|
My wife and I moved from coastal Southern California (Ventura) to Riverside and then to Houston (for work, mostly). 160k buys you absolutely nothing in Ventura. 160k buys you an old house in a bad neighborhood in Riverside, 160k buys you a brand new 5/3 in a nice neighborhood in "Houston." Contrary to popular belief, we did not take a pay cut moving here (Veterinarian, Accountant). We don't pay a state income tax, but the toll roads are everywhere. The weather and the flatness are the biggest challenges for me. I miss the pine tree covered mountainous forest and the beautiful pacific beach, but Houston is a wholly cosmopolitan and very diverse city. It's an amalgamation of "The South" and the southwest/frontier/cowboy. The TVs in the barber shop are either on Football or Fox News. I don't know Houston culture terribly well as it relates to Texas, but I'm told it's leaning more and more left as it brings in people from all over. The building is happening everywhere, freeway expansion, housing. Thank fsm for A/C. I have to find things for the kids to do inside. Large indoor play areas are common enough. I do miss being able to just go outside whenever I please, because probably half the year it seems it's too hot for that. Still, on the whole, I think our quality of life is better here than it could've been in either Ventura or Riverside. If money wasn't a factor I would most definitely move back to Ventura. Sadly, weather isn't enough reason to stay.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
duodenum posted:If money wasn't a factor I would most definitely move back to Ventura. Sadly, weather isn't enough reason to stay. Yeah it's pretty sad how CA is becoming so unaffordable for people with regular jobs due to the focus on home appreciation and also the big housing bubbles in many areas. A good article from a local paper on how home affordability impacted neighborhoods: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news_features/weekly25/covermain.shtml For example Palo Alto used to be a balanced working/middle class neighborhood but now it's really tough for regular families to live there to home value boom. So you pretty much end up with old money over time without balanced demographics in the neighborhood. etalian fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Nov 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
Palo Alto is still balanced. You have the rich people in PA and the poors in East PA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
If you ever want a laugh, read the comments on the Palo Alto Weekly's website. You get the balanced gamut of "PA used to be affordable till those darn techies" to "Don't rebuild the bridge over 101, that's where all of the speeders come from". Also every other thread is either "development in PA is too hard!" or "developers in PA run the place and do whatever they want!". Its one of my favorite stress releases. http://paloaltoonline.com/square/ Edit: for example this thread on why "public transit is filled with scary people" http://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/2013/11/19/why-i-dont-take-public-transit- Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Nov 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Palo Alto is still balanced. You have the rich people in PA and the poors in East PA. The latter which are slowly being pushed out to places in the Central Valley or elsewhere. Same with the bad areas of Oakland and Hayward. About a decade ago I was talking to a Eurogoon about the structure of our cities and I said that only the really rich and the poor regular workers lived in our cities, but it turns out SF has now started to be more structured like a European city - dirty poors out in the boonies and rich folks living closer or in the city. There's just so many highly paid folks along the peninsula and south bay that it pushes the entire market up drastically. We'll probably get another downturn of sorts in the industry and the insane appreciation will stop for a while. The process of taking old industrial areas and converting them in to dense town houses, apartments, and condos continues though. Given the insane job market I don't expect things to utterly crash as long as the bay area continues to be a huge nexus for venture capital and massive amounts of high-end tech workers, including a shitload of asian (primarily chinese and indian) immigrants. The businesses are here because of the talent pool and experience, and the immigrants have fairly large networks and support structures here. It's amazing seeing the change in the census data from 2000 to 2010, having grown up in the East Bay. Factor in the realities of a lot of the high-end talent being very visibly aware of red-state politics, I'm not worried just yet. By the time that places like Texas or elsewhere are an equivalent place to live and work, it will be because (like say Colorado) they've been flipped blue and the old political machines overthrown or co-opted. For a while I had heard of NC as being a good tech hub, and now that's largely not something I hear at all, due to the shenanigans there. I remember reading something like "as goes California, goes the nation" and I think it's still largely true. Industry that could have left California for another country continues to do so (rather than to another state), although the country is not always China (for manufacturing) or India (for tech outsourcing) like before. Some industry that has left will go to other states, but it's largely the industries that are politically-entrenched and highly subsidized like Defense or Telco.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If you ever want a laugh, read the comments on the Palo Alto Weekly's website. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
etalian posted:On the bright side cost of living especially housing is much cheaper than states such as CA but has lots of downsides such as a few months of miserable weather in the summer. I live in LA which looks similar throughout most of the year...
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I live in LA which looks similar throughout most of the year... But Galveston ain't Catalina. Edit: And LA as an oil city has nothing on the Houston Ship Channel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But Galveston ain't Catalina. Specifically, I live in Long Beach, CA. The Port of Long Beach is the second largest port in the United States (the largest is Port of LA, which is right next door). Combined, they generate an obscene amount of pollution. Oh, did I mention that their breakwaters also make the ocean unsafe for swimming due to elevated levels of pollutants and bacterial activity? This is literally what the beach looks like: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
I'll see your trash and raise you refineries in residential neighborhoods  ! Living in Long Beach is equivalent living in Baytown, Texas City, Beaumont, or Port Arthur where refineries dominate the town and there are no beaches just swamps. Then even if you drive to the best beaches in Texas, they won't be as trashed as LA beaches, but they'll be worse than Santa Monica, and not even in the same league as an amazing California beach. Remember, the offshore rigs mean trash litters even the most obscure beach.My point being, its a lot easier to escape the awful things in LA, but in Houston there aren't many better options than Houston itself. Galveston sucks since the hurricane, so basically you're left with hunting, fishing, and indoor activities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Attempts to try and square Dallas and Houston with San Francisco and Los Angeles are sad and hilarious. They are not the same thing and cannot ever be, for hundreds of reasons that all boil down to: Texans. Places where everyone apologizes for not living on a cattle ranch encounter immense difficulty ever being taken seriously as a city.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
California gave us Wally George. And Wally George is the best. So I'm currently streaming 10 hours of Wally George!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Pervis posted:The latter which are slowly being pushed out to places in the Central Valley or elsewhere. Same with the bad areas of Oakland and Hayward. About a decade ago I was talking to a Eurogoon about the structure of our cities and I said that only the really rich and the poor regular workers lived in our cities, but it turns out SF has now started to be more structured like a European city - dirty poors out in the boonies and rich folks living closer or in the city.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
A bunch of Hawaiian legislators woke up one day and turned on the TV and saw that the SCOTUS ruling that California can go ahead and keep doing the gay marriage thing. "Hey, we should totally do that" said one of the state legislators while passing the bong to the governor. And so gay marriage was passed So thanks California for being so persistent about getting this gay marriage thing done, since it seems like Hawaii really started moving on the issue as soon as the SCOTUS ruling came down. You guys can come hang out sometime I guess, if you guys ever want to try surfing in the winter without a wetsuit (or without freezing your balls off)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
I took my dog to the beach today in San Francisco. It took about 10 minutes to get there. The beach was clean,it was about 60 degrees out, nice breeze. As a beautiful sunset went down behind a group of surfers, a pod of pacific white sided dolphins appeared and frolicked in the surf right in front of us. The beach was impeccably clean despite being in the middle of a metropolitan area of 7 million people. It is ridiculously expensive to live here, but that's because it is a ridiculously great place to live.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:A bunch of Hawaiian legislators woke up one day and turned on the TV and saw that the SCOTUS ruling that California can go ahead and keep doing the gay marriage thing. "Hey, we should totally do that" said one of the state legislators while passing the bong to the governor. And so gay marriage was passed I love me some Hawaii and Hawaiians. As far as I am concerned you are honorary Californians forever. I hope you feel sorta the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
predicto posted:I took my dog to the beach today in San Francisco. It took about 10 minutes to get there. The beach was clean,it was about 60 degrees out, nice breeze. As a beautiful sunset went down behind a group of surfers, a pod of pacific white sided dolphins appeared and frolicked in the surf right in front of us. The beach was impeccably clean despite being in the middle of a metropolitan area of 7 million people. Not quite. It's expensive as poo poo because a) high quality jobs are concentrated there and b) San Francisco city council is refusing to allow more real estate development, causing rents to skyrocket. Seriously it has nothing to do with weather or the beaches. The weather in SF is actually not that great - foggy most of the year and colder than most of California.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Not quite. It's expensive as poo poo because a) high quality jobs are concentrated there and b) San Francisco city council is refusing to allow more real estate development, causing rents to skyrocket. I'm not just talking about the weather, but I do like the cool weather with no bugs. It is just astounding how much awesome stuff is packed into this tiny 7 mile by 7 mile city. Today at the beach was just a microcosm. It's like the best parts of Manhattan and LA food and culture, taken out and combined with the beauty of the northern California coast, with a lot of good quirkiness but way too many hobos. I also wasn't just talking about San Francisco (although I do love it best). I was talking about the Bay Area in general. I can't imagine moving to Texas or anywhere else unless economics absolutely forced me to do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Not quite. It's expensive as poo poo because a) high quality jobs are concentrated there and b) San Francisco city council is refusing to allow more real estate development, causing rents to skyrocket. Because these factors are totally unrelated to the quality of environs?  There's a lot more than the weather and beaches to an urban environment and in general SF is top notch.There are a lot of jobs here because a lot of high quality workers are willing to live here which has something to do with the quality of life available. Restrictions on real estate development has something to do with the scenic views and available public space and the value people place on living in SF. The fact that a lot of people commute from SF to their job in the Valley kinda points the fact that there's something about the quality of life in SF that is very attractive that is unrelated to where jobs are. Also I'm pretty sure the SF city council is allowing a lot more development than nearby communities....
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Not quite. It's expensive as poo poo because a) high quality jobs are concentrated there and b) San Francisco city council is refusing to allow more real estate development, causing rents to skyrocket. The city council isn't allowing real estate development, that's why they just approved by a huge margin (I think 9-2) an exemption to the city's building height limit and waived the affordable-housing requirements (in exchange for a paltry token $11 million payment into the city housing fund, from a high-rise where condos would start at $2 million a piece), which the voters rejected by ballot measure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
predicto posted:I love me some Hawaii and Hawaiians. As far as I am concerned you are honorary Californians forever. I hope you feel sorta the same. The Californians are always welcome, just so long as you're willing to drive a little slower while you're here (in Honolulu you don't get a choice because of traffic, in places like Maui the speed limits are just really low. It's dangerous to drive fast and smoke weed at the same time, you gotta go slow)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Not quite. It's expensive as poo poo because a) high quality jobs are concentrated there and b) San Francisco city council is refusing to allow more real estate development, causing rents to skyrocket.  back to bitching about SF rents, unironically my favorite California chat next to foodchat.As mentioned, weather is actually amazing. A lot of people like the fog and cool ~60f year round is great. It's awesome to live in a place where air conditioners are non-existent and you aren't being forced to stay indoors for large portions of the year (hello southwest). b) is just false. There's a lot of private development going on and SF is already one of the densest cities in the world (and second densest in America). Sadly, a lot of the new housing is just 'rich housing' or Bayview/Hunter's Point-esque projects. There is also limits on just how much can be built while keeping some of the city-scape and 'small big city' feel. The housing problem is multi-faceted with landlords using loopholes/lovely provisions in housing acts to evict or purposely drive out old tenants with shady tactics and sometimes even bribing them large sums to leave which they easily make up. There is some 'affordable housing' but there could be more of it and it's often not well serviced in terms of public transit with usually one or two very packed uncomfortable lines that are often delayed. All the while there is a bunch of NIMBYing of public transit such that it doesn't get improved to the degree it needs to be in the area while rich workers get their own private transit options. A lot of the public housing is also in places like Bayview-Hunters Point where there's large pollution and they're delegated to the outskirts of the city where the rich can pretend they don't exist. There's some good integrated ones but also a lot of intentionally terrible located ones. I can think of more of these in lovely underserviced locations than in more integrated locations. Then there's the much larger issue that is typically getting people rallied up making news-headlines and bemoaning of rent rates--the "middle" class and families. There's a very large divide between being able to quality for affordable housing and being something like a coffee-shop worker bee that makes enough money that they can't qualify but not enough to live in the city without half a dozen roommates. This is the group that is largely poo poo out of luck. Most of the "Below-Market Rate" rentals (which there are very few) still require something like a maximum of 55% median income (~42k/yr) and is a loving lottery to get in which is almost asinine. There's not a lot of incentive to build more public/affordable housing and it would cost the local government/state a metric shitload to subsidize up to market rate or encourage more of it when they can just rake in dough from million dollar condos, and it still wouldn't solve the problem with gap in housing available for the the lower-middle class workers. VVVVVV Aye, yes this too. It also goes back to the lack of public transit to these areas too. BART is already packed to the gills with larges spots of unserviced areas as is and Golden Gate Transit is quite limited with lovely options, availability, and buses are the absolute worst form of mass public transit. In order for these areas to have more sustainable development, there first needs to be inroads made to drastically improving transit to these areas; however, a lot of people who work down in the peninsula/south-bay already have their transit nicely provided and can pretend the commute is non-existent so why bother having it improved, right? Xaris fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Nov 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
Also SF is further restricted not just by geography but by neighboring communities that are more anti-developer (Marin and large swaths of the Peninsula).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Also SF is further restricted not just by geography but by neighboring communities that are more anti-developer (Marin and large swaths of the Peninsula). Marin isn't really a viable option for commute in or out of SF, since the golden gate bridge is narrow and there's no BART service to Marin County. It's true though that there's just not much development down the peninsula. There are a lot of reserved greenspace areas that nobody would ever agree to allow to be developed, and higher-density infill is stymied by NIMBY and (probably more importantly) the difficulty involved with buying up large chunks of residential real estate in order to develop higher density. Which might actually be a good thing, since infrastructure really won't support a huge amount of development on the peninsula. The freeways are packed, the public transportation is running at capacity during commute hours, there's a limited supply of fresh water, and any money that becomes available for infrastructure development is desperately needed just to repair and maintain the aging stuff that's already there. Basically cost of living is high and not going to go down on the upper peninsula. Which actually suits most people there fine, since wages are also high, and unemployment isn't too bad. It sucks for poorer people with lower-level service jobs, but let's remember also that the City of San Francisco has one of the highest minimum wages in the country. It's a problem, but it's not a crisis, at least not yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Marin isn't really a viable option for commute in or out of SF, since the golden gate bridge is narrow and there's no BART service to Marin County. Marin doesn't have the BART because Marin doesn't want development or the people associated with it. This kinda proves my point, SF has to deal with neighbors to the north and south that will do anything possible to avoid sensible development. So instead of a BART connection to Silicon Valley, we have Caltrain and Google Buses because bedroom communities around SF strangle the regional development. All the problems you cite are exactly because the communities around SF refuse to develop and instead wanted to maintain their status quo (and inflating property values). Compared with them, SF is a pro-developer city.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 11:48
|
|
|
I've lived all over the Bay Area (and California for that matter) and absolute best weather conditions exist around Saratoga/Cupertino....no fog, rarely near freezing, rarely too hot (and cools down quickly at night in summer), and never too windy or cold outside of winter storms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
For all the anti-development talk, I've seen a huge increase of development over my life as a Menlo Park native, especially around Sand Hill Road. My parents and their old fart friends constantly pine for the days when this whole area was a lot sleepier and a lot have moved out specifically because of "overpopulation". They often move to places like Portland and contribute to those cities' own development woes. I often witness similar sentiment in the city from older folk. They all want their cute Mediterranean-style, tightly-knit small city that Herb Caen used to write about, but are pissed that they are stuck in whatever apartment they are in because YUPPIE SCUM. While many of these yuppies are indeed scum, they aren't making things easier by demanding the state of their city be frozen in amber.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:For all the anti-development talk, I've seen a huge increase of development over my life as a Menlo Park native, especially around Sand Hill Road. My parents and their old fart friends constantly pine for the days when this whole area was a lot sleepier and a lot have moved out specifically because of "overpopulation". They often move to places like Portland and contribute to those cities' own development woes. The irony of stuff like this is, back in the day Sand Hill Rd was home to a ton of manufacturing that leaked toxic chemicals into the ground and created a superfund site. People like to pine for a "good old days" that never existed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
It interests me that something that was intended as a net public good --get commuters off the road and reduce their contribution to pollution -- became a much-resented private luxury, taking up space where the public buses ought to go. I wonder if the buses were less luxurious, they'd be less resented. Don't tell me that the large companies should have put pressure on San Francisco and the Peninsula to run better bus service; nobody's got that kind of influence. (See: Google's inability to give San Francisco free wi-fi.) I get that the buses are very bad neighbors on the city streets, and I get that they're little cozy rich-people islands whizzing past the poor schmoes on the fast lanes. But I think they're a symptom rather than a cause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:It interests me that something that was intended as a net public good --get commuters off the road and reduce their contribution to pollution -- became a much-resented private luxury, taking up space where the public buses ought to go. Just wait until the rich can afford floating palaces. But yes, those buses are a weird facet of our corporate dystopia that we live in. The worst part is hearing about land owners evicting people from places to resell to yuppies since they were blessed with owning a place that randomly was selected to be close to a Google/Apple bus stop. jeeves fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Nov 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
The cause is more that Google, Facebook, et al. employ a demographic who have a strong preference for living in dense, walkable places with good public transit, but those companies have built their headquarters in peninsula suburbs that are notorious for not having those exact things.
withak fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Nov 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
There were a bunch of anecdotes and opinions cobbled together into an NY Times article this weekend: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/us/backlash-by-the-bay-tech-riches-alter-a-city.html?ref=us&_r=0
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
The answer is not for companies to relocate to SF when (at least in apple's case) they've been in their current location since the 70s, before the Millenials were even born. For one thing there simply isn't the office space. For another, and more significantly, yuppies will still behave like yuppies if they're commuting 5 miles each way instead of 45. It's truly amusing watching Millenials behave almost exactly as their parents did 30-40 years ago. And if their parents continue to be a good guide, in about a decade or so most of the Millenials will tire of the city and move out to the burbs as their parents did in the mid-80s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
Family Values posted:
I think there will be less of this if only because there are constraints now that didn't exist 30 years ago (most notably fuel prices).
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Family Values posted:The answer is not for companies to relocate to SF when (at least in apple's case) they've been in their current location since the 70s, before the Millenials were even born. For one thing there simply isn't the office space. For another, and more significantly, yuppies will still behave like yuppies if they're commuting 5 miles each way instead of 45. Well, yes you're right. Asking for complete relocation isn't what anyone is asking for but instead are asking for more tenant protections against evictions, stop NIMBYing away public transit development in lieu of private buses, etc. Satellite offices work great though. As computer parts mentioned, there are much more constraints now than back then. Fuel costs, commute time, cortisol-raising commutes (quite a health hazard), and generally recognizing that living in a soulless cul-de-sac trackhome is a depressing environment is something most Millenials are aware of and have already faced growing up. It's true that a lot will move to the "burbs" as they try to raise a family, but mostly out of a space-money constraint (because good loving luck having a 2br+ in SF) than a fear-of-poor-people/crime that drove much of the white-flight in the 70s-80s. VVVV Well, "better schools for my kids" is mostly just dogwhistle for not wanting their precious white snowflakes to be in a classroom with some poor black kid and in part with made-up media moral panics at the time of crack/AIDs/blahblah. Touche Prop 13--it's true that most major cities public schools are pretty much on par with suburban ones with a race to the bottom, but they have the luxury having very good private schools so I suspect most people will just move up to Marin or Kensington or Orinda or something close to be 'burbish' but still close to SF for that reason. Xaris fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Nov 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Xaris posted:It's true that a lot will move to the "burbs" as they try to raise a family, but mostly out of a space-money constraint (because good loving luck having a 2br+ in SF) than a fear-of-poor-people/crime that drove much of the white-flight in the 70s-80s. A lot of the movement to the suburbs in the past was driven by a desire to get better schools for your kids. Now that Prop 13 has all but murdered the California school system, there really isn't that much of an advantage toward moving to the suburbs (unless the suburb is Palo Alto or Piedmont, and good luck affording that). The schools in most of the SF suburbs are no better than the City. I suspect that a lot more of those people will stay put and try to get their kids in to magnet schools, or use their cash to send them to private schools.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Well, yes you're right. Asking for complete relocation isn't what anyone is asking for but instead are asking for more tenant protections against evictions, stop NIMBYing away public transit development in lieu of private buses, etc. Satellite offices work great though. The Times article that Hog Obituary linked, which is what I was reacting to, is about protests in the Mission against gentrification. I assure you none of those protesters gives a poo poo where the yuppies work, much less how they transport themselves to work each day. So no, I don't think satellite offices or public transit will work (for the protestors' specific grievances). Satellite offices and transit to the South Bay are probably high on the list of priorities for the yuppies though!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
If you've used the free mountain view google wifi you'd know why other communities are hesitant to allow them to try it elsewhere. Android devices can't use it for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
predicto posted:A lot of the movement to the suburbs in the past was driven by a desire to get better schools for your kids. Now that Prop 13 has all but murdered the California school system, there really isn't that much of an advantage toward moving to the suburbs (unless the suburb is Palo Alto or Piedmont, and good luck affording that). The schools in most of the SF suburbs are no better than the City. I suspect that a lot more of those people will stay put and try to get their kids in to magnet schools, or use their cash to send them to private schools. The perception of bad city schools is still there though, and is incredibly hard to dispel. As a new parent I hear it ALL the time, even from relatively young people who have tons of friends who work in the very school system that they wouldn't even consider sending their kids to. My wife works for SFUSD, so practically half of our friends also work in schools, and we all still have mutual friends who are completely clueless when it comes to the quality of SFUSD.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
computer parts posted:I think there will be less of this if only because there are constraints now that didn't exist 30 years ago (most notably fuel prices). 30 years ago (31 technically) the nationwide annual average peaked at 2.68/gallon accounting for inflation, and it didn't get that high again until 7 years ago http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2012_fotw741.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 07:00
|
|
