I'd take that with a big grain of salt, I spent over a decade of my 20 years living in SF looking elsewhere to move to since I couldn't afford the real estate. So I'd be counted as one of the ones that want to leave, but I never left until finally I moved down the Peninsula.

I'm confused by your logic. Isn't the median home price in the Peninsula a multiple of the median home price in SF or OAK?

I don't keep up with the home price trends, but I bought a 2 bedroom condo on the peninsula within walking distance of Caltrain for less than any one bedroom I could find in SF.

Median price doesn't matter as much as the point-in-time price for what the homebuyer is looking for. A 3 bedroom house in Palo Alto can distort the price curve when all you want is a small condo in Burlingame.

I wouldnt, I’m just surprised it’s not higher. Most of my friends hit 30-32 then move out to Marin, Walnut Creek or San Mateo. Once you get to the age where you’re married and thinking about kids, you want out of SF.

Then why dont they? Or are there 2 people willing to take the place of every person leaving?

I think for many people it comes down to go exactly where and do exactly what there. Once lived in Bay Area for while, you have certain expectations on compensation, services, things to do, career growth etc.

If you are used to a city like SF and enjoy the level of things in there, in the world and US there only few cities similar. Like nyc, la, London, Tokyo etc. Portland, Seattle, Austin, Berlin are all good but not the same.

Most of these places are almost as expensive or in similar category as SF but all of them have lower tech salaries than SF, by little or by a lot.

In addition, if you live decently and your salary doesn’t only go to rent, then any decrease in rent is always less than decrease in your salary. Say your rent is $3000 in sf and you make $300k+ per year in total comp. Say moving to Austin your rent would be $1500 but your salary would be $200k. You are only saving $18k year in rent but your salary dropped $100k. Go to Berlin and you maybe pay $1000 for apartment but your salary is $60k.

Lastly, as messed up lot of startups and companies are in Bay Area, there is still a lot of experience and drive to build succesful companies. Go anywhere else in the world and you will encounter more clueless people with absolutely no networks, who have no ambition, and are just trying to do some local play of a global company. I know it sounds harsh but I think for many people thinking about moving to London and working in some consultancy or bank doesn’t sound very exciting or a growth opportunity.

So I think lot of people want to move, but cannot find good or exciting reasons to do that financially, growth or general job happiness. Quality of living and housing yes for sure.

I think options are: 1) start your company and build the culture and company you want whenever or in a distributed way

2) Decide to retire to the countryside and work on your own projects

3) Find a fulfilling, not exactly high tech job or position, but more like a foundation / helping governments with socially responsible software etc. Essentially financially retire, but work on meaningful things

I think Bay Area is still great for singles or couples without kids, that you can get dual high income and share housing costs. Also the career and company options in tech are unparaller.

Starting companies needing massive engineering force, less so.

It’s not just cost of living but taxes. Living in a state with no income tax is an automatic 10-12% bump in take home pay.

Agree though if you’re single your living situation is more flexible and you can find a place for less than market rate here pretty easily. It’s once you get married and want kids that SF makes no sense for most people.

Someone making 200k in Austin has a much much better quality of life than someone making 300k in SF. No question.

As someone from Austin living in SF I disagree. Austin has better housing affordability and less severe homelessness. To me, just about everything else is nicer in SF. But more to the point, everyone is different and you really can’t generalize about what place is better or worse, because people’s tastes, interests, and logistics vary so widely.

Define nicer. To me housing affordability is a massive lever that drives quality of life. You can find a place for 300k in Austin (renovated) what would cost 1.5m in SF.

There isn’t a neighborhood in the entirde Austin metro where you can walk to all your daily needs. The summer heat is brutal and the winters are surprisingly chilly given how hot the summer is. You don’t have anything like the natural beauty of California at your doorstep.

For me though the walkability is the biggest thing. There’s not a single neighborhood in Austin that can compare to the quality of life in my “middle of the road” SF neighborhood. Miles of beautiful archictecture all around. My kids can and do walk everywhere.

It’s just a completely different experience, being in an actual pre-car city, and unfortunately there’s nothing like it in Texas.

Just left Austin for this exact reason. All the companies, except a few startups and exceptions are not in downtown. They are out in the boonies. Live downtown and you are looking at 2-3 hours of commute every day and traffic is gloriously terrible. The transportation system in Austin is none to speak of. The other thing that bugs me is none of these companies are actually in Austin. It's more like Round Rock. So, when people say Austin is a tech hub, it seems like play on marketing.

This is why I left for Minneapolis, I actually bought a condo in central downtown. I can walk and bike everywhere. I can take a train or bus at any given moment to everything I would ever need and there is something to be said when you are easily and casually attend any of the major 6 sporting leagues at a drop.

As for the tech and pay. I find it pays the same or actually more in my experience. Finding a job is easy. Most companies don't play that Leetcode game, some do, but most don't it seems. Tons of huge fortune companies that use modern tech and have interesting problems, including places like Target, big banks and tons of healthcare. There are hidden startups, if you look, hard, but many haven't even take VC are only 2-5 people right now and are bootstrapped and highly profitable.

If I ever decide to take that job at a big tech in SF I'll rent out my condo in central downtown, pack up my backup and take the light rail to the airport with my one way ticket.

I read an article (a month or so back) saying that Austin's great quirkiness was a fluke, of an economic downturn creating a transitory surplus of very cheap housing.

In that case, taxes and rent only would account for about a $50k difference at those numbers - not enough to make up the gap between Austin and SF if we're talking $200k and $300k, and I'd imagine $200k isn't as easy to hit in Austin as $300k+ in the Bay Area.

The difference is buying. A 300k house in Austin would be 1.5m in SF. Again, if you’re single and renting and ok with roommates SF makes sense, but if you’re buying 300k/year will not be enough to afford a 1.5m place (which probably won’t be renovated and in a bad location)

It is more than enough to buy - not sure what you're expectations are around buying here. Sure, it maybe possible to buy instantly in Austin, to my understanding in not as great neighborhoods if you want it cheaper, as I hear house prices have gone up there as well, but in 5-10 years of working at $300k+, it's very possible to buy in most of the Bay Area.

The benefit becomes compounded in the Bay Area if you have a spouse also working, and timelines accelerated.

Not if the best places are cash offers only. And cap on SALT taxes starting 2018 tax year means many high earners will not be able to deduct expensive property taxes and most income above and beyond their base salary.

300k is living with a roommate level IMO unless you’re just looking to buy a 1 bedroom and not have kids.

What the heck would you be spending $ on to be living with a non-significant other roommate necessarily at $300k?

This is extraordinary hyperbole that pretty much ignores what it’s really like in the Bay Area - many people making $100k or even less don’t even live with roommates here if they don’t want to. I make over $300k myself and the only reason I have a roommate is because she’s one of my best friends and I am helping her out while she’s early in her career.

There’s no need to put down another place just due to whatever biases, especially if there are few facts behind it. It’s ok to like where you’re at without going to extraordinary lengths to stretch it to everyone.

Saving up $100k/year towards ownership is just treading water; prices will easily rise that much on their own. This leaves another ~$70k/year to play with in your $300k salary. The marginal cost of living alone vs. with roommates is not insignificant in that context. So yes, if you are making $300k/year and serious about buying, it would be hard to justify renting an entire apartment.

Absolutely agree that you can afford to live alone if you do not particularly care about buying.

taxes don’t drive it. the 10% income tax savings is made up by prop tax and other costs.

yes austin is cheaper but not because of taxes

What? Yes TX has higher property taxes as % property value than CA but, again, if you’re buying a 300k place in Austin your annual property taxes are going to be <<< than the CA property taxes you pay on a typical 1.5m place + income tax in CA.

And because TX does not have income tax it also means for a 300k place your state and local taxes won’t hit the $10k limit for fed deductions which you will easily hit if you earn and have property in CA.

a 300k place in austin is not comparable to a 1.5m place in sf bay.

the 10k limit is irrelevant because most people will be in the 200k-500k AMT range where prop tax is not deductible anyway.

please compare apples to apples.

why picking on austin? it was just an example. wyoming has no income tax. you think living in jackson, WY is cheaper than cupertino? and that the reason is taxes???

Let’s not discount weather. As pg had said, places with bad weather can cut opportunities in half (paraphrased). Think about all the time you didn’t go out because of bad weather. Those are the times you didn’t bump across some founder or partner or VC or new job.

Also, there is huge cultural aspect that is much harder to articulate. If you are young, you can find lots of peers arriving in office on roller blades or playing video games on Friday or going for long drives in weekend. You might not find this in NYC or Seattle mature companies. People often change employers like cloths and that’s perhaps good for cultural because you continuesly encounter new ideas, opportunities and people. There is much less fear about not able to find job and that allows to take risk in working at startups at peanuts salaries. In most other places it would be hard to find folks who had more than 2-3 employers in 30 years and even more harder to find people taking pay cuts to get job at risky companies.

Yet another aspect is that either people don’t have kids or married couples both work in tech. Because of tremendous numbers of tech companies it’s easy to find tech jobs for spouses. Once you have double income in tech, housing cost is not huge deal.

Weather in NYC is pretty bad.

But then the meaning of “want to leave” seems unclear. Of course everyone by definition wants to leave if there is somewhere else to go that is strictly better according to their personal preferences.

I think it’s but like say people “want to be healthy” but don’t want take action or compromise.

I think lot of people in sf feel the pressures of housing and homelessness, that potentially makes them want to leave, but they cannot find enough ways to justify why move to place x.

The Bay Area is experiencing population growth due to birth and foreign immigration despite net domestic outmigration.

SF has one of the lowest rates of kids of any major metro

I had dinner with a co-founder of Hotmail who has spent years buying up lots of real estate in the Bay Area. They commented that less than 4% of property in San Francisco is owned by someone born in the city.

Don’t know how to fact check that but it would be fascinating if true.

People leave all the time...especially anyone who is late 20s/early 30s knows plenty of friends who move out.

Where's that map of outmigration by demographic?

This comes up time and time again. Here are a few reasons (whether they're real or perceived) 1) H1B transfer difficulty 2) Family nearby 3) Friends 4) Immigrant friendly culture 5) Velvet handcuffs

I've strongly considered it myself.

Commute times and rent control. I’d love to move to North Bay but I have to be in San Jose twice a week for meetings. We need better public transit and we could solve a portion of these problems.

That's 55 miles from a low density area. I'm not sure there is anywhere where public transit wouldn't take over an hour each way.

Yea

And the rest of us are waiting it out hoping others get fed up and leave soon. The NIMBYs have a lot to answer for.