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).
Can someone help me out a little with this craziness? Because, I'm still kind of new to the Bay Area.
WTF kind of job does one have that allows him to buy a house for $710,000?
Let's say you're putting down 20%, which most lenders insist on nowadays. That's $142,000. In. Cash. (yea, let me just go find a cash machine) WTF?
Then, if you follow the rule of thumb which says you generally can afford to buy a house that's 2 to 2.5x your annual salary, you end up needing to make at least (using 2.5x) $284,000 a year to safely afford this "median" house. WTF WTF WTF?
So who owns these $710,000 homes? Are they all company founders who hit it big? All CEOs? Or did they all simply buy them back in the '80s when they cost $30K and have been living there ever since?
Your comment is spot on, but you're forgetting another factor: Funding.
If you eventually will need venture funding, you're going to want to be within driving distance of Sand Hill Road. Sure, there are angel networks and some VC firms out there in flyover land, but if you're serious, you're going to want to be here in the valley.
I'm guessing most of the full time developers reading/. also do some programming for fun.
I don't think I know anyone who programs for fun, and I've worked in the software industry for over a decade. It's a job you do to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. I'm grateful I chose to learn the skill, so I can be in an air-conditioned office all day and don't have to wait tables or nail roofs on houses to feed my family. But for fun??
Sure there may be a percentage of people out there who find programming fun, and a smaller percentage who come home after a long day of programming to........ continue programming, but for fun. But I'd expect that percentage to be as miniscule as the percentage of workers who pour cement all day then come home to pour their own driveway for fun.
If your market pool worldwide is 1000 specialized engineering organizations in foreign countries, you have to charge a certain amount to make it worth your while.
I moved to the Bay Area from a cost-of-living paradise, the Florida panhandle. No state income tax, everything was dirt cheap, including houses. Problem: No tech jobs = high risk.
Living in CA means, if things go south for my current employer, I can just walk across the street and quickly find work there. Less risk. I pay for that risk reduction with: taxes and the fact that I'll never be able to afford a house.
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.
If I had cable, or satalite and watched tv I would have only the following channels: BBC, Discovery, maybe HBO, or WB or something, and FOX.
The point is: Maybe you wouldn't have them. Would enough enough people buy Discovery to make it worthwhile to offer it? Currently, people who like watching Jersey Shore are subsidizing the few Discovery channel watchers.
If P is the probability of getting a false strike, then P(six strikes) = P^6
So, if there's a 70% chance of you getting a false strike (in my view, reasonable considering the MPAA/RIAA's shotgun approach), then the probability of you getting 6 false strikes is close to 1 in 5. Doesn't sound very fair to me.
The legal system is stacked against the common person in these situations.
This is the same justification proponents of "binding arbitration" use. Surprise! arbitration is also stacked against the common person, and so will this gentlemen's agreement between huge corporations. At least, in theory, you have a fighting chance in the legal system. In this system (and in arbitration), you're punished, period.
Rule of Thumb: Any agreement or contract that you were not part of writing is designed to screw you.
I'd advise....get a few years experience under your belt, grind out the W2 lifestyle, and when you have generated experience, you are good AND, you've attained some contacts.....incorporate yourself, and become a hired gun contractor.
That's where the big bucks can start coming in, and you can save a ton of your own money in tax write offs.
Too risky for anyone with any kind of family commitment, mortgage, etc. It's hard enough to win a job once, now you're saying do it every two weeks (or however long your gigs last)? No thanks. I'll "grind" as a W-2, thank you.
LOL, you think you're going to be able to choose among competing pat-down companies? You'll have as much choice as you have in your (privatized) electric company, your (privatized) trash service, and, I bet, your (privatized) cable company.
Privatization simply means your money is being funneled into the pockets of a company rather than government workers.
How about their alienation of developers? Let's see. I have an idea for a 3D game I'd like to write for phones. What do I write it with?
1. iPhone: C++, OpenGL, (with a little Obj-C to call into the core code) 2. Android: C++, OpenGL, (with a little Java to call into the core code) 3. QNX-based phones: C++, OpenGL 4. Some Brew phones with good hardware: C++, OpenGL
5. Windows Phone 8: Oh, Sorry mate, you have to port it to C# and DirectX! Have fun with that!
Microsoft has gone and driven a wedge in the developers' world again, but this time they're on the wrong side of it. Who the hell is going to port their game to their exotic platform, when the same code can hit so many other mobile platforms?
I can just see you (and a large number of commenters here) sitting in your car, shaking your impotent fist at people you see breaking the law: "Look! Look at that one!! FAILURE TO YIELD BUDDY! GRRR!! And.. Look at him!! ILLEGAL LANE CHANGE!! IMPROPER FOLLOWING DISTANCE!!! ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!"
People here need to mind their own business and stop being so angry that other people are breaking the law and getting away with it. It's scary how effortlessly some people are capable of jumping from "This thing is wrong" to "This thing should be illegal for EVERYONE with heavy fines, jail time, strict enforcement!!!"
As mentioned earlier up-thread, higher fines punish the poor more than the rich. You think a multi-millionaire is going to let a $120 (or even $500) fine deter them? That's chump change. Driving suspension is better, but it rural and suburban people disproportionately over city people. Not being able to drive for three months is a minor inconvenience for someone living in Manhattan, but a career-ender for someone living in a suburb of Philadelphia.
I disagree that you should make things illegal simply because they MIGHT cause you to be distracted. Let's punish ACTUAL harm (like crashing your car into someone and hurting them), rather than 1st-order "potential" harm (being distracted/under the influence while driving), or 2nd-order potential potential harm (merely using a phone or drinking a beer while driving).
Where does it end? 3rd-order potential potential potential harm? Will we soon outlaw THINKING about making a call? because it may lead to actually making a call, which may lead to becoming distracted, which may lead to crashing your car (the actual harm).
Maybe if there's a law that is routinely broken by a vast majority of people, then there's something wrong with the law, not the people. Tougher/More enforcement is not always the answer. I'd say almost all 4-way stop signs I have seen are pointless. All a 4-way stop sign does is hold up traffic. We should convert those to two ways, or convert them (and a lot of the un-necessary two-way stops signs) to roundabouts. We should use yield signs more. Speed limits should increase across the board, at least to the point where 99% of people aren't speeding.
All the current system does is promote contempt of the law.
See, but corporations don't even have to do that. They just have to buy a little office in Bermuda and call that "HQ" and bam! Smaller tax bill.
What really gets my goat is this: If I ever permanently moved abroad as an ex-pat, I still owe income tax to Uncle Sam every year, even though I may never be back on US soil.
The same should be true for corporations. If you're an American company, and you move overseas thinking you're going to dodge taxes, you should still have to pay US taxes, as if your income was earned in the US. If "corporations are people" they should follow the same rules.
Slashdot Mirror
But who can afford to live in the Oakland hills? Certainly not "tech talent" which is what TFA is about. You're talking about $1M+ houses.
Can someone help me out a little with this craziness? Because, I'm still kind of new to the Bay Area.
WTF kind of job does one have that allows him to buy a house for $710,000?
Let's say you're putting down 20%, which most lenders insist on nowadays. That's $142,000. In. Cash. (yea, let me just go find a cash machine) WTF?
Then, if you follow the rule of thumb which says you generally can afford to buy a house that's 2 to 2.5x your annual salary, you end up needing to make at least (using 2.5x) $284,000 a year to safely afford this "median" house. WTF WTF WTF?
So who owns these $710,000 homes? Are they all company founders who hit it big? All CEOs? Or did they all simply buy them back in the '80s when they cost $30K and have been living there ever since?
Your comment is spot on, but you're forgetting another factor: Funding.
If you eventually will need venture funding, you're going to want to be within driving distance of Sand Hill Road. Sure, there are angel networks and some VC firms out there in flyover land, but if you're serious, you're going to want to be here in the valley.
I don't think I know anyone who programs for fun, and I've worked in the software industry for over a decade. It's a job you do to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. I'm grateful I chose to learn the skill, so I can be in an air-conditioned office all day and don't have to wait tables or nail roofs on houses to feed my family. But for fun??
Sure there may be a percentage of people out there who find programming fun, and a smaller percentage who come home after a long day of programming to........ continue programming, but for fun. But I'd expect that percentage to be as miniscule as the percentage of workers who pour cement all day then come home to pour their own driveway for fun.
Sounds like you chose your market poorly.
Easy. Because that's where the tech jobs are.
I moved to the Bay Area from a cost-of-living paradise, the Florida panhandle. No state income tax, everything was dirt cheap, including houses. Problem: No tech jobs = high risk.
Living in CA means, if things go south for my current employer, I can just walk across the street and quickly find work there. Less risk. I pay for that risk reduction with: taxes and the fact that I'll never be able to afford a house.
Careful what you wish for. If your job can be done from home, it can be done from India.
Six weeks is not really an unreasonably short release cadence, unless you work for a defense contractor or something.
Nothing will sway the small minds of Climate Change Deniers, for whom uncertainty is the same as doubt.
The point is: Maybe you wouldn't have them. Would enough enough people buy Discovery to make it worthwhile to offer it? Currently, people who like watching Jersey Shore are subsidizing the few Discovery channel watchers.
If P is the probability of getting a false strike, then P(six strikes) = P^6
So, if there's a 70% chance of you getting a false strike (in my view, reasonable considering the MPAA/RIAA's shotgun approach), then the probability of you getting 6 false strikes is close to 1 in 5. Doesn't sound very fair to me.
The legal system is stacked against the common person in these situations.
This is the same justification proponents of "binding arbitration" use. Surprise! arbitration is also stacked against the common person, and so will this gentlemen's agreement between huge corporations. At least, in theory, you have a fighting chance in the legal system. In this system (and in arbitration), you're punished, period.
Rule of Thumb: Any agreement or contract that you were not part of writing is designed to screw you.
I think you mean "Cue". Are you and the Mr. "all intensive purposes" the same guy?
I'd advise....get a few years experience under your belt, grind out the W2 lifestyle, and when you have generated experience, you are good AND, you've attained some contacts.....incorporate yourself, and become a hired gun contractor.
That's where the big bucks can start coming in, and you can save a ton of your own money in tax write offs.
Too risky for anyone with any kind of family commitment, mortgage, etc. It's hard enough to win a job once, now you're saying do it every two weeks (or however long your gigs last)? No thanks. I'll "grind" as a W-2, thank you.
...or that the "Department of Defense" actually defends US soil?
LOL, you think you're going to be able to choose among competing pat-down companies? You'll have as much choice as you have in your (privatized) electric company, your (privatized) trash service, and, I bet, your (privatized) cable company.
Privatization simply means your money is being funneled into the pockets of a company rather than government workers.
How about their alienation of developers? Let's see. I have an idea for a 3D game I'd like to write for phones. What do I write it with?
1. iPhone: C++, OpenGL, (with a little Obj-C to call into the core code)
2. Android: C++, OpenGL, (with a little Java to call into the core code)
3. QNX-based phones: C++, OpenGL
4. Some Brew phones with good hardware: C++, OpenGL
5. Windows Phone 8: Oh, Sorry mate, you have to port it to C# and DirectX! Have fun with that!
Microsoft has gone and driven a wedge in the developers' world again, but this time they're on the wrong side of it. Who the hell is going to port their game to their exotic platform, when the same code can hit so many other mobile platforms?
I can just see you (and a large number of commenters here) sitting in your car, shaking your impotent fist at people you see breaking the law: "Look! Look at that one!! FAILURE TO YIELD BUDDY! GRRR!! And.. Look at him!! ILLEGAL LANE CHANGE!! IMPROPER FOLLOWING DISTANCE!!! ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!"
People here need to mind their own business and stop being so angry that other people are breaking the law and getting away with it. It's scary how effortlessly some people are capable of jumping from "This thing is wrong" to "This thing should be illegal for EVERYONE with heavy fines, jail time, strict enforcement!!!"
Higher fines only hurt the poor.
As mentioned earlier up-thread, higher fines punish the poor more than the rich. You think a multi-millionaire is going to let a $120 (or even $500) fine deter them? That's chump change. Driving suspension is better, but it rural and suburban people disproportionately over city people. Not being able to drive for three months is a minor inconvenience for someone living in Manhattan, but a career-ender for someone living in a suburb of Philadelphia.
I disagree that you should make things illegal simply because they MIGHT cause you to be distracted. Let's punish ACTUAL harm (like crashing your car into someone and hurting them), rather than 1st-order "potential" harm (being distracted/under the influence while driving), or 2nd-order potential potential harm (merely using a phone or drinking a beer while driving).
Where does it end? 3rd-order potential potential potential harm? Will we soon outlaw THINKING about making a call? because it may lead to actually making a call, which may lead to becoming distracted, which may lead to crashing your car (the actual harm).
Maybe if there's a law that is routinely broken by a vast majority of people, then there's something wrong with the law, not the people. Tougher/More enforcement is not always the answer. I'd say almost all 4-way stop signs I have seen are pointless. All a 4-way stop sign does is hold up traffic. We should convert those to two ways, or convert them (and a lot of the un-necessary two-way stops signs) to roundabouts. We should use yield signs more. Speed limits should increase across the board, at least to the point where 99% of people aren't speeding.
All the current system does is promote contempt of the law.
Again, only affects the poor. The non-poor will just go out and buy a new phone (or get another business-provided phone).
For that to work it would have to come with a court order prohibiting said person from possessing a phone for the time period.
See, but corporations don't even have to do that. They just have to buy a little office in Bermuda and call that "HQ" and bam! Smaller tax bill.
What really gets my goat is this: If I ever permanently moved abroad as an ex-pat, I still owe income tax to Uncle Sam every year, even though I may never be back on US soil.
The same should be true for corporations. If you're an American company, and you move overseas thinking you're going to dodge taxes, you should still have to pay US taxes, as if your income was earned in the US. If "corporations are people" they should follow the same rules.
I think what's being said is that he IS doing similar things. Maybe an oil plant rather than a coal plant... details, though.