
Nearly half of Bay Area residents say they want to leave - smaili
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/03/nearly-half-of-bay-area-residents-say-they-want-to-leave/
======
lpolovets
The salaries here are higher, but the housing prices are much, much higher. I
live in Redwood City, which is a decent-but-not-amazing part of the Bay Area.
A 1500-sq ft home is about $1.7m here. In Palo Alto, it would be closer to
$2.5m-$3m. In a place like Portland, that same home would be $400k. The
problem is that salaries here are 100% higher, but house prices are 300%-600%
higher. And housing is most people's biggest expense. It's very tempting to
move to a place like Portland, and either take a lower paying job, work
remotely for an SF job, or even fly in for an SF job for a few days every
week.

All of this feels completely untenable and unsustainable, and yet it sustains
because there are enough affluent people that want to live here that their
demand outstrips supply, and local city governments are criminally
conservative when it comes to building more housing.

~~~
scurvy
You gotta do what every other long-term San Francisco resident did: Get a nice
2-3BR rent controlled apartment, then slowly become the sole tenant as
roommates come and go. In 5-7 years time, the place will be way below market
rate and you'll be ready to start a family. Then just shake your head and
shrug your shoulders when newcomers complain how expensive it is.

*Yes, there's some sarcasm in there, but this is what San Franciscans have done since the 70's.

~~~
_d8fd
I like to comment on how my next door neighbor's rent (here in SF) is under
$300/month. He moved when in many years ago when the rent was $85/month. I pay
just over $1600 for the same 250 square foot layout.

------
googlemike
I live in SF. I am very, very tired of the homeless tents everywhere, dirty
needles everywhere, and suspicious feces everywhere. The amount of bums living
outside is unacceptable - this is perhaps the dirtiest city I have ever been
to.

~~~
0x00000000
All they need to do is build some state institutions to provide care, but if
you that NIMBYism is bad when it comes to housing, just wait until someone
brings up that type of project. People are okay with just pretending they are
doing everything they can, just as long as it stays mostly out of sight and
the money is quietly spent. LA county spends a billion a year with little to
show. Homelessness is 99% of the time a mental problem and no one wants to do
anything about it

~~~
seehafer
Here's the problem with CA-brand NIMBYism: it's coupled with faux-bleeding-
heart-ism.

We could have a state initiative to build Club Med for homeless people in the
Central Valley, far away from anyone who could complain, and the same people
who would complain if we put that facility in Hunters Point due to their
NIMBYism would complain if we put it outside of SF because that would be
"mean" due to displacing the homeless people (many of whom used to have
residences in SF).

~~~
masonic

      build Club Med for homeless people in the Central Valley
    

Heck, homeless wouldn't use a nice, new facility _in SF_ that was set up in
2015 in advance of the Super Bowl because is wasn't within easy access of
usual gathering haunts.

~~~
tim333
I googled that and it says ([https://thinkprogress.org/san-francisco-clears-
out-homeless-...](https://thinkprogress.org/san-francisco-clears-out-homeless-
ahead-of-the-super-bowl-19015823747d/))

>Yet the shelter is in such high demand that it has a waiting list 150 people
long, all of whom were skipped over to relocate those who were moved to make
way for Super Bowl visitors.

which sounds like they would use it

------
sixQuarks
back in the late 90s, I started a web site in my dorm room in NC and sold it
less than a year later to a dotcom in SF. I moved out there in 1999. Lived
through the first market crash, web 2.0, and the 2008 recession.

The bay area was so much fun during those years. The excitement of web
startups, and the creative types of people it attracted. And it felt like
everyone was in it together.

I don't know exactly when the Bay area started becoming "techbro", but
basically what it's become is the new "NYC". The bros who would normally go
into finance, have gone into startups. You have the investment banking
mentality in the bay area now, and it doesn't feel like everyone is in it
together anymore. It feels like one big competition.

Anyways, I left 4 years ago, and everytime I visit, I'm so glad I don't live
there anymore.

~~~
hkmurakami
Been living here since the 80’s. 100% agree that SV is the new New York.
Reading your post makes me think I’m reading sowmthing I myself wrote.

I don’t even go to many of the cafes here because I don’t want to feel
everyone’s anxiety and competitiveness that permeates the air.

~~~
timr
Moved to NYC after nearly a decade in SF (partially overlapping with the OP).
I feel like it's unfair to call SF the "new New York": New York definitely
cares about money, but it allows room for lots of different things. It's a far
more functional city in every possible dimension, because it accepts (in fact,
adores) what it is.

IMO, SF stopped being fun not because of the "finance bros", per se, but
because the place just never _wanted_ to be a big city. Fundamentally, San
Francisco is a gorgeous little seaside town on a too-small peninsula, which
valued counterculture and artistic expression. So it was fun to be here for a
while when the "startup industry" was a few crazy people doing things against
the grain, but it's a different story when those crazy people turned into
armies of bland corporate CEOs, hiring armies of rich yuppies to "disrupt" the
world in identical ways.

~~~
sixQuarks
I was talking more about the 1980s wallstreet / 1990s American Psycho version
of NYC.

------
joelrunyon
This is my current favorite statistic on the SF/Bay Area

[http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-
conversation...](http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-
conversation/sd-how-much-cost-to-move-out-of-san-francisco-
california-20180306-htmlstory.html)

~~~
olouv
Nice... blocked for EU residents:

> Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European
> countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options
> that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We
> continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all
> readers with our award-winning journalism.

US version:

> Usually, U-Haul truck rentals are advertised at an affordable sticker price,
> comfortably in the three-digit range. But a trend out of northern California
> is pushing that sticker price as high as $2,000, and moving Californians to
> disbelief.

[https://twitter.com/nolimits/status/968626509320617984/photo...](https://twitter.com/nolimits/status/968626509320617984/photo/1)

~~~
smelendez
I also wonder if more people moving to SF have relocation bonuses than people
moving away.

If a company is covering your move, you'll be more likely to hire movers
rather than rent a U-Haul.

------
usaar333
> Bay Area home prices have been climbing for six years, setting another
> record in April, when the median sale price hit $850,000 — up 13 percent
> from a year ago, according to real estate data firm CoreLogic. Rents are
> soaring too, and workers are forced to move farther away to find affordable
> housing and commute on already crowded Bay Area roads and freeways to get to
> their jobs.

Citation is provided for purchase prices, but not rents. I can't find any
market where inflation-adjusted rents are not at most flat-lined, if not
_lower_ over the last 2 years:

[https://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-
values/](https://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/home-values/) (down)

[https://www.zillow.com/oakland-ca/home-
values/](https://www.zillow.com/oakland-ca/home-values/) (no change inflation
adjusted)

[https://www.zillow.com/san-jose-ca/home-values/](https://www.zillow.com/san-
jose-ca/home-values/) (down inflation adjusted)

[https://www.zillow.com/santa-clara-ca/home-
values/](https://www.zillow.com/santa-clara-ca/home-values/) (roughly in line
with inflation)

------
Cofike
From my reading on Hacker News, I may be the only person in tech who enjoys
living in San Francisco.

~~~
rxhernandez
I just moved here and it seems like it lacks a tenth of the soul Los Angeles
has, which would make sense if we priced out everyone that brought soul to the
city. The food isn't nearly as good. The music scene isn't half as good.
Traffic is nearly as shitty as LA. The LGBTQ community seems to have largely
been priced out. You can't find affordable housing near where all the action
is happening whereas studio apartments in Hollywood can easily be found for
~$1k. A significant number of people are pretending to be other people without
a very good understanding of the people they are pretending to be (it's as if
aliens came to the Bay and tried to impersonate the one dimensional people
they see on TV) (at least in LA when people are fake, their archetype is
someone they've met and their impersonation is a lot closer to the reference
material).

The only thing that might be better is: you're a hell of a lot closer to
nature and it's a lot safer (I wouldn't be comfortable walking around LA past
1AM).

Ive lived in Tijuana (Mexico), near Juarez (Mexico), near Bern (Switzerland),
29 Palms (California), and Los Angeles and traveled all over western Europe
and I have yet to find a place as homogenously boring and fake as the Bay
Area. With the exception of Juarez I'd choose any of those places over the
Bay.

I don't mean to be insulting (I'm really just upset at myself for moving to
such an over priced boring place) but saying you're the only one in tech that
likes living in San Francisco is like complaining that you are the only one
who enjoys Mcdonalds; it's for good reason.

~~~
dmode
You need to get out more

~~~
rxhernandez
You need to live in more interesting places to know what someone, who gets out
and complains about this barren husk of what used to be, looks like.

------
SirensOfTitan
I lived in the Bay Area for five years, and I'm so glad I got out. On paper,
the area should operate very similarly to New York City: good public transit,
relatively active building, and a variety of neighborhoods and places to live
that are relatively safe.

In reality, it's effectively impossible to get around in the bay area deprived
of housing with no new building, no solution to public transit (good luck
getting the peninsula towns to allow for BART to expand there), and from what
I've read the property crime rates are higher than NYC in the 90s.

Of course, New York has its own problems, and the Subway is rapidly degrading.
With that, local politics in the Bay Area are out of control, and it seems
there's no real easy solution to the political clusterfuck of the various
towns. Individuals can only really vote with their feet: move out. There are
plenty of other attractive towns for tech.

~~~
_cs2017_
Hmm a room in a shared house in mountain view, 10-15 min bike to work along a
forest trail, can be rented for $1200-1500. Restaurants are about 30% more
expensive than elsewhere, but that's still a tiny amount in absolute terms.
Most other expenses here are not that different from other cities. And the
jobs pay a little better, and there's more choice of good companies. I really
don't understand why SV is considered over priced - unless you want your own
house of course.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Given that the rule of thumb is that housing should be about a third of your
income, you are talking about needing $3600-$4500 income a month. That's
$43200 to $54000 annually minimum. And you are talking about just renting a
room, not getting a place to yourself. That basically means staying single, or
at least childless. It isn't a situation conducive to having a family.

California per capita income in 2010-2014 was $30,441. Median household income
for the same period: $61,933.

So, no, most Californians cannot readily afford that kind of rent for just a
room, not an apartment. And California is ranked 9th in the US for median
family income. In most states, that is an even more mind-boggling figure.

All figures from
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incom...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income)

~~~
shagie
While true, I find that data lacking. Unfortunately, those statistics aren't
broken down by area.

No, most Californians cannot really afford to live in San Francisco Bay Area.
And most Illinois residents can't afford to buy a place in Chicago. And most
New York residents can't afford to buy a place in New York City.

This likely extends to other states too... Arizona has a per capita income of
$20k and Phoenix rent is about $1000 for an apartment. So, nope, average
person in Arizona can't stay in Phoenix. Missouri is right after arizona and
also at $20k per capita... and rentals in Saint Louis aren't that much less.

[https://www.fatherly.com/news/map-average-cost-house-each-
st...](https://www.fatherly.com/news/map-average-cost-house-each-state-us/)
suffers the same problem - statewide data. Going from [http://harvard-
cga.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html...](http://harvard-
cga.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=ea1929b8f2bf482dadad173a3f62c27e)
(
[http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/ARH_2017_cost_burdens_by_metro](http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/ARH_2017_cost_burdens_by_metro)
\- data by metro) there are very few areas where the there isn't a cost burden
(renter spending more than 30% on rental).

San Francisco is at 45.6%. San Jose is 46.3%. That puts San Francisco at #317
when sorted by cost burden percent. San Hose is at #281. That's a long way
from Iowa City (62.1%) at #5 (#2 in the list for severely burdened renter
share at 43.0% meaning 43% of the rentals spend more than 50% of their income
on the rental). For that matter, Redding is at 61.1% (#9) and Fresno is at
47.5% (#24).

This isn't a uniquely bay area problem... and the bay area is in much better
shape than Flint Michigan (#66) at 53.6%.

~~~
DoreenMichele
If you are talking strictly rentals, my impression is that some places in San
Francisco are rent controlled. So some of the cost burden difference figure is
likely accounted for by rent control in some places. If you are talking
housing burden, California tax laws intentionally advantage long time owners
and we're specifically designed to help homeowners stay in their house. This
actively harms people new to the area and also tends to freeze people in
place.

I lived in Fairfield, California at one time (as a military wife). My husband
got a very high COLA for being there. I am well aware that there are many ways
to skin this cat.

But none of that in any way suggests to me that $1200-$1500 for a _room_ in a
shared house constitutes _affordable housing._

Most months, I support a family of three on around $1200-$1600/month income.
My income is portable. I left California to get off the street. And it
aggravates me when well heeled professionals on HN poo poo the idea that the
Bay Area has a housing crisis. There are endless articles about the issue
posted to HN about this issue. They vary from articles about the deepening
issue of homelessness to the YIMBY movement by well paid young professionals
who can't find housing that meets their needs (and more).

Yes, I know all the rebuttals: "Homeless people are just a bunch of crazies
and junkies who can't make their life work. Thus homelessness has nothing
whatsoever to do with the fact that the West Coast only has about 30
affordable homes* for every 100 needy families" and "Well, you aren't supposed
to be able to buy a house in your twenties. It takes time to ramp up to that,
never mind how much young professionals make these days."

I've heard it and I can't believe anyone can see the parade of endless
articles about the housing crisis and spout such blatant nonsense. From where
I sit, Housing Crisis Denial should be a meme just as much as Climate Change
Denial is and should be basically lumped in with Flat Earthers for how utterly
illogical it is.

* [https://www.geekwire.com/2018/every-100-families-living-pove...](https://www.geekwire.com/2018/every-100-families-living-poverty-west-coast-no-30-affordable-homes/)

Edited to add this compendium (by me) of stats on homelessness and housing in
California:

[https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/05/california-...](https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/05/california-
statistics-on-homelessness.html)

------
endlessvoid94
I just moved from SF to South Lake Tahoe. There is a (very) nascent awesome
group of people attempting to stabilize the economy, bring (and keep) talent
and economic growth local, and they're nice people with integrity as a value.

And it's considerably less expensive. If you're a software engineer who loves
the outdoors, dogs, good beer, and amazing weather, check it out. DM me if
you'd like to learn more.

~~~
masonic
CA side or NV side?

~~~
endlessvoid94
CA for now

------
s17n
"Nobody lives there anymore, it's too crowded"

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
That oversimplifies the issue. If you live in the Bay Area, and you're rich
(one possibility being you bought your home 10+ years ago), it can be a great
place to live.

If you're not rich, or you don't own your own home, your quality of life
probably sucks. You likely have a horrible commute and still end up paying the
bulk of your income to your housing.

~~~
scurvy
Eh I bought my place 8 years ago, and I wasn't rich when I did it. I lived in
a not-crazy expensive apartment on the edge of the Tenderloin (good side of
California but close enough to keep the rent cheap). I was in that apartment
for 8 years before buying a place. I got paid OK, but not baller. I worked for
some startups that paid very low and sometimes missed paychecks.

I guess my point is that yeah, it can be done (buying a place in San Francisco
and doing well). The problem is that newcomers (and especially younger people)
see a job offer from FlashyCo (Uber, Twitter, Salesforce, etc) as a meal
ticket good for living the ultra good life (fancy car, fancy new apartment,
etc). When they look at what it costs, they get upset and dejected. Many
people today feel that they should be well on the path to Easy Street by their
mid to late 20's. Traditionally that hasn't been the case at all. Wage earning
really doesn't pick up until your late 30's to early 40's. But tech screws
with all of that. Huge acquisitions, instant wealth, engineers over 40 age
discrimination, etc. So in some sense people do feel helpless when they're
living with 8 people at age 30 (protip folks: get a 1-2BR in a less hip area).

~~~
user5994461
A man was expected to provide a home for a family in his 20's, up to one
generation ago.

It was also expected to be done on a single income, while the wife could stay
home to take care of the children.

~~~
donarb
I would say at least 2 generations ago. Those expectations died in the 1970s.

~~~
twtw
It depends highly on the region and culture. In some areas of the U.S. these
expectations are still around (and quite achievable).

------
starchild_3001
Two thoughts come to mind:

* Is the population dropping given all this negativity? My guess: No! Else, property prices and/or rent would've dropped as well. => This survey is just plain "complaining". Not actual action. OR the number of people who move in outnumber those who move out.

* Yeah, been there done that. I moved to Austin for 2-3 years only to realize how much better Bay Area is regarding engineering talent, jobs you can find, outdoor activities you can do, school options for kids etc. Back in Bay Area now. Happy owner of a home since '13.

------
aphextron
It’s a miserable hell hole where I make twice as much money as would be
possible anywhere else on earth. So long as that’s the case, I can’t logically
move anywhere else or do anything for fear of regret, missing opportunity, and
going broke. I think that’s what keeps a lot of people here.

~~~
echelon
I make $250k total compensation in Atlanta, and the mortgage on my 2,000 sqft
2bd/ba condo in the city (and on the Beltline) is $2000/mo. I can run or bike
to work, or, if I need to drive, it only takes 15 minutes. I work on exciting
tech, and I'm not at all stressed.

Atlanta has great food, amazing music, and is in the middle of a forest.
(Google "Atlanta forest"!) There are so many places to hike and swim, it's
glorious.

The culture is so diverse here. We're a music capital, the new Hollywood, and
major finance hub. We have a lot of really cool non-engineers to hang out with
and date. (Nothing wrong with engineers! But there are a lot of different
types here to mingle with.)

Also, we have real barbecue. You can't get that outside the Southeast. :P

Move here and help change our electorate. :)

Cons:

\- Though we have four full seasons, no one knows how to drive in the snow in
the rare event we get any. Our summers are hot and humid (only a problem if
you don't like that), and our springs have a ton of pollen - seriously, more
than you can imagine (Atlanta is a forest).

\- We lack decent public transit. But living within the city makes most
commutes negligible. The Beltline (Google it) helps a lot too. The city is
ramping up to spend more on transit, though.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
$250K total compensation for Atlanta tech companies is exceedingly rare. They
price in all those nice things you mention in attempts to reduce wages. Often
that’s _why_ they chose to locate in Atlanta.

~~~
pm90
Walk into any tech company office in SF right now and ask whether they
desperately need to find engineers. 99% of the time you will get a resounding
YES. The shortage of engineers is not a myth. Most Satellite engineering
offices are meant to find those engineers; not to simply save labor costs.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
I think the shortage is a huge myth. Companies want more _cheap_ engineers,
because they use the engineers more like they are office furniture to look
pretty and serve as fancy headcount for an acquisition or new funding round.
Only a few of them are expected to know how to build anything.

What I see in the market right now is wage suppression at almost any cost for
the vast majority of jobs, and then a _huge_ jump up in wages for those few
specialized roles where actual productivity is required.

~~~
pm90
I want to say this in the nicest way possible: I absolutely think you are 100%
wrong about both the company's desire for new engineers and the competency of
the engineers being hired.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
It seems like data about salary trends, relative hiring of less experienced or
younger quantiles of the candidate population, and company behaviors that
could be motivated by wage arbitrage could possibly resolve our disagreement.

Do you agree? If we had data about these things it would shed light on whether
employers are motivated to get talent because talent is productive vs.
motivated for some other means by which companies are profiting from
headcount?

~~~
pm90
> Do you agree? If we had data about these things it would shed light on
> whether employers are motivated to get talent because talent is productive
> vs. motivated for some other means by which companies are profiting from
> headcount?

Absolutely I would agree if the data indicated that. My opinion is admittedly
based on anecdata, even if the people I've spoken with is somewhat large and
limited to engineers in Tech companies.

------
raldi
Want to see more housing built in San Francisco, at all levels of the income
spectrum, but you don't know which candidates and ballot measures are in line
with that philosophy? See the YIMBY Action slate card:

[https://yimbyaction.org/endorsements/](https://yimbyaction.org/endorsements/)

~~~
krishicks
The San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters has things to say about London
Breed
([http://www.theleaguesf.org/#london](http://www.theleaguesf.org/#london)) and
Jeff Sheehy (same page, scroll down).

~~~
raldi
There will always be organizations out there criticizing any candidate, but at
the end of the day, Jane Kim doesn't believe the laws of supply and demand
apply to San Francisco housing[1][2], while London Breed is the only candidate
who supported SB-827[3].

[1] "It's not supply.":
[https://twitter.com/JaneKim/status/573509389342019584](https://twitter.com/JaneKim/status/573509389342019584)

[2] "Data shows housing price go up & down with average wage not demand.":
[https://twitter.com/janekim/status/573510846233640960](https://twitter.com/janekim/status/573510846233640960)

[3] [https://www.vox.com/cities-and-
urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/s...](https://www.vox.com/cities-and-
urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/sb827-california-housing-crisis)

------
nitwit005
"Nearly half" being 46%, which seems high, but is a fairly normal rate.
Consider this past Gallup poll about people wanting to leave their state,
where the lowest rates were 23%: [http://news.gallup.com/poll/168770/half-
illinois-connecticut...](http://news.gallup.com/poll/168770/half-illinois-
connecticut-move-elsewhere.aspx)

------
kelukelugames
People complaining and people actually leaving are two very different things.

~~~
arkades
The article led with direct measures of net population decrease and indirect
measures such as the extreme asymmetry in the cost of moving trucks into/out
of the Bay Area.

------
alsetmusic
When one of my favorite bands did a reunion world tour they only played five
shows in the states. Three were in SF, two in NY. I love the access to music
and art that I have in the bay. My tastes are often far from mainstream and I
was suffocating in various parts of the Midwest and upper south. The bay isn’t
for everyone, but it’s definitely for me.

------
bproven
The undercurrent to this in my mind is that more of the middle class (and
possibly upper middle) will move out. It actually already happening. The rich
and uber rich will always continue to move in. If you have the means it is a
great place to live. It was always more expensive place to live but not at the
level it is now. In 10-20 years (pick a timeframe..) it will be all (or
mostly) the rich and the diversity of this area will suffer. Coastal / bay
area CA will always be desirable - it will just be unattainable as a permanent
residence for those of normal means at the rate we are going.

Most people here are in the tech sector and probably(most here or many) are at
the upper echelon of the industry in skill and salary. In that bubble I think
it is harder to see what the average person here struggles with on a daily
basis and why they are leaving... Or even what the average "techie" not making
250K+ experiences.

------
eddieplan9
Not trying to detract from the criticism of cost of living, but the source of
survey is interesting:

> This study was completed among a random sample of _registered voters_ who
> responded to an _email invitation_ to complete the survey.

Also, 58% of the respondents have been in the bay area for over 20 years. 75%
of the respondents have been in the area for more than 10 years. Yet 71% of
the respondents do not have children living in the household. So the majority
of the respondents are not young newcomers to the area.

I suspect there is an overweight of people ready to retire and move out of the
area. I have a neighbor who's just ready to do that. With more baby boomers
retiring, I am not surprised to see more retirees looking to move out of the
bay area in the sample population.

------
rajeshpant
Bay area companies need to increase the salaries. It is becoming a struggle
for even highly paid engineers to survive. If you are single income family
with kids then you are barely surviving.

~~~
user5994461
No point in increasing wages. Any increase will immediately be captured by the
landlord.

------
jacobmoe
Is there a plan, or is this just never going to get fixed? The NYC subway
reached a crisis point, so the MTA just put together a massive 10 year plan to
fix it. Maybe it'll pan out, maybe it won't, but there's a plan and people
recognize the problem. I haven't heard of anything like that for the Bay Area
housing crisis. A booming economy and not enough housing should call for a
massive infrastructure plan. Is there one?

------
techsin101
Honest question? Why won't Cali govt just build 700 or so 40 floor buildings
and rent them on zero profit. Something similar to Singapore. I think
California's housing problem is bottleneck for its economic growth, an
emergency.

Why is government being complacent if it was China you'd have skyscrapers
going up like there is no tomorrow

------
forapurpose
Is there any data or research we can apply to this issue? For an HN thread,
it's filled with a lot of unfounded claims and speculation. The last thing
this kind of discussion needs is more speculation, which exposes us to rumors
and to our own prejudices, and which diverts resources from the real problems
(whatever they are).

------
VectorLock
SF Bay Area in the late 90s, early 2000s was much more tolerable.

------
DannyBee
Coming from a lawyer background, It's really interesting to me how similar a
viewpoint i've started to see between bay area residents and my friends who
worked at large law firms (no matter where they were).

(IE i just want to work here to make enough money to be able to comfortably go
do what i want and get out).

------
rdiddly
Kind of revealing that when the survey asked what the Bay Area's worst problem
is, 42% said housing prices, but another...

...18% said traffic congestion (which, like high housing prices, is an effect
of overcrowding)

...14% said poverty/homelessness (which is partly an effect of high housing
prices)

...12% said the cost of living (of which, housing costs are a big component).

So in a way, it's kind of like 86% of those surveyed cited housing prices.

------
khazhoux
Can someone please explain why it is so controversial to suggest that the Big
Co's should slow down or stop their massive growth in the Bay Area? It's
(relatively) easy for G/Amzn/etc to acquire and construct more buildings that
employ tens of thousands, but there's no way (even with YIMBYism) to keep up
with that influx.

------
jhowell
Maybe this means some relief for people from here who have family here and
don't work in tech. It was an awesome area before tech and can be again. It's
OK if the spotlight wants to move to Austin or NYC or Seattle, but I don't see
that happening no matter how much people articles say people say they want to
move.

------
mychael
PSA: If salary is the reason you live in the Bay Area, then you should be
earning at least $200K.

------
dmode
I feel deja Vu after reading this headline. I have been hearing how people
will leave Bay Area and CA and we will collapse for the last 10 years, only
for the opposite to happen.

------
marauf
yea I am curious ... what do the numbers (salary, take home, taxes, expenses
etc.) look like, for say US vs. Canadian Residents ... are you actually better
off working in the US?

~~~
friedman23
The salary is large enough in Silicon Valley that you save significantly more.
Of course those savings would not be enough to live and retire in the Bay Area
unless you hit the jackpot with your stock options but they are more than
enough to retire somewhere else and live very well.

~~~
ramen-san
It’s true, for people earning tech level salaries, the Bay Area is actually
‘affordable’ - see a comparison of earning and cost of living between SF and
Kansas City here: [https://ramenretirement.com/2018/05/14/cost-of-
living/](https://ramenretirement.com/2018/05/14/cost-of-living/)

You’ll save a higher percent and absolute amount of money working in the bay.

Of course, the issue is that not everyone earns $300K+ per year. Unless you
make it into a senior role at a tech company by the time you want to have
kids, living a ‘normal’ life in the Bay will be hard. Even doctors and
dentists will struggle. I completely understand why people would want to
leave. I expect they will. The Bay Area is great, but America is an amazing,
beautiful place, and fine food / coffee / culture has spread far beyond the
streets of SF these days.

~~~
friedman23
There is good food and culture in almost any major metropolitan city in the
US. Will you find a variety of Asian and Indian foods in other American
cities? Probably not but the food is still good.

Seattle, Atlanta, Austin, Miami, etc. You really cannot got wrong with any of
these cities.

------
wolco
If half of them did leave all would want to stay.

------
ttul
I look forward to reviewing this thread after the next recession sets in, and
the Bay Area looks empty.

------
echan00
Many US residents also said they would leave to Canada if Trump gets elected.
I didn't see that happen..

------
beatpanda
I get downvotes every time I say this but I'm going to keep doing it anyway:

If the only reason you're in the Bay Area is for work, if you have no other
attachment to the culture or history or land here, do yourself and everyone
else a favor and get out. You'll be happier and so will everyone else.

