re: 6-figure salaries considered low income in some Bay Area counties

quote:

---

I was there last year and talked to a Stanford grad who said one bedroom studio apartments down by AT&T Park start at $2,500 per month. That is insane

---

There's actually even a huge discrepancy between coastal metropolises and major cities in the interior.

Chicago, Houston, and Dallas - three of the five biggest metropolitan areas in America - are much cheaper than New York, LA, Boston, DC, San Francisco, et al. Atlanta is much cheaper than Seattle even though it's a much larger metro area.

It makes me think about the future of growth and real estate prices in this country. Is the coastal explosion sustainable when so many viable economic centers in the interior are half or one-third the price? The economic advantages of port cities are long past, so why the discrepancy?

Also, it thoroughly explains why Charleston and to a lesser extant New Orleans real estate has just boomed and boomed and boomed recently. The southern coastal states - Miami and maybe Florida in general excepted - kind of missed out on that boom until five or ten years ago.

quote:

---

$80,000 is the low-income threshold for a family of four.

---

Two people clearing 40k a year is kinda shite

Move to Indiana, median household income is 50k. It's so cheap here, especially when you're single and make more than that.

How far out do you live?

Vacaville here and wife commutes daily

quote:

---

You're not the only one calling heartland real estate as the next opportunity.

---

You've already started seeing some in Chicago and to a lesser extent Dallas and Houston - foreign money pouring in, especially in commercial. It's not anywhere close to what it is in the coastal cities, but I've seen hints and glances of it. Nashville and Austin became relatively expensive compared to what they used to be, but they're still not bad compared to what they would be if they were coastal.

Still, as long as an 800 square foot one bedroom in Chicago is 1/3rd what it is in New York or San Francisco, I can't quite call it a great opportunity. It's probably a pretty good investment, but nothing out of this world.

Part of the problem with coastal cities is plain old geography. The geography, especially on the West Coast and in the Northeast, is extremely restrictive. On the West Coast, you can't expand out into the ocean, and rugged mountains block significant expansion in a lot of directions (especially in Seattle and San Francisco); expansion occurs up and around I-5 and some of the feeder valleys. In the Northeast, Manhattan and Brooklyn are obviously severely constrained, as is much of the area around Boston.

You simply don't have those problems in interior cities for the most part. Chicago can expand in almost any direction except northeast, and the Denvers and Houstons and Atlantas of the world can continue to expand in any direction. They also have much less restrictive zoning as an added bonus.

Which makes Danny Tanner even more amazing. He supported like a dozen people in a huge San Francisco house on his salary.

1600 for a one bedroom in alameda. The place is old, but nice with hardwood floors and is good size. I'm not complaining, it is way cheaper than smaller crappier apartments in the area

2500 for a 1 br in Berkeley here. And that was a steal compared to others I looked at. Plus rent control--it's hard to come by in SF

We're a bit closer than you guys. In the San Pablo/El Cerrito area. How long is her commute? Mine would improve immensely if I could force myself to go in super early. But as it is I normally walk in around 8:30, so I work til 6.