Not Good Bay Area, U-Haul Shortage


Buy Uhaul stock.They are theives… Only the poor and middle class use Uhaul. The poor are leaving, the rich are coming


This is the place to make fortunes. Not for everyone.

1 Like

A smart entrepreneur would drive those trucks back for a fee…Then the people leaving could buy the cheaper return rate…

1 Like

Young people come here with a suitcase. Families leave with a uhaul truck.

How do rich families move? Employer can pay for the moving expenses but those moving companies may have their own truck. Also people are coming from all over the country, but when families leave, they leave for Vegas, Phoenix, or Texas.

Time to buy Vegas btw. Maybe buy a piece of land in the Vegas strip

1 Like

$2000 for just the rental truck? Might as well hire a professional mover.

Or families leave with pods?

Pod makes more sense…compared to $2000 plus gas to Vegas… 5 years ago a buddy went across country for $2500 for a 24’ truck plus gas.

Uhaul stock shows how nobody moved in 2010…People are moving again in the last 3 years

yeah, the fortune that gets you the exact same quality of life you could get elsewhere, without a fortune…


Not really. If you buy a house, it should not be counted as living expense, it’s a store of value and a source of appreciation. If you count only non-housing expenses, cost of living is pretty similar

  1. State income tax
  2. Property tax
  3. Gasoline prices
  4. Higher rents making businesses charge more
  5. Higher minimum wage making businesses charge more
1 Like

IMHO, only state income tax is big. Other consumption is relatively small. Property tax is only high in the beginning, lifetime total property tax is not high

Housing cost is enormous. Greater percentage of take-home here than anywhere else. Best way to take advantage of the Bay Area is to retire elsewhere and cash in your house.

1 Like

Housing cost is not an expense if you own the house. You will get your money back when you sell. To compare the real ownership cost, you need to calculate the total payment over lifetime and subtract from the the home price when you exit.

It’s still a monthly bill that needs to be paid now. Also, you don’t get interest back. You’re paying far more interest on a $2M home than a $1M home.

1 Like

I know. You pay an interest but the appreciation is more than your interest and property tax payment.

You can do the following calculation over the last 30 years and it’ll show that BA has a negative housing cost for owners.

Purchase in 1988 in Cupertino: 300k
Downpayment: 60k
Sale in 2018: 2.5M
Total PITI payment over 30 years: 630k

Total negative housing cost: 2.5M - 630k - 60k = 1.84M

Even if you could also have a negative owner housing cost in Austin, I bet the BA negative owner housing cost is much more attractive.

The price differential in other expenses is minimal and would be much much smaller than 1.84M over the last 30 years.

Therefore owner housing cost can be ignored when comparing the overall lifetime value. Mortgage payment is only a concern when you consider the monthly budget and cashflow issues. It’s a concern for cash flow and solvency, but owner housing cost is actually negative over the long term and people should maximize their owner housing cost in order to accumulate and grow their networth.

1 Like

Assuming primary housing, I don’t know that you can boil it down to black or white (made/loss money). At the very least, you still need a roof over your head and a life to live and hopefully enjoy via that home. If not owning (mortgage), what ROI is earned on all that rent money paid all those years?

1 Like

Time to go to Miami. Prices dropping