|
spankmeister posted:I hope the bubble pops soon and all these techbros get laid off and have to live near other poor people. Why? What did those other poor people ever do to you? 
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Why? What did those other poor people ever do to you? Yeah you're right they don't deserve that, nobody does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Reading this thread while apartment hunting in Vancouver has been quite interesting. Looks like we can blame Air BnB for at least some housing woes. http://www.cknw.com/2016/02/20/research-suggests-more-airbnb-listings-than-vacant-rentals-in-vancouver/ quote:
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
kliksf posted:You know it doesn't have to be that extreme, you limit the AirBnBs and the bullshit evictions, get the hotshot companies that can pay their CEOs 8 figures to pay their fair share of taxes and you're 90 percent there. I moved here in 91 much like all the other people moving here, because I loved the city and found great opportunities here. I don't begrudge the people who come here simply for wanting to live here. But I learned the homeless weren't my enemy and found them easy enough to tolerate I came here from Washington, DC so I'm no stranger to homelessness. And yes the extreme weirdos and the overall magnitude of the situation has gotten worse over the years and a lot worse in recent years. But I don't blame the homeless people for the lovely way they've been treated. I've watched the city's diversity go down and racism go up and with that all these complaints from rich people who want special treatment because they're tech gods and shouldn't have to pay high taxes or deal with the consequences of their philosophies which justify their own greed. It was not some fantasy that there were more black people living here, this town is so whitewashed it's no wonder the new transplants are racist, classist douchebags who demand the city assist them in their fantasy about how this city should be. gently caress everyone else is the theme of all the techbro open letters. But really, San Francisco is a horrible place for a major cosmopolitan center. Its a 7x7 mile square half built on land filled into the bay and surrounded on 3 sides by an ocean so cold you can't comfortably swim in it. Did I mention its on an earthquake fault zone and will probably be rocked by a 7.5 earthquake in our lifetimes? I'm just not sure the physical city of San Francisco is a good place for the idea of San Francisco.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Wait what does a one BR apartment have to do with anything? A 1 BR next to a screeching elevated train (distanced measured in feet, not yards) can run you over $2500/mo in NYC. Inflated neighborhood prices are insane. Unless you are living in the poorest neighborhood, getting an apartment alone is nearly impossible if you don't make good money. What are the prices like in San Fran? 1-bedrooms in the "trendy" (not rich) areas in San Francisco proper are $4000-$5000 a month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
cheese posted:I'm just not sure the physical city of San Francisco is a good place for the idea of San Francisco. They say the same about New Orleans and it could be the case with most of our coastal cities one way or the other. We're all one crisis away from being refugees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:1-bedrooms in the "trendy" (not rich) areas in San Francisco proper are $4000-$5000 a month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It's true though that SF is more comparable to Manhattan than NYC as a whole, and I'm sure you can find similar prices in trendy parts of Manhattan. Parts of Brooklyn are now as expensive as Manhattan, unless you specifically mean the wealthiest corners of Manhattan I guess. I imagine Western Queens is next, as it is already well on its way and LIC is filling up with luxury buildings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
cheese posted:Hey now, San Francisco has a long, proud tradition of racism dating back more than a century! Don't let the techbros appropriate that too! This is true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Parts of Brooklyn are now as expensive as Manhattan, unless you specifically mean the wealthiest corners of Manhattan I guess. I imagine Western Queens is next, as it is already well on its way and LIC is filling up with luxury buildings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:"Capitalism" didn't trick anybody. You have a significant number of highly-paid techbros being told that SF is the cool place to be, they congregate there, where it was already busy and high-rent, and BAM! Most of the people who have "real" reasons to go there (or already lived there beforehand) are priced out. Have a few high profilestories in Inc., Fast Company and whatever about how Omaha, Nebraska is the next big thing, have one or two companies move there, and you'll have the same thing happening. Although on a smaller scale since it's not already as dense as SF has been, I imagine. it's not just techbros bidding up the prices. every moderately artsy leftist twentysomething in america harbors a secret dream of moving to berkley or williamsburg, to be among the artsy set. in suburban atlanta i know at least a dozen people who moved to the hipper parts of the country and most ended up coming back when the dream faded and they couldn't justify the expense for the lifestyle bar none the single biggest contributor to san fran's insane rents are the moderately artsy leftist twentysomethings of the 1970's who put down roots and now block new development so that it doesn't ruin the neighborhood. these are the same freeway revolters who preserved these areas and others like them across the united states back when municipal planning departments were trying to put interstates through all the old streetcar suburbs, except now they're preserving those same streetcar suburbs full of nice victorian single family homes on leafy streets a few miles from downtown from being replaced with modern condominiums and multitenant buildings. which is of course their perogative but the number of techbros bidding up rents and builting startup mansions is vanishingly small compared to the bulk of aging liberals who made it, built a home, and are leveraging their power with city hall to lock entire neighborhoods in stasis as they were before the current residents got bald and saggy the reason people don't like to confront this is that there's no easy solution. everyone's generally in favor of both people being able to age gracefully in their own neighborhoods as well as neighborhood growth to accommodate new residents. basically san francisco is what happens when the current residents have the financial and legal means to fight gentrification, you end up with rapidly skyrocketing rents as pent up market desire hits full on NIMBYism and until one backs down you'll see poo poo get more expensive
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:1-bedrooms in the "trendy" (not rich) areas in San Francisco proper are $4000-$5000 a month. Christ! I though the San Diego area was bad ($1500/month). It makes you wonder how much rent is in places people don't actually want to  Welp. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Christ! I though the San Diego area was bad ($1500/month). It makes you wonder how much rent is in places people don't actually want to in the Inland Empire, you can get a 3 bedroom house for ~$1400/month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:It makes you wonder how much rent is in places people don't actually want to (it's an oil-and-gas boomtown with nowhere around for miles, so land holders can squeeze ludicrous rents out of workers)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Eat the rich.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
The thing that really blows my mind when I look at rents like those is that in WI landlords are still somehow able to make an acceptable profit despite the rates being so low. Which means that that extra $1-4k you're paying to live in CA is mostly just profit that goes straight to the landowner.Your Dunkle Sans posted:Eat the rich. And then squat in their newly empty penthouses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Nato Green is a local comic who wrote this piece for Vice about being an SF landlord http://www.vice.com/read/two-unspeakable-truths-about-the-san-francisco-housing-market
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:The thing that really blows my mind when I look at rents like those is that in WI landlords are still somehow able to make an acceptable profit despite the rates being so low. Which means that that extra $1-4k you're paying to live in CA is mostly just profit that goes straight to the landowner. They still have to pay property taxes, and land in general is more expensive in California. You would pay more to buy a house in California than in Wisconsin as well. Here in Louisville, a decent house will be in the 100k to 200k range and you can get one for around 50k if you're willing to live in a bad neighborhood. If your house is worth 400k or more, you're rich as hell. In LA, a home that price is the absolute bottom of the market.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:The thing that really blows my mind when I look at rents like those is that in WI landlords are still somehow able to make an acceptable profit despite the rates being so low. Which means that that extra $1-4k you're paying to live in CA is mostly just profit that goes straight to the landowner. well, yeah. if you have a thing that six other people want to buy, and they keep outbidding each other, when are you going to stop them and say "now now fellas, let's not get overheated. i'll sell it at a ten percent markup and we'll draw straws to see who the buyer is" new construction would be going crazy in san francisco right now if local government allowed it BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:They still have to pay property taxes, and land in general is more expensive in California. You would pay more to buy a house in California than in Wisconsin as well. Here in Louisville, a decent house will be in the 100k to 200k range and you can get one for around 50k if you're willing to live in a bad neighborhood. If your house is worth 400k or more, you're rich as hell. In LA, a home that price is the absolute bottom of the market. neither of those are six times more expensive than other metro cities. the only reason land costs more is because what you can build on it is capped. property taxes are actually pretty low comparatively because of the stupendously hilarious state law prop 13. i mean there's a little knock on effect because of the climate and the fact that san fran is a peninsula but aside from that it's all just a pile of laws each driving rents higher in the face of huge market demand boner confessor fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
kliksf posted:You know it doesn't have to be that extreme, you limit the AirBnBs and the bullshit evictions, get the hotshot companies that can pay their CEOs 8 figures to pay their fair share of taxes and you're 90 percent there. I moved here in 91 much like all the other people moving here, because I loved the city and found great opportunities here. I don't begrudge the people who come here simply for wanting to live here. But I learned the homeless weren't my enemy and found them easy enough to tolerate I came here from Washington, DC so I'm no stranger to homelessness. And yes the extreme weirdos and the overall magnitude of the situation has gotten worse over the years and a lot worse in recent years. But I don't blame the homeless people for the lovely way they've been treated. I've watched the city's diversity go down and racism go up and with that all these complaints from rich people who want special treatment because they're tech gods and shouldn't have to pay high taxes or deal with the consequences of their philosophies which justify their own greed. It was not some fantasy that there were more black people living here, this town is so whitewashed it's no wonder the new transplants are racist, classist douchebags who demand the city assist them in their fantasy about how this city should be. gently caress everyone else is the theme of all the techbro open letters. Actually it does need to be that extreme, or close to it, because the "feel" of SF that you and your ilk are trying to put under glass isn't tenable. What you're whining about is the endgame of the policies "your" group maintained. You watched diversity go down long before the techbros ever showed up; there were old jokes about how SF was a city of love after after kicking the black people out to Oakland long before Facebook existed. Rents in SF have always been staggering; I don't know what total fantasy you live in where rents weren't brutal in 2004 because I was looking back then coming from Sacramento and it was 2-3x the cost for a 1B outside of the city for anything that wasn't a slum or a 40 minute commute. The north(-north) bay town I live in now has similar stupendous (compared to 10 years ago) rental costs for the largely the same reasons except the housing crash made things worse for us by mangling what little development got approved. Now if you didn't buy during the housing crash you're basically screwed. If you want to point a finger climb up to Coit Tower and look straight down and east - those dilapidated-cute (shabby-riche?) houses with goofy backyards and nice views of the bay or a quaint walkway could house 10x as many people as they do. Zachack fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
seriously. check out this zoning map of the city of san fran http://www.sf-planning.org/?page=1569 see the darkish yellow areas on the right side, next to the red areas? that's where the techbros are bidding up luxury condos see the light yellow areas on the left side, the long gentle sweep towards the ocean which is one of the most pleasant places to own a single family home in america? that's where all the middle aged former hippies live there's a lot more of one than the other. and im not saying either side is in the wrong, i'm just pointing out who has more impact on high rents
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:property taxes are actually pretty low comparatively because of the stupendously hilarious state law prop 13. To be completely fair Prop 13 came about for legitimate reasons. For the uninitiated before prop 13 property taxes in CA were based on a home's current value rather than what you paid for it. This was fine until property values started going up at an insane rate and all of a sudden people found themselves taxed out of their own homes through no fault of their own. Prop 13 protected homeowners from this by basing these taxes on the value at purchase and limiting increases to 1% yearly (unless you sell the house of update it). This sucks for the general fund and it lets the wealthy get away with murder, but at the same time I'm not sure I'd want to own a home in this state without it. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:To be completely fair Prop 13 came about for legitimate reasons. For the uninitiated before prop 13 property taxes in CA were based on a home's current value rather than what you paid for it. This was fine until property values started going up at an insane rate and all of a sudden people found themselves taxed out of their own homes through no fault of their own. Prop 13 protected homeowners from this by basing these taxes on the value at purchase and limiting increases to 1% yearly (unless you sell the house of update it). This sucks for the general fund and it lets the wealthy get away with murder, but at the same time I'm not sure I'd want to own a home in this state without it. yeah, this cuts at the very root of gentrification itself but also contributes to gigantic increases in rents gentrification is a word people like to throw around that basically means "changes in housing prices" which generally in most american cities disproportionately impacts poor minorities for historic/economic reasons i'm not going to elaborate on at this time, just trust me. but when you get a law like this codified on the state level it advantages all homeowners, from poor minorities to middle class minorities to middle class whites to wealthy whites etc. it advantages all property owners. which means it doesn't just impact the gentrified, vulnerable property owners, but all property owners, and gives them leverage to determine how the housing market in their locality operates. which, whether or not you think it's a good or bad thing, means housing prices will take off like a rocket when there is a ton of positive hedonic pressure my only annoyance is when middle class white people use gentrification as a cloak to maintain their lifestyle in a shifting market because it draws a false alliance between poor homeowners and middle class homeowners where the latter appropriate the grievances of the former as a shield against what is otherwise a completely normal market function
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Where Rt 18 meets the NJ Turnpike there's lots of underused commercial and residential space. And they are always building more. It's crazy. I'm fine with living in MegaCityOne but some ideas I've mentioned could be developed. The suburban office market in NJ is really floundering unless you have good transit access. If that's your solution, it's already happening, even moreso in areas like Atlanta. Old office complexes are getting torn down left and right for mixed use complexes. In contrast though, where I'm at now (more urban although not a big city) , there are a lot of vacant lots/buildings in prime areas because the landowners have unrealistic expectations, and hence the land sits idle for decades. Spacewolf posted:That area, actually? Give it a few years, if Rutgers succeeds in doing something on the IP side there might be hope for New Brunswick. Eh, New Brunswick is pretty good especially where considering where it used to be. They've made great progress, and redeveloping Ferren is another huge step forward. I think a big problem has been that they keep chasing a white whale and nearly missing it (they lost BlackRock's back office operations to Philadelphia in 2006, and Roche Pharmaceuticals to NYC two years ago.) New Brunswick has Rutgers, two big hospitals, and Johnson & Johnson, and they keep shooting for that another marquee tenant instead of going for a lot of smaller plays. Hence, it takes a lot longer to get things done. It also doesn't help that housing is pretty expensive because there aren't a ton of factories to convert into housing, so it's all luxury with not very much in the middle at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Honestly the stuff in the OP sounds like a standard case of affluenza, more than anything else. There was a case not so long ago of some rich lady beating up an air hostess because the nuts she ordered were the wrong ones. I don't even think it's the majority of techbros/rich people. But there's just some people out there that, if you ever given them power without accountability, they will act like dicks. Like here's a hot cultural reference: imagine geoffery lannister making it big on the app store, of course they're going to complain about how ugly homeless people are.readingatwork posted:To be completely fair Prop 13 came about for legitimate reasons. -snip-
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:To be completely fair Prop 13 came about for legitimate reasons. For the uninitiated before prop 13 property taxes in CA were based on a home's current value rather than what you paid for it. This was fine until property values started going up at an insane rate and all of a sudden people found themselves taxed out of their own homes through no fault of their own. Prop 13 protected homeowners from this by basing these taxes on the value at purchase and limiting increases to 1% yearly (unless you sell the house of update it). This sucks for the general fund and it lets the wealthy get away with murder, but at the same time I'm not sure I'd want to own a home in this state without it. That didn't do anything for property values though, it just insulated some people (40 years ago) from their effects, while making it utterly horrible for anyone trying to buy property since then. Oh, and Prop 13 also covers commercial property values, so Disneyland pays something like $200 every year for the land it's on. (this is an exaggeration but it actually is an order of magnitude difference in tax revenue) computer parts fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:To be completely fair Prop 13 came about for legitimate reasons. For the uninitiated before prop 13 property taxes in CA were based on a home's current value rather than what you paid for it. This was fine until property values started going up at an insane rate and all of a sudden people found themselves taxed out of their own homes through no fault of their own. Prop 13 protected homeowners from this by basing these taxes on the value at purchase and limiting increases to 1% yearly (unless you sell the house of update it). This sucks for the general fund and it lets the wealthy get away with murder, but at the same time I'm not sure I'd want to own a home in this state without it. No that's actually how property taxes are supposed to work. Prop 13 is a blatant handout to middle-class homeowners at the expense of everyone else, AKA the vast population of renters, who have to pay more to make up the budget shortfall icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Let's try this: You've been elected king of New York City. Congratulations. How will you prevent gentrification in East Harlem? Seize the assets of the rich and redistribute them to the poor?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:No that's actually how property taxes are supposed to work. Prop 13 is a blatant handout to middle-class homeowners at the expense of everyone else, AKA the vast population of renters, who have to pay more to make up the budget shortfall Renters aren't people, my friend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
A fun Tax Lesson: US States generate their revenue from three major sources: Sales Taxes, which are taxes on goods and services (some exceptions apply); Income Taxes, which are taxes on individual's incomes; And finally Property Taxes, which are taxes on the value of a home or other property. -Sales Taxes are a "flat tax", this means that they're applied equally regardless of income (eg, 10% of the price is added on for tax, regardless of the price). Because poor people don't have much money, taking away money from them affects them more than taking the same amount from a rich person. Taxes that affect the poor than the rich are known as "regressive" taxes. There are usually state level sales taxes, but local governments (cities, etc) can usually add on an additional local sales tax. -Income Taxes can also be a flat tax, but usually they make what are known as tax brackets. In effect, what happens is that rich people are taxed a higher amount than poor people (this is simplifying a lot, but that's the end result). Taxes that affect the rich more than the poor are called "progressive" taxes. Income taxes are usually at a state level. - Property Taxes are commonly a flat tax, but are usually assessed at a local/county level. This means that there's not a statewide rate but there is significant variation depending where you live. Property taxes are usually the main way local governments generate revenue. Although they are flat taxes, property taxes don't (directly) affect poor people because property usually requires significant amount of money. Here are two maps comparing Sales & Income taxes by state (Property taxes are...messy).   In general, sales taxes and income taxes are inversely related. If you have a state with low income taxes, you'll have high sales taxes, and vice versa. For example, Oregon has no sales tax, but one of the highest income taxes, while Washington has no income tax but one of the highest sales taxes. For this discussion, California is the important exception to note*. It has both one of the highest sales and income taxes. This is to make up for the revenue lost from having artificially low property taxes. Prop 13 has insulated households from high property values, but it has also robbed the state of large amounts of revenue. The good news is, taxes can conceivably be cut as well as raised if Prop 13 is repealed. Sales taxes function as a replacement for Property taxes for local governments, because they don't collect income taxes. If Property taxes rebound, then Sales taxes can be reduced instead. This will benefit the poor and middle class. *New York also has both high sales & income taxes, I'm not quite sure why but if someone can elaborate that'd be cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:The thing that really blows my mind when I look at rents like those is that in WI landlords are still somehow able to make an acceptable profit despite the rates being so low. Which means that that extra $1-4k you're paying to live in CA is mostly just profit that goes straight to the landowner. the thing that really blows my mind is that you have such a poor grasp of economics that you are unable to factor in that these landlords are also dealing with the increased taxes and expenses of living in the same area.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:No that's actually how property taxes are supposed to work. Prop 13 is a blatant handout to middle-class homeowners at the expense of everyone else, AKA the vast population of renters, who have to pay more to make up the budget shortfall Yeah, this is absolutely how it's supposed to work. It's one of the most wrongheaded examples of thinking imaginable to say that homeowners, who: a) are already significantly above-average in wealth as a group b) enjoy significant tax breaks through the mortgage deduction and the partial capital gains exemption on the sale of a home c) are only in danger of having significant increases in property taxes if their property appreciates significantly, making them significantly more wealthy are a group in pressing need of tax breaks. Property taxes are generally considered a very progressive form of taxation, and at the very least, even if you wanted to prevent Granny from having to sell her home, you could allow her to defer taxes and then levy them on the sale/transfer of the home, which would be compulsory upon death or a few other events. Also younger and new homeowners are definitely screwed over by Prop 13 as well, not just renters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:even if you wanted to prevent Granny from having to sell her home, you could allow her to defer taxes and then levy them on the sale/transfer of the home, which would be compulsory upon death or a few other events. But yeah the problem with prop 13 is that it means that instead of there being both an upside (higher net worth) and a downside (higher property taxes) to increases in home value, there's only ever an upside. Which means that landowners are incentivized to suppress the supply of housing as much as possible, and wouldn't you know it, that's exactly what's happened all along coastal California? Shocking! Cicero fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:32
|
|
computer parts posted:*New York also has both high sales & income taxes, I'm not quite sure why but if someone can elaborate that'd be cool. My extremely limited semi-anecdotal understanding is that many of the exact same policies and phenomena the thread has described in CA also applies to NY- concentrated development, limited expansion, property tax controls, soaring rent prices.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The same source goes out to 25, Philly is #18 (ahead of Dallas, Austin, & Houston). Hey now, I hear Pittsburgh's actually really cool/nice and it's not even on there. Interesting. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Old office complexes are getting torn down left and right for mixed use complexes. 1) This seems wasteful when the existing building could be renovated / upgraded. The Ferren Mall in New Brunswick has been sitting like a ruin with a huge parking deck going unused for a couple years now (increasing the demand for parking and justifying the rates charged). Like I said - there should be an inventory of every square foot and people should have a place to sleep. It wouldn't be that hard - I'm pretty sure one of those 2 towers at the 18/Turnpike junction is practically empty - not to mention the old Turnpike Authority HQ. 2) All properties with easy access to the North East Corridor are connected to the property market of the nearest city - especially NYC which is jacked up by foreign speculation / 'spare' homes, etc. And the infrastructure is becoming a major bottleneck (like lines of the New York subway need to be taken offline so damage can be repaired). History and 'lost civilizations' suggest that people have repeatedly made great port cities only to see them destroyed by changes in the water table.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Christ! I though the San Diego area was bad ($1500/month). It makes you wonder how much rent is in places people don't actually want to Yeah that's actually expensive for where I live. You can get a two bedroom apartment here that's in pretty good condition for $500 a month. This is why I look at San Francisco and just go "yeah, no." Because I'm a CS person I get poo poo about that but really, no way in hell I want to live somewhere that the rent is $40,000 a year unless I'm pulling six figures which, being a fresh grad, isn't happening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Google etc. pays fresh grads 120K these days. That's exactly why rent is so high. Splitting a 6K 2BR with a roomate is pretty feasible when you're pulling that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:*New York also has both high sales & income taxes, I'm not quite sure why but if someone can elaborate that'd be cool. NYS basically is about an 7-8% sales tax throughout the state, split between county and state. (4% of it goes to the state, 3-4% goes to the county.) Its a nudge higher in the southern counties in order to subsidize the MTA services that are in the area. The income tax is slightly misleading, it's the highest bracket. You're only paying 8.82% if you earn over a million dollars a year in taxable income. Otherwise its closer to 4-6.6% for the lower brackets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:Google etc. pays fresh grads 120K these days. That's exactly why rent is so high. So does Apple but the CS majors I know from college who went out west aren't living in areas where they pay anywhere near that. One of my college roommates lives in a 2br for roughly 2.4k a month. From talking to him I think there is a decent split in the mentality of the employees of some of the more established companies (Apple, Google, etc) vs newer startups flush with cash. Apple has many amenities on its campus but the restaurant still costs money. Compare that to Facebook, where massages/on campus fancy restaurant/everything was completely free to employees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 15:57
|
|
