Why Live Out West?

[foobar]

Oh I have had it numerous times when eating Japanese food. The problem is it tastes like seaweed.:) The more I think about it the more I like idea of gmo to solve this problem. Think about it. We could have presalted corn and peanuts:)

Or you can just talk to Monsanto into whipping up some plants that like to grow in salt water:)

Nature beat them to it.  Many types of seaweed are quite edible, and traditionally eaten by coastal cultures.  And there is a LOT of kelp off the west coast.

[ysette9]

haha, great answer!

I think it boils down to the fact that many people have different values and want different things out of the place they live. I think one of the posters above stated that well already. For every person who has expressed amazement that I live in a place with earthquakes, I have felt equal amazement that they live in a place with the threat of hurricanes/tornadoes/flooding/mosquitoes/heat+humidity/ice+snow/whatever. No place is going to be perfect for everyone, you are only looking for a place that is as close to perfect for YOU.

That said, I adore the SF Bay Area for a ton of reasons. Just a few of them are:
1) With the exception of maybe 2 weeks in the winter and 2 weeks in the summer, the weather is always some shade of perfect outside. I can't express how much pleasure this brings emotionally and physically to not be mentally setting yourself up to battle the elements every time you step outside.
2) I can go out my front door for a run any morning of the year and only consider whether to put on an extra light layer or not
3) Hiking/backpacking/camping is beautiful natural settings is abundant 30 minutes outside my front door
4) The ocean (hiking, surfing, watching the waves) is 30 minutes outside my front door
5) Amazing food
6) Cultural and ethnic tolerance and diversity - as 1/2 of an interracial couple, this is not something I would give up for anything

I could go on, but I won't bore you. Again, it is all about what fits for me personally. Many people with different wants and needs will find my list superfluous and have very legitimate reasons for living in completely different areas. Thankfully the country and the world is large enough that all of us should be able to find a decent fit.

[greaper007]

That's great, but who can afford to live in the bay area and be mustachian?   I have a $1600 house payment on a 2700 sq ft house in Denver,  I probably couldn't get a 1 room apartment for that in SF.

[Dicey]

That's great, but who can afford to live in the bay area and be mustachian?   I have a $1600 house payment on a 2700 sq ft house in Denver,  I probably couldn't get a 1 room apartment for that in SF.

Mustachian skills are 100% transportable. One can be Mustachian anywhere.

[iamlindoro]

That's great, but who can afford to live in the bay area and be mustachian?   I have a $1600 house payment on a 2700 sq ft house in Denver,  I probably couldn't get a 1 room apartment for that in SF.

I live in the Bay Area (one of the highest COL cities in the Bay Area, in fact).  I have a mortgage.  I save over 50% of my income.

In general, pay is commensurate with the COL here for the high wage professions.  If you can be mustachian, you can be *really* mustachian (ie, you can save a ton, faster than you can anywhere else).

[greaper007]

We had a friend that wanted us to move to the bay area and I said no way.   CT was expensive enough for me, I couldn't wait to get out.    I have no particular affinity for Denver other than the fact that it's fast growing and relatively cheap.    I've lived just about everywhere and frankly, there isn't a big difference in cities.

Is your pay double in the bay area, because housing is at least double if not triple the price of the rest of the country.    From what I could tell, pay was about 20-30 percent more than in other cities.   Along with higher state and property taxes.   We're in one of the best schools in the city and pay about $1500 a year in property taxes.   The math just doesn't make sense for me in the bay area.  YMMV

[pipercat]

It takes a lot of money, knowledge, or determination to move a significant distance. Most people aren't there because they chose to be; they're there because they were born there.

We packed up and moved from Hoboken, NJ to Phoenix several years ago, just because we felt like it.  In Phoenix, practically everyone we knew had moved there from somewhere else.  We actually knew very few people who were born there.  We loved it, and would likely have never left if we hadn't started a family.  Having the grandparents close became a priority, so we moved back to VA.

Interestingly, even though we lived in a desert, I don't remember ever having a water restriction.   We have them here far more often than we ever had them there.  It only rained a few times a year, so I know we didn't have an abundance of ground water.  I'm sure there was a cost for that, though, either environmental, financial, or both.

[dragoncar]

That's great, but who can afford to live in the bay area and be mustachian?   I have a $1600 house payment on a 2700 sq ft house in Denver,  I probably couldn't get a 1 room apartment for that in SF.

Some would say that a 2700 sq ft house is not Mustachian no matter the cost.

[Jamesqf]

I live in the Bay Area (one of the highest COL cities in the Bay Area, in fact).  I have a mortgage.  I save over 50% of my income.

And 50% of your income in the Bay Area could be (if you're in tech) twice what 50% of your income would be in a lower COL place.  Also on the plus side is that the high COL is mainly housing and things involving labor, like eating out.  If you live a fairly Mustachian lifestyle, you'll be choosing not to pay a lot of the labor cost.

You also need to remember that the Bay Area is not really representative of 'Out West', any more than Manhattan is representative of 'Back East'.  You don't have to travel more than a couple of hours drive from either to find a substantial decrease in COL.

[greaper007]

That's great, but who can afford to live in the bay area and be mustachian?   I have a $1600 house payment on a 2700 sq ft house in Denver,  I probably couldn't get a 1 room apartment for that in SF.

Some would say that a 2700 sq ft house is not Mustachian no matter the cost.

I'd tend to agree, but I snagged this house from a motivated buyer.   It was at least $25,000 below market value and the price was more in line with newer 1800-2200 sq ft houses.    I'm careful with utility usage and pay way less in utilities than I did for a 2000 sq foot home in CT (oil heating, no insulation).

My wife also runs her business from home so take a good 500 sq feet off of the 2700.   Still, I wouldn't seek out a house this size normally, it's a bitch to clean.

[oldtoyota]

I live in St. John's, Newfoundland. ALL of you are in "the west".

Also, 10 feet of snow and 60 inches of rain a year. Feel free to take some of our water.

Wait. There are other countries beyond America? Who knew?

[oldtoyota]

Peace. You're free to live wherever you like for whatever reason you choose.

And that shuts down any intellectual conversation...I'm looking for a conversation...with opinions on the subject. Thanks anyway.

[oldtoyota]

According to The Economist, most of the West is in a drought. CA, TX, CO, etc, etc.

As to people living 'far from water', do you think any major city in the East could survive on local water?  Look at how New York City, for one example, draws most of its water supply from far upstate.  If you look at western settlement patterns, people tend to live where there is water*.  Of course overpopulation later strains those resources, but that's a global problem, only differing on which local resource is most limited.

I don't disagree with your comment about New York. The article I used to start the conversation focused on the west though. I realize the article focuses on one area and during one period of time. They make a case for the western water problem being a longer term problem. I'm curious what people think.

It's not about the west being a secret or a bad place to live or fear of the future. I was just curious why the topic of water and water shortages doesn't come up when people talking glowingly of the "west."

Btw, Texas is considered the west by some--especially West Texas. CO is consider the west and parts of CO are directly north of parts of TX.

[mbl]

As to people living 'far from water', do you think any major city in the East could survive on local water?  Look at how New York City, for one example, draws most of its water supply from far upstate.

Actually,  the locations of the Catskill/Delaware Watershed are a few hours west and northwest of NYC, really not upstate at all.
This:
  New York City's water supply comes from the New York City Watershed in upstate New York, in the Catskill Mountains and Hudson River Valley regions. The New York City Watershed systems are owned by the Catskill Watershed Corporation.   The watershed has two separate systems: the Catskill/Delaware Watershed, which provides 90% of New York City's water, and the Croton Watershed, which provides the remaining 10%. Since New York City is at sea level, and the Catskill  Mountains are upstate, the city doesn't have to do very much to get the water here: it basically just flows downhill from upstate springs, straight to the city. This is why New York City tap water is among the best tap water of any city in the world. In fact, New York City is one of only four major U.S. cities that has tap water so pure, it does not need to be purifed by a water treatment plant.

[Jamesqf]

I don't disagree with your comment about New York. The article I used to start the conversation focused on the west though. I realize the article focuses on one area and during one period of time. They make a case for the western water problem being a longer term problem. I'm curious what people think.

I think the 'western water problem' really isn't a water problem, it's an overpopulation problem, and thus just a special case of a more general problem.  They're absolutely correct that it's a long-term problem, but the problem is having more people (or agriculture/industry) in an area than local resources can support.  And of course the problem is exacerbated by all the boosters, developers, and general optimists who say how great it is for the local economy that the housing industry is booming, even though there's not enough water (or other infrastructure) to support the increased population.

Btw, Texas is considered the west by some--especially West Texas. CO is consider the west and parts of CO are directly north of parts of TX.

Sure, Texas is a big place.  But I would put the dividing line of 'The West' right along the foothills of the Rockies, putting most of Texas in the east or southeast - culturally & historically - remember that Texas was part of the Confederacy - as well as geographically.

Actually,  the locations of the Catskill/Delaware Watershed are a few hours west and northwest of NYC, really not upstate at all.

Just as much of the LA Basin's water supply comes from a few hours east and northeast :-)

[oldtoyota]

I don't disagree with your comment about New York. The article I used to start the conversation focused on the west though. I realize the article focuses on one area and during one period of time. They make a case for the western water problem being a longer term problem. I'm curious what people think.

I think the 'western water problem' really isn't a water problem, it's an overpopulation problem, and thus just a special case of a more general problem.  They're absolutely correct that it's a long-term problem, but the problem is having more people (or agriculture/industry) in an area than local resources can support.  And of course the problem is exacerbated by all the boosters, developers, and general optimists who say how great it is for the local economy that the housing industry is booming, even though there's not enough water (or other infrastructure) to support the increased population.

I completely agree with this. Agreement makes for a dull conversation, I realize. =-) I hear you on what you're saying though.

[dragoncar]

As to people living 'far from water', do you think any major city in the East could survive on local water?  Look at how New York City, for one example, draws most of its water supply from far upstate.

Actually,  the locations of the Catskill/Delaware Watershed are a few hours west and northwest of NYC, really not upstate at all.
This:
  New York City's water supply comes from the New York City Watershed in upstate New York, in the Catskill Mountains and Hudson River Valley regions. The New York City Watershed systems are owned by the Catskill Watershed Corporation.   The watershed has two separate systems: the Catskill/Delaware Watershed, which provides 90% of New York City's water, and the Croton Watershed, which provides the remaining 10%. Since New York City is at sea level, and the Catskill  Mountains are upstate, the city doesn't have to do very much to get the water here: it basically just flows downhill from upstate springs, straight to the city. This is why New York City tap water is among the best tap water of any city in the world. In fact, New York City is one of only four major U.S. cities that has tap water so pure, it does not need to be purifed by a water treatment plant.

OMG, I can't even read this.  Did you choose that size and color on purpose to burn my retina?

[mbl]

sorry ....:(
didn't mean any aggession...:)

[Jamesqf]

OMG, I can't even read this.  Did you choose that size and color on purpose to burn my retina?

Did you know that it's perfectly possible (at least in most browsers) for you to choose the color, text size, font, &c of whatever you're looking at?  Makes browsing MUCH easier on the eyes.

[dragoncar]

OMG, I can't even read this.  Did you choose that size and color on purpose to burn my retina?

Did you know that it's perfectly possible (at least in most browsers) for you to choose the color, text size, font, &c of whatever you're looking at?  Makes browsing MUCH easier on the eyes.

Yes but usually unnecessary

[Russ]

OMG, I can't even read this.  Did you choose that size and color on purpose to burn my retina?

Did you know that it's perfectly possible (at least in most browsers) for you to choose the color, text size, font, &c of whatever you're looking at?  Makes browsing MUCH easier on the eyes.

gray(scale)beard ;-)

[Daniel]

It's not about the west being a secret or a bad place to live or fear of the future. I was just curious why the topic of water and water shortages doesn't come up when people talking glowingly of the "west."

Living in Los Angeles and being from Minnesota, I feel like I can at least speak to this somewhat. 1. People out here talk about water all the damn time. Seriously, do your news reports include snowpack and reservoir levels? Because ours do! Also it's hilarious because people freak out both when the precipitation level is way below the average for the year and when it's predicted to rain half an inch or more. There is no middle ground! 2. Typically when people talk about their area they are in a good mood, and so they don't mention the problems: pollution, overcrowding, water shortages, traffic, expensive property. Also of these issues, water shortages is by far the one that effects day-to-day living the least.

[minimalist]

The weather, women, and the weed.
-The Notorious B.I.G.

[rocklebock]

It's not about the west being a secret or a bad place to live or fear of the future. I was just curious why the topic of water and water shortages doesn't come up when people talking glowingly of the "west."

Living in Los Angeles and being from Minnesota, I feel like I can at least speak to this somewhat. 1. People out here talk about water all the damn time. Seriously, do your news reports include snowpack and reservoir levels? Because ours do!

Yeah, I'm having a cognitive disconnect about the idea that people aren't aware of the water shortage, or aren't talking about it or doing anything about it. My family in California speaks of almost nothing else. The water shortage and what should be done about it is an everyday news topic. Every time I talk to my dad, he updates me how many inches of rain they've had so far this year, and how much more they're hoping for. Then here in the PNW we all brag constantly about how much better off we are than those poor suffering bastards in California with no water.

[Us2bCool]

I'll throw in my two cents as well, as I've mentioned way too many times on this board we moved from Texas to the Bay Area, and I can say without a doubt our lifestyle here is a lot more mustachian. Most of that comes down to choice, but one thing we've noticed is that while our house here did cost a lot more than our house in Texas, in the end it costs us less money. And having a very small house has been great for us...once we got rid of all the stuff that didn't fit, we found that the house just doesn't sap our emotional energy the way our Texas house did.

We also chose to live close to work, so we don't spend any time commuting, and we bike and walk a lot more. Someone else also mentioned, and I will second, that once the housing costs are covered, we have a lot more money left over, so we are saving a ton of money.

[dragoncar]

It's not about the west being a secret or a bad place to live or fear of the future. I was just curious why the topic of water and water shortages doesn't come up when people talking glowingly of the "west."

Living in Los Angeles and being from Minnesota, I feel like I can at least speak to this somewhat. 1. People out here talk about water all the damn time. Seriously, do your news reports include snowpack and reservoir levels? Because ours do!

Yeah, I'm having a cognitive disconnect about the idea that people aren't aware of the water shortage, or aren't talking about it or doing anything about it. My family in California speaks of almost nothing else. The water shortage and what should be done about it is an everyday news topic. Every time I talk to my dad, he updates me how many inches of rain they've had so far this year, and how much more they're hoping for. Then here in the PNW we all brag constantly about how much better off we are than those poor suffering bastards in California with no water.

Growing up in CA, it was basically all drought all the time.  I don't talk about it because it's just a fact of life (except for those crazy el nino/la nina years)

[Jamesqf]

Did you know that it's perfectly possible (at least in most browsers) for you to choose the color, text size, font, &c of whatever you're looking at?  Makes browsing MUCH easier on the eyes.

Yes but usually unnecessary

Well, that depends, doesn't it?  If you're actually happy with other people's color choices, fine.  If you're not - and apparently you're not always, else why the complaint? - then it's a handy thing to know about.  Myself, I like having white text on a black background, and so not having headaches.

[dragoncar]

Did you know that it's perfectly possible (at least in most browsers) for you to choose the color, text size, font, &c of whatever you're looking at?  Makes browsing MUCH easier on the eyes.

Yes but usually unnecessary

Well, that depends, doesn't it?  If you're actually happy with other people's color choices, fine.  If you're not - and apparently you're not always, else why the complaint? - then it's a handy thing to know about.  Myself, I like having white text on a black background, and so not having headaches.

I've seen maybe 2 posts total (on MMM) where the color was changed.  Black text on neutral background is de facto, and works fine for me.

[ArcticaMT6]

Personally, I refuse to live on the East Coast anymore. I moved cross country 3 times in almost as many years (Southwest Virginia to San Diego to CT to Seattle) and there is no way I will go back.

"Mountains" on the east coast are laughable compared to the rockies and west. And this is coming from someone who lived in said mountains. It just doesn't compare at all. Stand in the middle of the Cascades and the middle of the Smokies/Appalachians and tell me that they are comparable. Same with open space. Natural disasters I have to worry about: Earthquakes. That's about it. Volcanoes are too far away and I am nowhere near a Lahar zone. I'll take that over heat waves, polar vortexes, hurricanes, pest invasions, tornadoes, tsunamis, etc.

[SunshineGirl]

Water policy in AZ is ridiculous. Water's a serious problem and our assured water supply evaporates in not too many years. And like someone else mentioned, much of agricultural use is for cotton farming. It's not normal households causing the problem.

When SHTF for water in AZ, property values could plummet...and yet, I'm still here. And own. Why? Our income is here. Our kids' friends are here. Our friends are here. We love the winters (hate the summers).

When we first moved here, we lived in an apartment complex in cotton-farming country and a huge percentage of the residents were snowbirds who kept their main house "back east" and rented furnished apartments for 4-6 months per year. There were modest apartments with great amenities, and I remain, to this day, impressed with how they figured it out. They built a whole community of winter friends, swam and exercised and hot tubbed and relaxed their joints every day, barbequed at Christmas, played cards, had happy hour daily. They chose a rental community over a SFH, which worked great for them.

My point: Some places are great, but not to own property. And different times in your life call for different experiences.

[greaper007]

How much are the bay area people paying for their houses?   I don't know anyone in the bay area that has a home under $500,000.    Is it possible to find real estate for less than that within 30 mins of the city?

We're well into 6 figures, and I thought $275,000 for our house was maybe too much a few years ago.   I just can't imagine paying $500,000 for a house with a salary under maybe $250,000.    My dad has a $700,000 condo but he makes $350,000 and put 50% down.

[jnik]

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but now I have to add that I live six blocks from a volcano. It's been dormant for 300,000 years, but YOU NEVER KNOW.

Well, I live on the slopes of a supervolcano! What do I win? ;)

[pipercat]

Water policy in AZ is ridiculous. Water's a serious problem and our assured water supply evaporates in not too many years. And like someone else mentioned, much of agricultural use is for cotton farming. It's not normal households causing the problem.

When SHTF for water in AZ, property values could plummet...and yet, I'm still here. And own. Why? Our income is here. Our kids' friends are here. Our friends are here. We love the winters (hate the summers).

When we lived in Chandler (outside of PHX), we always marveled at the fact that no one ever promoted water conservation.  Everyone had drip systems to keep their landscapes pretty, even though those plants weren't exactly desert plants.  We were never told not to use water.  I'm guessing they just really wanted to keep everyone happy by pretending the problem wasn't there!  Actually, we never ran out of water while living there, but we do occasionally run our wells dry living back east.  Interesting!

[oldtoyota]

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but now I have to add that I live six blocks from a volcano. It's been dormant for 300,000 years, but YOU NEVER KNOW.

Well, I live on the slopes of a supervolcano! What do I win? ;)

Ha. Well, I can't recall where I read recently about a US volcano that would take out most of the nation if it exploded. The ash would cover the sun, and it would get verrrrry cold. =-) So, it doesn't really matter if you live close or not. In fact, living closer is probably better since it would be over quickly for you...

[ArcticaMT6]

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but now I have to add that I live six blocks from a volcano. It's been dormant for 300,000 years, but YOU NEVER KNOW.

Well, I live on the slopes of a supervolcano! What do I win? ;)

Ha. Well, I can't recall where I read recently about a US volcano that would take out most of the nation if it exploded. The ash would cover the sun, and it would get verrrrry cold. =-) So, it doesn't really matter if you live close or not. In fact, living closer is probably better since it would be over quickly for you...

That would be Yellowstone. And it's likely a global killing event. Not just the US.

[oldtoyota]

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but now I have to add that I live six blocks from a volcano. It's been dormant for 300,000 years, but YOU NEVER KNOW.

Well, I live on the slopes of a supervolcano! What do I win? ;)

Ha. Well, I can't recall where I read recently about a US volcano that would take out most of the nation if it exploded. The ash would cover the sun, and it would get verrrrry cold. =-) So, it doesn't really matter if you live close or not. In fact, living closer is probably better since it would be over quickly for you...

That would be Yellowstone. And it's likely a global killing event. Not just the US.

Too bad. My emergency plan was to hop in the ocean and swim to Europe. Oh, well.

[Bookworm]

I live in California because I was born and raised here and stayed long enough to get married and divorced here, which meant sharing custody here.  I always thought I'd leave once legalities no longer kept me here, and I even left for a while, but I found that by the time I could finally make the move, I had raised kids who were attached to the area and wouldn't leave.  I loved my new home in the woods of Georgia, but being away from my two older kids made me truly sad, so I came back.

[C. K.]

the Army Corps of Engineers and their structures that prevent the Mississippi from avulsing into the Atchafalaya

I had to look this up, and ran across this neat map:
http://the-earth-story.com/post/65130165427/mississippi-map

oh man!!! now I want a copy of that to hang in my house. I love nerd art.

The maps are from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' website, which keeps them in a large file -the Harold Fisk report- that you must download.
That report can be found on the left side of this page: http://lmvmapping.erdc.usace.army.mil/

Another website has conveniently separated the maps from the rest of the report and displays all 15, each depicting a section of the Mississippi river.  You may download just the maps there.
http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?fisk 

They have even made a composite.

I'm partial to the first map.

[ysette9]

Going back to what Jamesqf mentioned above (it's been a while since I've been on the forums), it is absolutely possible to save a lot of money while living in a high cost of living area (such as the Bay Area). In my household also we are able to save 50% of our post-tax income. This clearly isn't going to be possible for everyone, but I can tell you with a certainty that we make more in our jobs here than my colleagues in my department in other states do.

I also found this: "Among the 114 CSAs in the United States, San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland has the second highest educational-attainment in both bachelor's and master's degree attainment, and the second highest median household income after Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia. The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the wealthiest regions in the US due, primarily, to the economic power engines of San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. Pleasanton has the second highest household income in the country after New Canaan, CT. However, discretionary income is very comparable with the rest of the country, primarily because of the higher cost of living offsets the increased income." From the book "Best Areas of San Francisco, California" by Daniel Newtown.

To me that just means that yes, it is more expensive, but on average you earn more, so your discretionary income is on average the same. That means in high COL areas as well as low, we all have the same challenges of living frugally and saving. For me personally, I am enormously grateful I can do that in a place where I can go on a run out my front door 365 days a year with no concern for the weather. :)

[greaper007]

Going back to what Jamesqf mentioned above (it's been a while since I've been on the forums), it is absolutely possible to save a lot of money while living in a high cost of living area (such as the Bay Area). In my household also we are able to save 50% of our post-tax income. This clearly isn't going to be possible for everyone, but I can tell you with a certainty that we make more in our jobs here than my colleagues in my department in other states do.

I also found this: "Among the 114 CSAs in the United States, San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland has the second highest educational-attainment in both bachelor's and master's degree attainment, and the second highest median household income after Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia. The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the wealthiest regions in the US due, primarily, to the economic power engines of San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. Pleasanton has the second highest household income in the country after New Canaan, CT. However, discretionary income is very comparable with the rest of the country, primarily because of the higher cost of living offsets the increased income." From the book "Best Areas of San Francisco, California" by Daniel Newtown.

To me that just means that yes, it is more expensive, but on average you earn more, so your discretionary income is on average the same. That means in high COL areas as well as low, we all have the same challenges of living frugally and saving. For me personally, I am enormously grateful I can do that in a place where I can go on a run out my front door 365 days a year with no concern for the weather. :)

I'm curious what you're housing costs are, and the income difference between the bay area and cheaper areas of the country.   When we bought our first house my wife was a psychologist and I was an airline pilot.   Meaning we could basically live anywhere with an airport.   Still, she had a few friends around the bay area (which we do like a lot) but it seemed that anywere within 30mins of a city was about $500k+ for a 2 bedroom.    The pay difference was only about 10-15%, while housing costs were more than double.

I'm curious, do tech type jobs really pay double in the bay area?   Or is it like DC, where you go there to get experience and a resume before moving somewhere cheaper?

[MissPeach]

Most people I ask that to (in CA at least) reply with something related to weather.

[Undecided]

Many of the high-paying jobs in the SF area (whether in "tech" proper, or advisors) don't exist in large numbers in other areas or only exist in large numbers in other high-cost areas. For those jobs, sure the SF area can easily make sense. But for many other jobs, it's unlikely that the financial aspect isn't generally a negative (e.g., basing yourself there as a pilot). Fields that require having clients with money may still be financially difficult in the SF area, but may offer a relatively large number of interesting opportunities (e.g., a residential architect may not make as much there as elsewhere on a COL-adjusted basis, but might have a more regular opportunity to work on projects that are unheard of in many parts of the country ).

[ysette9]

@Greaper 007: I'll try to answer your question, though I don't have the full information to really give you what you are looking for. As a point of comparison, our monthly rent is $2300, which I consider very reasonable for a house in the location we are at. When we do buy a house the mortgage payment will be considerably more than that, but my plan is to find a place with some sort of granny unit/rental so we can bring in extra income to keep our housing costs around the same. Some things like housing are absolutely more expensive. Other things are cheaper such as utilities because we don't have AC, rarely run the heat, etc. It is also cheaper to eat a very healthy diet because everything is grown in CA, though that can be offset by the amazing array of restaurants! But I digress...

The perfectly honest answer about jobs is that I don't know because I have never seriously considered living anywhere else. I have done two job stints (a 2-month and a 7-month) in the Denver metro area so it's not like I have never tried living anywhere else. However, the Bay Area has so much to offer that I don't think I have even tried to cover in my post, that there just is no desire to even look outside. My husband and I are both engineers and though there are tech jobs elsewhere, as soon as you leave such a high concentration of tech companies, you start to encounter the "two-body problem", as they call the dual-career track thing in academia. Here we can both pursue career advancement without having to ask the other to sacrifice anything more than picking up some slack around the household if one or the other of us is heavy into a temporary project. For my colleagues in Denver, about the only way similar couples make that work is by both working at the same company, and that is more risk than I can to take on having both incomes come from the same employer, same industry.

A final thought or two: when living in a high cost area, you adjust your expectations. Some people choose to commute further. I have done this and decided it is not worth it. You can choose to live in a less desirable neighborhood. You can choose to buy an older/smaller property. Most people here do it in stages: 1) buy a small condo and live there for 5 years 2) sell and move up to something more expensive. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. My Denver colleagues seem to buy a (to me) huge house a year or two out of college and then when they have kids, move into an even more enormous house. In the Bay Area people frequently have roommates until they move in with a girlfriend/boyfriend or get married. People here raise kids in a 2- or 3-bedroom house. That makes it an imperfect comparison to housing elsewhere in the country where you can get 2700ft^2 for $150K on a half acre lot or whatever. To us, a 2000+ft^2 house is a ridiculous waste of space that just requires more hours to vacuum! :)

[nawhite]

ysette9: First off, why would you ever bother buying a house where you are? You rent a good place in a good location for a reasonable amount of money (well ridiculous by my standards but to each his own).

You mention the two-body problem. It reminded me of this blog post http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/04/reader-case-study-working-a-crappy-job-for-nothing/.

I live in Denver in a small house right next to a light rail station. If I rented it, I would pay about $1500/month, owning, I pay about $1100 for mortgage+taxes+insurance.

If I got a similar tech job in the Bay Area, I'd make about $15-20k more per year than I do now (so says a couple job offers I've turned down because of this math). I'd pay about $20-25k more per year in housing if I rented in both places with similar commutes. If I wanted to own, I'd pay about 500% more in the Bay Area than I do here. Anecdotally, our utilities and food expenses would be similar in both places.

So I guess my final answer is that some people really have the Bay Area dialed in mustachianism wise (especially DINKs). But you absolutely should be renting out there.

[Undecided]

So I guess my final answer is that some people really have the Bay Area dialed in mustachianism wise (especially DINKs). But you absolutely should be renting out there.

I disagree. As a previous Silicon Valley resident and homeowner, it worked out very well financially for us to own there, so without making my claim as extreme as yours, I would suggest that people make specific evaluations considering relevant local factors.

[dragoncar]

So I guess my final answer is that some people really have the Bay Area dialed in mustachianism wise (especially DINKs). But you absolutely should be renting out there.

I disagree. As a previous Silicon Valley resident and homeowner, it worked out very well financially for us to own there, so without making my claim as extreme as yours, I would suggest that people make specific evaluations considering relevant local factors.

Right now, the tax benefits for DINKs make mortgages very attractive compared to renting.  That may change in the future, but for now it's really worth considering the actual carrying cost.  My numbers seem to be in favor of buying right now.

Two things that can change:
1) they reduce or eliminate home mortgage deduction
2) we retire and drop to a tax bracket where the tax benefits are no longer useful

I'm really wrestling with #2, and will probably end up making sure I can afford to pay off the mortgage, plus have enough for my annual expenses.

[nawhite]

Right now, the tax benefits for DINKs make mortgages very attractive compared to renting.  That may change in the future, but for now it's really worth considering the actual carrying cost.  My numbers seem to be in favor of buying right now.

At first I was going to say "Really? but with rates so low now, how do you pay more in interest than your standard deduction?" And then I realized that we were talking about $1.4 million homes and not $200k homes. Silly me.

I am still curious how this math works when the interest on a mortgage alone is more than rent on the same property?

So lets say you find a $600k house to buy and rent on a similar house would be $2300 (I think I'm being generous to the Bay Area market). You put 10% down so have an opportunity cost of 5%*60k =  $250/month in opportunity costs.

$540k * 4.5% ~= $24k per year = $2000 / month in interest. Sure you're deducting the interest so you save 28% (lets be generous again by ignoring the standard deduction) so you are paying $1440 / month in interest alone!

Then add 1.25% for State taxes and about .5% for SF city taxes and we're paying $875/month in taxes.

So I can buy and pay $2560 in taxes+interest+opportunity costs of down payment every month, or I can rent and pay $2300/month.

I'm sure I'm missing something but the math for buying in that market doesn't make sense to me right now unless you are assuming crazy appreciation. There is a word for when everyone buying is assuming great appreciation, it's called a bubble. Not saying things might not work out for you, just recommend you not be the one left holding the bag later.

[dragoncar]

Right now, the tax benefits for DINKs make mortgages very attractive compared to renting.  That may change in the future, but for now it's really worth considering the actual carrying cost.  My numbers seem to be in favor of buying right now.

At first I was going to say "Really? but with rates so low now, how do you pay more in interest than your standard deduction?" And then I realized that we were talking about $1.4 million homes and not $200k homes. Silly me.

I am still curious how this math works when the interest on a mortgage alone is more than rent on the same property?

So lets say you find a $600k house to buy and rent on a similar house would be $2300 (I think I'm being generous to the Bay Area market). You put 10% down so have an opportunity cost of 5%*60k =  $250/month in opportunity costs.

$540k * 4.5% ~= $24k per year = $2000 / month in interest. Sure you're deducting the interest so you save 28% (lets be generous again by ignoring the standard deduction) so you are paying $1440 / month in interest alone!

Then add 1.25% for State taxes and about .5% for SF city taxes and we're paying $875/month in taxes.

So I can buy and pay $2560 in taxes+interest+opportunity costs of down payment every month, or I can rent and pay $2300/month.

I'm sure I'm missing something but the math for buying in that market doesn't make sense to me right now unless you are assuming crazy appreciation. There is a word for when everyone buying is assuming great appreciation, it's called a bubble. Not saying things might not work out for you, just recommend you not be the one left holding the bag later.

Marginal tax bracket of 42.3%, state income taxes already obliterate standard deduction.  I approximate opportunity cost as the tax-adjusted mortgage rate since it is risk free and would likely be taxed as income (around 2.5%).  Actually it's easier to assume you finance 100%.

Here's a for example carrying cost on an 800k 2br condo is around 2200/mo plus any Hoa.  Average 2br rent in SF is around $4k/mo.

Math: 800k * (.045+.012)*.577 / 12 = 2,192.6

For mustachians, the extras are negligible (replacing fridge etc)

[nawhite]

Thanks for that dragoncar. Curious what HOA's and property taxes are but I guess I can see that the carrying costs could be less than renting.

I'm constantly being reminded about the oddities of living in California (state income taxes cover the standard deduction = mind blowing!)

[dragoncar]

Thanks for that dragoncar. Curious what HOA's and property taxes are but I guess I can see that the carrying costs could be less than renting.

I'm constantly being reminded about the oddities of living in California (state income taxes cover the standard deduction = mind blowing!)

Property taxes were included at around 1.2% (capped by prop 13 and limited increases) and is tax deductible.  Prop 13 could always be repealed but I'd guess more aggressive income taxes would happen first ( good for retired people bad for working people)

Property taxes are tax deductible

Hoas can range from a couple hundred to 1k/mo ( informal survey looking at listings).  The higher hoas are often due to: including property taxes, nice amenities like pool, gym, etc, including earthquake insurance, doorman, etc.  I'm not that interested in high Hoa properties.

The above also works for less expensive properties in other cities.  You can also buy a $200k house within an hour of SF.

fwiw, our Colorado state income tax would still exceed the standard deduction.  In CO that income is around $130k each ($260k for couple)