Key jobs that don't pay enough to live in San Francisco (or some other major cities)

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by 10023

The real answer is "children".

For the childless, especially childless couples, all the standard rules of thumb about affordability are completely irrelevant.

QFT.

Nothing will readjust your finances more than another person to feed, and clothe, and transport, and house, and educate, etc.

If my wife and I were still childless, we could literally sleep on a pile of money every night.

But the little rugrats are more than worth it to me.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mhays

We're talking about urban residents. Skip the parking space and savings can be much higher. I rent mine out for over $2,000 per year for example.

In 2001 I bought a second home outside Tucson, AZ. Initially I got a mortgage--it's paid off now. I took the car I had in SF down there and left it in the garage of the second home. What I saved by not having to park it in SF literally made my mortgage payments in AZ: Zero cash flow difference.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the little rugrats are more than worth it to me.

I got a cat: MUCH cheaper (even thought she's had some vet bills).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I got a cat: MUCH cheaper.

No doubt.

I can't think of anything that wouldn't be MUCH cheaper than raising children.

By the time we're done paying for our kids' daycare expenses, I could have purchased a Ferrari (not that i really want a Ferrari, just saying).

[10023]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

No doubt.

I can't think of anything that wouldn't be MUCH cheaper than raising children.

By the time we're done paying for our kids' daycare expenses, I could have purchased a Ferrari (not that i really want a Ferrari, just saying).

[Pedestrian]

^^Some no-doubt childless person driving one exactly like that (same color and everything) almost hit me exiting my condo's parking garage yesterday as I walked by.

[Jonesy55]

I think a key is for local areas to be able to set their own wages for these important public jobs, and for that they need control over their tax base. Here in the UK local authorities don't really control much of their own tax base and don't get to decide salaries in healthcare, education etc. If they did then rich/expensive places could pay more to attract staff from their higher revenues.

At the moment most public sector jobs (and many private sector employers) give 'London Weighting' to employees that need to work in the capital to compensate for extra living costs. It's a pretty crude system though, living costs vary around the country even outside of London.

In my job I would get around £5,000 more gross annually if my job was in London which after tax works out at £300 ($380)per month net.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

I think a key is for local areas to be able to set their own wages for these important public jobs, and for that they need control over their tax base. Here in the UK local authorities don't really control much of their own tax base and don't get to decide salaries in healthcare, education etc. If they did then rich/expensive places could pay more to attract staff from their higher revenues.

At the moment most public sector jobs (and many private sector employers) give 'London Weighting' to employees that need to work in the capital to compensate for extra living costs. It's a pretty crude system though, living costs vary around the country even outside of London.

In my job I would get around £5,000 more gross annually if my job was in London which after tax works out at £300 ($380)per month net.

Here we constantly hear complaints from poorer localities that the rich folks get better schools and everything else because they have the wherewithall to pay more and supplement what government provides through private contributions and donations of equipment and services. The supposed solution is to do what you say Britain does: Funnel everything through a higher level of government--the state usually (they'd love to get around federalism and have the Feds do it)--that can even everything out and transfer resources from rich to poor. In fact, the result is that some of the countries poorest school districts have the highest per pupil spending and, one could argue, they probably need it since they have far more troubled, non-English speaking, disabled kids.


http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...-Money-Can-Buy

[10023]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^Some no-doubt childless person driving one exactly like that (same color and everything) almost hit me exiting my condo's parking garage yesterday as I walked by.

They're not necessarily childless. There are two parked on my street and one has a child seat in the back.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...-Money-Can-Buy

Wow. Most of these are atrocious.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 10023

Wow. Most of these are atrocious.

Keep in mind that most school funding goes to salaries and benefits. There's not much reason to believe that higher salaries and better pensions/benefits would lead to better student performance.

And poor districts should get more money. These funding totals include stuff like free/reduced meals, English Learner funding, Special Ed funding, and the like. An immigrant-heavy urban district in a high-cost area will have very high per-pupil funding.

[mhays]

In theory, better salaries should attract better teachers. That assumes accountability, the ability to try good ideas, not "teaching to the tests", etc.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by tech12

There are a lot of apartment buildings, including plenty of midrises and highrises that have been/are/will be going up, and very few single family homes are getting built. SF already has 63,000+ housing units in the works (around 5,000 currently under construction I believe), and 99% of them require zero rowhomes to be demolished. SF has more empty lots, derelict industrial stuff, underbuilt one-story commercial buildings, parking lots, gas stations, etc, than a lot of people realize.

It's amazing to me that SF is only building 5,000 apartments right now when Chicago has around 14,000 recently deliver or under construction just in major (5+ story) projects mostly just downtown. I know Chicago is a bigger city, but surely the economy and population growth in SF warrants far more construction than that. I guess that's why there is an issue with home prices in SF, if a rust belt rebound like Chicago can absorb 14,000 units, then tech boomtown SF is going to have to at least be building something close to that if they want to keep prices under control.

Oh well, Chicago is going to need all the units it can get once global warming scorches the sun belt cities off the map and floods the coasts. We will be sitting pretty here in the Midwest with no more winter and 1/5 of the world's fresh water lol.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mhays

In theory, better salaries should attract better teachers. That assumes accountability, the ability to try good ideas, not "teaching to the tests", etc.

In theory, yeah, but in practice people usually aren't entering the teaching profession to maximize salary, and there's little pay variation at a local level. Also teacher hiring/recruitment/promotion isn't really tied to student outcomes.

[mhays]

Salary variations obviously matter to just about everyone. Yes, even for idealists and even those not making six figures, imagine that.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

It's amazing to me that SF is only building 5,000 apartments right now when Chicago has around 14,000 recently deliver or under construction just in major (5+ story) projects mostly just downtown. I know Chicago is a bigger city, but surely the economy and population growth in SF warrants far more construction than that. I guess that's why there is an issue with home prices in SF, if a rust belt rebound like Chicago can absorb 14,000 units, then tech boomtown SF is going to have to at least be building something close to that if they want to keep prices under control.

Oh well, Chicago is going to need all the units it can get once global warming scorches the sun belt cities off the map and floods the coasts. We will be sitting pretty here in the Midwest with no more winter and 1/5 of the world's fresh water lol.

I feel like Seattle blows SF out of the water in terms of building new housing, you see cranes everywhere. The difference is that SF makes it impossible to develop, to the detriment of its citizens.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

I feel like Seattle blows SF out of the water in terms of building new housing, you see cranes everywhere. The difference is that SF makes it impossible to develop, to the detriment of its citizens.

San Franciscans have been treated to numerous media articles lately saying what you are saying and our Planning Director formerly held the same post in Seattle so he knows the issues. But things are as they are in San Francisco because a majority of its citizens still want them that way and do not agree with you that the status quo is to their detriment. I am on the other side of the issue, as I am on so many local issues, and believe that the majority opinion is based on a poor undertanding of economics and reality, but people are entitled to their opinions which they express by repeatedly voting down more intense and denser development. Surely this is a matter for the citizens of the city to decide without outsider lecturing.

[mhays]

In America we get to have opinions on these things even if we're not directly affected. It's a fascinating topic because the hypocrisy and myopia are so stark.

Further, SF's misadventures have a large effect on the whole Bay Area, on entire industries, and other cities and even across the country, even if the amount of effect can diminish by distance.

Some of this is direct effect...other cities get a lot of SF overflow, for better (I think) or worse (others think).

[jtown,man]

If your school district is failing over 50% of kids then you should be shut down.

[mhays]

Maybe the district isn't the only thing keeping them from graduating.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by mhays

Maybe the district isn't the only thing keeping them from graduating.

Lol.

You musta graduated from a decent school to hold a decent thought like the one you just unleashed upon us. Queue-does.