Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,138,681 times
Reputation: 3145
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by jek74
Actually I have. BTW, I have used hotels.com and priceline.com for last minute hotel bookings in NY, Chicago and LA and have stayed at 4 star hotels for $100 a night. All last minute type deals. But let's play with some numbers. Let's say $250 a night. Someone making 120k a year in Houston will save close to 12k in state income taxes. I rounded up a little just to make the numbers round. That's 1k a month. Say I wanted to come up to SF once a month, we'll be more reasonable. Who wants to fly out every weekend right? Airfare I can score for $200, hotel I can probably get cheaper then 250 a night but let's go with $250 a night for two nights. That's $700. That leaves me $300 for cabs, dinner and a show! Now that's just on tax savings alone. Let's take the $1500 a month I'll save on rent at least (1k in Houston for a 2500 apt in SF). That 1500 would more then pay for a 2nd trip a month to SF. And If I had a mortgage, hell, then I could fly up every weekend with the savings but I think I would tire of SF after a few trips so I would spread the love around and go to NY, Boston, Miami, etc. Do you have any problems with my numbers Dal? I would ask sublime but I don't think he knows basic math.
I didn't actually entertain your idea of traveling weekly to SF from Houston, because I thought you were just kidding. Surely you don't equate living somewhere with flying up for a weekend and going to dinner, do you? It's an absurd exercise.
Living in a place--becoming part of the fabric of the community and experiencing the things one finds at street level, as opposed to through the window of a plane, cab or car--is a different experience. It's more authentic. I've lived in Houston, all over Houston, as a matter of fact. You have not lived here. It's too bad, too. You might judge it differently from a more informed position.
I think it's just as silly to suggest spending money to travel to more interesting places, as you do to spending money to live in a more vibrant, stimulating, urban, and yes, expensive place. We may be both right on this one. It boils down to preference and values. The fact that you don't spend your Houston savings visiting New York, SF and Boston every weekend tells me that you don't value the lifestyle of these places the same way I do. Okay...
BTW-- you are a numbers guy. Surely you understand the many legal ways to reduce your effective tax rate. So, I'm not sure why you keep figuring the 10% state rate. I'd tell you my effective tax rate, with the amount of money I divert pre-tax to retirement and the deductions I take for paying that state tax, but it's none of your business. Suffice it to say, it's nowhere near what you claim it is.
Last edited by dalparadise; 06-02-2013 at 12:14 AM..
I didn't actually entertain your idea of traveling weekly to SF from Houston, because I thought you were just kidding. Surely you don't equate living somewhere with flying up for a weekend and going to dinner, do you? It's an absurd exercise.
Living in a place--becoming part of the fabric of the community and experiencing the things one finds at street level, as opposed to through the window of a plane, cab or car--is a different experience. It's more authentic. I've lived in Houston, all over Houston, as a matter of fact. You have not lived here. It's too bad, too. You might judge it differently from a more informed position.
I think it's just as silly to suggest spending money to travel to more interesting places, as you do to spending money to live in a more vibrant, stimulating, urban, and yes, expensive place. We may be both right on this one. It boils down to preference and values. The fact that you don't spend your Houston savings visiting New York, SF and Boston every weekend tells me that you don't value the lifestyle of these places the same way I do. Okay...
BTW-- you are a numbers guy. Surely you understand the many legal ways to reduce your effective tax rate. So, I'm not sure why you keep figuring the 10% state rate. I'd tell you my effective tax rate, with the amount of money I divert pre-tax to retirement and the deductions I take for paying that state tax, but it's none of your business. Suffice it to say, it's nowhere near what you claim it is.
No, I never implied visiting is the same as living anywhere. What I said was that one could use the savings of living anywhere cheap and see the world. You know Dal, some people do like to travel. They find value in that. Obviously the traveling every weekend thing was an exercise. The aggravation of flying alone would provide a restraint. But we could spend that opportunity cost anyway we choose to. It doesn't have to be traveling every weekend. It could be buying that sailboat to take out on the weekend, fixing up that old classic car, starting another business, buying a vacation home in southern France, etc. The point was that you can't simply look at the cost savings in Houston in a vacuum and say, oh well it's missing this and missing that. The extra savings have value in their own right. And no Dal, this was also not an exercise in retirement planning. I'm simply walking you through an exercise. I think you understand my point. We can get rid of taxes entirely, it doesn't change the cost of living. And we have gone over this 100 times and I think we are in agreement on that.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,138,681 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by jek74
No, I never implied visiting is the same as living anywhere. What I said was that one could use the savings of living anywhere cheap and see the world. You know Dal, some people do like to travel. They find value in that. Obviously the traveling every weekend thing was an exercise. The aggravation of flying alone would provide a restraint. But we could spend that opportunity cost anyway we choose to. It doesn't have to be traveling every weekend. It could be buying that sailboat to take out on the weekend, fixing up that old classic car, starting another business, buying a vacation home in southern France, etc. The point was that you can't simply look at the cost savings in Houston in a vacuum and say, oh well it's missing this and missing that. The extra savings have value in their own right. And no Dal, this was also not an exercise in retirement planning. I'm simply walking you through an exercise. I think you understand my point. We can get rid of taxes entirely, it doesn't change the cost of living. And we have gone over this 100 times and I think we are in agreement on that.
Yes, I think we are. I am also one who enjoys traveling, so I understand that.
That said, your exercise seemed to try to draw some kind of parallel between living in Houston and traveling every week to SF, NY, or Boston to supplement the perceived deficiencies in urban living with simply living in a more urban environment. I initially took it as absurd exaggeration and didn't think twice about it, but then you brought it up again, so I thought I'd answer it, that's all. No big deal. The two ideas are not the same, though. As you stated, we agree on this.
Just as you say you can look to cost savings in Houston to afford you opportunities to fix up classic cars, start a business, or buy a sailboat, I can say my location in the Bay Area affords me opportunities to day-trip to Wine Country and ride hot air balloons, to take Alaskan cruises, to ski Tahoe on the weekend, to build bonfires in January out of Christmas trees on Ocean Beach, to fly single-engine airplanes around the Golden Gate (I'm a pilot), To travel comparitavely inexpensively to Hawaii, Asia, Southern California, Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, etc.
You seem to have the impression that everyone in SF leads a miserable life because they can't afford anything. But I know people making $45,000 who wouldn't trade their lifestyle for half the cost of living. They have differing values and tastes. One guy I'm thinking of lives in Hayes Valley and regularly rides his bicycle and camps at Half Moon Bay or Point Reyes. Do you think he cares one bit about the price per square foot in Cypress, TX? Do you think he wants to have a mortgage and kids? He's one of the happiest, easiest-going people I know.
My wife (the one you don't know and very cowardly and un-Texan-like insulted on this forum) and I went up to Wine Country this past weekend. We took mud baths, flew in a balloon, toured wineries by appointment where we were the only ones there and our tastings were delivered to us out on a deck overlooking a small mountain lake in the warm sunshine. The guy giving one tasting had lived on Russian Hill, where we live, some years ago. We talked restaurants and neighborhood attractions for over an hour, sipping wine for free and enjoying a stranger's conversation. All he wanted to do was talk about the City. He wanted to see it through my eyes too. He came out to SF about 10 years ago from Ohio on vacation and decided on a whim to stay. It's a story that is told over and over here. We heard it at least three times over the weekend.
People aren't coming for jobs and affordable housing. They are rolling the dice on this place because it stirs their souls. They come here specifically to challenge themselves to work hard and make it work. Creative people especially love this place. Everyone knows it's expensive and tough to make it. And yet, we're still growing and still have the nation's largest economy.
I get what you say about places that aren't worth it. There's a difference between "expensive" and "overpriced" though. I'll agree with you that there are aspects of Bay Area living that are overpriced. The housing is surely one of them. The lifestyle, for many, though, isn't. That's all I'm saying.
No San Franciscan I know would ever envy your idea of compensating for your home by parlaying your savings into weekly escapes from it. Like me, they still dream of this place, even though they live here. why would anyone want to live a lifestyle where he was constantly leaving home to try to find something to fill a void?
Yes, I think we are. I am also one who enjoys traveling, so I understand that.
That said, your exercise seemed to try to draw some kind of parallel between living in Houston and traveling every week to SF, NY, or Boston to supplement the perceived deficiencies in urban living with simply living in a more urban environment. I initially took it as absurd exaggeration and didn't think twice about it, but then you brought it up again, so I thought I'd answer it, that's all. No big deal. The two ideas are not the same, though. As you stated, we agree on this.
Just as you say you can look to cost savings in Houston to afford you opportunities to fix up classic cars, start a business, or buy a sailboat, I can say my location in the Bay Area affords me opportunities to day-trip to Wine Country and ride hot air balloons, to take Alaskan cruises, to ski Tahoe on the weekend, to build bonfires in January out of Christmas trees on Ocean Beach, to fly single-engine airplanes around the Golden Gate (I'm a pilot), To travel comparitavely inexpensively to Hawaii, Asia, Southern California, Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, etc.
You seem to have the impression that everyone in SF leads a miserable life because they can't afford anything. But I know people making $45,000 who wouldn't trade their lifestyle for half the cost of living. They have differing values and tastes. One guy I'm thinking of lives in Hayes Valley and regularly rides his bicycle and camps at Half Moon Bay or Point Reyes. Do you think he cares one bit about the price per square foot in Cypress, TX? Do you think he wants to have a mortgage and kids? He's one of the happiest, easiest-going people I know.
My wife (the one you don't know and very cowardly and un-Texan-like insulted on this forum) and I went up to Wine Country this past weekend. We took mud baths, flew in a balloon, toured wineries by appointment where we were the only ones there and our tastings were delivered to us out on a deck overlooking a small mountain lake in the warm sunshine. The guy giving one tasting had lived on Russian Hill, where we live, some years ago. We talked restaurants and neighborhood attractions for over an hour, sipping wine for free and enjoying a stranger's conversation. All he wanted to do was talk about the City. He wanted to see it through my eyes too. He came out to SF about 10 years ago from Ohio on vacation and decided on a whim to stay. It's a story that is told over and over here. We heard it at least three times over the weekend.
People aren't coming for jobs and affordable housing. They are rolling the dice on this place because it stirs their souls. They come here specifically to challenge themselves to work hard and make it work. Creative people especially love this place. Everyone knows it's expensive and tough to make it. And yet, we're still growing and still have the nation's largest economy.
I get what you say about places that aren't worth it. There's a difference between "expensive" and "overpriced" though. I'll agree with you that there are aspects of Bay Area living that are overpriced. The housing is surely one of them. The lifestyle, for many, though, isn't. That's all I'm saying.
No San Franciscan I know would ever envy your idea of compensating for your home by parlaying your savings into weekly escapes from it. Like me, they still dream of this place, even though they live here. why would anyone want to live a lifestyle where he was constantly leaving home to try to find something to fill a void?
I have to admit, sometimes it's difficult talking to you because you always center the conversation around yourself when I'm trying to speak more broadly, you know for the rest of the population. Yeah, I get it, you're a privileged white guy. I'm curious Dal, speaking on the topic of numbers, what % percentage of Americans do you think could live this lifestyle you're speaking of? Not only living in SF but going out to wine country on the weekends, riding in hot air balloons, hanging out in Tahoe for the weekend. Not only can 95% of most Americans do that, but I would bet even 80% of those who live in the Bay Area can't afford to do that. You seem to not understand that when I bring up these debates, it's not about me or you but the general population. See Dal, the guy that lives in Cypress with his wife and two kids is not living there for the culture, you got that right. And he is not living because he chose that area over SF. He is living there because that is probably the BEST he can do. In fact, if he is like most Americans, he is probably stretching to even live there.
This is why I keep bringing up money. Yeah I get it, you got plenty of it. But most people don't. Every time I try to stear a conversation to speak more of the larger population, you come back about yourself. And again, I never said one needs to travel to make up for what they lack at home. My God Dal, you think that is why people travel? People travel for all sorts of reasons, for many it's simply to learn and discover more about the world around them. I sure as hell wouldn't travel to NY simply go to the theater when Houston has great theater. I wouldn't travel to NY to eat out at a nice restaurant since Houston has plenty. I would go to NY to learn more about it's history. Or perhaps to simply get away from everyday stress and put myself in a different environment for a few days. Not because I need to "find" something that is not located here. I'm saying that people who live in Houston and are able to save money, they can afford to do things that perhaps they could not do if they lived in SF or NY, etc. Hell, many people who live here, maybe even most, despite the low cost of living, can't even afford to see and do all the things Houston even has to offer. That is why many choose to live in the burbs. Because they can't afford to eat out in the inner loop or get a season's pass to Jones Hall or the Alley Theater.
Look, I lived in NY right out of college. I loved living there and wouldn't trade that experience for the world. But Dal, I lived like a bum there. I had a great city around me but no money to actually do anything. It was free to walk the streets of course and I did, but I could only look in the windows, I couldn't actually afford to walk in and buy anything. Sure, for some people, that alone would make them happy. But many people at some point would rather live somewhere where they can walk in and transact some business or partake in the services offered. Now, to NY's credit, there are a surprisingly a lot of cool things you can do for free and I'm sure that is also the case with SF. But at some point you want more then that. I've said this over and over again Dal, if money is no object, CA is a great place to live and I would probably live there if I was beyond financially secure. I mean well beyond. Probably would choose southern Cal over northern Cal, but I agree, both are fun playgrounds for the rich and that is why the rich live there. But for 95% of Americans Dal, it's not a possibility.
And that guy who lives in Hayes Valley, I know a lot of guys like that. They don't just live there, they live all over the country. My father lives in St. Louis. He has lived there for 50 years now. The economy is dead there and has been for a while. For years I tried to get him to leave. He absolutely refused. You know why? It wasn't for the culture or the ambiance. He was a die hard sports fan. He was a season ticket holder for close to 30 years for the St. Louis football Cardinals before they moved to Arizona. And then was a season ticket for the Rams when they moved in. He listens to every baseball game, watches every football game, and any other local college sports team. To him, he could be destitute and broke and would not leave the area for sports alone. However, his reasons, like the guy in Hayes Valley, are unique to them and don't apply to most people. So it's usually not effective making an argument for living in St. Louis and using my father as an example or living in SF and using the Hayes Valley guy as an example. So I try to cover larger parts of the population.
I actually have a lot of friends that live in the Bay Area. All over the Bay Area. Pretty diverse group. I know one guy worth millions living in Pacific Heights, former governor of the PCX and runs a hedge fund. I know another guy that lives in the Contra Costa valley, former NYer. I had a good friend that lived in the Haight before moving to FL. I have friends in Cow Hollow and the Marina District. And I have a bunch of friends that live further out in the Davis area and out towards Sacramento. Naturally the rich guy lives right in the heart of it and as you go lower in income, the further away they live. Anyway, it's about the money. People who talk about culture and vibe and scenery can talk about that kind of stuff because they can afford to. Most people can't.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,138,681 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by jek74
I have to admit, sometimes it's difficult talking to you because you always center the conversation around yourself when I'm trying to speak more broadly, you know for the rest of the population. Yeah, I get it, you're a privileged white guy. I'm curious Dal, speaking on the topic of numbers, what % percentage of Americans do you think could live this lifestyle you're speaking of? Not only living in SF but going out to wine country on the weekends, riding in hot air balloons, hanging out in Tahoe for the weekend. Not only can 95% of most Americans do that, but I would bet even 80% of those who live in the Bay Area can't afford to do that. You seem to not understand that when I bring up these debates, it's not about me or you but the general population. See Dal, the guy that lives in Cypress with his wife and two kids is not living there for the culture, you got that right. And he is not living because he chose that area over SF. He is living there because that is probably the BEST he can do. In fact, if he is like most Americans, he is probably stretching to even live there.
This is why I keep bringing up money. Yeah I get it, you got plenty of it. But most people don't. Every time I try to stear a conversation to speak more of the larger population, you come back about yourself. And again, I never said one needs to travel to make up for what they lack at home. My God Dal, you think that is why people travel? People travel for all sorts of reasons, for many it's simply to learn and discover more about the world around them. I sure as hell wouldn't travel to NY simply go to the theater when Houston has great theater. I wouldn't travel to NY to eat out at a nice restaurant since Houston has plenty. I would go to NY to learn more about it's history. Or perhaps to simply get away from everyday stress and put myself in a different environment for a few days. Not because I need to "find" something that is not located here. I'm saying that people who live in Houston and are able to save money, they can afford to do things that perhaps they could not do if they lived in SF or NY, etc. Hell, many people who live here, maybe even most, despite the low cost of living, can't even afford to see and do all the things Houston even has to offer. That is why many choose to live in the burbs. Because they can't afford to eat out in the inner loop or get a season's pass to Jones Hall or the Alley Theater.
Look, I lived in NY right out of college. I loved living there and wouldn't trade that experience for the world. But Dal, I lived like a bum there. I had a great city around me but no money to actually do anything. It was free to walk the streets of course and I did, but I could only look in the windows, I couldn't actually afford to walk in and buy anything. Sure, for some people, that alone would make them happy. But many people at some point would rather live somewhere where they can walk in and transact some business or partake in the services offered. Now, to NY's credit, there are a surprisingly a lot of cool things you can do for free and I'm sure that is also the case with SF. But at some point you want more then that. I've said this over and over again Dal, if money is no object, CA is a great place to live and I would probably live there if I was beyond financially secure. I mean well beyond. Probably would choose southern Cal over northern Cal, but I agree, both are fun playgrounds for the rich and that is why the rich live there. But for 95% of Americans Dal, it's not a possibility.
And that guy who lives in Hayes Valley, I know a lot of guys like that. They don't just live there, they live all over the country. My father lives in St. Louis. He has lived there for 50 years now. The economy is dead there and has been for a while. For years I tried to get him to leave. He absolutely refused. You know why? It wasn't for the culture or the ambiance. He was a die hard sports fan. He was a season ticket holder for close to 30 years for the St. Louis football Cardinals before they moved to Arizona. And then was a season ticket for the Rams when they moved in. He listens to every baseball game, watches every football game, and any other local college sports team. To him, he could be destitute and broke and would not leave the area for sports alone. However, his reasons, like the guy in Hayes Valley, are unique to them and don't apply to most people. So it's usually not effective making an argument for living in St. Louis and using my father as an example or living in SF and using the Hayes Valley guy as an example. So I try to cover larger parts of the population.
I actually have a lot of friends that live in the Bay Area. All over the Bay Area. Pretty diverse group. I know one guy worth millions living in Pacific Heights, former governor of the PCX and runs a hedge fund. I know another guy that lives in the Contra Costa valley, former NYer. I had a good friend that lived in the Haight before moving to FL. I have friends in Cow Hollow and the Marina District. And I have a bunch of friends that live further out in the Davis area and out towards Sacramento. Naturally the rich guy lives right in the heart of it and as you go lower in income, the further away they live. Anyway, it's about the money. People who talk about culture and vibe and scenery can talk about that kind of stuff because they can afford to. Most people can't.
Oh, I get all that, but I certainly don't "have plenty of money". I am able to afford trips to Wine Country, partly because it costs a couple of gallons of gas to get there. Like your father in St. Louis--I'm living to experience a place's unique amenities. St. Louis sports fans are some of the most passionate ones I have ever met. If you asked him, I bet he would tell you there is no substitute for his season tickets and that they are worth every penny he spends. He'd rather live in a smaller place to follow his teams among like-minded St. Louis fans than move to Houston, where there's a newer stadium with more square feet and he can afford a classic car to fix up... Yeah, I get that.
That has been my point all along. Houston has sports too. It's not like St. Louis, though. But, he could probably save enough by living in Houston to fly back to St. Louis for games, right?
My friend in Hayes Valley was out with us for izakaya the other night. We like to load a couple of people into our Mini Cooper--that's what privileged white people who can afford whatever they want drive--and head out to the Richmond for Japanese happy hour. We caught a glimpse of the towers of the bridge being enveloped in fog. He said something like, "you know, we just drove about 5 minutes from our office and are being treated to a view people save up their whole lives and travel thousands of miles to see. How rad is that?" He's a diehard Giants fan. I bet he gets where your father is coming from, too.
Once again, its about priorities and values. I have admitted several times to you that if someone values family life and square footage, its hard to beat Houston as major cities go. It offers a kind of middle-of-the-road urban experience that is a lot of bang for the buck--no question. The thing is, I pay only a couple of hundred dollars per month more to live in SF than I did to live in Houston, because I adopted a SF lifestyle. My life no longer centers on fixing up classic cars or buying boats, swimming pools and vacation homes in France for escaping. I love where I live and take it in daily. I commute on a cable car, for God's sake!. The view from Nob Hill, past Grace Cathedral while hanging off the side of a cable car in the morning and talking Giants baseball to the conductor is honestly life affirming.
People in densely populated areas like NYC, Chicago, the Bay Area, etc. make up about 30% of Americans, though. By your assertion, they are all stupidly struggling because they don't know any better. I use myself as an example because I lived in Houston and I do know what it offers--better than you do, I would guess--and like those tens of millions who have chosen something else, I have different values.
They don't match yours, which is fine. You are a Texan now. I would assume you want to adopt Texan ways. The Texans I grew up with wouldn't be constantly pointing fingers and talking about how people they don't know are foolishly spending their money. They also wouldn't insult a man's wife--especially when they didn't even know her--unless they expected to be swallowing their teeth immediately after. You have not so much as offered a word of acknowledgement or apology for that, which leads me to believe you haven't quite gotten the level of understanding about where you moved that you claim to have.
PS- you're a numbers guy, so you'll understand how sample size affects findings, but at the start of ski season this past winter, about half of our office got together and rented cabins to go to Tahoe. Another 25% went on their own. The rest don't really ski. One guy, who probably makes less than $50k and doesnt even have a car, has season passes for Squaw. He rides the train or goes with friends. So, I think about 75% can have that lifestyle, based on this data.
Last edited by dalparadise; 06-02-2013 at 11:42 AM..
Oh, I get all that, but I certainly don't "have plenty of money". I am able to afford trips to Wine Country, partly because it costs a couple of gallons of gas to get there. Like your father in St. Louis--I'm living to experience a place's unique amenities. St. Louis sports fans are some of the most passionate ones I have ever met. If you asked him, I bet he would tell you there is no substitute for his season tickets and that they are worth every penny he spends. He'd rather live in a smaller place to follow his teams among like-minded St. Louis fans than move to Houston, where there's a newer stadium with more square feet and he can afford a classic car to fix up... Yeah, I get that.
That has been my point all along. Houston has sports too. It's not like St. Louis, though. But, he could probably save enough by living in Houston to fly back to St. Louis for games, right?
My friend in Hayes Valley was out with us for izakaya the other night. We like to load a couple of people into our Mini Cooper--that's what privileged white people who can afford whatever they want drive--and head out to the Richmond for Japanese happy hour. We caught a glimpse of the towers of the bridge being enveloped in fog. He said something like, "you know, we just drove about 5 minutes from our office and are being treated to a view people save up their whole lives and travel thousands of miles to see. How rad is that?" He's a diehard Giants fan. I bet he gets where your father is coming from, too.
Once again, its about priorities and values. I have admitted several times to you that if someone values family life and square footage, its hard to beat Houston as major cities go. It offers a kind of middle-of-the-road urban experience that is a lot of bang for the buck--no question. The thing is, I pay only a couple of hundred dollars per month more to live in SF than I did to live in Houston, because I adopted a SF lifestyle. My life no longer centers on fixing up classic cars or buying boats, swimming pools and vacation homes in France for escaping. I love where I live and take it in daily. I commute on a cable car, for God's sake!. The view from Nob Hill, past Grace Cathedral while hanging off the side of a cable car in the morning and talking Giants baseball to the conductor is honestly life affirming.
People in densely populated areas like NYC, Chicago, the Bay Area, etc. make up about 30% of Americans, though. By your assertion, they are all stupidly struggling because they don't know any better. I use myself as an example because I lived in Houston and I do know what it offers--better than you do, I would guess--and like those tens of millions who have chosen something else, I have different values.
They don't match yours, which is fine. You are a Texan now. I would assume you want to adopt Texan ways. The Texans I grew up with wouldn't be constantly pointing fingers and talking about how people they don't know are foolishly spending their money. They also wouldn't insult a man's wife--especially when they didn't even know her--unless they expected to be swallowing their teeth immediately after. You have not so much as offered a word of acknowledgement or apology for that, which leads me to believe you haven't quite gotten the level of understanding about where you moved that you claim to have.
PS- you're a numbers guy, so you'll understand how sample size affects findings, but at the start of ski season this past winter, about half of our office got together and rented cabins to go to Tahoe. Another 25% went on their own. The rest don't really ski. One guy, who probably makes less than $50k and doesnt even have a car, has season passes for Squaw. He rides the train or goes with friends. So, I think about 75% can have that lifestyle, based on this data.
Dal, enough about your wife. And yes, I did apologize, I think twice if memory serves correctly. And please, stop putting yourself in the middle of the conversation and speak about the bigger picture. I think it's great you find all sorts of quirky ways to lower your cost of living. That's YOU. Apparently the people I know who live out there are not as sophisticated as you and living foot to mouth. Maybe I should give them your contact info and you can run a seminar on how to live cheap in the Bay area. And again with this sq footage thing and family thing.
Look, Houston has all sorts of people. Do you really think there are statistically more families that live in Houston then say the midwest? Not everyone wants to live in Houston to have a big house. Some do it because of the size of their family, others do it because it might make a better investment and have a higher resale value. The assumptions you are making about the community you use to call home is getting tiring. And for the last time, this is not about you, your wife, your family, your friends, I'm trying to engage in a conversation with you about the bigger picture. I could care less how many people you can fit into your mini-cooper. And yes, I'm sure your buddies at the office do all sorts of things they can't afford as do most Americans. That's why we are 17 trillion in debt in this country. Debt seems to be a big part of our culture. And I lived on the east coast, there wasn't a saver to be found. Everyone was borrowing from Peter to impress Paul. When I actually stopped to talk to these people and ask them about their savings they looked at me as if they didn't understand what the word meant.
And yes, I understand it's not kosher to save money anymore in this country. After all, our ancestors built this place, time for us to enjoy it!!!!!! And Dal, one of the reasons you may not see as many struggling people around you as most of the working middle class got pushed out of the city a while back. And the yuppies have moved in. The wealthy New Yorkers who grew tired of the cold weather moved in, many of the wealthy from LA have moved in. But there is no middle class to speak of there Dal and you know that. Yes, people can borrow and borrow and hang on for a while. I hear SF has a pretty generous welfare society. And then of course you have the 10's of thousands of homeless in Union Square. Don't worry about them as you say, you never go down there. Out of sight, out of mind.
You sure get defensive about SF. Maybe you are not capable of having an objective conversation about it without getting emotional. I started this by asking you to simply comment on the statistic that the median home value is 6.7 times the median income level. You know how that statistic gets resolved Dal? Through debt. That is how you close the gap between income and cost of living. Lots and lots of debt. Hey, that's the American way. In a way, SF is more American then good old Texas.
Btw dal, I get what you're saying about "stirring your soul". I love houston and it is cheap to live here, but LA is a place I always felt I wanted to be (next year ill be out there). I will sacrifice living in a larger place for a smaller one in a truly world class city. All the times I have visited la, I never wanted to leave. I will gladly pay nearly a thousand for a 750 square foot apartment if it means living in a place la. You only live once anyway.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,138,681 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by jek74
Dal, enough about your wife. And yes, I did apologize, I think twice if memory serves correctly. And please, stop putting yourself in the middle of the conversation and speak about the bigger picture. I think it's great you find all sorts of quirky ways to lower your cost of living. That's YOU. Apparently the people I know who live out there are not as sophisticated as you and living foot to mouth. Maybe I should give them your contact info and you can run a seminar on how to live cheap in the Bay area. And again with this sq footage thing and family thing.
Look, Houston has all sorts of people. Do you really think there are statistically more families that live in Houston then say the midwest? Not everyone wants to live in Houston to have a big house. Some do it because of the size of their family, others do it because it might make a better investment and have a higher resale value. The assumptions you are making about the community you use to call home is getting tiring. And for the last time, this is not about you, your wife, your family, your friends, I'm trying to engage in a conversation with you about the bigger picture. I could care less how many people you can fit into your mini-cooper. And yes, I'm sure your buddies at the office do all sorts of things they can't afford as do most Americans. That's why we are 17 trillion in debt in this country. Debt seems to be a big part of our culture. And I lived on the east coast, there wasn't a saver to be found. Everyone was borrowing from Peter to impress Paul. When I actually stopped to talk to these people and ask them about their savings they looked at me as if they didn't understand what the word meant.
And yes, I understand it's not kosher to save money anymore in this country. After all, our ancestors built this place, time for us to enjoy it!!!!!! And Dal, one of the reasons you may not see as many struggling people around you as most of the working middle class got pushed out of the city a while back. And the yuppies have moved in. The wealthy New Yorkers who grew tired of the cold weather moved in, many of the wealthy from LA have moved in. But there is no middle class to speak of there Dal and you know that. Yes, people can borrow and borrow and hang on for a while. I hear SF has a pretty generous welfare society. And then of course you have the 10's of thousands of homeless in Union Square. Don't worry about them as you say, you never go down there. Out of sight, out of mind.
You sure get defensive about SF. Maybe you are not capable of having an objective conversation about it without getting emotional. I started this by asking you to simply comment on the statistic that the median home value is 6.7 times the median income level. You know how that statistic gets resolved Dal? Through debt. That is how you close the gap between income and cost of living. Lots and lots of debt. Hey, that's the American way. In a way, SF is more American then good old Texas.
1. You never offered an apology. Not to me, anyway, and I deserve one from you.
2. I appreciate your points, but have a different perspective. I enjoy the conversation and am not defensive. I have said several times that I understand the appeal of Houston. In fact, it was very appealing to me for many years. I get it. My priorities have changed now, though, and Houston is not as good of a fit anymore. Perhaps you are right and I am wrong in my assumption that there are others like me, but I doubt it.
3. In the same breath as you accuse me of being to narrow in my thinking, you make a sweeping statement about everyone in SF or NY racking up debt and living beyond their means. Why? because you can't identify with them? Are some people racking up debt? Sure! They do it in Houston, too. Is everyone in SF living paycheck-to-paycheck? Nope. You entered my race into the conversation for some reason as well. I'm still not sure why. Most of the landlords I talked to when looking for my apartment were "privileged Asians".
4. I'm not emotional. I did comment on the price of a house in the City. It's ridiculous. If I wanted to buy a home right now, I'd need to look in Berkeley, San Rafael, or maybe down the Peninsula. Same for most people in Houston. Not everyone can afford to live inside the Loop, which is the Houston equivalent to living in the city of San Francisco, in terms of real estate costs. So, they live in Cypress, Humble, Pearland, etc. (Walnut Creek, Castro Valley, Vallejo, etc.)
Again I ask, how is it that you continually fail to see that we are in agreement on this simple point--to the extent that you called me out to comment on this thread?
1. You never offered an apology. Not to me, anyway, and I deserve one from you.
2. I appreciate your points, but have a different perspective. I enjoy the conversation and am not defensive. I have said several times that I understand the appeal of Houston. In fact, it was very appealing to me for many years. I get it. My priorities have changed now, though, and Houston is not as good of a fit anymore. Perhaps you are right and I am wrong in my assumption that there are others like me, but I doubt it.
3. In the same breath as you accuse me of being to narrow in my thinking, you make a sweeping statement about everyone in SF or NY racking up debt and living beyond their means. Why? because you can't identify with them? Are some people racking up debt? Sure! They do it in Houston, too. Is everyone in SF living paycheck-to-paycheck? Nope. You entered my race into the conversation for some reason as well. I'm still not sure why. Most of the landlords I talked to when looking for my apartment were "privileged Asians".
4. I'm not emotional. I did comment on the price of a house in the City. It's ridiculous. If I wanted to buy a home right now, I'd need to look in Berkeley, San Rafael, or maybe down the Peninsula. Same for most people in Houston. Not everyone can afford to live inside the Loop, which is the Houston equivalent to living in the city of San Francisco, in terms of real estate costs. So, they live in Cypress, Humble, Pearland, etc. (Walnut Creek, Castro Valley, Vallejo, etc.)
Again I ask, how is it that you continually fail to see that we are in agreement on this simple point--to the extent that you called me out to comment on this thread?
I'm pretty sure I offered the apology to both of you but if it helps the dialogue, I'll offer it again. I'm sorry if I offended you. I must be a glutton for punishment, I'll go one more round. Most of the people who live in SF are NOT in debt. In fact, most have no debt at all. In fact these same people paid CASH for their 1.8 million dollar home in Pacific Heights or Russian Hill. Just as most of the rich who buy in Beverly Hills are not getting a 30 year mortgage nor are the rich and privileged who live on the upper west side of Manhattan. It's the small % of people who are struggling to live there who are drowning in debt. San Francisco and NY collect the outliers of society. Those who are well off, well paid, or simply inherited it. Many of those people out there. Again, this is NOT about YOU or how you are able to live cheaply. Look, I lived in NY for less then what I live in Houston for. How do you like that? I lived in Williamsburg Brooklyn in a hasidic orthodox Jewish community. I had two roommates. I had a bedroom the size of an airplane bathroom. Not a single person spoke English in my hood. And it was cheap!!! Yes, with the right adjustments and sacrifices anyone can live anywhere. That's not the point. It's hard to make relative comparisons when you get creative with the data so I try to use normal average people. I hit my breaking point after one year in Brooklyn, just couldn't live like that. The "vibe" was not worth it.
And I made no sweeping generalizations about SF other then to say a large majority of the community is well off and most certainly not middle class by most of American standards. That's not a generalization that is a statistical fact. And this is not specifically about SF as we could be having the same argument about NY although I think NY it's easier to live cheaper.
BTW, Dal, how many blacks do you see in your neighborhood? Or anywhere in SF for that matter?
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,138,681 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae713
Cliffs?
Btw dal, I get what you're saying about "stirring your soul". I love houston and it is cheap to live here, but LA is a place I always felt I wanted to be (next year ill be out there). I will sacrifice living in a larger place for a smaller one in a truly world class city. All the times I have visited la, I never wanted to leave. I will gladly pay nearly a thousand for a 750 square foot apartment if it means living in a place la. You only live once anyway.
It's a simple concept, right? It's the difference between being able to choose where you want to live and having the choices made for you by circumstances like the need for a larger house because of kids, a car or cars because of sprawl, vacation homes in France because of not enough interesting cultural amenities and sights to see (Jek's assertion that people in Houston can have that with all the money they save).
Does that mean there aren't people who are in Houston by choice? Of course not. Houston is a big draw for people who enjoy its lifestyle and have its value system. It's when people like Jek start making these flawed circular-logic statements about everyone living beyond their means and failing to recognize that when a person's values are different, he doesn't measure cost of living by a Houston barometer.
It's the old "live to work v. work to live" argument. If I live in a place that is stimulating, has a pleasant climate and offers amazing recreational opportunities and it happens to be MUCH better for my career advancement opportunities (as is the case in SF v. Houston for me) I won't care as much about that bigger house or fancier car I could afford in Houston. I'd rather spend the same money enjoying SF that I spent on things to try to elevate my quality of life in Houston. Horses for courses.
If I had considerations like kids or I worked as an engineer, medical tech, or some other non-creative field that doesn't seem to ever get much traction in Houston, the situation would be different.
Jek doesn't seem to understand that there are places that appeal to people on a level that will make them strive harder and pay more to be there. He keeps saying it's only about the numbers. But that's a life devoid of passion and the intangible of "sense of place".
He is right. Not everyone can afford to be passionate about where they live. For many like him, it doesn't even matter where they live, as long as the numbers work. I get that. There's nothing wrong with that.
There are people who go the other way too, though. They see a city like NYC, Chicago, LA or SF as a mountain to climb. They are not looking for the easiest means to have a roof over their heads and their bills paid. They are looking to advance their careers among the best in their business. They are looking for lifestyles they can't come close to approximating anywhere else. They are looking to push themselves and prove to themselves that they can make it there.
It doesn't always make sense to a numbers guy. But, to dismiss it as foolishness or living beyond one's means without any real understanding of the circumstances is ridiculous.
It blows all of Jek's assertions out of the water when I tell him that I make about the same money in SF as I made in Houston (though I have much greater earning potential for the future), I pay pretty much the same amount every month and am actually saving more now than before (partly to offset my higher taxes and to compensate for losing my mortgage interest deduction).
How is it possible? I value a San Francisco lifestyle and adopted it accordingly. I don't run my air conditioner all day (I don't even have one). My electric and gas combined is about $24 per month. I don't drive two expensive cars. I don't pay 4% property taxes (It'll be under 2% here when I buy, on admittedly higher selling prices. But even that makes a long-term difference in value appreciation--Houston properties are often artificially lower to compensate for the tax burden, which makes them a less attractive investment in terms of appreciation. Plus, new construction always puts downward pressure on home values and Houston has tons of new construction everywhere). I'm healthier and eat fresher foods, which cost the same or less than in Houston. I ride public transportation everywhere. "Going out to dinner" can often mean grabbing a bottle of wine and picnicking on the side of a cliff at Land's End, instead of an expensive restaurant. I'm not constantly having to entertain myself here. I didn't have to build a $40,000 swimming pool to make my backyard a pleasant place to spend the weekend. I just have to go outside here.
"But Dal, you could have a picnic in Houston!" Jek will say. Yes, Houston has some food trucks too, which are another way to eat well for cheap. But here, it's part of the culture. Because we can walk a block or two to do these things, rather than driving 30 minutes or having to plan excursions across town to find the few SF-like amenities in Houston, we do them a lot. Daily life is very different for people who don't use cars to get around. It affects your value system. I'm just using this as one example. I know LA doesn't offer much in the way of car-free living, but it has other things that will register as strongly to someone who is truly drawn there.
I go through four distinct neighborhoods--Chinatown, Little Italy, Nob Hill and Polk Gulch on my 2-mile cable car ride home. It's open to the air, so I can hear the street. The last few blocks is a walk through an eclectic neighborhood of shops, cafes, restaurants, book stores, wine shops, bars and produce stands. My commute home sometimes takes hours, because I like to duck into these places and have a glass of wine or meet my wife or friends for dinner. they can walk to these places, which are just down the block. .
Is SF better than Houston? For me, yes. In general, no. It depends on the individual. That goes both ways, too. Jek doesn't seem to get this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
