patrick.net

sybrib says

At least in her own mind the Tigress can save her face in her social circle with a kid going to Tufts. Funny though, when ABC uncle told us about this at a dinner party, I think I was the only one Bay Arean who had even ever heard of Tufts.

Oh no, their kid had to go to Tufts! :) I wonder what they think about their return on investment now?

Of course, you're so right with everything you said. I agree with all of it. But still doesn't change the general trends. It just means that the Tigermom strategy has a huge social cost in that not every Tigerkid will get into Harvard, even with all the "advantages" of The Fortress.

and I agree, these top API schools aren't the only places to go...but this data is nonetheless very interesting:

http://api.cde.ca.gov/Acnt2011/2010Base_Co.aspx?cYear=&cSelect=43,SANTA,CLARA

This is what is interesting to me: From a purely strategic standpoint, there are potential arbitrage opportunities that exist in these rankings from the perspective of "maximizing returns" that most ABC parents probably haven't considered because they don't know how the college-admissions game is played.

Let me provide an example: I have a professor friend who had twins in their junior year at Gunn high school in Palo Alto which I see from that link has a 918 API (extremely high for a High School). the kids were smart and well educated given that they'd been in palo alto school district for 10+ years, but with the immense competition (remember: the kids in this school are professor and tech-millionaire kids) they were roughly in middle of their class with solid B+/A- averages. From prior years experience, Professor-dad and kids knew that graduates in the middle of their class at Gunn end up at a Tufts or UCLA-level type of school.

this family knows how the college admissions game is played: part of the evaluation process is relative to others from your school and state, and particularly where you graduate from. They know it is particularly competitive to get into a top school being from California, Mass, Illinois, New Jersey in particular. Colleges want to be diverse with students spread more evenly across all states.

so what does this family do? Professor-dad takes his sabbatical next year in Montana (which is beautiful by the way). Kids enroll in high school, which is "easy" for them, and become the "stars" of their school on paper, and end up getting into a bunch of ivy league schools, and matriculating at Princeton.

I have incredibly mixed feelings about this example. Hard to fault the individual actions of the parents: kids *did* get a superior education, and *did* get into top colleges that'll set them up for life....not to mention an enjoyable year as a family in beautiful Montana. Not sure the kids could have been at Princeton otherwise, although I guess we'll never know...

But what's the social cost of such a story? Elite family uses human and financial capital to ensure that their children remain in the elite. Not exactly "the American story," right?

Now, not every rich parent is saavy enough or daring enough to game the system this much. Frankly, many parents talk a good game about "doing everything for the kids" but when it comes down to it, many parents (even those in The Fortress) settle for "good enough" and aren't willing to take it the extra mile. For now, you don't hear too many stories like this, but as education becomes even more important (which it will)...I fear that you'll hear less and less of the classic "American story" of rags to riches as these arbitrage opportunities are identified and used by the elite.

Hi jpd:

I do see the central Austin market as being bubbly, with the disconnect from fundamentals (rent v buy ratios/local salaries/price histories, etc) being the most readily perceptible evidence

It's actually difficult to formulate a good picture of the Austin market. Just for starters, the non-disclosure laws in Texas serve as an added layer of subterfuge for any buyer trying to do their homework. I've kept a running list of some homes across the city that actually do have transaction histories available and the data shows appreciation levels well beyond inflation, with enough instances of prices doubling in less than ten years to elicit a resounding WTF from anyone paying close enough attention. There was an article just today in our community newspaper citing an increase in the cost of living in downtown and the paucity of affordable housing in the urban core areas. According to TCAD data, Austin's average overall home values rose 91% from 2000 to 2010.

I blame speculation combined with the numerous government price supports currently in place. FWIW, I lived for a brief time in one of the sand states at the outset of the RE bubble and I'm witnessing many similarities playing out here in the Austin market -- from the growing number of For Sale signs on streets within eye shot of one another, to the numerous condo developments/conversions all over town, to the ambitious gentrification efforts where hastily constructed cubist mcmansions are still popping up on tiny lots on the East side where once sat small tract houses (if you keep one wall of the original structure, you can get an Historical preservation tax break from the city). It also seems like almost everyone I bump into these days wears some kind of RE hat, be it a broker or part-time agent or a guy with five different mortgages and some spreadsheet software who fancies himself the next Warren Buffet.

The local NAR spin goes like this: since Central Texas largely avoided the run-up in prices that other cities experienced between 2000-2006, the market here is *different.* There were even billboards around town up until recently proclaiming "Central Texas Real Estate Really IS Different."

I really don't think it's that different.

Austin,

I remember I met a Texan who looked and talked like Hank on King of the Hill, Hank plus several stones. He told me that “we” (I think “we” meant his family) don’t like Austin because they tolerate homosexuals.

Yeah, Austin remains something of a redheaded hippy stepchild to much of the rest of Texas.

He told me that where he lived if “we” saw that “we’d pull over the truck and beat their ass.”

Really? Isn't that a rather curious subject to be so near the forefront of such a manly man's mind? Call me crazy, but as a heterosexual male, I've never once taken the time to contrive and vocalize a scenario involving a hapless homosexual, a truck and a buncha other dudes.

Thanks, Austin, for the helpful perspective. We have family in Dallas -- and the culture and RE does seem really different. and thanks for the cartoon! :)

Interesting comments about schools. Just in my opinion, it seems that there has been a big uptick in the number of parents who are absolutely set on finding ways to get their kids into the absolute best schools. I never paid attention to this back home. From what I could tell most people just sent their kids to whatever local public school they were zoned for. After moving to the Bay Area there seems to be this intense competition for the "best" schools and as a result any of those areas that are deemed better are prohibitively costly-such as Palo Alto and so forth.

This sort of segues into the whole Austin topic, or rather perhaps the general idea of relocating to one of the what I call "top-10" cities; the smattering of cities perennially listed in various magazines and online surveys year after year as THE places to live-or relocate to: Austin, Raleigh Durham, X number of primarily Southeastern cities, Nashville, etc etc.

I've been reading a number of relocation sites and forums for 4-5 years. I've made a few observations. One is that by reading these-especially the Austin and Raleigh sites, one would think that the entire East Coast and Midwest along with a lot of the West Coast is emptying out of people. Its like every other post is from someone in NJ, MA, NY, CA, MI, or IL. All wanting the exact same things, which means absolutely perfect schools, squeaky-clean safe neighborhoods, access to various organic grocery stores, and oh- their budget for a house is 'only' $400,000 or some crazy high number. In response the exact same neighborhoods are mentioned as the most ideal which in turn means these are probably also going to be the most costly. Thus these new cities have a number of hot-spots popular with relocatees who only know what they've read somewhere online and thus perhaps one of the reasons certain areas in Austin and Raleigh are dramatically more expensive.

We Visited Austin a few years ago. My observation from visiting for a few days was that there were some pricey central neighborhoods. There were houses that matched the Bay Area in cost except in the case of a $500k home in Austin, you'd also be on the hook for the 2-3% property tax, hence a $15k yearly tax bill. That and you need hardcore AC for a good chunk of the year thus factor in a few hundred buxs a month for that too. But on the other hand we met a couple who lived on the other side of South Austin where taxes were lower and so too were prices. I gather because the school in that area wasn't rated that high. They'd only paid $130k for their house. On the other hand a mile or so from there prices were really high.

I felt like Austin was trying way too hard to be like the Bay Area: The same exact kind of gentrification via hipstervilles and boutique restaurants and gourmet grocery stores and the same sort of general atmosphere. This was at least the case in central Austin. On the other hand travel 10-15 minutes out of the city and you are suddenly in outright suburban sprawl. The general impression I got was that if you wanted to live in some cute, central, walkable, safe neighborhood with perfect schools you were going to shell out a ton of dough. On the other hand travel out of the city by a bit and you could have your pick of whatever cookie-cutter house in the middle of a huge housing development for $150k or less. So yeah- We could theoretically move there and buy us one of those brick and vinyl boxes for a song. Then again we would be living in suburban hell. That or we'll just choose places that have schools with poor ratings and lower taxes.

I liked Austin. But it also felt a bit weird. Its like the city everyone is trying to escape to from whatever overpriced, cold, or miserable place they live in now.

Edvard -- It's not that Austin is trying too hard to be like the Bay Area -- it's much less dull than most of the Bay Area -- it's that the nerd bird diaspora has swooped in to roost, trying to create a poor man's California in Central Texas. Thankfully, it's not had as ruinous an effect on the homespun vibrancy that defines much of Austin's charm as you would think, but the impact is still palpable here, vs here a dozen years ago. Austin was always a homely town, but now it's homely with little pockets of mood-lit metrosexual razzle dazzle. I guess there's room for everyone...doesn't bother me.

There is not a day that goes by that I don't see at least one California plate here, even if I'm just running to the grocery store. That is not an exaggeration. Reviling the Californians is something of a past-time for natives/long-time Austinites, but I think you have that kind of thing anywhere. I remember when I was sixteen and flying out to Seattle, the guy sitting next to me explained how the Northwest cities exaggerated their gloomy climes to keep the Californians out. I feel like what really counts is what the impetus might be for someone relocating to a given city. If a city is too easy to live in, you tend to attract a lot of takers: speculators, bums, etc. If, however, you move to a city because you just fell in love with it, THAT is the kind of transplant any native or curmudgeon should welcome. I hope that makes sense.

BTW I'm sorry, but 130K is a meth shack, even on the southside, (unless we're talking Wimberly, which isn't really Austin), unless they bought 15 years ago or inherited the property. There is something they were leaving out, I assure you. It SHOULDN'T be that way, but it is.

we took the same leap 3 yrs back. any place else is never
" just like california". first 2 yrs were hard but we are happy at our decision and happy to call Dallas, Tx our home now. economy is strong, plenty of jobs around, no state tax..so more money is lining our pockets and found nice friends finally which makes it all fulfilling. even if you dont need one for money, you need some job to keep sanity..so I would say find something to do first and then go wherever you want to go.

yeah, I thought about this many times: putting so many parameters into happiness equations.

It all comes down to this question: you wanna pay for this weather or not ?

Other factors are similar, or subjective, or they are all similar in the grand scheme of the thing.

And of course, the most important thing is whether you are happy with your family and friends no matter where you are...

Austinhousingbubble,
The same thing is happening back home in NC where my parents live: Seems like every other moving truck is from NJ, MA, NY, or even California. NC is basically the sister state to TX in regards to the amount of domestic migration, coastal city influx. Downtown used to be somewhat dull and everything closed up at 5:00. Now there are microbreweries, Japanese restaurants, art galleries and so on. Some of this is great. On the other hand it all feels "imported". That and the level of ugly sprawl is crazy.

I saw some of that in Austin too. Lots and lots of sprawl. I did like Austin the city itself but I am assuming we would probably have to move 20-30 minutes out of town. We saw a bunch of older smaller cities in and around Austin that were more affordable. Anyway- time will tell.

I've read this very interesting thread and it is finally bringing me out of very long-term lurkdom.

While people raised many valid points, I would add one that I think is missing.

If your parents are nearing retirement age, they may not be around in ten more years. If you are close to your parents and would like to spend more time with them while they are still alive, I would just move back home and start enjoying life.

Having lots of money is all well and good. But more money in the bank will never bring them back.

I'm not well off like many of you here. My husband and I work hard, but we have struggled with numerous health issues and job loss with has meant a lot of financial loss. I don't ever anticipate we will be financially free like is being discussed here. For us it is a struggle to keep our business afloat, pay for our own health insurance, and pay off medical bills.

But tonight we had my in-laws over to grill hamburgers and next week we will drive an hour to go stay with my parents for a few days. Our life is pretty simple, but I wouldn't trade the ability to spend time with our parents for any amount of money. They won't be here forever and then we will long for just one more beautiful early summer evening to enjoy a meal and laugh together.

I sincerely doubt you would ever regret making the jump now and getting on with the life it sounds like you truly want back home. Best wishes in getting there.

Living a quiet life in the Midwest,
Yes indeed the thought of my parents is one of the primary factors when it comes to moving. My parents and I have always been rather close. They are getting older ( 60's) which is by no means 'that' old. But at this point I've lived out here for 12 years. They and where I grew up are not the same. The same goes for my Grandmother who is now approaching 90.

Its a big quandary. I spent the first 5-6 years of my post-college career being broke. I always managed to save but I just remember what it felt like ALWAYS thinking twice about everything I did- whether I got a hamburger or paid 50 cents more for cheese... whether I could tape the old shoes together or buy some used ones at Goodwill. There was no future for me. I consider myself lucky for having made it to a point in my life where I don't have to worry about those things. I think this is why I am so resistant to buying a house here. I busted my ass to save what I've saved and I'm not about to waste it on a house. I have distinct memories of what its like to barely scrape by and have no desire to live like that again if I can help it.

The jobs we have are unfortunately heavily tied to large international and hence unaffordable cities. Its not like there's not work elsewhere. But moving elsewhere- even a supposedly decent city like Austin- would probably mean financial uncertainty. I am totally prepared to do something else for a living- even if that means working at a Big Box store. But if we do that then everything else needs to be taken care of- cash for a house, adequate retirement savings, and some emergency cash. In other words- we're working in reverse, saving the nest egg and then semi-retiring. The economic world of today is a very different place and my gut feeling is to save while you can because tomorrow you never know when whatever company is going to downsize or ship yet more jobs overseas.

Lastly- If I were to move back prematurely its possible that if things went south I would myself become a financial burden to my parents- who instilled me with the sense of financial responsibility I now posses. Had these been normal times the decision would be easier. But seeing how the economy is in a seemingly endless spiral I'm not sure right now is the best time to be moving.

But to be sure- we do know that the Bay Area is not financially desirable to us. We WILL move at some point to a cheaper place. But timing is crucial and once that financial goal is met- we will do so and take the plunge.

edvard2,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. What you are saying makes perfect sense. Once you have struggled financially you never look at anything the same way again.

The reality we all live with is that it takes very little to be wiped out today. A healthy bank account doesn't last long when the medical bills start rolling in. It is challenging to find the balance between being fiscally responsible and taking chances because there are no guarantees about tomorrow.

I guess it involves considering the potential worst case scenarios and deciding which ones are the easiest to live with.

I understand not wanting to end up needing help from your parents. But do they see it the same way? As they get older, they might value your presence in their lives more than your complete financial freedom. Obviously I don't know them or you, but it is worth considering that they might not view it the same way as they have in the past.

My Folks were not that well off when I was growing up. As such they really haven't saved up a ton of money for retirement. They'll be fine but they're definitely not in a situation where they could help us if we needed it.

Insurance is a big concern for me. I know way too many people who've gone bankrupt from medical issues because they either didn't have insurance or they had inadequate insurance. If we got jobs elsewhere, insurance would be key- perhaps more so than the income. At one point I actually repaired household appliances and other mechanical things as a side job. I could probably fall back on that but the insurance would be ridiculous if we were to insure ourselves.

But basically... the idea is to eventually move closer to my folks to a semi-successful city- whether its in Austin, Raleigh, or maybe even Nashville- figure out the whole job situation, buy a ho-hum but adequate house for 150k or less, and live frugal yet comfortable lives. Its a nice dream. Hopefully it will come true someday.

We went to Nashville a few years ago. Pretty nice little city. Might be a good option as its not quite on the radar like Austin is.

I greatly enjoyed the exchange between edvard2 and Living a quiet life in the Midwest. Good points are made on both sides:

On the one hand, the longer you stay in the high-end city the more you can save to ensure future financial stability. Of course, this presumes that you are really are saving -- sadly, it's all too easy to allow the higher cost of living (not to mention a foolish home purchase!) to eat away at that higher income. And I agree that financial security seems like a goal that is both harder and more challenging to achieve these days...

On the other hand, the time with aging parents is precious. But I think this can be generalized: I'd hazard a guess that when most of us are dreaming about a move to Austin, Nashville, etc. we are really dreaming about a different pace of life where we can enjoy other aspects of life outside of work. This could also mean the extra time with kids, extended family, or time to enjoy the beautiful surroundings, etc. All of this has a real value.

These are the real tradeoffs that make this choice so hard! (and a really exceptional thread)

jpd says

On the other hand, the time with aging parents is precious. But I think this can be generalized: I’d hazard a guess that when most of us are dreaming about a move to Austin, Nashville, etc. we are really dreaming about a different pace of life where we can enjoy other aspects of life outside of work.

I've had the experience of seeing what its like "over there" retroactively. As having spent the first 21 years in NC and then having moved to first the East Coast and the last 12 here in Cali I have a perspective of the differences. As mentioned my parents are not rich by any means. Neither have high-paying jobs. Yet they own a big chunk of land with a pretty nice house, a pool, camper, and 2 newer cars. They live fairly comfortably with a lifestyle that would require a 500k salary or more in the Bay Area. I say this only because the way they live is more the exception in that area: People can actually have normal jobs making normal salaries and still have a decent standard of living. My experiences on the coasts has made me feel that both coasts are more like their own countries. The cost of living and economic stratification makes them more akin to a 3rd world country; the middle class essentially went extinct years ago and it now requires an upper middle class income to attain a lower middle class standard of living. I think this is why the Southeast is getting so many transplants simply because there are fewer and fewer parts of the country where the middle class lifestyle that used to be prevalent in the US could more or less function and the SE is one last stronghold.

In no way am I saying I want a huge house, new cars, and stuff like that. Its just that from having lived where I've lived I know that we could be doing a lot better and not have near the financial pressures on us if we were elsewhere- assuming at least adequate jobs were found.

Re: the insurance issue... Even if you have great insurance, it really guarantees nothing. We purchase very good insurance with what is probably considered the top company in our state. Even then, we've had to continually up our deductible the past five years in order to not get completely priced out.

This year we went with an HSA which kept our monthly premium the same, but increased what we have to pay every time we do something. I dislike the HSA immensely, but that was the choice we made. I'd like to go back to regular coverage next year but I anticipate by the time our re-enrollment comes around this fall our premium for that will be approaching $1k a month. (This is for one single and one adult with child. You have to have a minimum of two employees to get this insurance and it is cheaper this way than a family plan.)

My husband and I have finally reached the point where we have wondered if we will simply have to forgo health insurance. A premium of $1k a month is a lot of money for us. And even then we still have to pay prescription copays, doctor visit copays, physical therapy copays, etc. It's truly depressing, but we cannot mentally make the leap to go without.

Even with insurance, if something significant happened to us... The 80/20 hospital coverage would still kill us.

I have no idea any longer what "enough" is to not feel anxious about how you would handle financial emergencies. My personal belief is there isn't "enough" possible for most people to ever really be ready for retirement or medical emergencies. This is part of why I believe that having strong personal networks is going to be critical in the years ahead for many people in the middle class. Many of those in the middle class are going to need to depend on the kindness of friends and family to make it through financially.

The real question is, how will the NC, Austin, etc of the world transform in this upcoming crisis? Will there be more crime because there are not enough jobs? Will there be lots of influx of refugees from both coasts that drive up the price and COL just as much?

The biggest problem I see with these cities is the lack of jobs, especially high level jobs. Here, it is not that hard to find a position paying $200K, and family income of $300K+ is dime a dozen. Over there, it will be very hard for both to keep the same income level, so essentially you may be taking a 50% income hit, and the potential of making even higher income is also severely compromised. Over a period of 10, 15 years, that will have a huge financial impact that you can hardly ignore. I have had many friends, myself included, looking for opportunities outside the Bay Area, and we can hardly overcome the huge discrepancy in job and pay prospect. Career is not something you can mothball, if you are not in a high-impact, high-visibility job for a while, you cannot get back onto the ladder any more.

Of course, one could always opt for a different kind of life at a place with lower COL, it is true that you lower pay can stretch much further. But, will these lower COL towns and cities remain so always? Aside from housing, I don't find any cost difference in other aspects of life, the organic grocery in these areas cost about the same, the cars aren't cheaper, and the insurance coverage of local employers are less comprehensive, and you have less take-home to pay for a good medical plan yourself.

However, I do think it is an excellent plan to take a sabbatical when my kids are in high school, and do the arbitrage in these areas, because by then I have saved up enough so I can afford to take a couple of years off the work as I plan to enter retirement.

Living a quiet life in the Midwest says

My husband and I have finally reached the point where we have wondered if we will simply have to forgo health insurance. A premium of $1k a month is a lot of money for us. And even then we still have to pay prescription copays, doctor visit copays, physical therapy copays, etc. It’s truly depressing, but we cannot mentally make the leap to go without.

Even with insurance, if something significant happened to us… The 80/20 hospital coverage would still kill us.

I have no idea any longer what “enough” is to not feel anxious about how you would handle financial emergencies. My personal belief is there isn’t “enough” possible for most people to ever really be ready for retirement or medical emergencies.

Is it possible for you to get high-deductible catastrophic coverage? If you are disciplined and essentially self-insure with your $12K/year (i.e. put it in an account and draw down from it), you could get a $4K or higher deductible for if you truly have something catastrophic happen. In addition, you would still likely be able to benefit from the discounts that the insurance company will get you (e.g. instead of paying an extra $150 for labs, your insurance companies uses its discount to say that it's included as part of the other services; and you pay 50% of the rate for substantive stuff).

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

They’ll be worried about the next tribe over ripping out their livers.

Just like Ireland in the 1400s! Who wants to build a castle?

Here's a great interative chart for the discussion

Wages across the US

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/05/25/comparing-wages-across-the-u-s/tab/interactive/

It is not just about wage difference for the same job, it is more about the concentration of high pay jobs.

So, just wondering if people were looking to relocate, where are you going (or would you go)? If family being close were taken out of the equation and the focus would only be on affordability (housing), job market, safety, and good education for kids?

the little secret is that no one actually wants to live in the bay area

why don't you sublet your house for a year and go rent in Austin (or whereever) and see how it goes?

corntrollio says

Is it possible for you to get high-deductible catastrophic coverage? If you are disciplined and essentially self-insure with your $12K/year (i.e. put it in an account and draw down from it), you could get a $4K or higher deductible for if you truly have something catastrophic happen. In addition, you would still likely be able to benefit from the discounts that the insurance company will get you (e.g. instead of paying an extra $150 for labs, your insurance companies uses its discount to say that it’s included as part of the other services; and you pay 50% of the rate for substantive stuff).

corntrollio,

We wish we could buy catastrophic coverage for something major and pay everything else as we go. That kind of insurance just isn't available from what we've found.

The current insurance we have now at $711+ a month already has a deductible of $4k. A $4k deductible isn't catastrophic coverage any longer. That is REGULAR coverage. An acquaintance told us that he has an $8k deductible through his work.

We feel like we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. We have a small child and do not want to be without insurance. My husband and I both have what would probably qualify as pre-existing conditions. We've both had work-related troubles with our backs and necks. Nothing major and we recovered with physical therapy. But if anything significant ever came up with our backs or necks in any way and we were with another company like BC/BS, they wouldn't pay anything. They would use the pre-exisiting condition loophole. We know because we switched to them for one year and went back to our other company. It was like BC/BS was looking for ANY reason not to cover something. So we really don't want to drop our coverage out of concern for what might happen.

On the other hand, I have a feeling when the renewal comes this fall, we may just have no other choice and may join the ranks for the uninsured and pray for the best.

I debate this issue all the time myself. I am from TN and have lived all over the South, where it's much cheaper.

At the moment, I'm staying put for business purposes, but I fully intend to move when I get ready to phase down my career. I've thought about taking off early, but worry about the portability of what I've built outside of the Bay Area. I'm still not convinced that I couldn't live someplace else just a plane ride away and still keep the same career with a cheaper cost of living.

Living a quiet life in the Midwest says

They would use the pre-exisiting condition loophole. We know because we switched to them for one year and went back to our other company. It was like BC/BS was looking for ANY reason not to cover something.

That shouldn't be the case if you have had continuous coverage throughout. You should be able to provide to BC/BS a Certificate of Creditable Coverage from the prior insurer and avoid the pre-existing conditions exception.

The pre-existing conditions issue is also scheduled to go away in 2014 under the recent health insurance changes.

OO says

The biggest problem I see with these cities is the lack of jobs, especially high level jobs. Here, it is not that hard to find a position paying $200K, and family income of $300K+ is dime a dozen

Jobs in the tech industry that pay $200k in Austin are as rare as unicorns.

C Boy says

OO says

The biggest problem I see with these cities is the lack of jobs, especially high level jobs. Here, it is not that hard to find a position paying $200K, and family income of $300K+ is dime a dozen

Jobs in the tech industry that pay $200k in Austin are as rare as unicorns.

Employee count of a couple top employers.
Intel 82,500
HP 324,600
Cisco 70,700
Oracle 105,000
Seagate 52,600

Total
over 630,000

But as you will notice we dont have all of the 630,000 jobs listed above, more like under 5%. The rest of the 95% plus can certainly be found in other states and overseas.

Jobs are out there, but not in the Bay Area because of high home prices. Who will be next to get the axe ?
If your making $200K around these parts, you better be bringing in Revenue dollars to justify your pay...else
your just overhead.

Bay Area Runner says

I’m still not convinced that I couldn’t live someplace else just a plane ride away and still keep the same career with a cheaper cost of living.

They are called in field Sales People, Account Executives, who work for SV employers and very often along with high salary earn heft commissions. ALOT OF COMMISSION $$$$$.
Earnings are high, living is cheap and lunch with customer is paid by your employer. And of course there are annual Sales Conferences/Trade Shows in Vegas.

t wong,

When I worked for Intel I was surprised how geographically spread out they were. For years the largest facility by headcount has been that in Hillsboro, OR, with those in metro Phoenix close behind. Intel even has design facilities in Spain and Israel.

HP's printer division is here in Boise, although that's always vulnerable to yet another HP reorg.

C Boy says

Jobs in the tech industry that pay $200k in Austin are as rare as unicorns.

I expect Austin pays more than the Bay Area because all these Texas oil companies are making billions of dollars by doing nothing.

Wow, nice thread here. I am from NC, moved to Austin for 15 years, and am now living in SV for the past 6 months.

I completely agree with OP's comments about quality of life in rural towns.

Austin is a nice mix of small and cosmopolitan. We did buy a home here in SV, but my plan is to move back to Austin or perhaps NC where the cost of living is lower and the ease of starting a business is better.

It's been proven many times that financial happiness is not about your absolute net worth, rather it's about your relative wealth to your neighbors. Here in California, it feels like I'm about 20 years late to the party.

I guess each state has it's purpose, all things considered I'm happy to experience the differences.

NCTXCA says

financial happiness is not about your absolute net worth, rather it’s about your relative wealth to your neighbors

Even for agnostics there's some common sense in the ten commandments, like Exodus 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Even the concepts about money and what makes a person happy belie some sort of statement of values in the term "financial happiness". Assuming it is a worthy concept though, "financial happiness" ought to be for one to be able to have the financial wherewithal to be happy. If being happy means having more than one's neighbors, well, there will always be someone out there with more, so a person like that will never be happy.

If financial happiness is about having more money than the neighbors, then one should hold out by being in the Bay Area for as long as possible. Because every years goes by, your net worth is going to increase far more than the "neighbors" in NC, or Austin, or whatever second- third-tier cities out there, and the late leavers will always leave with a bigger coffer.

So the early leavers may be happy in NC for a while, until a late leaver from NYC or SF move in next to him a decade later, with 3x his net worth, lol.

OO,
I think you repeated my message, that if ones need to have more than the neighbors to be happy, one will always be unhappy 'cause there's always gonna be someone else with more.

Wealth is defined by the choices you have, not the material things you own.

NCTXCA says

Wealth is defined by the choices you have, not the material things you own.

My comments were about 'financial happiness' and comparing oneself to one's neighbors.

Blah, blah, blah…… Now did anyone notice that for the first time in as long as I’ve been coming here religiously on a nightly basis that the daily update is 3 HOURS LATE?!?!

I say it’s time everyone dip in their pocket and send Mr. K a little something to keep his forum up!!