San Francisco Poaching Tech Talent From Silicon Valley

jfruh writes "Silicon Valley, including San Jose and the chain of suburbs running north from it along the San Francisco Peninsula, has long been the epicenter of the tech business and startup scene. San Francisco itself, just a few miles to the north, has always been in the Valley's orbit — but now, more and more, the center of gravity is shifting to San Francisco, and the move seems to be hitting a tipping point. The reason: the young talent companies want to attract would rather live in a hip city than in suburban sprawl, and don't want to commute 45 minutes to work."

Comments

won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Trepidity]

It takes about 45 minutes to commute between places actually in San Francisco, if you don't pick the right ones, thanks to SF Muni having barely had any improvement since the Market Street Subway was built in 1980. Could easily spend 45 minutes on the N-Judah...

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[andymadigan]

At least you're not driving, on public transit you get to read while someone else does the driving. I moved to San Jose six months ago and I explicitly picked a location where I could take the Light Rail to work, most of my coworkers drive and live nowhere near transit along the peninsula. I plan to move to SF (along with all the other "young talent") where it might take a bit longer to get to work, but you can go around the whole city without a car, instead of just certain areas. (I do have a car, I just hate driving).

Of course, the real reason to move is that even San Jose, with a larger population than S.F., feels like a suburb compared to City.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Trepidity]

I don't think SF is even really designed around pedestrian activity. If it were, it might have good transit! It's been sort of non-designed, really, with quite a bit of de-facto design for cars, despite their green image opposing them in theory.

It was a medium-sized city with an extensive streetcar network, and that worked ok. But then the population increased, the number of cars greatly increased (which also slowed down the streetcars), and nothing much was done to fix it. The only two real improvements were around 1980: BART made it so that you could get between the Mission and financial district easily, and the Market Street Subway cleared out a little street-level congestion in the worst area.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[fiannaFailMan]

I don't think SF is even really designed around pedestrian activity. If it were, it might have good transit! It's been sort of non-designed, really, with quite a bit of de-facto design for cars, despite their green image opposing them in theory.

It was a medium-sized city with an extensive streetcar network, and that worked ok. But then the population increased, the number of cars greatly increased (which also slowed down the streetcars), and nothing much was done to fix it. The only two real improvements were around 1980: BART made it so that you could get between the Mission and financial district easily, and the Market Street Subway cleared out a little street-level congestion in the worst area.

I disagree. The Sunset and Richmond are kinda suburban all right, but the rest of the city is quite compact and the bus service is pretty comprehensive. Shame about the surly drivers though. Something needs to be done about them.

I used to live in Nob Hill and I was able to walk downtown, to North Beach, to Pacific Heights, and to the great little strip of bars and eating houses along Polk. I never used my car all weekend. It was my commute to the valley that forced me to move back down here.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Darinbob]

What the hell is wrong with feeling like a suburb? Having grown up in a small rural town I'm baffled by the arrogance and snobbery of city dwellers who'd prefer having homeless people sleeping in their doorway than to go somewhere else. Why is suburb a dirty word? What is in SF that anyone would want to live there and put up with all its problems?

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[TallDarkMan]

The basic answer is culture...be that arts, entertainment, or what-have-you...which the suburbs are more limited in. If you're lucky, there's some stuff to do in your (suburbia) town (Marin to the north is very artsy-fartsy, and Berkeley has a lot being a college town), but others (Hayward in the East Bay, or San Bruno on the Penninsula south of S.F.) don't have much more than the traditional malls. So "going out for a night on the town" usually means hopping in your car (or if it's convenient, hopping on BART) and heading to The City.

The suburbs aren't "bad"....just less stuff to do there versus the city....and I think that's true for a lot of cities.

Heck, I know of some people who lived out in the Central Valley (to the east of the Bay Area and it's suburbs) but moved to the Bay Area, even though it's WAY more expensive, simply because "there's more there"...

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah...the other answer is bars.

Driving to bars sucks...you have to stay sober enough to get home. So there's fewer bars in the suburbs and less bar culture. Bars are important because it's where single people in the city go to get laid. People like getting laid. And they like going to bars where there are new people they haven't met before for that purpose.

Hence the reason many people want to live in the city. More inebriated potential sexual partners.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[LMariachi]

A million times this. Don't move to San Francisco.

our rents are high enough as it is

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[fiannaFailMan]

Please post your evidence that modern San Francisco, designed mostly after the 1906 earthquake, was build around pedestrian convenience.

Small blocks. Sidewalks. Businesses and store fronts that come right up to the sidewalk instead of hiding behind acres of tree-lined parking lagoons, grassy knolls, plastic roadside signs and six lane monstrosities. Compact neighbourhoods that are walkable and accessible from each other without driving. Mixed-use development rather than single-use zoning. Corner stores. Cafes. Small parks and public spaces here and there. A lack of parking spaces, those that do exist are empty for an average of 28 seconds at a time. Also the fact that the auto-centric city came about in the 1960s, not the 1910s. Maybe you're getting your decades mixed up.

Re:won't necessarily solve the 45-min commute

[Just Some Guy]

What the hell is wrong with feeling like a suburb?

I live in Alameda, across the bay from San Francisco. It's a wonderfully quiet little place with low crime and great schools. I loving living there, walking to the library, driving five minutes to a beach, etc. It's not like the stereotypical suburban wasteland of soulless strip mall after strip mall and the quality of life is wonderful.

That said, I think I'd go insane if I didn't work in the city. There's so much more energy here, and a million things to do, see, and look at every day. It's a little noisier and more crowded than I'd want in a house setting, but I love working here.

Oh, my daily commute involves walking a block to the transbay bus, reading a book for half an hour, then walking a block from the bus terminal to my office. For a couple of bucks more and a longer walk, I can also ride the ferry in much less time (to the point that I'd have a hard time finishing a drink you can buy at the onboard bar).

the business has changed, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Issues of sprawl and crappy commutes notwithstanding, the people developing cool apps for smartphones want to live in SF because they are hipsters. These are not the same kinds of folks that "made" silicon valley. They were far nerdier, more interested in hardware, chip design, etc -- basically infrastructure stuff and they were NOT hip. They weren't quite as drawn to SF.

SF also has girls.

I still think the Peninsula and South Bay are far superior if you like outdoor activities: running, hiking, climbing, biking.

Psh. I like the old farts better than the new kids.

Re:the business has changed, too

[phantomfive]

Are you saying.......that SF is for Brogrammers? Probably true.

Re:the business has changed, too

[fiannaFailMan]

The gay city, right?

Right. There's still a better male:female ratio in SF than in "Man Jose". Subtract the gay guys from that and it gets even better. Trust me on this. For every girl that walks into a Silicon Valley bar there's at least ten guys with her. Your odds are much better in the city.

Re:the business has changed, too

[fiannaFailMan]

Why go to a bar? Is the sort of woman you'd meet in a BAR the sort you'd want to have a long term relationship with? And what does it say about her taste in getting picked up by a some dude in a bar?

Huh? What are you talking about? Where the hell else are you supposed to meet people if not in a bar? Would you prefer me to meet some losery loner on an online dating site or something? The majority of my long term relationships began in bars or on the way home from them and "the kind of girl" you meet in a bar is not much different from "the kind of girl" you meet in the street or in the supermarket or anywhere else with the exception that they're outgoing and sociable. What are you, Amish or something? Maybe you'd prefer me to meet people in a fucking church!

Re:And the cost

[spazdor]

WTF are you talking about, exactly? Cars are a pretty immense financial outlay.

Hip City?

[Sponge Bath]

My friend who lives there calls it "the city". The hipness is implied by the condescending tone of voice when you say "the city".

Re:Hip City?

[i kan reed]

Guess what? In ancient Rome, they called Rome, "the city" and in England, they call London "the city", and it's similarly true elsewhere in history and the world. The condescension is imagined on your part.

Re:Hip City?

[TheRaven64]

in England, they call London "the city"

'The city' is usually used in England (if not referring to the nearest city) to mean The City of London, which is about a square mile containing all of the banks and associated surplus population.

Re:Hip City?

[Macman408]

It's not just a hipster thing. Everybody in the bay area calls it "the city". Conversely, only tourists will call it "frisco" or "San Fran".

Re:Hip City?

[phantomfive]

It's similar in the Bay Area. "The City" refers to a little section on the tip of the penninsula. Calling it "the city" distinguishes it from the greater metropolitan area. And it does have the biggest concentration of big buildings and high priced housing.

It changes if you go farther away, like California's Central Valley, they will call the entire Bay Area "San Francisco", often including San Jose.

Re:Hip City?

[xstonedogx]

As a resident non-native, I make it a point to call it "San Fran" (or when feeling particularly spiteful "Frisco") just to jab at native sensibilities.

I usually reserve it for this type of conversation:

Them: Where are you from?
Me: Minnesota
Them: Oh. Where in Minnesota?
Me: The Twin Cities area. (Or sometimes just "the Cities")
Them: Oh... Where's that?
Me: It's not Duluth and it's not the place where the Mayo Clinic is. (Fargo accent:) So... have ya lived in 'Frisco your whole life der den?

And occasionally people act like I lied to them when they find out I have never lived in the city limits of either Minneapolis or St. Paul. Like they'd have any idea where Rosemount or St. Louis Park are if I told them those places instead (nevermind that I didn't live in one municipality my entire pre-CA life). I honestly think they'd say "Atherton" if they were traveling and someone asked them where in California they were from.

And also want to pay more rent

[ramk13]

San Francisco is undoubtedly cooler than the south bay, but it's also way more expensive. Not everyone can afford rent or the space they want in SF when compared to many of those south bay cities. That goes both for companies and people. Some companies will move or start there, but I think it's reaching to say we're at a tipping point.

And most importantly, people aren't raising kids in SF:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/13/san-francisco-moms-reflect_n_1508072.html

So that talent that young is going to have to commute the other way when they get married and have kids.

Re:And also want to pay more rent

[jcadam]

No, when the young talent gets married and has kids they find a job in another part of the country with a sane COL. I interviewed with a few of these 'hip' companies in SV, and they tend to balk when they hear my current salary (and I currently live in a rather low cost of living area). Not to mention that, at the ripe old of age of 32, I feel like a geezer as soon as I walk in the door at your typical startup. Now when I get a call from a recruiter who thinks I'm perfect for some position in the SF Bay area, I just say "No, Thanks."

Re:And the cost

[0123456]

WTF are you talking about, exactly? Cars are a pretty immense financial outlay.

Not compared to buying a house in San Francisco (according to a quick Google search, a median price of $710,000 for April to June 2012).

I've only ever bought one car that cost more than $7,000, so I could buy a heck of a lot of them for the amount I'd save living somewhere cheaper and driving.

Can we stop using the term 'poaching'?

[dkleinsc]

The problem I have with the term is that it suggests that there's something morally wrong with offering somebody more salary / benefits / perks to change jobs, or with that somebody choosing to make the move to greener pastures.

Employment is a 2-way street: My boss can choose to fire me at any time, I can choose to quit and do something else at any time. I understand that many employers would not like employees to be able to do that, but they can, and that's because they're your employees rather than your slaves.

Re:Can we stop using the term 'poaching'?

[gbjbaanb]

and there's nothing that's going to stop your boss from firing you once you get to a certain age and replace you with some younger, cooler, but most definitely cheaper wage-slave anyway, and then you'll realise the whole thing is a bit of a sham.

Not a lot that can be done about it really, the boss wants cheap labour and you want more money. I think the end result is a huge programmer shortage and a large benefit to off-shoring IT workers.

Of course, your company and yourself could adopt a more progressive policy of long-term tenure of employment where people grow with a company, are trained to keep up with new technology and increase experience with the company's systems and business. But no-one's going to do that when there are short-term profits to be made!

Re:Can we stop using the term 'poaching'?

[dkleinsc]

Not really what gbjbannb is alluding to: There's pretty good evidence out there that programmers over age 40 are regularly discriminated against in the field, regardless of their level of skill, due to a perception that the ideal programmer is a young easily exploited kid who wants to work 100 hours a week fuelled by caffeine and sugar. Give me a team of people those bosses have decided were 'dinosaurs' any day of the week.

Re:And the cost

[Fwipp]

SF bus tickets are, IIRC, $2 each. $4 a day for roughly 200 days a year ~= $800 a year. Even if you keep an $8000 used car for 10 years, you've still got to pay for gas, insurance, and repairs.

Unlimited passes for a month in SF are about $75, or $900 yearly.

Re:And the cost

[phantomfive]

You can rent when you go on a long trip. That's what I do.

Re:And the cost

[fiannaFailMan]

Only fucked up and crazy people live San Francisco, If I were a start up and the only thing I needed was an internet connection, I would setup in Riverside --- Palm Springs or any where in the Coachella Valley--- where office space and housing is dirt cheap. Fuck paying to live in a "hip" city, it not hip is is just disgusting and expensive.

If you want to employ gun-toting rednecks then by all means set up in Hicksville. If you want the brightest and the best then you have to go where they want to live whether you like it or not.

This is news?

[dorpus]

They said the exact same thing when I lived in the Valley during the dot-com boom. Not everyone wants to pay $2,000 for an apartment that has the privilege of homeless people pissing on the doorstep, walking on streets that reek of sewage, daily encounters with street trash that threaten anyone who is dressed normally, or the dilemma of owning a car with no place to park vs. a car-free lifestyle that makes shopping so difficult. Yes, I love the car alarms that go off constantly, the buses roaring by all the time, the ugly eucalyptus trees that give off a powerful smell, the harsh cold wind from the bay combined with the harsh sunlight, the lack of air conditioned offices, the "vibrant nightlife" of stores that close down at 5PM, the tourists who treat you like a funny zoo animal, and the warm welcome one receives from other Americans for saying they live in San Francisco.

Re:And the cost

[CFTM]

I live in the East Bay. I take BART to work everyday. From my stop in the East Bay to my stop in SF, it costs $4.15. Parking at the BART station costs $1. I live 2.4 miles from the BART station. Round trip, it costs me $9.30 to go to and from work.

Were I to be driving, my commute would be nearly 30 miles. I'd be driving across the Bay Bridge ($5 a day) and then parking in San Francisco would cost me a MINIMUM of $10 a day. This isn't even taking into account opportunity cost of time, wear and tear on the car or fuel.

The car is not cheaper in San Francisco. Ever.

Happened in the first dot-com boom, too.

[Animats]

This happened during the first dot-com boom, too. Huge influx of twentysomethings. Then the dot-com boom collapsed, and the number of twentysomethings in SF dropped 40%. (A friend of mine who runs a hip hair salon and throws big parties said of this "and the ones who still have jobs are working their butts off.")

The first dot-com boom moved into existing real estate. This time, there's extensive new construction.

Silicon Valley may be in permanent decline. The last production wafer fab in the valley closed in 2008. With impressive systems on a chip like the Allwinner A10 from China selling for $7, the margins in semiconductors are far smaller than they used to be. That threatens Intel. HP is still a mess. Yahoo is collapsing. Microsoft just posted their first loss. Google and Apple continue to thrive, but Facebook seems to be on track to be the next Myspace.

Re:And the cost

[dgatwood]

Even an hour away, the median home price is $650,000. You pretty much have to go two hours away or live in the worst parts of the Bay Area to get median housing prices down in the $200-300k range. If you're living two hours away, you'll probably want to find work somewhere closer than San Francisco, and if you're living in a bad neighborhood... well, you're braver than I am.

The choice of San Francisco versus other parts of the Bay Area basically boil down to whether you want a standalone house with a lawn or a glorified apartment. If you pick the lower-density area, you'll have to drive. If you pick the higher-density area, you might be able to walk to some form of public transit, but you pretty much won't be able to drive (usefully) because driving in San Francisco is just plain unholy. The average travel times end up being comparable, as does the monthly cost; you just have closer neighbors and lower square footage in the city.

Re:And the cost

[HexaByte]

Not really. Your $700K home, even if you get it for a cheap 4% interest rate, will cost you $3341.91 per month in mortgage. At the end of 30 years, you've paid an additional 1/2 million in interest, hundreds of thousands in taxes and maintenance, and then it you don't buy a home of equal or higher value Uncle Sam will tax you on the capital gains!

Homes are not good investments unless you can pay cash or rent them at a profit.

Not Really

[BadPirate]

the "Young Talent" companies only make up a small part of the tech industry out here. Silicon valley still has the largest and most successful of the tech industry at the moment in Software (Apple, Google) and even the older struggling giants (Yahoo), which represent a MAJOR force for employment, Apple's new campus in cupertino will hire and bring in more bodies to the valley then the next 100 SF startups (even assuming that by the time 100 startups have formed 50 of them haven't flopped).

Years ago when I moved to Silicon Valley the ratio and rate was the same. There were "artsy" or "fun" gaming startup jobs (a few) available in SF, and there were startup jobs available here in SV. But the real hiring was being done by the big players, and those guys will never move to SF. The hub will remain. There is no "tipping point". Article is an opinion puff piece by a hipster looking San Francisco dweller - https://twitter.com/cscott_idg who is obviously as biased about the subject as I am.

Moving on.

And physical location still matters *WHY*?

[pla]

How odd. I would have thought that, of all places, Silicon Valley would have launched its "B" Ark full of all the PHBs who can't believe people can actually do their jobs while sitting at home in bunny-slippers.

Fellow geeks - Telecommuting! We need to stop putting up with this "physical presence" crap and start making the number of days per month we actually go into the office a core negotiating point in any interview. "You want me Tuesdays and Thursdays? Okay, I want an extra week of vacation to make up for the needlessly wasted hours of my life spent in traffic to humor your delusions that I can somehow program better in an uncomfortable, harshly-lit, noisy environment surrounded by people who want to tell me all about what vile substance their kids/cats spewed on innocent bystanders this past weekend."


/ And let's not even talk about how I have a triplet of 28" monitors on my home workstation while getting a mere second 22-incher at work took nearly an act-of-god

Re:And physical location still matters *WHY*?

[Stiletto]

Fellow geeks - Telecommuting! We need to stop putting up with this "physical presence" crap and start making the number of days per month we actually go into the office a core negotiating point in any interview. "You want me Tuesdays and Thursdays? Okay, I want an extra week of vacation to make up for the needlessly wasted hours of my life spent in traffic to humor your delusions that I can somehow program better in an uncomfortable, harshly-lit, noisy environment surrounded by people who want to tell me all about what vile substance their kids/cats spewed on innocent bystanders this past weekend."

Careful what you wish for. If your job can be done from home, it can be done from India.

How about just letting people work from home???

[Cutting_Crew]

We've crossed this bridge many times before throughout the years from various articles.

What happened to companies (especially high tech companies) allowing people to work from home? Maybe a visit to the office once every two weeks or maybe a monthly meeting for employee social time...sharing projects, dinner, etc etc. This means that you could employ people not even local to SF which is in the end overall cheaper(for everyone). There are many many bright people who live elsewhere in the US(many of them not single) that just dont want to live in this area for many different social, economical and political reasons.

This also means you dont have to pay through the nose for a building that houses all the employees. Just room enough for the owner, the receptionist and a big open atrium/hall for company meetings when everyone is supposed to check in. I really don't think companies get it. Check out Art & Logic . All their employees work remote and they at least claim that they only look for the best and the brightest. Their clients are also big time companies.

Re:How about just letting people work from home???

[Cutting_Crew]

thats why you can use facetime, skype or any other type video conferencing set ups. Hey even buy everyone company phones if it makes it that much more seamless. and Agile can work as long as everyone has access to a repository somewhere. if everyone is working on the same project and differnet people are workng with different features, as a team, you communicate check-ins, check-outs and commits. Once you have the system in place and assuming that you have a good team then you shouldn't need to be at the office. My employer says we should be there to "keep up appearances". Appearances of what? and to whom? I get more done at home than I ever did at the office. If you want to know if people are actually going to be home working instead of eating bon bons and watching soap operas all day the proof will be in the product that they deliver. This is espeically true for Agile development, depending on how many sprints you have and how often.

Re:And the cost

[dlsmith]

If you want to employ gun-toting rednecks then by all means set up in Hicksville. If you want the brightest and the best then you have to go where they want to live whether you like it or not.

Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I'm a well-educated, young (early 30s, anyway) computer scientist and I care a lot more about my net pay (after living expenses) than I do about living in a hip city. I find out a job is being offered in a high COL area, and I cross it off the list.

I think there are a lot of places that offer a much better balance: Austin, Atlanta, Denver, Salt Lake City, ... (I imagine responses will tell me these places are most definitely not hip.)

Re:And the cost

[crgrace]

I hope you don't start up a company, since you've just called most of your potential employers and customers "Fucked Up and Crazy People".

I'm not hip (I'm reading Slashdot, duh) and I love living in San Francisco. It's a one-of-a-kind place that really nourishes you. It has its problems, but life is more exciting here than it was when I lived in the suburbs.

Re:And the cost

[CFTM]

It's about 45 minutes door-to-door using public transit. I think on a light traffic day I'd be lucky to do the drive in an hour and fifteen minutes; on Friday's I get to wave at stand-still traffic as I continue on to my destination. Being south of the Bay Bridge in the East Bay makes for a quick trip into SF. Were I coming from Richmond or Walnut Creek, I'd be looking at probably 85 minute door-to-door but the drive would have the potential of being much worse. The tunnel out to Walnut Creek is atrocious in the evenings and there are so many stops through Berkeley that the Richmond bound trains take forever.

So in many respects, I'm in the perfect location for where I'm going to work (10 minutes drive to the BART station on one end and 8 minute walk to work on the other end).

Re:And the cost

[Darinbob]

He's from SF. To them, anyone outside the city is a ultra conservative redneck (heck, they even complained about Gavin Newsome being a Republican stooge there, and some neighborhoods object to having street sweepers beause it will cause gentrification).

Re:And the cost

[pspahn]

I can certainly attest that Denver is NOT hip. It sucks here, we have crime everywhere, the girls are all fat and unhealthy, and... the worst part... the beer is horrible.

Certainly not a place anyone should want to move! =)

(If you're from Denver, you know I'm right... so shhh.

Re:I'm not surprised

[i kan reed]

Problems with small towns.
1. relative poverty, and very few professional job opportunities..
2. Large portion of population lack perspective
3. Small towns have strong identities but have equally strong Inferiority complexes

1. Not true, I've had 2 high tech jobs out of small towns. I don't know what else to say about that.
2. Bald assertion about the people who live there. Completely unjustified from where I'm sitting too.
3. Again, painfully bald assertion of psychology of a LOT of people

problems with the suburbs
1. Poor planning regarding zoning distribution and transportation. -Everything just takes so freaking long to do compared to a small town.
2. Lack of identity
3. Feels very isolating for people who didn't grow up in one.

1. Not necessarily, but people are separated from everything. From their neighbors by fences, from different subdivisions by artificially twisty roads. From commerce by driving required distances. From industry by frequently hours by car.
2. Not just a lack of identity, but an facade of one, along with an enforced sterility.
3. I don't see what growing up in one has to do with anything. It is isolating, there's all sorts of elements that seem to exist only to isolate.

Problems with cities
1. Crime
2. Its Loud
3. bad schools
4. Neighborhoods with extreme poverty and toxic culture.
5. Hipsters inhabit the nice affordable neighborhoods
6. Have to deal with people shouting out angry profanity on an almost daily basis.
7. The city dynamic gets boring.

1. Not really anymore, crime rates have fallen dramatically since the 1980s, with numerous social mechanisms behind those drops, only some of which are politically reversible.
2. Not all parts of cities are loud, that's an impression people get from fiction more than reality. Suburbs tend to be near high velocity roads with constant traffic that is actually worse in some ways. Rural areas are quiet.
3. A self-fulfilling prophecy as wealthy people with kids move to places with "good schools". Of note, some cities have exceptional schools. Not the one I live in, but that's another story.
4. I can't interpret this as anything other than "Oh no minorities". Clarify this point.
5. As opposed to who? What paragon artificial slice of humanity do you interact with daily that is so non-annoying.
6. Never had to even once. Not even ONCE. Again seems like a stereotype out of fiction rather than something you've actually experienced.
7. I never asserted it to be exciting or constantly novel. It's a bit healthier for the human psyche, the environment, and in the long run, the economy. I'm not sure what amazing, non-boring things you think happen in the suburbs.

Re:And the cost

[MushMouth]

You really think that is expensive? How much do you drive? How much do you pay a year on your car, include everything, gas, insurance, registration, parking tickets, maintenance. If you live in SF you realize that zip cars have parking, so you should include the hassle of finding parking. Lastly, you don't just have a car, you have the car you need for what you need it for. Do you need to go to the lumber yard, or buy a sofa, well then you have a truck or a van, do you want to pick up a pretty lady, well you can get a mini convertible. Unless you are driving more than 15k miles a year, it's really hard to beat $8 an hour of usage (including sitting in a parking lot) for owning a car. (and I do own a car)

Re:And the cost

[fiannaFailMan]

I'm really happy that it's so cheap for you, but you live in suburbia. Nothing happens there. You can't walk across the street to the corner store for a gallon of milk and stop to chat to your neighbours about the concert that's going to be in the nearby park next weekend. You can't walk up to the tennis courts to play a few sets with your roommate and stop for coffee and a snack on the way back while you sit outside on the street and strike up a conversation with the interesting dog owner at the next table. You can't walk to the independent bookstore, on the way bump into some old friends that you haven't seen in years, and instead of going to the bookstore you go to the bar and spend a few hours catching up over cocktails while a pretty lady at the next stool catches your eye and ends up becoming your future wife.

You suburban TV watchers and couch potatoes can throw as many smart alec remarks as you like about "insufferable hipsters". If you want to live in your cookie-cutter apartment complexes and dorm "communities" where nobody knows your name then knock yourself out. I prefer a real social life where "social networking" actually means getting out there and mingling with people, not sitting in front of a Facebook in the evening with reality TV in the background.