I think 'obscene' is the perfect word when talking about the cost of rent in SF. It's the number one factor in making me consider moving away from the area.
Why commute all that way when I can move somewhere much more reasonable and get a 3 bed house with a pool for the same price as a small 1 bed apartment in SF, AND only have a 10 minute drive to work? These places exist all over the world and contrary to popular belief around these parts, smart people and businesses do exist in places other than SV.
[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/05/your...
For the vast majority of jobs it would be time wasted. But as a software developer it's an automatic 1.5 hours per day I have to spend thinking about what I need to do.
Two hours a day is 500 hours a year on the train. That's a tremendous amount of time to be away from your loved ones for the sake of a Good Job or a Nice House.
I can understand using that time to better yourself in some way, but working for free I don't agree with.
In Austin I can get pay pretty close to Seattle, but live within 30 minutes of my office (fairly easily) and have a nice house to live in.
The financials of it isn't the end of it, though. The nightlife is better, the people are nicer, I can have a backyard, I'm not severely limiting my options by having dogs, and the weather is better (for me, but I'm used to hot). I'm significantly happier in Austin.
[1]: My 2-bedroom house that I live in by myself costs about what I was paying for my share of a 2-bedroom apartment in SF. Both required about a 10 minute commute, though I drive in Austin where I could walk in SF. It extends beyond rent, though. Everything in SF is more expensive, though nothing is quite as dramatic as the rent.
Furthermore, if you're fitness, there are so many running clubs, core classes and cycling races that go on.
Note: I moved to the bay area for a couple years before heading back to Austin (I lived in Austin for a decade before wanting to try out the bay area, no idea why people like it so much).
I live in SF, and love it.
That said, since moving from Boston, I'm so much happier. No commute, three times the space and a nicer apartment for half as much rent, better weather, close to the beach. South Carolina isn't exactly the mecca of technology, but telecommuting makes up for it.
Driving is any longer than 30 minutes to work (each way) is going to be more of a pain as you can only do so much in the car without endangering others.
Public transportation when it works well in cities leads to people tolerating longer commutes to work. If I had to commute 45 minutes in CA traffic I would be very upset.
Later, I moved to Austin, where house prices are reasonable even if you want to live close to downtown, and you don't have to worry about long commutes just to save money. I have no regrets over gaining so much of my time back, and Austin has a thriving tech community.
When people have to beat others down just to afford to live in the city, it's bad, and most people lack the talent or opportunity to make that amount of money (300k+, for a family) through decent means.
The transience, I think, is behind a lot of the build-to-flips that are degenerate gambles on social trends.
Silicon Valley happened because California land was cheap-- at one time.
The sheer number of startups and engineers in the same place can be pretty fantastic, and there isn't anywhere else that can compete (NYC to some extent, I suppose). In the end, though, it's just an unusually large collection of tech-minded individuals in what amounts to a fairly terrible place to live. YMMV, of course.
I absolutely love SF, but I never felt like home there. I think what we were missing was that sense of permanence, resulting from the high cost of housing (and therefore lack of future options).
Effing Norah, that would get you a small stately home in the North of the UK. I'm talking 15 bedrooms and a small park. You could buy a normal family house for a year's rent at that level almost anywhere outside London or Edinburgh
Second decade, 21st century and location still matters so much? What did we do wrong?
I think it's common goal for people to try and make their millions in such a place as SF so they can leave the area and live like kings elsewhere. This is fairly obvious just looking at the rents here, and in places that have the perception of creating more millionaires (usually through business) than others. You know the mindset: live rough and work hard for 5 years to earn what most people take a lifetime to earn.
Personally, I think that is possible in many places around the world, certainly places that will have a nicer standard of living, however you wish to measure that.
The percentage of people who get that is small, and it's mostly noise, not talent. I'd be happy to have boring old 7-8% per year growth in exchange for autonomy and interesting work.
Once you reach a certain point of development, your DFA light (DFA = Done Fucking Around) comes on and you're no longer happy if you don't call the shots regarding how you spend your time. The appeal of the idiocy it takes to reach $5m per year disappears after that.
I do, however, still hold onto the romantic notion that if you find a way to earn a living while doing what you love, the chances of hitting that jackpot are significantly higher.
Very well said, I think you just put a feeling/idea into words that I was having difficulty putting into words.
What's that number intended to represent? It seems (1) too small to be the cost of a house in SF suitable for a family, (2) too large to be the annual (still less the monthly) cost of renting somewhere in SF suitable for a family, and (3) too large to be the salary you need to be making in SF to afford the rent or mortgage on a house suitable for a family. Is it intended to be the amount you need for a realistic downpayment when buying a house, perhaps?
(It looks to me as if you can rent a pretty decent house in SF for, say, $6k/month, which is certainly a whole lot of money but far less than $300k/year. If you want to buy, it seems like the figure is somewhere around $1M.)
For a $1 million house, you're looking at a $4300 per month mortgage. You shouldn't be spending more than 30% of after-tax money on housing, so that means you should be making $14,000 per month post-tax, which puts you right around $300k.
You're being facetious here, hopefully.
In any case, San Francisco was never cheap, where OP's startup is.