'm Bringing You Down" FTFY
• cmccabe 13y ago
  Man spends 20s in SF, moves out later. Film at 11.
• LandoCalrissian 13y ago
  You could live in a Liquor Store! http://www.trulia.com/property/3119137334-301-A-Church-St-San-Francisco-CA-94114 http://www.trulia.com/property/3119137334-301-A-Church-St-Sa...
• doseofreality 13y ago
  One word: bubble. This mobile/cloud/social dream will end soon.
• kenster07 13y ago
  1) Leaving sf in any part, due to your perception of the reaction of random women at bars, to your profession, blows me away. There are plenty of people in the city who also admire your profession, including many single women. And quite frankly, there are more important things in life anyway. 2) People who feel 'guilty' about getting decent salaries are missing the big picture. You are now an allocator of wealth. You can help that mom and pop shop pay its rent, if you are so inclined. Abandoning that privelege and responsibility is also a baffling reaction.
  • enneff 13y ago
    Who are you to decide what is important in the author's life?
    • kenster07 13y ago
      A commenter on a blog that has been posted on the internet for public consumption?
• ahoyhere 13y ago
  How the Internet Ruined San Francisco. http://www.salon.com/1999/10/28/internet_2/ http://www.salon.com/1999/10/28/internet_2/ Check the date! Ha.
• EternalFury 13y ago
  Bring on the exodus. Based on the Dharma Initiative, let's have The Coda Initiative: Let's build a new Silicon Valley where there is plenty of space to grow and where startups will flourish.
• mawk 13y ago
  Don't $^%& with the douche mafia!
• ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
  Don't worry the housing prices will drop off a cliff after the up and coming massive earthquake finally hits San Francisco. It's guaranteed to happen, it's just a matter of when. You'll have a whole new set of problems but a lot of people are going to haul ass out of there and rent will drop. And the subsequent effects will fix a lot of the real estate problems. First, whatever the earthquake doesn't destroy, the fires or building demolitions will. In the ashes or rubble where the old low-rise "historic" buildings stood, new buildings will finally be built and you can bet your money that they're going to be high density. NIMBY (not in my back yard) residents will have so many other matters to attend to that they won't be so strict about keeping San Francisco looking the same as they remember it as kids so progress will be easier. With destruction and death, comes renewal and new life. Fitting for the startup capital of the world actually. I wish everyone the best of luck surviving and may the death toll be as minimal as possible.
• caycep 13y ago
  OK, so if someone had to point out where the "new SV/SF" is these days, where would you point? Portland (maybe too obvious...not as much diversity?) Seattle? Austin? LA somewhere? (too many entrenched interests?) Boston? (too much blight in areas that are not Boston/Cambridge?)
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• area51org 13y ago
  Say it with me: San Francisco is NOT the same as the Bay Area. No, most of us wouldn't be able to afford a decent home in SF proper. But SF is just one city in a large metro area, with plenty of places you would and could want to own a home. Those of you who are 20-something: the day is coming, sooner than you'd imagine, when you're going to want to raise kids. And unless you've knocked the ball out of the park and are worth $20 million, you're not going to want to raise your kids in SF anyway. if nobody who hasn't already made it can afford to live there what happens then? You can afford it. It's an expensive area for sure, but there is much more to the Bay Area than "Silicon Valley" (whatever that means nowdays) and SF. I see this attitude a lot among recent "immigrants": this myopic view, apparently based on experience in other, very different metro areas, that there is One Big City and a few "suburbs." Things aren't like that here, and the reason you feel so frustrated is that you don't (yet) understand the place you live.