
California's skyrocketing housing costs, taxes prompt exodus of residents - jhonovich
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_30037774/greener-pastures-beckon-some-beleaguered-residents
======
sideband
There's some sort of Stockholm syndrome prevalent among too many Bay Area
residents that compels them to accept the lower quality of life. I lived there
for several years until recently, and it was a surreal experience to hear
others discuss the sacrifices they were making just to have a roof over their
family's head, to provide a half-decent education for their children. And
these were well-payed folks at the brand-name companies! Those that took a
tech job straight out of college and had never lived anywhere else seemed the
worst affected. Not enough realized that they deserved more then they were
getting back from the Bay Area.

~~~
shawndumas
Having lived in Long Island, NY and Boca Raton, FL I gotta say... I don't
think I could leave the Bay Area.

The weather, the geological features, the schools, the meetups, the job
opportunities... all factors.

But the biggest is that the people are truly interested in intellectual
matters in a way that was not extant in the other places I've lived. My son is
a programmer and nobody had a clue what he was talking about--which is fine--
but they also couldn't care less to even try to understand.

And also, there is a lot of prejudice that I am glad my kids will not grow up
in the milieu of.

~~~
hanklazard
>But the biggest is that the people are truly interested in intellectual
matters in a way that was not extant in the other places I've lived.

This is the way I feel in Boston. The cost of living (mainly housing prices)
gets more ridiculous every year, but the intellectual and cultural environment
make me want to stay. Most of my friends back home (deep South) are easily
able to afford to buy decent homes, while I'm stuck renting a tiny apt. Still,
this feels like a worthwhile material sacrifice given the culture of this
city. Then again, if I had kids, I might feel differently ...

~~~
gautamnarula
Boston is an amazing city in terms of intellectual capital, no doubt due to
its rich history and many universities in the area. The brutal winter and
steep cost of living are what make it difficult for me to see myself living
there long term; unlike NYC or SF where tech salaries tend to be at least
somewhat adjusted for the cost of living, I noticed Boston tech salaries were
only marginally higher than Atlanta's, while Boston has the third highest CoL
after SF and NYC.

------
nugget
I spent most of my childhood in California. Real estate is and always has been
the number one industry in the state. The majority of my childhood friends'
wealth seems to derive from houses their families bought in the early 80s or
earlier. Prices have benefited from a stable of one trick ponies - fixed low
property taxes (prop 13), massive population growth (net domestic migration is
now negative), job growth from the tech sector, the cultural shift to
assortive mating of dual income white collar professionals, and the drop to
near zero interest rates. I thought for sure that prices had hit the
mathematically inevitable plateau - and then came tens of billions in foreign
capital fleeing China. Is there another unpredictable one trick pony waiting
in the wings? At some point it seems like prices would have to hit a ceiling
reflecting the fact that all future appreciation and demand has been pulled
forward, at which time the great financial machine grinds down to a much
slower pace, if not a halt. It will be interesting to watch and see what
happens.

~~~
cubano
The price will hit a ceiling at the exact time demand = supply, and not a
moment before.

A worldwide markets for these homes now exists, which means the number of
people who both want and can afford them is huge, and therefore the price will
rise until that condition is no longer true.

Also, I believe we are again seeing signs of loan company shenanigans which,
if so, will allow easy-to-game capital to continue to chase prices upwards as
well.

~~~
tomp
The "demand=supply" argument doesn't exactly explain why a foreign billionaire
would want to own an appartment _exactly in_ San Francisco. Personally, I
would buy a flat in Ibiza, Barcelona or Hawaii way before even considering SF.

~~~
steffan
I suspect it is less about the “foreign billionaire” and more about the
single-digit millionaires worldwide looking for an ostensibly safe place to
park some money and be assured of a healthy return (or at least not a loss).

It's a self-perpetuating cycle¹: people invest in real estate; prices go up;
it becomes a more attractive investment.

¹Sometimes known as a “bubble”

------
mr_tristan
Heh, funny to read this on the day my moving van arrives to get my things
outta here! It's a little sad, but we simply got fed up with the standard of
living here. And, the Bay Area just feels mismanaged.

Getting around is a royal pain. After living in Vienna, I was amazed at people
who thought Bart was great. Really? I found it dirty, slow, and crazy
expensive.

Of course everything is just crazy expensive. A beer garden opened up nearby,
with a few nice tables and some decent beers. 2 beers will cost you about $16.
It's like the entire economy is about paying rent. I remember going to
heuriger in Vienna and grabbing a bottle of totally decent wine for about 8
EUR.

I'm not sure 64k people out of 38 million counts as an exodus, though. There's
a whole lot of immigration going on.

~~~
musha68k
I don't know when the wave actually broke but I was very disillusioned by the
vibes of the bay area when I stayed for GDC in 2009. It seemed like they drove
out most of the hippies a long time ago, more often than not people were just
_acting_ , very superficially and with a creepy adherence to a lost cultural
heritage that felt more like selling out ( _get your shrink-wrapped Jerry
Garcia T-shirt and GTFO_ ).

To make things even more depressing one could feel the omnipresence of a
rampantly ignorant / myopic tech monoculture.

I remember that I felt very relieved when I got back to Vienna.. :/

~~~
Kalium
The hippies either aged out or bought property decades ago. They were a real
thing for a couple of years at most. The rest is myopic and ignorant
nostalgia.

~~~
planteen
Boulder seems like this, too.

------
tsunamifury
We've lost most of our friends now, and the roots we were putting down over
the last 7 years are eroding a bit. For the record our household income
fluctuates between 300 and 400k and we live in a microhouse (500sqft) in
Berkeley. Expanding is a difficult proposition.

Its an interesting set of factors that lets me buy a Ferrari far easier than a
house. First lifestyle money, then tech money, now foreign investment.

And there are a lot of subtle changes neighboorhood to neighboorhood. Mission
was once the most expensive in SF, now Berkeley is surpassing even them. Hayes
Valley becomes hip, and Precedio Heights becomes more affordable because of
the lack of public transit.

For the most part i've surmised that the city is full of smaller town
transplants who graduate and think their 120k offer is the greatest
opportunity of their lives. They shortly find out it barely gets them a toilet
with two roommates and end up leaving for Seattle, Portland, etc while staying
with their company. This cycle repeats over and over

Meanwhile, this engine extends the SFBay problem to the B and C cities --
leaving fewer places to run to.

~~~
cylinder
What am I missing -- rent for large houses in nice East Bay suburbs seems to
be around $3500-$4000 a month which is easily less than a third of your take-
home income. I'm not sure about Berkeley proper.

~~~
rconti
Yeah. I don't know. We bought a real house on the Peninsula on far less
income.

------
dmode
So, "exodus" is used to define a mere outflow of 60K residents ? That is less
than 0.05%. Also, this article makes no sense. If California was losing people
for the last 22 years, how come it's population went from 29 million in 1990
to 40 million in 2016 ? I hate how none of these "exodus" articles are data
centric and explain these two discrepancies. Is the population growth then due
to birth rate ? or due to immigration ? Also, interestingly the same article
notes that job growth in Bay Area has been at it's highest point ever

~~~
rconti
Yeah, they used outflow numbers for the entire state to "prove" that there's
an exodus from the Bay Area. Here's your hint:

"California has seen negative outward migration to other states for 22 of the
last 25 years."

Obviously the Bay Area does not have negative outward migration, or the
traffic and housing issues would be solved.

Another interesting quote cites a man inexplicably commuting from SF to the
East Bay which is not something you'd do if you were trying to optimize your
housing costs.

A third cites a woman and her sister moving from The Villages in SJ to Dayton,
Ohio. Not mentioned is the fact that The Villages is a retirement community on
a golf course (you have to be over 55 to live there).

~~~
dmode
Ha ha ha. These anecdotes prove the level journalism have fallen due to
clickbait. The commute from SF to East Bay is pretty easy during rush hour.

------
KKKKkkkk1
One of the local public radio stations had a show this week about how well San
Francisco is doing budget-wise. Apparently, the San Francisco budget in the
last decade has been growing much faster than the local economy, and it's been
all going towards paying pension obligations, assistance to homeless and low-
income people etc. Talk about killing the golden goose.

~~~
TDL
Being from Chicago I say it's a good thing to pay down the pension
obligations. Pension obligations can cause a lot of problems in the future.
Although I don't believe governments should be growing their budgets
aggressively, squaring gov obligations is a good thing.

~~~
shiftpgdn
Why do government pensions even exist anymore? There is absolutely no reason
for them and they need to go. The government can pay a reasonable salary if
they wanted skilled workers.

~~~
TDL
I agree with you. I think pensions are a mistake in general, however, many
municipalities, counties, and states are locked in to existing pensions
schemes. I am for doing away with pensions in the future, but the existing
obligations need to be funded appropriately.

~~~
chrisseaton
Doing away with pensions? Huh? How would that work? What would everyone do
when they got too old to work? Do you think people should just build up a
savings account? Without an annuity what would they do if they live longer
than they planned and run out of savings?

~~~
eweise
You mean what would all the government workers do when they get too old to
work? I don't know but I don't get a pension so why should I pay for theirs?

~~~
chrisseaton
I don't understand (and I'm being down voted so I must be saying something
stupid) but why do you care if government workers get a salary and a pension
bought for them, or a bit more salary and buy their own pension?

And don't most most jobs still include a pension as a standard benefit? I'd
say you were in the minority if you're a full time tech worker and have no
pension at all.

~~~
toast0
The problem with government pensions is that the work of today is paid for
with money today and a promise of money in the future for an undeterminable
number of years. Many governments have not saved prudently for their future
obligations and the result is current taxes going to support past workers,
which taxpayers don't appreciate when it gets extreme.

In the private sector, pensions have been going away -- I've worked for about
nine employers in the last 20 years or so, only one had a pension plan, a
public school district. (I wasn't eligible to participate because I held a
part time position)

Many (most?) private sector employers offer participation in defined
contribution retirement plans such as 401(k), some with employer contributions
-- those are much simpler to manage, today's work gets paid for today. There
are some government plans of this type, and taxpayers don't get upset about
them, generally.

~~~
chrisseaton
Ok, so my ignorance was that when the parents said 'pension' they didn't say
that they really meant 'defined benefit pensions'.

A 401k and other defined contribution pensions are still a pension.

~~~
khuey
In colloquial American English "pension" nearly always means defined benefits.

------
gumby
The work environment is really great and I'm glad I can quickly drive out into
the countryside, but the overall environment is pretty terrible: there's
inadequate investment in infrastructure leading to crummy roads, crummy
schools, essentially no public transport, slow internet (in Palo Alto of all
places), and the like. Taxes need to go up a lot and the whole NIMBY thing has
to go.

California used to be a progressive place and we are still living off that
investment. But like any extractive economy we are unsustainably mining the
investments of the late 1940s to the early 1970s.

I must say I really enjoy tech so the Valley is the only place for me to work.
It was fun living in SF but the companies up there aren't tech focused to the
same degree.

------
sawthat
Nobody lives there anymore, it's too crowded.

~~~
duaneb
Population density doesn't indicate anything about migration or wealth
distribution.

~~~
vermontdevil
It's a play on Yogi Berra, a recently deceased baseball player, quote:

'Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded.'

------
wanderr
As someone who enjoys being outdoors, I love CA and the Bay Area especially.
The weather is great year round, and there is so much spectacular and wildly
different areas to see within a relatively short drive, it's amazing.

But the cost of living is completely insane. It doesn't help that I moved from
one of the cheapest places to live (Gainesville, FL), but my salary just about
tripled when I made the move, and it's still a struggle. My $650/mo mortgage
for a 1200 square foot house that seemed expensive and kinda small at the time
is replaced by a $3k/mo rent for 930 square feet. Then state income taxes take
a huge chunk where FL had none, yet FL's sales tax is the same or lower...

CA is roundly better than FL in just about every other way so it's worth
paying a premium for now to be out here but it's pretty clear that it's not
sustainable long term. I'm also happy to be paying much higher taxes if the
money is being used responsibily but it is incredibly frustrating to see the
government continually make no progress on solving the affordability and
traffic problems of the area.

~~~
ryandrake
I'm a Florida transplant as well and I agree with you 100%. Used to live on
the beach for 1/4 of what I pay here to live 2 hours from work. I'd love to go
back, but the "opportunity risk" is real. You lose your tech job suddenly in
the Bay Area, and you might spend 3-6 months and you're back at work. You lose
your tech job in Florida, and you're probably going to be moving out of the
state.

Tons of people have already popped up in these threads saying things like "But
Austin!" And "What about Raleigh-Durham?" etc. While there might be greater
than 1 tech company in these areas, they still don't hold a candle to the Bay
Area when it comes to where you best mitigate the risk of job loss.

------
rm_-rf_slash
Anyone else alarmed that a _doctor_ was leaving because the rent was too high?

A doctor is one of the jobs that is expected to pay top dollar in American
society.

If a doctor can't make it in the Bay Area, who's going to cut your hair, serve
your beer, or mow your lawn?

If wages don't rise in line with skyrocketing living costs, then the only
alternative is a permenantly impoverished underclass.

People of the Bay Area: are you ok with that?

~~~
boxy310
Recently took a trip out to the Bay Area, and when I did the back-of-the-
napkin calculations, I figured it would actually be cheaper to fly from the
Midwest and stay in a hotel every other weekend, than it would be to live
there. Really neat place to visit, but I can't understand how anyone in their
right mind would live there.

~~~
toephu2
Just like people from the city might say "I can't understand how anyone in
their right mind would live in the midwest"

------
FreakyT
All control of Bay Area housing should be put into the hands of a single
"housing czar" with absolute authority to rezone. Usually democratic methods
are preferable, but in this case it's clear they've failed in an absolute
sense, and a new approach is needed.

~~~
cylinder
Same with transportation. The reason transport is such a mess is because of
all the different municipalities involved. To continue to think of the Bay as
a group of totally independent cities is ridiculous.

~~~
justinlardinois
I get what you're saying, but what's the alternative? Go back to the first
half of the 1900s where San Jose was annexing everything?

~~~
cylinder
Transportation handled on a state level with total authority by the state to
place tracks and stations wherever they want. Certainly consultation should
take place but ultimately state decides.

And yes, forced municipality amalgamation should take place. Enough with all
the small villages that want to be their own city with their own rules to keep
others out. Take a look at what Sydney is doing right now with council
amalgamations to override NIMBY power. Melbourne did this a long time ago and
as a result has been able to effect a lot more urban planning.

------
matt_wulfeck
I'm fine here. I have a job in tech and I'll be able to put down roots and buy
a home, Etc.

However by virtue of living here I basically force all of my children to do
the same or move away. it's simply too hard to live here unless you're working
in tech.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
To enjoy a halfway decent life in the Bay Area (to not require roommates to
meet expenses, own a car, and not have to commute from the Central Valley
everyday) I'd say you have to make 6 figures. Or be married to/BFF with
someone who does.

Moving from the Bay Area to Portland, my salary increased by 8%, but I can
afford my own apartment and s brand new car, middle class hallmarks that were
way out of my league in Sunnyvale or Fremont.

~~~
justinlardinois
Six figures is a huge exaggeration. You can reasonably find a one bedroom
apartment for yourself in west San Jose for $2000/month, likely less if you
shop around or are willing to live in a studio, and live off $1000-1500/month
for everything else. Even if you're making payments of a few hundred a month
on, you don't need to be anywhere close to six figures to have that lifestyle.

Granted, the level of income you'd need for this is still hard to achieve
without a tech job. But you don't need six figures.

Unless by the Bay Area you meant living in San Francisco. Then all bets are
off.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
In order to be able to afford 2K for a one bedroom apartment (definitely on
the low end for Santa Clara County) you're going to have to save up at least
that much for moving expenses. Want to try doing that on a less than 6 figure
salary (I'd say 85K maybe if you want to stretch it). 60K could've landed you
a cheap apartment in 2007, but not anymore.

~~~
justinlardinois
As I said, apartments are easily found for that price:
[http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/sby/apa?max_price=2000](http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/sby/apa?max_price=2000)

But anyways, $3500/month (what I mentioned above) is 42k/year in take home
pay. Doing some very rough back-of-the-envelope math, that would be a pre-tax
salary of about 50k. Obviously that's not reality, but 60k is definitely
livable around here. You'd drive a cheap used car and you wouldn't save
anything, but you'd be comfortable and wouldn't have to worry too much about
frugality.

Someone making 85k would be more than okay.

------
mmanfrin
I have literally never heard anyone cite California taxes as having any
contribution on them leaving. The _only_ people I've heard mention 'high
California taxes' are people who are explicitly trying to solicit Californians
to move to wherever they are ('come to Texas! We have way lower taxes than
you!').

~~~
justinlardinois
Agreed. It seems odd to harp on that, especially for a Bay Area newspaper.
Also, it's not at all specific on what kind of taxes it's talking about and it
makes it sound like taxes are higher in the Bay Area than the rest of
California.

Local income tax is more or less nonexistent in California (and the US in
general, really). Property taxes are some of the lowest in the country. We do
have a high state income tax compared to other states, but it's still
negligible compared to federal income taxes.

I guess your federal income taxes will be higher in California because you'll
make more money here than in most other states.

------
danso
I don't know if reading this makes me feel better, as in, at least everyone
else around me is getting fucked. Or if I'll soon feel worse for having
accepted an offer to stay, even after 2 shitty years. I didn't harbor any
fantasies of owning in New York but at least it was more fun and cheaper by
far than Menlo Park

------
linuxlizard
Come to Boise, Idaho (USA). We need high tech people. Excellent quality of
life, low commutes.

[https://www.tsheets.com/living-in-boise/](https://www.tsheets.com/living-in-
boise/)

(I don't work at T-Sheets but they have a great page on living in Boise.)

Also in Boise: Micron, HP's laser printer division.

~~~
mikestew
Craigslist shows about a half dozen jobs, just like it always does when I
look. Other sources have similar results. Where might one find these companies
that "need tech people"? Because I'm seriously looking to get out of the
Seattle area, and Boise would be a first choice, but for the lack of available
jobs.

------
iamjdg
These people who sold their Bay Area homes and moved somewhere else to pay
cash for a house seem to gloss over the fact that they were able to do this
because they struggled in the Bay Area for so many years and became real
estate wealthy. They won't see this kind of real estate wealth growth in their
new communities.

~~~
sliverstorm
That's kind of the point, you can get more for less struggle elsewhere. They
are giving up the wealth growth.

~~~
rconti
Right, but it glosses over the fact that they were not able to afford their
lifestyle 'organically' in their new place. It only seems awesome because
they're going in with huge wads of California cash.

~~~
sliverstorm
Only if you are focusing on "wow they bought a lavish mansion with fifty acres
and a stable". If they move to Ohio and buy a house- guess what, property
ownership is very normal and attainable in Ohio by relatively ordinary people.
Mega California bucks aren't necessary.

------
nfriedly
My wife and I spent a year in the Bay Area (San Mateo), and there was a lot to
love. Great weather, awesome farmers markets, plenty of work, etc.

But holly cow was it expensive! My rent was around $2000/month. I had a co-
worker living in SF proper who's apartment was $4500/month. And that was 4-5
years ago, it's probably gone up by now.

After a year, we moved back to Ohio - I now have a good-sized house on nearly
an acre of land, and my 15-year mortgage is just over $1000/month.

The difference is going into my retirement savings: I'm on track to have
enough to retire at around age 45.

~~~
lubujackson
Yup, rents have gone up approx. 50% in the last few years. A 1 BR in SF is now
averaging $3200/mo. I believe. AVERAGING.

The secret killer behind these prices is that only newcomers pay them. Most
renters who have been in SF for more than 5 years are in a rent-controlled
building, which means their rent is basically locked in, which is good on one
hand but on the other, you can never move out. Black mold? Leaking roof? Rat
infestation? Illegal units stealing your electricity? It creates a situation
where people will deal with any and all hazards and illegal situations just to
maintain their low rent because they know if they move they have nowhere else
to go.

~~~
owyn
Yep, rents have doubled since I moved here.

I moved to the bay area about 8 years ago. In that time, the house in Seattle
that I lived in doubled in value, the equivalent of about 50k/year. Since I
have lived here, the rents have also doubled, the equivalent of about
25k/year. I'm actually paying about the same (mortgage there vs rent here). I
could have parked everything in AAPL and made about 5x. There are opportunity
costs everywhere.

Money is only part of the equation but I'm making more than that difference in
salary and I'm a LOT happier in SF. Being closer to friends and family and
having a better work/life balance, being able to ride my bike to work, makes a
big difference for me in overall happiness score. YMMV of course.

The building I live in used to be a terrible slum situation, and the new
owners have renovated it (of course, living here during the renovation wasn't
fun). I feel lucky there. Friends of mine have also been evicted and moved to
other cities or other countries as a result of not being able to afford
anything.

------
sphinx65
This is happening almost everywhere, but at a less frightening pace than CA.
And we are told continually by the chattering class and politicians that
skyrocketing real estate prices - asset inflation - is a good thing. Since
forever a stable residential real estate market was the goal and people
understood its value. Now we're all gamblers, meaning losers. When the hedge
funds and REIT's stop speculating in residential real estate and pull out,
there will be a deafening crash.

~~~
guftagu
Why would they stop and pull out?

~~~
throwanem
Why did they in 2008?

~~~
sphinx65
The hedge fund buying spree happened after 2008.

------
iceManChild
I live in the Bay Area. I have been able to make it work for me and love it
here, though I do understand some of the reasons why others may not. Cost
probably tops that list. But, the complaints about traffic should not be
focused on California. In my experience most of the cities I have to travel to
(Seattle, Phoenix, Atlanta) have much worse traffic issues. My colleagues in
those cities spend 5-10 extra hours driving during the week compared to what
my coworkers and I spend.

~~~
rconti
I moved from Seattle to the Bay Area about 15 years ago, and at the time,
Seattle traffic was far worse. Of course, the metro Bay Area is physically
larger, so it's possible to conjure up a worse commute involving more miles,
but for the same number of miles, at the time, Seattle was worse.

Traffic in the Bay Area has gotten quite bad of late, but I know Seattle has
done the same.

I live 7mi from work so it hardly phases me. Particularly when I bike in.

------
TwiztidK
I just visited some friends in southern California and the possibility of me
moving out there came up in conversation. So, I used a cost of living
calculator to figure how much more I would need to make to be at the same
level... 60% more. Definitely not going to happen.

~~~
rdtsc
I visited a few times in the past. Spent a large part of the day stuck in LA
traffic. It wasn't even morning or evening community, it seems it is an all
day kinda thing.

There was a metro / subway there but it never seemed to go where we wanted to
go.

~~~
rconti
Traffic in LA _is_ an all day (and all night) thing. But, like anywhere else,
you can choose to live close to work -- or not.

The light rail is actually a huge success story in LA right now.

------
fiatmoney
Just wait until enough democratic voters are imported to overturn Proposition
13 (caps property taxes at roughly what they were when you bought the house,
and requires 2/3 vote in the legislature for tax increases).

California is trying so hard to go full Venezuela, and the only buffer they
have are the three or so major industries that are doing well (agriculture,
entertainment, and tech). If there's a contraction in those sectors, expect a
death spiral.

------
smaili
Anyone happen to know what is the definition of "middle class" for the Bay
Area? Given the higher incomes amd cost of living, I have to assume the range
is higher than most other regions.

------
jff
Then they move to another state, and drive up the housing markets, and vote
for all the same stuff that made California untenable, and wonder why the
natives are hostile.

~~~
hx87
I doubt the newcomers will be voting for NIMBYist ordnances though; that tends
to be something existing owners do.

~~~
jjn2009
jff is referring to the exportation of left leaning voters.

------
hkarthik
I went the opposite route as most. I was remote for 3 years from Texas and
then moved to the Bay Area for work. And I have a family of four.

Key aspects that make it work for me are the following:

* Accept a long commute to a more family-friendly community with good schools.

* Live near BART and use it everyday.

* Work in the city, not the South Bay.

* Make sure you have two strong professional incomes.

* Pay for good quality child care and/or after school care.

* Pay the high housing costs and accept that you will redirect a good portion of your investments towards housing here. And it won't be as nice.

All in all its been worth it for me. I am working with extremely smart, driven
people who I am learning a ton from. I don't have to hide my political views,
and everyone has been open and accepting. It has been very easy for us to make
great friends in a short time.

~~~
pj_mukh
"I am working with extremely smart, driven people who I am learning a ton
from."

This is something being overlooked completely. There aren't a lot of other
places that have this concentration of progressive minded bright (tech and
non-tech) individuals. Great things will come out of this density. It sucks
that the non-techies are being pushed out, but that should accelerate the need
for housing reform. This density must be maintained and made widely
accessible.

Vote. Call your rep.
[http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/trailer_bill_language/local_...](http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/trailer_bill_language/local_government/documents/707StreamliningAffordableHousingApprovals_000.pdf)

~~~
sbardle
At the risk of the grossest generalisation, the Bay Area has worked because
it's combined two very different types of people. On the one hand, the
engineers/techies (with roots in the defence industry and conservative midwest
backgrounds) and on the other, the idealists/utopians (with roots in the
counter-culture movement). Strange bedfellows, but a world-changing
combination back then. I don't live in the Valley now, so can't comment on the
situation, but I hear it is far more of a mono-culture now.

~~~
hx87
If it is a monoculture now, it's because the engineer culture took on
counterculture values while pricing the actual counterculture out of the
region. The engineers still have their conservatism in that they tend to think
of as many possible failure modes as possible and try to address then when
they can. It's just not recognizable as such because the rational, cautious,
establishmentarian 1950s conservatism has been almost completely replaced by
emotional, religious, populist conservatism.

~~~
pj_mukh
It doesn't need to be. If all the tech companies are experimenting with ways
to up-end different industries and ways of doing things. The municipality
should also invest in experimenting with how to maintain affordability and
accessibility and therefore diversity. Currently, the municipality, is geared
to just make sure real-estate investor values are maintained. Therefore, the
bill mentioned above.

------
mikestew
I'll read the article later, but this sounds like a replay of about twenty
years ago. Articles in the WSJ, NYT, et. al., about how CA's high housing
prices and taxation are causing an exodus to such places as Las Vegas (and we
see how that turned out). I was too young to have paid attention at the time,
but I wouldn't be surprised to go back to the archives to the 70s, where one
might find the same articles.

I know, this time it's different $BECAUSE_REASONS. No, it's not. Some
individuals and companies will leave, but CA will continue to be crowded in
some areas, heavily taxed, and costly, just like it's always been.

~~~
HillaryBriss
Yes.

Also, tax rates are higher today than they were in the 1970s.

One data point: California statewide sales tax base rate was in the 3.75% to
5.0% range in the 1970s. Today it's 6.25%.

[https://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/taxrateshist.htm](https://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/taxrateshist.htm)

------
honkhonkpants
NB: net _domestic_ migration. Population still increasing.

------
patmcguire
I left NYC for the Bay Area two years ago and just moved back.

A lot of it was for personal and career reasons, a lot wasn't. At a certain
point I couldn't justify paying oodles for a dark 1BR in Mountain View when
that same money could get a better apartment in the West Village.

------
FussyZeus
No interest to move to the Bay area. You could work literally anywhere else
and live like a millionaire on their salaries but by the time you've paid for
a house and car there you might as well live in a VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER.

~~~
jonathankoren
There's no river, but I found this.
[http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/sbw/5642724453.html](http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/sbw/5642724453.html)

~~~
jjn2009
Oh wow only 900 a month? finally something I can afford to live in!

------
hans
It also seems like there's no push from the buy side, in CA we're all sheep.
likely b/c there is no community so the rent-taking can wratchet up all day
long.

I think if people en masse began to reject extortion rent we could have a
situation. This never seems to happen but it would be a spectacle: thousands
of 160k/yr workers decide to camp in tents until rents subside, all camped out
in the streets in a section of Sf.

------
naveen99
Atleast california state or San Francisco city don't yet claim a cut of your
intellectual property. After all you use their land and infrastructure. Also,
the state and city governments don't yet have their own firehouse of data
collection into your communication.

I wonder if some enterprising landlord will put in a clause into the lease to
own your intellectual property and communications while in your residence.
Would people sign the lease for a 20% rent discount ?

------
aphextron
When people saying housing costs are out of control in California, really they
mean the bay area. Every other part of the state is no worse than anywhere
else.

~~~
sk8ingdom
This is objectively not true [1] and has the same sort of arrogance that
frustrates people who live in other areas of the state. Is the cost of living
ridiculous? Absolutely, but the higher-than-average salaries at least help
compensate.

Consider, for example, San Diego [2], which is considered the worst city for
long term wealth accumulation in the entire USA.

1\.
[http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/California/](http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/California/)
2\. [http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/oct/26/san-
die...](http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/oct/26/san-diego-worst-
building-wealth/)

~~~
astrange
Hard to believe this article when it says Detroit is a better place to earn
wealth than NYC.

------
overcast
It's unfortunate, California is such a beautiful place. But it's turning into
somewhere to visit, and not live. See you soon Sierra's!

~~~
abduhl
I move around and travel a lot for work - I've lived in 4 states in the last 2
years (CO, WA, CA, TX) - and one of the universal things across all the
midwest and west coast that I've found is that while most people like the
weather/scenery in California EVERYONE hates people from California, except
for the people in California.

I've heard the saying "California would be great if it wasn't for the people"
in literally every state I've spent significant time in when they find out
that I lived in the Bay.

~~~
overcast
Is there anyone FROM California anymore? I'm guessing that sentiment comes
from the type that are attracted to the entertainment industry.

~~~
HillaryBriss
Yes. Millions and millions.

Just curious: if you work in the tech industry, is your impression that the
tech industry in CA is populated mostly by people who came from outside the
state?

~~~
overcast
From and outsider, yes, that is the impression a lot of us get.

------
refrigerator
Is the salary of remote employees working for Bay Area companies the same as
for local employees, or do they differ based on cost of living?

~~~
kylestlb
I have worked at two separate companies where they differ, typically 10-13%
delta from what I remember...

~~~
lsaferite
Which makes the remote position much higher paid basically.

~~~
kylestlb
Yeah, cost of living in the bay area is likely much more than 10-13% of other
places.

~~~
lsaferite
I live in FL currently. Just the income tax jump alone is about 9%.

------
binarysolo
Hoo boy, these articles make the rounds every couple days.

People live in the Bay Area because of: professional opportunities, culture,
weather, and social network. If you value those things more than high cost of
living then you stay -- you either have the privilege of money or the
tolerance of being financially stretched and not have all the nice things.

------
chiph
Could there be a brain drain here? I see these people as being the smart ones
- those who realize they're in a losing financial situation, and have the
motivation to do something about it, even though in the short term it's
painful for them (leaving friends & uprooting their family).

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I had it easy - moved to CA after college, stayed 10 years, then moved back
_to_ friends and family. Used the increase in my CA house to fund a farm in
Iowa. Still work on startups, but remotely.

------
ekekekekekekl
The bay area is just awful, do not move here^Wthere!

------
shawndumas
print view

[http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/pr...](http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=30037774&siteId=568)

------
wbsun
People are considering killing Prop 13, which will make more residents leave.

~~~
Decade
In my personal fantasy, killing Proposition 13 would be done in a progressive
manner. Grandma who has paid off her house in Westwood Park and is now a paper
millionaire would still keep her 1975 property tax level, but Disneyland would
be taxed at currently prevailing rates.

[http://www.ocregister.com/taxdollars/strong-477502-ownership...](http://www.ocregister.com/taxdollars/strong-477502-ownership-
property.html)
[http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jun/29/convers...](http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jun/29/conversation-
prop-13-taxes/)

~~~
hx87
In my personal fantasy, Grandma would keep her 1975 property tax level, as
long as her municipality allows her and her neighbors to build or convert her
house into apartments. Low property taxes should be rewards for a lack of
NIMBYism.

~~~
Decade
Yeah, I’m not so heartless. Attitudes like that are why pro-development people
have attracted a reputation as bullies and villains. Grandma wants to live out
her days in the small house and quiet neighborhood where she has lived her
life? Too bad, her land is more useful to society being consolidated into a
tower full of “luxury” apartments.

That may be true. Especially in San Francisco, where grandmas and older
gentlemen form a voting bloc that have delayed construction all over the Bay
Area. But that doesn’t make it right in my mind to force grandma to either
expand her property or get out. Now, zoning laws: That’s another injustice
that should be corrected.

Proposition 13 has the additional perversity of discouraging repairs and
improvements, because “new construction” [0] triggers a reassessment and a
huge jump in property taxes. However, it’s a small step between letting
grandma fix her house, and letting her rich developer son replace her house
with a 4-story apartment building, pocketing the difference between the market
rate rents and the low 1975 property tax, and starving the school district of
funds.

If we don’t want to kick out fixed-income people, then we should simply tie
the reassessment to the person’s ability to pay the higher tax.

[0]
[https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/newconstruction.html](https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/newconstruction.html)

------
thaw13579
Reading the comment section of that article is quite a bizarre experience

------
dawhizkid
Seattle is tempting as a SF resident but I think Seattle tech scene is much
more risk-adverse (i.e. AMZN, MSFT employees) and not as entrepreneurially
minded as in SF.

~~~
crucifiction
You are right. Seattle is the bay area for people who have kids they want in
good schools and to have a decent upper middle class lifestyle with cars/large
house/lawn. With that comes risk adverse big-tech-co jobs that pay high but
steady.

------
skynetv2
even with good salaries, I would move away from California at the first chance
I get.

------
zeveb
California today is the United States in a decade or two: its dysfunctions are
the product of decades of poor policy decisions (often, the poor decision was
to _have_ a policy in the first place) by voters and their elected officials
alike.

A huge problem is that people move from California to other states in order to
escape Californian problems, but once they get to their new state they miss a
few things about California, and agitate to make their new state more
Californian in those few aspects. Multiply that across all the Californian
emmigrants in a state, and suddenly that state has California-style problems
again.

The only solution I can see is to amend the Constitution (specifically, the
Fourteenth Amendment) to provide that people who move to a state must be
naturalised into it rather than immediately gain citizenship. Perhaps a
decade-long waiting period would give folks time to acculturate. An advantage
of this would be that Californians who have escaped to other states would
still be voting in California, even as they are acculturating to a saner state
government system: in effect, California would get wiser voters for free.

You can substitute 'New Jersey', 'Massachusetts' or 'New York' for
'California' above and get much the same effect.

~~~
dmode
This makes no sense. Because people who move to California also move from
other states.

~~~
zeveb
> This makes no sense. Because people who move to California also move from
> other states.

But California (like Texas) is large enough that a uniform sampling of
Americans from other states injected into California is like adding a drop of
water to the ocean.

The Californian exodus to smaller states, OTOH, is more like dumping a #10 can
of ketchup into a hot tub.

