Financial Samurai: How New Tech IPOs Could Cause SF Bay Area Real Estate Prices To Fall Further


:raised_hand: I am priced out of Palo Alto. :cry:


Austin not Texas, I have been Austin about 5 times


Why Palo Alto, I am priced out from Cupertino ! I am not eligible to buy my own home now !! :rofl:


Cupertino is inferior. Priced out of Palo Alto is not necessarily priced out of Cupertino, but not vice versa :slight_smile:


True, when I am priced out Cupertino, I am automatically priced out high fly areas like Palo Alto :rofl:


Last time I went to the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston area I felt completely okay.


I know quite a few coworkers that it happened to as well. They had to be renters when they moved back.


Big cities are OK. Houston is actually the most diverse city in the US.

If you just want to save some taxes, Reno is closer.


If I want to save on taxes, Seattle is the place, not Reno.


Which is better, Austin or Seattle? Is there any close 3rd choice for tech workers?


He’s trapped in wishful thinking and drinking his own jonestown koolaid - his rationale is that the Internet and working from home in the knowledge economy means flyover country will be stronger.

Coastal cities have done well for hundreds if not thousands of years. NYC, Shanghai, HK, Singapore, Guangzhou, Miami, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Rotterdam, Dubai, etc etc.

Being on the coast means trade, business, ports, food (ocean), and new ideas (immigration). Combine this with the tech ecosystem, fantastic weather, natural beauty, and stellar air quality, and one can see why the demand for living in the bay area will always be high.

If the bay area were just a single-factor-reason for demand (like Detroit was … jobs) then the bay area could more easily go through a permanent downturn. But, the bay area has a multi-factor-reason that explains the constant demand.

And, even if the tech ecosystem and jobs were to shrivel and die, one can see how the place could change to be just a playground for the rich - Monaco, Hamptons, etc.

Sam keeps on touting middle America as the wave of the future. It’s certainly easier to live your life in middle America. But that’s not where dreamers go. Dreamers don’t settle for 2nd base. They want to hit home runs.

I don’t think Sam has spent much time in middle America. And, by “much time,” I mean at least a decade. If anyone has spent 10+ years in flyover country, one will understand why the coasts are so alluring.

Now to be fair, once you get older, you care less —- but oldsters aren’t dreamers that move to “the big city.”


Sam actually lives in San Francisco. Voting with his butt.


Housing in Austin is quite a bit cheaper than Seattle. TX property taxes are higher as a percent of home value, but the home values are lower. Seattle has rainy winters, and Austin has hot and humid summers.


Yeah - he wants to move to HI which is not flyover country.

He’s long on flyover country but I’m willing to bet that he doesn’t understand anything about the mentality of many who live in flyover country. It make the dreamers move to the coasts.

When you are 40 and you just want to raise your 2 kids in a relaxed environment with low cost of living, flyover country is really attractive. But, if your kids have any fire in them, there’s a 70pc chance they will leave flyover country for the coasts.


Austin and Denver are not on the coast. I think fire is moving to the South. Connecticut is shrinking.

Also Chicago and Pittsburg used to be center of activity. Economic centers can shift.

Cultural, financial centers have longer lifespan than industrial and technology centers. Semiconductor is just like auto manufacturing or steel mill.

Bay Area should be good since talent quality and density is big enough to shift to newer industry when tech is doomed. Seattle is risky due to small number of companies. Austin has no organic tech growth. Either than Dell, Austin has no home runs so its growth is mostly based on tax policy and better cost of living and quality of life.


At one time, I plan to settle at Camas, WA, border city of Portland, but in WA state. This gives double benefit of shopping at Portland (sales tax free) and staying at WA (state income tax free). Camas, WA has good school rating, comparatively expensive nice home, same climate between Seattle and Portland.

Finally, dropped the idea and decided to stay in bay area, forever now.

My preference is WA, likable climate, than TX.


Seattle is risky due to small number of companies. Austin has no organic tech growth. Other than Dell, Austin has no home runs so its growth is mostly based on tax policy and better cost of living and quality of life

Not sure which has better climate and better weather.

Seattle has less land and more NIMBYism, so appreciation should be better.


Good points. But Chicago and Pittsburgh are both single-factor-demand cities like Detroit. General Manufacturing and Steel.

Is the SF a cultural center? Is the bay area a financial center? I think it is possible to argue that both are true…perhaps not NYC grade, but still more of a cultural and financial center than Chicago or Dallas or Houston.

Even HK and Singapore — both are financial centers but their status as cultural centers are weaker.


Austin doesn’t depend on tech. Major employers in Austin And AMZN is a bigger employer than Apple.

Coastal cities do collapse. Check out Malacca,


So Austin will stay a middle class city and never become an expensive global city to make you super rich :rofl:

Austin seems to lack name recognition in the world. Seattle and Houston are more famous