1) no state income tax,
2) public schools in my neighborhood are equivalent to a private school in sf [i]
4) weather is great 8 months out of year,
5) beaches you can swim in,
6) rent is ~1/4 of what it was in SF,
7) cuban food,
8) as a resident, kids have year round disney passes
[i] http://school-ratings.com/Florida/schools/Carillon_Elementar...
WARNING: The tech job market is pretty much non-existent. "more challenging" is an understatement. I would be prepared to answer 'can you lift 50 lbs' in your 'tech' interview. I am a remote dev.
9) Greater thought diversity and tolerance for opposing viewpoints.
When I lived in the Bay Area it seemed that too many people I interacted with were of similar backgrounds: very educated, high income and similar political and social values. While I loved my years there, at times I felt like I was in a cultural bubble insulated from the real world. Worse, I saw people professionally shunned for expressing opinions that fell outside the mainstream. People here in the Orlando area are all types and they seem to love to discuss their differences and even try to learn from them. I can't begin to imagine someone suffering professionally only for their opinions here. It's very refreshing.
I have not lived in enough places to guess if this is a Florida vs California thing, or an Orlando area vs Bay Area thing, or a Bay Area vs everywhere else thing, but I think it's certainly a positive difference.
I think this is one of the most important things as a whole. I am in Iowa (a red except for the counties holding the ~5 largest cities) and have a friend who is in DC. She said she mentioned having a couple friends from high school who were conservative and that made her weird in her friend group. The rest were in the DC bubble, effectively not knowing people from "the other side" on a personal level.
The political polarization is really bad for the country. The concept that you can agree with the left on some issues and the right on others isn't popular. Personally I take the position that the "true, objective best" (if there was such a thing) solution is closer to the middle than the far right or far left.
People often mistake critical thinking skills with close-mindedness. Just because someone uses thought and reason to reject an idea doesn't mean they are close-minded. Not all ideas deserve acceptance. I'm as open-minded as it gets, but if you tell me that vaccines cause autism then you will go down several notches in my book. (Ironically, there are many anti-vax people in the Bay Area!)
I don't know about Oviedo specifically (maybe it's a liberal haven in the middle of a conservative sea, like Austin TX), but I've known several Floridans from the more conservative parts of the state, and they were either naive and gullible as hell, or actually close-minded. I don't say that to stereotype the entire state, but it's worth remembering that conservatism is about the preservation of the status quo, and by definition it's not nearly as accepting of new (and valid) ideas and perspectives as liberalism is. That's not meant to be a value judgment, but rather a descriptive statement.
The division of our society into ideological camps that point fingers at each other and can't see the others as basically-sensible human beings drives me crazy.
In my case, for example, I've thought about an issue and have drawn a conclusion based on the facts at hand. I'm very open to new perspectives and new ideas and often challenge people on their own preconceptions because I think it's valuable that people are challenged. But again, I'm not "close-minded", I've just drawn a different conclusion. People need to understand the difference and they largely don't.
I like your definition of critical thinking, it also allows me to highlight why I agree with sideband. In the bay area there tends to be less acceptance for differing premises.
I am a conservative Christian and certain premises I bring to the conversation automatically make me "hateful" or "bigoted". While I have seen this most prominently in the religious/moral realm I see it in politics as well.
In the bay area there is a right set of premises and a wrong set. If you start with the wrong set it is acceptable to wholly reject the conclusions without engaging critically with why the premises are wrong.
Of course, people can reason incorrectly, too. I think there's a set of people that disagree with the values, but there's another set of people that object to conclusions that appear inconsistent when compared to the premises/values they purportedly rest upon.
I am not saying that you are this way, but I have had interactions that lead me to believe that reasoning allows some to wholly reject values I hold dear as "intolerant" without consideration, all in the name of tolerance. It comes across as comical in a tragic way.
On the flip side, I have had interactions where I was able have a disagreement and work backward to the differing values which we were able to agree to disagree on.
The question of how or whether to limit some kinds of speech... I honestly think this is one of the great philosophical struggles of this generation. I am not sure why it has come up again when it seemed largely settled in the past. On the liberal side, you see people like Howard Dean and Elizabeth Warren disagree on it, which is a weird experience.
I think the question is, is there some set of underlying values where we can appropriately justify excluding someone entirely?
If the answer is yes, then how do you draw the line, and how do you protect against arbitrary lines being drawn against you in return? If the answer is no, then there's a whole host of other questions, like how do you deal with trolls?
I remember there was a great deal of consternation about Bill Nye debating Ken Ham, for instance. So many voices thought it was inappropriate. I thought the debate was a good thing.
On the other hand, I have a hard time accepting that trolling is protected speech. Heartfelt offensive speech I'm fine with, but trolling feels like a close cousin of fighting words, with intent only to destroy. On the other hand, I'm not sure how to tell the difference between trolling and heartfelt ignorance.
I find people who are truly open don't hold so desperately to facts, because they tend to change over time.
The truth is generally not up for interpretation by any person who feels it should be. Critical thinking is actually a thing, and the lack of it does actually result in believing false things. If someone told me that I'm not applying critical thinking, then my response would be to ask for specific details on what aspect of critical thinking I'm not applying and exactly where I'm getting things wrong. What I would not do is respond by criticizing the idea of critical thinking itself or tell them that they need to consider alternative facts.
500 years from now I have absolutely no doubt that there are things we absolutely believe to be truth to be proven wrong. (Maybe light isn't both a wave and a particle?)
Heck, maybe antibiotics do contribute to autism some how. I very much doubt it. But it would be hubris to assume I know absolutely everything there is to know about the human body, antibiotics, and all their interactions. So I disagree with anti-vaxxers, based on current evidence. But I won't dismiss them and consider them less intelligent.
We knew this 500 years ago too, but even if we didn't it would not have been rational to pretend to know the shape of our entire world without having evidence to back it up. All we would know is that it appears to be flat from our limited vantage point, and we were free to investigate further using various methods.
500 years from now I have absolutely no doubt that there are things we absolutely believe to be truth to be proven wrong. (Maybe light isn't both a wave and a particle?)
500 years from now it will still be the case that light can behave like a particle and a wave depending on how you're measuring it. We may have better, more accurate models to explain the behavior of light in 500 years.
So I disagree with anti-vaxxers, based on current evidence. But I won't dismiss them and consider them less intelligent.
The reason that many people believe vaccines cause autism is because of a fraudulent study by Andrew Wakefield. Believing in a claim based an a proven fraud is not rational regardless of what is discovered in the future.
To put it generally, if you believe in claim X for bad reasons, and it later is discovered that X is true, it does not mean that you were retroactively acting rational for previously believing in claim X for bad reasons.
That is true. Isn't it equally as true that if one goes around telling people they are wrong, and then it turns out that one is wrong (based on new evidence), one has been wrong AND a hypocrite? The temptation is to say "ahh, but THIS TIME we have better science!". That's always been the case.
My point isn't about truth and error as much as hubris, humility, and respect.
There is a difference between saying that a belief in a claim is not rationally justified and saying that a claim is false. Both sides of these debates can make mistakes. Those against believing in the claim can make the counterclaim that it is false, and they might not actually have justification for that. On the other hand, often those that believe in the claim misinterpret the other side as making the counterclaim when they are in fact not doing so.
In the case of autism there has been extensive research since the moral panic began, and no evidence for a link has been found where it was expected to be found, thereby bringing increased justification for the counterclaim. I think this is also true with many other unsupported claims out there that are popular enough to have been exposed to systematic scrutiny.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but have you researched this? My assumption is "no they don't" but it's actually an area I know very little about.
Looking at the whole discussion currently happening around glyphosate / Roundup, where extensive lobbying has been done by Monsanto to block out any negative reports from the public domain, I (personally) think a lot of things shouldn't just be disregarded as absolute nonsense (even if they, eventually are). Pharma companies are also not above extensive lobbying (look at Mylan and their EpiPen).
Autism rates have gone up during the last 20+ years. Why is this? It would be interesting to at least be able to figure out why, so you are able to rule out other things.
Until such time as reputable scientists start saying there is more than a tangential relationship between vaccination and autism, it's a pretty untenable position to have.
> Autism rates have gone up during the last 20+ years. Why is this?
Autism rates increasing doesn't mean there's more autism, it means there's more diagnosed autism. It could be that it was under-diagnosed in the past. It could be that it's actually increasing. It could be that it's simply being over-diagnosed now. I'm bracing for the backlash but I've met a dozen or so diagnosed autistic children and more than a few of them are just assholes or have parents looking for an easy way to not discipline their children.
Yes and same with ADHD, gluten intolerance and other 'diseases' that have gone up in the past 20 years while your annoying, anti social, always crying and shouting, only likes sugar child is just the result of lazy parenting and a general lack of tolerance to suffering at large.
Weather is actually terrible about 8 months of the year. It's too humid and hot. The climate is perfect for mosquitos, forcing you to wear long sleeve clothing at night during this humid weather (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalitis). Insects and arachnids thrive in FL's swampy climate. People who aren't from either that or a jungle need to take time to adjust. Imagine being sweaty after walking outside for a few feet. AC is a must and you will pay around $200-300/month (maybe more) for electricity without an EV (on the bright side your house is 2-3 times larger than the Bay Area). Great place for solar. When I think about it, FL is probably the Australia of the US; there are a lot of things there that will kill you. (Almost every Floridian knows not to let their children play near water when it gets dark. The ones that don't end up on the news.) The good part is that it's easy to grow avocado and mango trees. Also unlike earthquakes, hurricanes are easier to forecast.
Other than water and the beaches, there's nothing to do compared to the SF Bay Area. Yes you can swim and surf in the beaches but due to decades of pollution, 'sea lice' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_louse) has been prevalent since I was a kid. Also due to erosion, most beach sand is now crushed rock. That said, the water is way nicer than anywhere in the SF Bay Area. If you like diving or snorkeling, you can hunt for lobsters yourself. Unfortunately, due to damage to the eco system, sharks are also a lot more aggressive, and they've been known to attack surfers as well for years now. Still, in some parts the water is so clear that you can see fish below while on a boat.
Florida is primarily a giant retirement community for northerners, making it mostly a nice giant boring, suburb unless you are attending a party college in the far north. Miami has a club scene but it gets old. It's not NYC or LA. Cuban food is amazing though and even if it is available in another state; it's not the same.
Forgot to add that there's less diversity in FL compared to other metros, even if you just compare it to other metros in the South it's still less. Maybe things have changed since I left?
Add flying cockroaches the size of tri-folded dollar bill to chaostheory's accurate depiction (that when I sent to my wife had her saying, "I could have written that word for word!").
Basically the difference between a real/good colada and what you described is whipping and creation of a paste in the beginning before the pull.
Remain open minded
2) Possibly a gem in the rough, but having family who teach in OCPS I'm skeptical
4) Quite subjective; I personally don't enjoy 100% humidity and 100 degree temperatures 8 months out of the year in which one is constantly assaulted by mosquitoes and "love bugs"
5) again, subjective, although it's hard to argue that the Bay Area isn't laughable by comparison
6) I doubt you're going to find a 1500 sq ft. 3 bedroom town home for $1k per month (1/4 of what I pay 20 miles south of SF), and you're leaving out other costs, hidden costs, including commute and items related to the lack of public services and much higher utilities costs; the cost of living is lower, but not 75% lower
7) there is much, much greater diversity of food (including Cuban food) in the Bay Area
8) This isn't cheap, even for residents. Last I looked, years ago, it was more expensive than a family pass for the Exploratorium and other far more enriching and entertaining things for kids to.
Then there are many negatives. The biggest one, in my opinion, is the lack of diversity. Central Florida had a strong Latin American influence but it's still mainly a white monoculture.
Are we talking town homes for rent?
* 3 beds; 2.5 baths; 1,528 sqft; $1,000/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/Crooked-Pine-Trl-Crestvie...
* 3 beds; 2 baths; 1,863 sqft; $900/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1006-Villaway-W-Sebring-F...
...or maybe you'd like to rent a house:
* 3 beds; 2 baths; 1,821 sqft; $975/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5693-Highway-4-Baker-FL-3...
* 4 beds; 4 baths; 1,700 sqft; $975/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/351-Pine-Ave-Cocoa-FL-329...
...or maybe buy a house:
* 3 beds; 2 baths; 1,564 sqft; EST. MORTGAGE $705/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/FL/fsba,fsbo,fore,new_...
* 3 beds; 2 baths; 1,661 sqft; $464/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2579-Dogwood-Dr-Cottondal...
* 4 beds; 2 baths; 1,541 sqft; EST. MORTGAGE $261/mo
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/362-Palm-Ave-Cocoa-FL-329...
The first item, for example, is just north of I-10, which is northern Florida and even more conservative than the rest of the state.
Sure it would be great to have both a high income (relative to local costs) and a job you love and plenty of other options, but if one must choose... I choose to trade away the upper-middle-class lifestyle in order to have enjoyable and impactful work in my chosen field of software engineering.
It amazes me how many people in tech can't do simple math.
Hint: The Detroit area job market is on fire, but you will pass it over if your idea of compensation doesn't take into account cost of living. I'm sure there are several other cities that can say the same.
There seems to be ample [1] data [2] about [3] this.
1: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-senior-soft...
2: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Senior_Software_Engi...
3: http://www1.salary.com/CA/San-Francisco/Software-Engineer-II...
In any case, somebody who thinks this represents a significant slice of the Silicon Valley workforce is living in a bubble. For every engineer making >$500k, there are many thousands making <$200k, at the thousands of other tech companies in the Bay Area that aren't Google/Amazon/Facebook/Apple. While the $500k engineer has every incentive to stay in SV, that has no bearing on the vast majority of engineers.
I have heard that at FB and Google, a very small percentage of engineers got special stock awards a couple years ago that could put them in that range. But most top performers at these places at the senior/staff level are more in the 175-350 range.
Other than that, the only engineers making that kind of money got lucky in a startup lottery.
I doubt Apple, Amazon, or even Facebook pay that much on any regular basis, but I wouldn't rule out someone getting an outsized offer during a machine learning (or other flavor of the month) hiring frenzy.
[1] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Staff-Software-Engin...
If you want to raise a big family, you're better off elsewhere. Even with a really reduced total comp, say ~300k, you could have a 6-bedroom house on the beach or on a 30-acre lot. You could have a guest house and servant's quarters.
Definitely has something to do with it. I'm a software engineer in the Detroit area and the last time I switched jobs (4ish years ago), it took less than 2 weeks from the time I updated and posted my resume to signing an offer letter. With the number of calls and emails I get daily for different positions in the area, I have a feeling it would go just as quickly the next time I decide to make a move.
The "can you lift 50 pounds" thing is so that you can't usefully sue them when they ask you to move your own PC or monitor. Especially at a non-union job site, the nearest available person tends to do that kind of task. Nobody wants to have to schedule a union-approved object-lifter person to show up.
Just a bit to the southeast of you, the tech job market is booming. It sort of focuses on the MLB airport, with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, but there are others too. The area has Thales, Raytheon, Harris, and numerous cyberwar startups. Obviously, you do need to enjoy designing things that cause destruction, and it is mighty hard to pass the background checks if you have foreign relatives.
If that sounds appealing to you and you can do low-level hacking (you won't freak out over assembly language), send a note to acahalan at gmail.
I spend my high-school years in Oviedo but I had trouble finding jobs around the area.
I had my first job in downtown Orlando which was 40-50 min commute, and I recently moved to Tampa Bay area.
Oviedo is a decent area -- good air quality, close to nature but at the same time close to urban areas.
Salaries aren't going to be the same as the west coast though (obviously), and most of the senior developer roles I've seen cap out at around the $100k-ish mark. With the far cheaper cost of living though, it goes a lot further.
The major market for tech jobs come from health care.
Not a very progressive or interesting market.
Its mostly the typical Windows/VMWare, Microsoft stuff.
A little bit of Devops here and there, and a smattering of low level development/coding work.
As a tooling and process consultant focused on Atlassian's tools, there's very little for me.
What? Surely you pay for those?
Also what about the humidity? Every time I've been there it's like a sauna.
Edit: Some tips for visitors.
Most beaches are beautiful and most have free access. Enjoy, but wear sunscreen (and keep reapplying). Oh and bring lots of water; playing at the beach dehydrates you fast. If you pick a Gulf Coast beach (Clearwater is nice), as you enter the water, skoot your feet on the sand. That flutter you feel across the top of your foot is a minor stingray. Won't hurt you unless you step on it.
Don't bring an umbrella. The lightning here will kill you. Just plan on not being outside in the summer during the hours of 2pm - 6pm.
Georgia drivers ... can't. I jest. But seriously...
UF and FSU football... you will get so tired of seeing those school colors.
:)
If you feel a tingly sensation on the back of your neck or detect a sharp ozone-like smell, crouch down and cover your ears. Don't play golf or baseball in the rain. If you hear thunder or see lightning, go inside.
Football is the unhealthy sports obsession of the South. You would think that in February, after the pro season ends, you would get a reprieve from it, but no, you don't. Baseball is the alternate sport. Basketball is a legend from a distant land, and nobody even knows what a hockey is. Stanley Cup playoffs are happening right now, and local television news would rather air a 10-minute story about some high school football team practicing for next year's season instead of 10 seconds just saying that the Senators beat the Bruins. If you don't love football, you will get so sick of football.
Triggered Atlantan
We have no patience for slow or dumb drivers in Atlanta.
Go Dawgs.
The panhandle has nice beaches as well.
* My health, both physical and mental has increased tremendously.
* Our house is far cheaper in mortgage than our apartment was.
* Schools are far better than anything in California we could afford
* Crime is almost non-existent. Most people don't lock car or house doors.
* It is rare I drive more than 8 miles on any day, no more highways for me unless I'm skiing.
* The air & water are clean, the tap water tastes better than the bottle water I used to drink.For instance, take a look at this:
http://www.greatschools.org/california/san-francisco/schools...
Do you think that your elementary school in Colorado are vastly better than the top three we see here, Chin (John Yehall) Elementary, Clarendon, or Lafayette?
Scroll down a bit. SF has some bad schools, but it's not like these three are isolated one offs. There really are a lot of schools in SF scoring a 9 or 10 here. There is a lottery, but (this is just my experience and impression) it's not shot in the dark level lottery. If you research schools and find some of the ones that fly below the radar rather than just listing the "trophy" schools, and create a balanced list, you have a good chance at a good school. No, not a 100% chance and an excellent school, which you can obtain by leaving SF and moving to a good district where a high rent or mortgage payment locks it in for you (hey, I get it - I'll call it what it is, but I do get it).
There are great reasons to leave SF, and the school situation here is hardly perfect. But I disagree with the general notion that public schools in SF are an across the board failure. I'd even disagree that they are a general failure with a few minor bright spots.
I'd call the situation mixed, with a lot of good, a lot of bad and a lot of in the middle. You can have a very good experience with SFUSD.
If their problem with California was lack of good schools anyplace they could afford to live in the state, why on Earth would you point to one of the most expensive places in the state and say it has some good schools? To address it, you need to point to someplace affordable in California that has good schools.
I'm mentioning this because people often describe SF as an expensive place with failing schools. That's not quite accurate. SF has a large number of good public schools, though it is uneven and you are at the mercy of the lottery. Your odds aren't horrible but they aren't 100% either.
Is that on a national or state scale? I find my district in Michigan making all kinds of claims like that about many of our schools, but it's all compared to others in the state. Nationally we're still above average but nothing to get excited about.
Another thing is range. 10/10 is nice, but as you can see, a bunch of SF schools got it. Kind of how the Math GRE (used to?) top out at about 95%ile (ie., 5% of the people taking the test got an 800/800).
So this leaves open the possibility that even the best elementary schools are far behind the other 10/10s in other parts of the state. Kind of doubt it, since Lowell is clearly extremely competitive with top public and private high schools around the country. But I can't make the comparison directly at the elementary school level.
That's why I kind of put it as a question... what's your guess? Are the 10/10 elementary schools in SF notably worse than top elementary schools in Colorado? Like I said, I seriously doubt it, but I can't be sure.
Since that's the only reason I'm wanting to move, I'm looking for the most Texas-like place I can find. Unfortunately, the closest I can come is Southern California. I dragged my heels like crazy on admitting that SoCal was the only place that has most of what I wanted because the cost of living is so insanely high, but I really have no choice. Everything else either was outside the Sun Belt or not Asian enough. Unfortunately, that means I'm stuck hoping I get a job that pays $140k, because that's what I'll need to make to rent a house in SoCal, and I'll be in a position where if I ever lose my job and end up unemployed, I'll have less than a month to find a new job before I become homeless.
I have a friend of mine trying to sell me on the Vegas area, though. I'm considering it, particularly Spring Valley. But I also have another friend urging me to avoid Vegas because she says there's no tech industry there.
For the record, my main criteria are: must have transgender-inclusive non-discrimination protections at the state level, must be in the Sun Belt, must have high Asian and Hispanic populations (I'm looking for at least 15% of each in the suburb I'm moving to, preferably more), must be a sprawling suburb, must be able to afford to rent a house with central AC on the salary of a software engineer of my experience in the area. The only states that meet the first two criteria are California (and only SoCal, not NorCal), New Mexico, and Nevada. The third criterion eliminates New Mexico (almost no Asian people in the entire state)... and until a few days ago, I thought it eliminated Nevada as well.
Also, I hate artsy hipsters with a passion. Even though I'm transgender, I'm deeply conservative in most other respects, I specifically want to live in a conservative suburb in a blue state. I don't want independent record stores and third-wave coffee shops. I want shopping malls, strip centers, cookie-cutter housing, and Asian people operating restaurants that serve their traditional food (I especially don't want white people remixing ethnic food that's not theirs). What I want is Plano, TX dug out of the ground and transported into a blue state. This is why I'm looking at Torrance and Orange County in CA.
I'd try to sell you on Minnesota except for this :-)
Well, we do get tons of sun (similar solar insolation numbers to Houston, TX), but it can be bright and sunny and still -25F
Come and enjoy the outdoors, food, and amazing beer with us.
Huntington/Richmond is a little off the path, but still close if you want more space.
It can be such a rat race down there, it is refreshing to remember that it doesn't have to be that way. Life exists outside of The Valley, and it happens to be a pretty darn good one (and affordable!) :)
I never ventured outside of the metro area and no one was ever overtly racist but boy if you are not a white Mormon you will stick out, you will be judged and questioned. Most Utah Mormons are conditioned to be nice so on the surface they appear so but they do judge and single out people who don’t belong.
I visited SF over a weekend and was instantly surprised about how accepting everyone was. It just seemed like I fit in and belonged. I’d tolerate much worse conditions than “low income in SF” than be “rich” in Utah.
Metro-SLC is pretty liberal and tolerant. The further out you go, the more ignorance you'll encounter.
My bigger issue is the beer. 2.5% whatttttt?
One counter-point: not sure if this is still the case, but a few years ago Provo, Utah (just south of SLC) used to have the highest per capita usage of anti-depressants. Interpret that how you will :P
> Utah is becoming quite diverse
Was curious about this, as it didn't seem to fit my limited observation from my last few trips to Utah (which is again, a lovely place). The Census bureau government says Utah is >91% "white only":
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/49
Which is likely more diverse than Utah was in the past, but could not be fairly compared to California as "quite diverse" given the same number for California is 73%:
With one kid or wife per bedroom and 1000sqft for kitchen/dining/whatever, you have room for 28. (4 wives, 6 kids each) Making the non-bedroom part of the house more luxurious and adding a bathroom to each bedroom, you have room for about 16. You can hit that even without polygamy.
He may be counting a large garage. That could be 1000sqft by itself, so knock off 3 or 4 bedrooms.
Fundamentalist Mormons are still Mormon, and yes, 10,000 to 30,000 of them are in plural marriages.
Also, note that I didn't mean it as an insult, and I quite like large families. Even the mainstream Mormons tend to have large families.
I have considered doing the same but seems like you almost have to buy a house that big or live in a non-desirable area.
I grew up in a fairly large house (I don't recall the size, but two floors, 6 bedrooms, kitchen, formal dining room, living room, family room, 3 bathrooms, basement filled with junk; so, fairly large -- semi-rural Maryland, where space was cheap in the 80s/90s). My parents weren't hoarders, though they did accumulate stuff. After my sister and I moved out and my mom passed away, my dad lived in a giant house by himself, couldn't maintain it, and also felt like he couldn't move because the house wasn't in good enough shape to sell.
I just don't get this need for more and more space. It just encourages you to buy more stuff that you don't need, and takes more time/effort/money to maintain. I hesitate to "tell people how to live", but this keeping up with the Joneses attitude is a component of what causes cost of living to rise and is ultimately a zero-sum game.
Space is wonderful for doing things like dancing, hosting guests, exercise, communal/family cooking (sprouting many kilograms of chickpeas, fermenting 40+qt of kimchi).
Also, as the commenter below mentioned, we do enjoy hosting people for parties and family get-togethers. We spend a good amount of energy and time and money on these activities that are for the enjoyment of other people.
Wealthy people often build massive palaces to honor their own greatness and inflate their egos, I can assure you this is not one of those homes :).
It's a pattern I found recurring as we were looking at houses: unless you wanted a 100 year-old house (which could be a good or bad idea), there was simply nothing under 3,000 sq ft on the lot sizes we were looking at.
Edit: duh, it's really 800 sqm.
When the kids have moved out, you can downsize to that retirement place in Spain... except that may not work as well after the UK leaves the EU.
Does that make Luton, St Albans etc. the 'suburbs' of London?
A good rule of thumb is (or was): Does it have black cabs?
How much carbon is emitted cooling and heating an 8k sq ft home in Utah? How far do you have to drive to do things?
Overall, the valley we live in has pretty much everything we could want, from a retail perspective.
A nice small-town grocery store about 3 mins away, and larger national chains further down the road.
Not sure if it will be helpful to you but I hope so. :)
So long as you and your partner are both making 6 figures you should be able to afford any of the following cities:
- Seattle
- Portland
- Austin
- Denver
In SF/SV, the high housing prices extend far enough out from SF to cover almost everything that is in reasonable commute distance. Same for Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and San Jose.
In Seattle, prices are high or getting there in Seattle, Redmond, and Bellevue, but there is still reasonable housing between Seattle and Tacoma, and across the Sound over in Kitsap county. If you can get a work schedule that lets you miss the heavy commute hours it should be reasonably possible to get affordable housing without too bad a commute.
That's a pretty high bar for cost of living. Here in Charlotte, NC, I make half of that, and could support two people without any difficulty.
I wouldn't consider legal marijuana worth $100k a year, personally.
Rents in Portland are skyrocketing (I had friends whose landlords were pulling out 30% rent increases). I went from Portland to Oakland and my rent isn't that much more.
Not impressed.
I lived in Portland for six years and never once heard this expression and yet I know exactly what you mean.
10 years ago = 82nd is bad
Now = 122nd is bad
I count myself lucky to live West of 82nd.
If anyone's up here visiting, I'll happily buy you a beer - or whatever you prefer, but... there's lots of beer here.
I was approached on LinkedIn to take a job with matching pay but that was fully remote. I could live anywhere I wanted in the entire country. I jumped at the chance and felt like I became rich overnight! I miss working at Apple, and would definitely jump at the chance to work remotely for them, but I don't think I could ever afford to move back to California.