[joec]

We left primarily so we can own a house (if that’s your thing which was ours). It is a ton more affordable here. This is why as bad as the bears see it, housing here in SD for what you get is “cheap” for any norcal or LA person. Pay is lower, but housing cost is much higher than your wage would be up there for most jobs (again, unless you are in certain tech fields).

As for the SF lifestyle, I can see your kids loving it, but just picture some mid 30s guys trying to get down with some 22 year olds and it’s a sad picture. 🙂

As for why, just wasn’t interested in it anymore and had no interest in keeping up. It’s hard to succeed if you simply aren’t interested at all in keeping up with the technology which changes rapidly…

If you’ve worked in SV, SV is all work. I think the AMC Mercado was the only place I’ve seen where companies had job postings before the movie starts.

Bottom line, money isn’t everything. Especially if you make more than 75k apparently 😉 so if you’re not really interested in keeping up with the Jones, leaving the rat race behind isn’t really that big of a deal.

I think a lot of people wouldn’t mind making 20% less if they could work less and still keep their job, health benefits, etc…

[joec]

We left primarily so we can own a house (if that’s your thing which was ours). It is a ton more affordable here. This is why as bad as the bears see it, housing here in SD for what you get is “cheap” for any norcal or LA person. Pay is lower, but housing cost is much higher than your wage would be up there for most jobs (again, unless you are in certain tech fields).

As for the SF lifestyle, I can see your kids loving it, but just picture some mid 30s guys trying to get down with some 22 year olds and it’s a sad picture. 🙂

As for why, just wasn’t interested in it anymore and had no interest in keeping up. It’s hard to succeed if you simply aren’t interested at all in keeping up with the technology which changes rapidly…

If you’ve worked in SV, SV is all work. I think the AMC Mercado was the only place I’ve seen where companies had job postings before the movie starts.

Bottom line, money isn’t everything. Especially if you make more than 75k apparently 😉 so if you’re not really interested in keeping up with the Jones, leaving the rat race behind isn’t really that big of a deal.

I think a lot of people wouldn’t mind making 20% less if they could work less and still keep their job, health benefits, etc…

[joec]

We left primarily so we can own a house (if that’s your thing which was ours). It is a ton more affordable here. This is why as bad as the bears see it, housing here in SD for what you get is “cheap” for any norcal or LA person. Pay is lower, but housing cost is much higher than your wage would be up there for most jobs (again, unless you are in certain tech fields).

As for the SF lifestyle, I can see your kids loving it, but just picture some mid 30s guys trying to get down with some 22 year olds and it’s a sad picture. 🙂

As for why, just wasn’t interested in it anymore and had no interest in keeping up. It’s hard to succeed if you simply aren’t interested at all in keeping up with the technology which changes rapidly…

If you’ve worked in SV, SV is all work. I think the AMC Mercado was the only place I’ve seen where companies had job postings before the movie starts.

Bottom line, money isn’t everything. Especially if you make more than 75k apparently 😉 so if you’re not really interested in keeping up with the Jones, leaving the rat race behind isn’t really that big of a deal.

I think a lot of people wouldn’t mind making 20% less if they could work less and still keep their job, health benefits, etc…

[joec]

[quote=SandraL]I have to disagree with SD Realtor on corporations. Small business is what drives jobs in the USA. Corporations are not coming back here to create jobs, even with a favorable tax policy. Labor costs are too high.

Labor costs are too high because our housing and health care costs are too high. When labor costs in the USA come down to a point where it is profitable to create jobs here, the jobs will return.

CEO’s make decisions based on profitability and personal gain. They will make choices that boost their bonuses and stock prices because that is their job. The function of a corporation is to make money. Saving the US job market does not factor into their equation.

Corporations can blather all they want about taxes, their real problem is labor, pensions and health care. They will scream about taxes because that plays better than coming right out and saying “our people are overpaid.” Talk about a morale killer. They will yowl about regulations before they will come out and say that they want to stop providing health insurance for their employees – another morale killer.

If wages, pensions and health care are off the table – the only things left for corporations to make noise about are taxes and regulations. Taxes and regulations are not what is killing job creation, wages and health care are — but those are untouchable subjects….[/quote]

I’d have to agree with SandraL…I think health care (I think I’ve read the premiums are now going up 20% next year?) is too bloated from non payers which forces everyone else to cover those folks.

It’d be nice if government just comes out and start saying we have to ration health care like every other country. If you have cancer or some other terminal illness, well, that’s just too bad.

Of course, I’ll be upset when this happens to me, but health care costs are insane in this country and I’ll just live with it being my “time”….

[joec]

[quote=SandraL]I have to disagree with SD Realtor on corporations. Small business is what drives jobs in the USA. Corporations are not coming back here to create jobs, even with a favorable tax policy. Labor costs are too high.

Labor costs are too high because our housing and health care costs are too high. When labor costs in the USA come down to a point where it is profitable to create jobs here, the jobs will return.

CEO’s make decisions based on profitability and personal gain. They will make choices that boost their bonuses and stock prices because that is their job. The function of a corporation is to make money. Saving the US job market does not factor into their equation.

Corporations can blather all they want about taxes, their real problem is labor, pensions and health care. They will scream about taxes because that plays better than coming right out and saying “our people are overpaid.” Talk about a morale killer. They will yowl about regulations before they will come out and say that they want to stop providing health insurance for their employees – another morale killer.

If wages, pensions and health care are off the table – the only things left for corporations to make noise about are taxes and regulations. Taxes and regulations are not what is killing job creation, wages and health care are — but those are untouchable subjects….[/quote]

I’d have to agree with SandraL…I think health care (I think I’ve read the premiums are now going up 20% next year?) is too bloated from non payers which forces everyone else to cover those folks.

It’d be nice if government just comes out and start saying we have to ration health care like every other country. If you have cancer or some other terminal illness, well, that’s just too bad.

Of course, I’ll be upset when this happens to me, but health care costs are insane in this country and I’ll just live with it being my “time”….

[joec]

[quote=SandraL]I have to disagree with SD Realtor on corporations. Small business is what drives jobs in the USA. Corporations are not coming back here to create jobs, even with a favorable tax policy. Labor costs are too high.

Labor costs are too high because our housing and health care costs are too high. When labor costs in the USA come down to a point where it is profitable to create jobs here, the jobs will return.

CEO’s make decisions based on profitability and personal gain. They will make choices that boost their bonuses and stock prices because that is their job. The function of a corporation is to make money. Saving the US job market does not factor into their equation.

Corporations can blather all they want about taxes, their real problem is labor, pensions and health care. They will scream about taxes because that plays better than coming right out and saying “our people are overpaid.” Talk about a morale killer. They will yowl about regulations before they will come out and say that they want to stop providing health insurance for their employees – another morale killer.

If wages, pensions and health care are off the table – the only things left for corporations to make noise about are taxes and regulations. Taxes and regulations are not what is killing job creation, wages and health care are — but those are untouchable subjects….[/quote]

I’d have to agree with SandraL…I think health care (I think I’ve read the premiums are now going up 20% next year?) is too bloated from non payers which forces everyone else to cover those folks.

It’d be nice if government just comes out and start saying we have to ration health care like every other country. If you have cancer or some other terminal illness, well, that’s just too bad.

Of course, I’ll be upset when this happens to me, but health care costs are insane in this country and I’ll just live with it being my “time”….

[joec]

[quote=SandraL]I have to disagree with SD Realtor on corporations. Small business is what drives jobs in the USA. Corporations are not coming back here to create jobs, even with a favorable tax policy. Labor costs are too high.

Labor costs are too high because our housing and health care costs are too high. When labor costs in the USA come down to a point where it is profitable to create jobs here, the jobs will return.

CEO’s make decisions based on profitability and personal gain. They will make choices that boost their bonuses and stock prices because that is their job. The function of a corporation is to make money. Saving the US job market does not factor into their equation.

Corporations can blather all they want about taxes, their real problem is labor, pensions and health care. They will scream about taxes because that plays better than coming right out and saying “our people are overpaid.” Talk about a morale killer. They will yowl about regulations before they will come out and say that they want to stop providing health insurance for their employees – another morale killer.

If wages, pensions and health care are off the table – the only things left for corporations to make noise about are taxes and regulations. Taxes and regulations are not what is killing job creation, wages and health care are — but those are untouchable subjects….[/quote]

I’d have to agree with SandraL…I think health care (I think I’ve read the premiums are now going up 20% next year?) is too bloated from non payers which forces everyone else to cover those folks.

It’d be nice if government just comes out and start saying we have to ration health care like every other country. If you have cancer or some other terminal illness, well, that’s just too bad.

Of course, I’ll be upset when this happens to me, but health care costs are insane in this country and I’ll just live with it being my “time”….

[joec]

[quote=SandraL]I have to disagree with SD Realtor on corporations. Small business is what drives jobs in the USA. Corporations are not coming back here to create jobs, even with a favorable tax policy. Labor costs are too high.

Labor costs are too high because our housing and health care costs are too high. When labor costs in the USA come down to a point where it is profitable to create jobs here, the jobs will return.

CEO’s make decisions based on profitability and personal gain. They will make choices that boost their bonuses and stock prices because that is their job. The function of a corporation is to make money. Saving the US job market does not factor into their equation.

Corporations can blather all they want about taxes, their real problem is labor, pensions and health care. They will scream about taxes because that plays better than coming right out and saying “our people are overpaid.” Talk about a morale killer. They will yowl about regulations before they will come out and say that they want to stop providing health insurance for their employees – another morale killer.

If wages, pensions and health care are off the table – the only things left for corporations to make noise about are taxes and regulations. Taxes and regulations are not what is killing job creation, wages and health care are — but those are untouchable subjects….[/quote]

I’d have to agree with SandraL…I think health care (I think I’ve read the premiums are now going up 20% next year?) is too bloated from non payers which forces everyone else to cover those folks.

It’d be nice if government just comes out and start saying we have to ration health care like every other country. If you have cancer or some other terminal illness, well, that’s just too bad.

Of course, I’ll be upset when this happens to me, but health care costs are insane in this country and I’ll just live with it being my “time”….

[joec]

Having spent pretty much my whole life up in Norcal (I’ved lived in Mt. View, Sunnyvale, Peninsula (San Mateo area), East bay, SF even…), buying and living there only works if you are in the areas of employment where you can make the big IPO bucks and that’s assuming you aren’t one of the basic tech workers getting outsourced or cut back.

That said, real estate up there is insane and unless you’re making bank from an IPO, you’ll be competing with a ton of people who are extremely wealthy. Pretty much, 1 mil up in the best areas gets you some 1950-1960 track house with 3 beds and 1 or 2 baths. All the folks I know up there has had family help to buy (sorta easy if family drops down 500k for you). Cupertino, Mt View are crazy.

It IS true that compared to here, buying in SF will always be more resilient due to what SF offers, but I don’t think it really has anything to do with how old the lots are. It’s simply SF vs SD. You can’t really compare them at all because they are so different. SF employment (and generally the South SF (Genentech, biotech), Peninsula (VC), Santa Clara (Intel, Google, AAPL, most startups) is a ton more diverse than SD with just their biotech.

There has been new places built up there in the peninsula (I know since I’ve looked), but they tend to be smaller and extremely crammed in I’ve noticed.

As flu said, I think if you are working at the forefront of tech, nor cal is probably the only place you should be at. Jobs there pay a lot more than SD and you have folks you probably know helping you network as well.

SF Rentals are extremely pro-renters. We used to pay maybe 1200-1300 for a 1 bedroom and there were people in the same building renting for 300 bucks/month in downtown SF. Maybe like in NY, some folks keep apartments since it’s cheaper to just keep it to crash when they go out to party than to let someone else move in and let the landlord raise the rents then. Parking sucks though at 300/month too at least.

Anyhow, buying in SF has extremely low cap rates so it’s for folks who are in it for the very very long haul I’ve read…

[joec]

Having spent pretty much my whole life up in Norcal (I’ved lived in Mt. View, Sunnyvale, Peninsula (San Mateo area), East bay, SF even…), buying and living there only works if you are in the areas of employment where you can make the big IPO bucks and that’s assuming you aren’t one of the basic tech workers getting outsourced or cut back.

That said, real estate up there is insane and unless you’re making bank from an IPO, you’ll be competing with a ton of people who are extremely wealthy. Pretty much, 1 mil up in the best areas gets you some 1950-1960 track house with 3 beds and 1 or 2 baths. All the folks I know up there has had family help to buy (sorta easy if family drops down 500k for you). Cupertino, Mt View are crazy.

It IS true that compared to here, buying in SF will always be more resilient due to what SF offers, but I don’t think it really has anything to do with how old the lots are. It’s simply SF vs SD. You can’t really compare them at all because they are so different. SF employment (and generally the South SF (Genentech, biotech), Peninsula (VC), Santa Clara (Intel, Google, AAPL, most startups) is a ton more diverse than SD with just their biotech.

There has been new places built up there in the peninsula (I know since I’ve looked), but they tend to be smaller and extremely crammed in I’ve noticed.

As flu said, I think if you are working at the forefront of tech, nor cal is probably the only place you should be at. Jobs there pay a lot more than SD and you have folks you probably know helping you network as well.

SF Rentals are extremely pro-renters. We used to pay maybe 1200-1300 for a 1 bedroom and there were people in the same building renting for 300 bucks/month in downtown SF. Maybe like in NY, some folks keep apartments since it’s cheaper to just keep it to crash when they go out to party than to let someone else move in and let the landlord raise the rents then. Parking sucks though at 300/month too at least.

Anyhow, buying in SF has extremely low cap rates so it’s for folks who are in it for the very very long haul I’ve read…

[joec]

Having spent pretty much my whole life up in Norcal (I’ved lived in Mt. View, Sunnyvale, Peninsula (San Mateo area), East bay, SF even…), buying and living there only works if you are in the areas of employment where you can make the big IPO bucks and that’s assuming you aren’t one of the basic tech workers getting outsourced or cut back.

That said, real estate up there is insane and unless you’re making bank from an IPO, you’ll be competing with a ton of people who are extremely wealthy. Pretty much, 1 mil up in the best areas gets you some 1950-1960 track house with 3 beds and 1 or 2 baths. All the folks I know up there has had family help to buy (sorta easy if family drops down 500k for you). Cupertino, Mt View are crazy.

It IS true that compared to here, buying in SF will always be more resilient due to what SF offers, but I don’t think it really has anything to do with how old the lots are. It’s simply SF vs SD. You can’t really compare them at all because they are so different. SF employment (and generally the South SF (Genentech, biotech), Peninsula (VC), Santa Clara (Intel, Google, AAPL, most startups) is a ton more diverse than SD with just their biotech.

There has been new places built up there in the peninsula (I know since I’ve looked), but they tend to be smaller and extremely crammed in I’ve noticed.

As flu said, I think if you are working at the forefront of tech, nor cal is probably the only place you should be at. Jobs there pay a lot more than SD and you have folks you probably know helping you network as well.

SF Rentals are extremely pro-renters. We used to pay maybe 1200-1300 for a 1 bedroom and there were people in the same building renting for 300 bucks/month in downtown SF. Maybe like in NY, some folks keep apartments since it’s cheaper to just keep it to crash when they go out to party than to let someone else move in and let the landlord raise the rents then. Parking sucks though at 300/month too at least.

Anyhow, buying in SF has extremely low cap rates so it’s for folks who are in it for the very very long haul I’ve read…

[joec]

Having spent pretty much my whole life up in Norcal (I’ved lived in Mt. View, Sunnyvale, Peninsula (San Mateo area), East bay, SF even…), buying and living there only works if you are in the areas of employment where you can make the big IPO bucks and that’s assuming you aren’t one of the basic tech workers getting outsourced or cut back.

That said, real estate up there is insane and unless you’re making bank from an IPO, you’ll be competing with a ton of people who are extremely wealthy. Pretty much, 1 mil up in the best areas gets you some 1950-1960 track house with 3 beds and 1 or 2 baths. All the folks I know up there has had family help to buy (sorta easy if family drops down 500k for you). Cupertino, Mt View are crazy.

It IS true that compared to here, buying in SF will always be more resilient due to what SF offers, but I don’t think it really has anything to do with how old the lots are. It’s simply SF vs SD. You can’t really compare them at all because they are so different. SF employment (and generally the South SF (Genentech, biotech), Peninsula (VC), Santa Clara (Intel, Google, AAPL, most startups) is a ton more diverse than SD with just their biotech.

There has been new places built up there in the peninsula (I know since I’ve looked), but they tend to be smaller and extremely crammed in I’ve noticed.

As flu said, I think if you are working at the forefront of tech, nor cal is probably the only place you should be at. Jobs there pay a lot more than SD and you have folks you probably know helping you network as well.

SF Rentals are extremely pro-renters. We used to pay maybe 1200-1300 for a 1 bedroom and there were people in the same building renting for 300 bucks/month in downtown SF. Maybe like in NY, some folks keep apartments since it’s cheaper to just keep it to crash when they go out to party than to let someone else move in and let the landlord raise the rents then. Parking sucks though at 300/month too at least.

Anyhow, buying in SF has extremely low cap rates so it’s for folks who are in it for the very very long haul I’ve read…

[joec]

Having spent pretty much my whole life up in Norcal (I’ved lived in Mt. View, Sunnyvale, Peninsula (San Mateo area), East bay, SF even…), buying and living there only works if you are in the areas of employment where you can make the big IPO bucks and that’s assuming you aren’t one of the basic tech workers getting outsourced or cut back.

That said, real estate up there is insane and unless you’re making bank from an IPO, you’ll be competing with a ton of people who are extremely wealthy. Pretty much, 1 mil up in the best areas gets you some 1950-1960 track house with 3 beds and 1 or 2 baths. All the folks I know up there has had family help to buy (sorta easy if family drops down 500k for you). Cupertino, Mt View are crazy.

It IS true that compared to here, buying in SF will always be more resilient due to what SF offers, but I don’t think it really has anything to do with how old the lots are. It’s simply SF vs SD. You can’t really compare them at all because they are so different. SF employment (and generally the South SF (Genentech, biotech), Peninsula (VC), Santa Clara (Intel, Google, AAPL, most startups) is a ton more diverse than SD with just their biotech.

There has been new places built up there in the peninsula (I know since I’ve looked), but they tend to be smaller and extremely crammed in I’ve noticed.

As flu said, I think if you are working at the forefront of tech, nor cal is probably the only place you should be at. Jobs there pay a lot more than SD and you have folks you probably know helping you network as well.

SF Rentals are extremely pro-renters. We used to pay maybe 1200-1300 for a 1 bedroom and there were people in the same building renting for 300 bucks/month in downtown SF. Maybe like in NY, some folks keep apartments since it’s cheaper to just keep it to crash when they go out to party than to let someone else move in and let the landlord raise the rents then. Parking sucks though at 300/month too at least.

Anyhow, buying in SF has extremely low cap rates so it’s for folks who are in it for the very very long haul I’ve read…

[joec]

I certainly agree that the prime locations are all in older stock land (with their larger lots). I think for the folks who can afford those areas (mostly the coast for me), it’s a nice place to be at.

Back to my 30-something’s piggy’s way of thinking, I suppose my view of “land” is not what it used to be. In my younger days, I thought the same way as you do now valuing land and lot size over most things. Nowadays, my thinking is we bought a house to live in primarily. We live inside the house, we don’t spend that much time outside due to the reasons above…Also, not wanting to expand or make upgrades, if we needed more space or lot size, we’d probably just move. Path of least resistance as mentioned in another message earlier…Especially for folks who aren’t handy and have no interest in doing/learning that skill set. I’d be more at home fixing cars than home items.

Also, and maybe a big reason for my way of thinking is we probably will eventually move when we retire and when the kid is grown (maybe in 20-30 years)…Can’t predict the future, but that probably played a factor in our lot size decision.

I suppose similar to questions of do you really need a 3300 sqft home? Does someone really need a 10k-20k lot nowadays? Parks are everywhere within walking distance with bball courts, huge lawns, etc…

Times are certainly different now compared to just 20/30 years ago and 50 years ago as well. There were certainly less luxuries back then and I don’t think folks were as hard core when it came to kids, education, jobs, etc…A global economy is a race to the bottom in terms of cost for companies.

I’m surprised this hasn’t been posted about and discussed yet, but another reason for newer areas is updated construction within the area (San Bruno gas explosion). I also don’t like all those power lines that you see in a lot of the older developments…

Crews search ash-covered homes after blast kills 4:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100911/ap_on_bi_ge/us_large_explosion

“Experts say the nation’s 296,000 miles of onshore natural-gas lines routinely suffer breakdowns and failures.

More than 60 percent of the lines are 40 years old or older and almost half were installed in the 1950s and 1960s, according to a recent analysis by the Pipeline Safety Trust, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Bellingham, Wash.

Most of the older pipelines lack anticorrosion coatings that are prevalent in the industry today, said Carl Weimer, executive director of the trust, which was set up following a 1999 explosion that killed three people in Bellingham.

“The industry always says that if you take care of pipelines, they’ll last forever,” Weimer said. “But what we see over and over again is companies are not doing that and corrosion and other factors are causing failures.”

[joec]

I certainly agree that the prime locations are all in older stock land (with their larger lots). I think for the folks who can afford those areas (mostly the coast for me), it’s a nice place to be at.

Back to my 30-something’s piggy’s way of thinking, I suppose my view of “land” is not what it used to be. In my younger days, I thought the same way as you do now valuing land and lot size over most things. Nowadays, my thinking is we bought a house to live in primarily. We live inside the house, we don’t spend that much time outside due to the reasons above…Also, not wanting to expand or make upgrades, if we needed more space or lot size, we’d probably just move. Path of least resistance as mentioned in another message earlier…Especially for folks who aren’t handy and have no interest in doing/learning that skill set. I’d be more at home fixing cars than home items.

Also, and maybe a big reason for my way of thinking is we probably will eventually move when we retire and when the kid is grown (maybe in 20-30 years)…Can’t predict the future, but that probably played a factor in our lot size decision.

I suppose similar to questions of do you really need a 3300 sqft home? Does someone really need a 10k-20k lot nowadays? Parks are everywhere within walking distance with bball courts, huge lawns, etc…

Times are certainly different now compared to just 20/30 years ago and 50 years ago as well. There were certainly less luxuries back then and I don’t think folks were as hard core when it came to kids, education, jobs, etc…A global economy is a race to the bottom in terms of cost for companies.

I’m surprised this hasn’t been posted about and discussed yet, but another reason for newer areas is updated construction within the area (San Bruno gas explosion). I also don’t like all those power lines that you see in a lot of the older developments…

Crews search ash-covered homes after blast kills 4:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100911/ap_on_bi_ge/us_large_explosion

“Experts say the nation’s 296,000 miles of onshore natural-gas lines routinely suffer breakdowns and failures.

More than 60 percent of the lines are 40 years old or older and almost half were installed in the 1950s and 1960s, according to a recent analysis by the Pipeline Safety Trust, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Bellingham, Wash.

Most of the older pipelines lack anticorrosion coatings that are prevalent in the industry today, said Carl Weimer, executive director of the trust, which was set up following a 1999 explosion that killed three people in Bellingham.

“The industry always says that if you take care of pipelines, they’ll last forever,” Weimer said. “But what we see over and over again is companies are not doing that and corrosion and other factors are causing failures.”

[Author]

Posts