patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,354,863 comments by 15,730 users - HANrongli online now
Should we stay in the Bay Area or move somewhere cheaper?
2011 May 26, 1:04pm 25,985 views 101 comments
« First « Previous Comments 81 - 101 of 101 Search these comments
They’ll be worried about the next tribe over ripping out their livers.
Just like Ireland in the 1400s! Who wants to build a castle?
Here's a great interative chart for the discussion
Wages across the US
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/05/25/comparing-wages-across-the-u-s/tab/interactive/
It is not just about wage difference for the same job, it is more about the concentration of high pay jobs.
So, just wondering if people were looking to relocate, where are you going (or would you go)? If family being close were taken out of the equation and the focus would only be on affordability (housing), job market, safety, and good education for kids?
the little secret is that no one actually wants to live in the bay area
why don't you sublet your house for a year and go rent in Austin (or whereever) and see how it goes?
Is it possible for you to get high-deductible catastrophic coverage? If you are disciplined and essentially self-insure with your $12K/year (i.e. put it in an account and draw down from it), you could get a $4K or higher deductible for if you truly have something catastrophic happen. In addition, you would still likely be able to benefit from the discounts that the insurance company will get you (e.g. instead of paying an extra $150 for labs, your insurance companies uses its discount to say that it’s included as part of the other services; and you pay 50% of the rate for substantive stuff).
corntrollio,
We wish we could buy catastrophic coverage for something major and pay everything else as we go. That kind of insurance just isn't available from what we've found.
The current insurance we have now at $711+ a month already has a deductible of $4k. A $4k deductible isn't catastrophic coverage any longer. That is REGULAR coverage. An acquaintance told us that he has an $8k deductible through his work.
We feel like we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. We have a small child and do not want to be without insurance. My husband and I both have what would probably qualify as pre-existing conditions. We've both had work-related troubles with our backs and necks. Nothing major and we recovered with physical therapy. But if anything significant ever came up with our backs or necks in any way and we were with another company like BC/BS, they wouldn't pay anything. They would use the pre-exisiting condition loophole. We know because we switched to them for one year and went back to our other company. It was like BC/BS was looking for ANY reason not to cover something. So we really don't want to drop our coverage out of concern for what might happen.
On the other hand, I have a feeling when the renewal comes this fall, we may just have no other choice and may join the ranks for the uninsured and pray for the best.
I debate this issue all the time myself. I am from TN and have lived all over the South, where it's much cheaper.
At the moment, I'm staying put for business purposes, but I fully intend to move when I get ready to phase down my career. I've thought about taking off early, but worry about the portability of what I've built outside of the Bay Area. I'm still not convinced that I couldn't live someplace else just a plane ride away and still keep the same career with a cheaper cost of living.
Living a quiet life in the Midwest says
They would use the pre-exisiting condition loophole. We know because we switched to them for one year and went back to our other company. It was like BC/BS was looking for ANY reason not to cover something.
That shouldn't be the case if you have had continuous coverage throughout. You should be able to provide to BC/BS a Certificate of Creditable Coverage from the prior insurer and avoid the pre-existing conditions exception.
The pre-existing conditions issue is also scheduled to go away in 2014 under the recent health insurance changes.
C Boy
2011 Jun 10, 3:52pm
The biggest problem I see with these cities is the lack of jobs, especially high level jobs. Here, it is not that hard to find a position paying $200K, and family income of $300K+ is dime a dozen
Jobs in the tech industry that pay $200k in Austin are as rare as unicorns.
The biggest problem I see with these cities is the lack of jobs, especially high level jobs. Here, it is not that hard to find a position paying $200K, and family income of $300K+ is dime a dozen
Jobs in the tech industry that pay $200k in Austin are as rare as unicorns.
Employee count of a couple top employers.
Intel 82,500
HP 324,600
Cisco 70,700
Oracle 105,000
Seagate 52,600
Total
over 630,000
But as you will notice we dont have all of the 630,000 jobs listed above, more like under 5%. The rest of the 95% plus can certainly be found in other states and overseas.
Jobs are out there, but not in the Bay Area because of high home prices. Who will be next to get the axe ?
If your making $200K around these parts, you better be bringing in Revenue dollars to justify your pay...else
your just overhead.
I’m still not convinced that I couldn’t live someplace else just a plane ride away and still keep the same career with a cheaper cost of living.
They are called in field Sales People, Account Executives, who work for SV employers and very often along with high salary earn heft commissions. ALOT OF COMMISSION $$$$$.
Earnings are high, living is cheap and lunch with customer is paid by your employer. And of course there are annual Sales Conferences/Trade Shows in Vegas.
DennisN
2011 Jun 10, 5:54pm
t wong,
When I worked for Intel I was surprised how geographically spread out they were. For years the largest facility by headcount has been that in Hillsboro, OR, with those in metro Phoenix close behind. Intel even has design facilities in Spain and Israel.
HP's printer division is here in Boise, although that's always vulnerable to yet another HP reorg.
Jobs in the tech industry that pay $200k in Austin are as rare as unicorns.
I expect Austin pays more than the Bay Area because all these Texas oil companies are making billions of dollars by doing nothing.
Wow, nice thread here. I am from NC, moved to Austin for 15 years, and am now living in SV for the past 6 months.
I completely agree with OP's comments about quality of life in rural towns.
Austin is a nice mix of small and cosmopolitan. We did buy a home here in SV, but my plan is to move back to Austin or perhaps NC where the cost of living is lower and the ease of starting a business is better.
It's been proven many times that financial happiness is not about your absolute net worth, rather it's about your relative wealth to your neighbors. Here in California, it feels like I'm about 20 years late to the party.
I guess each state has it's purpose, all things considered I'm happy to experience the differences.
B.A.C.A.H.
2011 Jun 12, 4:47am
financial happiness is not about your absolute net worth, rather it’s about your relative wealth to your neighbors
Even for agnostics there's some common sense in the ten commandments, like Exodus 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Even the concepts about money and what makes a person happy belie some sort of statement of values in the term "financial happiness". Assuming it is a worthy concept though, "financial happiness" ought to be for one to be able to have the financial wherewithal to be happy. If being happy means having more than one's neighbors, well, there will always be someone out there with more, so a person like that will never be happy.
If financial happiness is about having more money than the neighbors, then one should hold out by being in the Bay Area for as long as possible. Because every years goes by, your net worth is going to increase far more than the "neighbors" in NC, or Austin, or whatever second- third-tier cities out there, and the late leavers will always leave with a bigger coffer.
So the early leavers may be happy in NC for a while, until a late leaver from NYC or SF move in next to him a decade later, with 3x his net worth, lol.
B.A.C.A.H.
2011 Jun 12, 5:27am
OO,
I think you repeated my message, that if ones need to have more than the neighbors to be happy, one will always be unhappy 'cause there's always gonna be someone else with more.
Wealth is defined by the choices you have, not the material things you own.
B.A.C.A.H.
2011 Jun 12, 2:55pm
Wealth is defined by the choices you have, not the material things you own.
My comments were about 'financial happiness' and comparing oneself to one's neighbors.
Blah, blah, blah…… Now did anyone notice that for the first time in as long as I’ve been coming here religiously on a nightly basis that the daily update is 3 HOURS LATE?!?!
I say it’s time everyone dip in their pocket and send Mr. K a little something to keep his forum up!!
« First « Previous Comments 81 - 101 of 101 Search these comments
I'm sort of a new guy on here. But I have been pondering this thought for a good 4-5 years now. I am originally from North Carolina but have been living in the Bay Area for about 12 years. Overall, things are pretty good. We rent a nice house and have a unique situation in that the landlord doesn't raise the rent. The rent itself is a lot cheaper than what houses tend to rent for around here- because we've been living in the house for 8 years. We both have good jobs that pays us a very good income. We live cheap to the point of being ridiculous. We drive 2 semi-ancient beater cars that are in good shape. In the years we've lived here we've saved up quite a bit of cash. We've also invested heavily in stocks, mutual funds, bonds, and 401k's. The bottom line is that we're in fairly good financial shape. We're in our mid 30's.
Literally for years I've thought about moving somewhere more affordable. I've been targeting cities in other states that have reasonable, modest houses in the 150k range or so. Such cities include the obvious- like Austin, Raleigh Durham, and Atlanta. Others include Salt Lake City, Albuquerque NM, Dallas and Houston TX, and any number of other 2nd tier cities. As someone who grew up in rural NC, I am not as attached to having all the things people in places like the bay area seem to insist on having.
We have visited Austin, Raleigh, Atlanta, and Albuquerque. I sort of liked Austin. You can buy a non-cookie-cutter house near the city for around $150,000-$200,000. Raleigh was just so-so. I really dug Utah and New Mexico. Bizarre yet beautiful states. That said... 2 years ago I wound up trying to get a job in my field in both Austin and Raleigh- the 2 that were most likely to have more jobs. I work in tech and I've heard Austin was decent.
The disappointing thing was that it seemed rather difficult to even get interviews in these places. The competition for jobs seemed a lot worse than in the Bay Area. Then again that was 2 years ago so perhaps its better today.
Where am I going with this? At this point we could theoretically move to one of these places and buy a house for cash and still have a reasonable amount of cash and retirement left. Its very tempting to do this given that doing so would mean an instantaneous change in our lives: We would own the house, not have any debt, no house payments, and only taxes, utilities, and food etc etc to pay for. This would also mean that since there would be very few things to pay for, there would be less emphasis on getting high-paying jobs. In fact, I would probably be ok working at some so-so job until I landed something better. Of course we would rent first until jobs were procured. My entire family still lives back in NC- which is another thing to consider. Being all the way out here doesn't help and my parents are rapidly approaching retirement age.
But... I'm having a hard time making the jump. As of now I have a job that pays well and I enjoy. Even though we live in the Bay Area we live fairly cheaply. The house we live in is affordable and comfortable. Life is comfortable. We have friends here as well. But... Even post-bust it still appears that a halfway decent house is still hovering around $450,000-$500,000. Speculators seem to be ensuring that anything reasonable is churned into "investments". Things don't seem to be improving here. Its still an expensive place to live. It gets old after awhile.
I've had some alternative thoughts about possibly staying put for another 5-10 years, continue saving, and then move back to the sticks. Since that is where I grew up I don't find it weird or scary like a lot of people who are from metro areas seem to think. If you look out in places an hour or so outside of minor metros- like rural NC, TN, GA, etc its amazing what you can get. We're talking acres of land with a house for under $150k or so. A lot of these states have incredibly low taxes. TN has no income tax and very low property tax. In 5-6 more years we could possibly semi-retire- that is to say we would never be rich, but we could just have plain ole' jobs that probably don't pay much but be ok because everything else would be paid for.