> The whole thing really puts the lie to the myth engineers in the valley are well paid. In the land of million dollar entry level homes, even $200k of income (!!!) means you will struggle to own somewhere to live.

No, they are _very_ well paid. Anywhere else in the country (minus NYC I guess), they're getting half as much. Simply paying Bay Area developers more money isn't going to make housing more affordable -- what do you think will happen to housing prices when even _more_ money is floating around in the local economy?

Elsewhere they are paid half as much, but living expenses in SF are, say, four times higher, or worse. I can rent a whole 2000 sqft house here, under an hour north of Boston, for about $1500/month. I hear that's the going rate for a cardboard box out in the Bay.

> Anywhere else in the country (minus NYC I guess), they're getting half as much.

Odd, when I was actually willing to sniff around for jobs in the Bay Area I couldn't find anyone willing to come close to doubling my Dallas salary. As far as I can tell, unless you can score a job at Google or Facebook your statement isn't accurate.

Do most people own their own home in New York, London, or Paris? I don't think so...

Where are you getting the idea that it's normal to be able to own a home in a major desirable city and global economic hub?

Owning a home and raising a family without killing yourself commuting is basically the American dream.

The modern American Dream, perhaps. The historic American Dream was a marketing campaign centred around enjoying the long commute in your American made automobile.

And you can still do that in 99% of the country, just not major global cities like SF.

nyc is significantly cheaper. Three minutes on trulia found multiple yorkville/ues 1bed doorman units under 6 minutes from the 86th st express stop for under $650k. Add in not needing a car and it's a lot cheaper than living in sf/peninsula.

Don't forget the maintenance on that apartment, which is at least 1500 a month. 650k is extremely low, even then. I've only seen that on properties with a large tax abatement that is set to expire, or the land isn't owned by the building and the lease on the land will expire in 10 years. I wish you were right, but New York isn't that kind, even compared to SF.

Yep - in NYC, there are no public deals. The price always has literally everything baked into it. If it seems low, there is definitely a good reason.

As someone who is currently planning to buy in Manhattan, $650k for a 1br in Yorkville sounds about right.

Quick Streeteasy eyeballing around 86 suggests the maintenance need not be $1500 either -- you either get a fancy elevator building at that price, or you get a walkup at a lower price than $650k.

You're wrong, as glancing at the mentioned sites will show you.

Also, you pay property taxes (higher on new purchases), maintenance, and so forth in CA too.

Agree- my girlfriend's sister just rented a nice 2br on the UES for $2500 a month. I can't get anything close to that in the same price range in SF, even for a 1br.