San Francisco is #1 Best City for Young Professionals
Why San Francisco Is No. 1 - Forbes.com
Why San Francisco Is No. 1
Matt Woolsey, 07.09.08, 5:00 PM ETSan Francisco is this year’s best city for young professionals because of its ability to attract and retain talent. It does this by offering long-term job opportunities, plenty of singles and impressive starting salaries.
The City by the Bay outshined the rest of the field in attracting alumni from the nation’s top schools. More of the class of 1998 from Harvard, Stanford, Rice, Princeton, Duke and Northwestern picked San Francisco as home, 10 years out of school, compared with any other metro. These are graduates with the skills to work virtually wherever they want, and this measure is an indicator of where high-caliber professionals have decided to settle, based on a combination of job and lifestyle factors.
It’s easy to see San Francisco’s attractive opportunities. Forbes rates the 400 best big companies and the 200 best small companies based on revenue and high rankings for corporate practices, as well as long- and short-term sales and earnings growth and stock market performance. Of the 600 companies in this index, 41 of them are in the Bay Area, which is the second-highest overall total, and when adjusted for population, this makes San Francisco the fourth-best place to find a top employer.
Congrats! Oh my god. We beat New York! I’m so happy!
So far house prices haven’t done so well this year, but with trends like this, you can be sure that our god given 10% year over year annual appreciation is right around the corner. The median here in the Real Bay Area might not $1 million this year, but 2009 - watch out!
July 10th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
The median in the RBA is way over a million dollars, because nobody is left in it except Palo Alto, Los Altos, the Marina, Pacific Heights, and Presidio Heights.
I moved here straight out of college, and one of the places I’d interviewed with (while still in college) gave feedback to the career center that I was “too fixed in wants for one so young.” What could I have said that made him think so? I told him I wanted to move to San Francisco, and if they wouldn’t put me in that office, I didn’t want their job.
Hah! 15 years ahead of my time!
July 10th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Hmmmm. Very interesting. Here’s an article for Atlanta,GA basically claiming the exact same thing. Who do you believe?
Atlanta No.1 City for young professionals
Head to the Big Apple, and your chances of getting the corner office might not be as far off as you think.
That’s because New York City tops our list as the No. 1 city for young professionals.
That likely comes as a shock to, well, no one. Many of America’s best companies, as determined by Forbes rankings of the best 400 big businesses and best 200 small businesses, including financial giant Goldman Sachs and media conglomerate News Corp. are in New York. Throw in New York’s bars, clubs and world-class dining, and you get a city teaming with young professionals.
San Francisco clocked in at No. 2 and Atlanta at No. 3. Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Boston and Seattle filled spots four through seven, and Minneapolis, Philadelphia and Denver closed out the top 10.
Behind The Numbers
Our list was compiled by tracking where the graduates of top universities across the country ended up 10 years after commencement; where the best business opportunities exist; which cities had the most young and unmarried people; and which cities paid young professionals the best.
To see where graduates of elite schools chose to pursue their careers, we looked at Class of 1997 alumni location data from six elite universities across the country–Harvard, Princeton, Duke, Stanford, Northwestern and Rice. The data indicated where graduates have settled 10 years later, and where their professional lives have matured.
We then excluded alumni that remained close to school. Harvard grads in Massachusetts–nixed; Dukies who stayed in North Carolina–gone; Stanford Cardinals roosting in California–tossed. The goal: to determine which cities offer such strong opportunities for young professionals that they’re willing to pick up and move across the country for them.
Some cities are bigger than others, of course. So we adjusted where elite grads ended up against overall population size to measure the respective concentrations of young professionals. This allowed smaller cities such as Portland and Austin to compete equally with heavyweights such as New York and Los Angeles.
Then we stirred the locations of prized jobs into the mix. Each year, Forbes selects America’s 400 best big businesses and 200 best small businesses. We used the locations of those 600 companies to determine which cities had the best professional opportunities for the under-35 set.
Money is important too. To figure out how far yearly income will go, we measured cities’ variations in starting salary using data from New York-based Mercer Human Resource Consulting and adjusted it for cost of living with our own Forbes index; the idea being that the more greenhorn grads a city can attract with a decent salary to cost of living ratio, the more likely they’ll stay and develop in that area.
Of course, even the most driven young professionals need to let off steam. With that in mind, the final metric was measured which cities had the highest share of never-married people in their 20s and 30s. Never married is an important qualifier. For example, of the 40 largest cities, Salt Lake City has the third-highest population share of people ages 25 to 34, but its standing as No. 27 in the never-married category really puts a damper on the nightlife.
The bottom 10 cities were brought down by a variety of causes. Salary to cost of living submarined Miami, Norfolk, Va., and San Antonio. The inability to attract top grads and top companies hurt Detroit and Las Vegas, and all our measurements converged on Tampa, Fla., beating it down to last place on our list.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
OMG, I just realized that I mis-read the article. My bad. Anyhow, something that is curious to me is that the article mentions that young people come here for long-term job opportunities. The name of the game these days seems to be that if you can stay at a job two years, then you’re lucky.
Secondly, I’d love to see exactly how many of these “young professionals” stay once they start thinking of gettin’ busy with having kids and buying a house. I’d bet at least half of them leave. 10 years out of school is about where most people start thinking about getting hitched. So in that regards, the article is a tad misleading.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
“Plenty of singles”?… Yeah if you’re a girl. If you’re a guy NY and LA are much better places to be and offer the same if not better job ops. But if you just have to be in tech then I guess maybe this is the place to be.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Hellboy there are lots of single gals here, problem is they all live in San Francisco. But career chicks wanting to marry up rarely consider the technonerdz down here. Their loss.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
We have so many jobs threads… maybe it’s time for a dating thread. I don’t think I’ve seen one on Burbed yet!
July 10th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
What, you’re not going to fix us all up with each other, are you? I don’t see any Trophy Wife types here.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Cool, I have the skills to work virtually wherever I want, Forbes said so, so it must be true.
Now where would be a really cool place to work, instead of this cubicle.
Seriously though, I do wonder about that long term claim. I know my cousin, who apparently is also in this group, and his wife pretty much mentioned that if they have kids they’ll move out of the area. I know when I moved here that I was thinking of it as a temporary situation live out in CA for 10 years, save up as much as possible, take in the sights, enjoy the weather and then move out, for as long as I’m happy renting a small place this area works fine, it is only a small amount higher in rent than I would pay in other job centers. To buy it is a completely different story, even for condos, the glorified apartments for sale.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I feel like the dating scene is easy as hell here. When I was single, I had no trouble picking up dates on craigslist. That was back when dating online was stills seen as “taboo”. Now that’s it’s kosher, I wonder if the dating scene has changed.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I think doing it “backwards” works out better - that is, get married (optional) and own a couple of houses for about 10 years in flyover land to build some equity. Then come to the Bay Area and kick some ass.
Unless you’re a nerdy engineer who can start at a well-above-average salary. You’ll be able to save up for a house (if you want one) and attract dates.
As for a dating thread in here… I wonder if ANY of the regulars are single?
July 10th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Madhaus I would say that’s pretty accurate about SF having a lot more singles than certainly the peninsula. But that’s cool for folks who live in SF proper. Having grown up on the peninsula and south bay I can tell you the guy/girl ratio is not great for us guys down here. And driving to SF every other week to see your girl(which I’ve done several times)gets old. Having also lived in LA and NY I can tell you without doubt the guy/girl ratio is much better. Girls are all over the place; you don’t have to go to one specific region(SF)to find them. You can still find good women here I just think its harder than those other places.
As far as internet dates; heard plenty of horror from friends who thought they were going to pick up Brittany Spears/Janet Jackson and wound up with Molly Ringwald/Freddie Jackson
July 10th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I think anyone who owns 10 houses in “flyoverland” would more than likely simply stay put. Why would you compensate a otherwise comfy living situation and then suddenly downgrade in an unfamiliar city? If you’re gonna’ go to a big city, might as well do it when you’re young. People past 30 tend to like settling anyway.
As far as Internet dating, Well I certainly met a lot of weird, freaky people. But I also met some really cool people,incidentally, my Wife. You have the same odds of meeting the “wrong” person “for real” the old fashioned way. I just always felt that meeting people in public was too much work. It was much easier to put up ads and pick and choose.
The cincher was this: Most women I met thought that the entire male population here was Gay, and therefore meeting any single guys was a miracle. I never revealed the actuality, which is that the BA is full of geeky straight guys.
Lastly, I’m a sorta little guy. Women back home always wanted huge, big, football type morons. Out here, I found women to be more accepting of guys who weren’t Joe Montana.In other words- I actually got dates. If you’re geeky, weird, artsy, or less-than-perfect, the Bay Area seems to have people that are ok with that.
I’m glad I’m not single anymore though. Dating was a pain in the ass!
July 10th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I love the part in that article:
“We then excluded alumni that remained close to school. Harvard grads in Massachusetts–nixed; Dukies who stayed in North Carolina–gone; Stanford Cardinals roosting in California–tossed. The goal: to determine which cities offer such strong opportunities for young professionals that they’re willing to pick up and move across the country for them.”
Any set of numbers can be skewed to portray multiple conclusions. The real point is that not everyone is going through hard times in this economic ’slowdown.’
I guess its time to move from the south bay to old SF. I wonder if http://www.burbed.com/2006/02/11/469000-for-a-shoebox-home/ is still available. Zillow’s still got it pegged for $459,000. Thank god SOME places are still immune to the bubble!
July 10th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
bob, I would not go back to being single for twenty million dollars.
Hellboy, when I was living in SF there were so many office gals looking for lawyers & investment bankers, they would not look twice at an engineer. People in SF really looked down on Silicon Valley, despite the money. Does anyone remember Herb Caen having people play “The Area Code Game”? Went like this: “Brie is 415, Kraft Singles are 408.” Someone finally ended the game by submitting “Your area code game is too deux-treize for San Francisco.”
nomadic, how is anyone going to build up enough equity in flyover-land to afford buying in here? They don’t get KrazyBubblez in Real, real, rural America!
July 10th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
A good example of people where moving here would make zero sense are my parents. They own their house on 14 acres, heated pool, greenhouse, workshop, and multiple gardens. They’ve owned it paid off for 20 years. If they sold today, they wouldn’t ever be able to afford a loft here. They would be seriously downgrading their lives. Most people I imagine are in that situation in “flyoverland” and wouldn’t consider “Fruit and nut land”
July 10th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I wonder how did the dating scheme that they introduces NY/LA girls to BA guys worked out. Some org even thrown some parties back in ‘99, for them to meet.
SF gal all wanted lawyers and doctors? I don’t think SF is known for either, at least doctors in SV should be ten times (heck may be 100 times, in SV you can find 50 dentists in one building and in SF you will need to drive half an hour to go to a clinic.) more than SF and they don’t need to pick up chicks in SF.
Personally I don’t find SF chicks very attractive, Stanford or Berkeley have better ones.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
this article is totally right on.
i graduated in 98 and now i live here. most of my friends who graduated in 98 have also moved here. NYC has emptied out, and no one can live in Boston for more than 7 years, even if they think they can
-zanon
July 10th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
NYC was attracting more new ivy league graduates for a while there, to work in the banking industry much of which was fueled by startups in SV. So it was a bi-coastal thing. But in this decade with the never ending bear market, Wall Street is dead as a doornail.
And cardinal- just be glad you have a cubicle. I have dozens of friends still working in corporate life and many larger companies are going to these new, collaborative workspaces also known as “airports”. The reason for it is because we are at almost 100% rental capacity in the bay area again if you can believe that. At the peak of the bubble silicon valley had migrated east to parts of oakland alameda etc and that isn’t happening this time, but the traditional peninsula, San Jose, Milpitas, Sunnyvale etc buildings are 100% occupied. Even CISCO is leasing space again- anybody here in 2001 would have never guessed that in a million years (at that time they owned half of the San Jose/Milpitas area and 2/3 of their buildings were see through- literally). These collaborative workspaces are a way to pack 3x the people in one building. nobody gets a desk or phone, you bring your laptop, sit on a couch and plug in. A really despicable work arrangement if you ask me, nowhere to put your pictures or personal things, constantly have to hunt for a private area to have a mtg etc. BEA has this arrangement I know and lot of big companies.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
If you read through the stats, this tracked people who graduated in 1998 - when housing was still somewhat affordable in the Bay Area, and when salaries were soaring.
It will be interesting to see this same study in 2010/2011/2012 when the new grads entered the Bay Area right as the bubble burst, and housing soared.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I don’t know about the vacancy rate, I am seeing a lot of buildings with for lease/space available signs on them, it would seem that companies are just being stingy on space that way, either way the company at which I work at is under capacity right now. Mostly since they bought out a lot of other companies to expand rather than expanding here.
I am also seeing a lot of buildings coming up. I think they are all for lease buildings. I heard that people are finally going to move into the Sobrato tower, because some company is buying it up to lease out. Thinking of it being an empty tower like that is just weird.
As for living here, I know most people my age, 26, think it is too expensive to buy around here, they are hoping that maybe they can afford something in a few years if their salaries go up, and/or prices come down, but they are not necessarily counting on either.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:52 am
> San Jose, Milpitas, Sunnyvale etc buildings are 100%
> occupied.
Huh? Are you living in a parallel world? Have you ever seen signs “leasing” or “this building available” signs along 101 and 237? There’re a lot of them. And we have a lot of construction activities in South Bay. Home builders switched their focus to office and retail buildings again.
Last report I saw office space is occupied to much greater extent than in 2002, but still way below what Silicon Valley had back in 2000. Some big companies like Cisco and nVidia are definitely growing and requiring more space these days, but many others are downsizing.
As for girls… I’ve been to many countries around the world and US cities. If there was a competition for city with ugliest and worst dressed girls, SF would be in the top 5 for sure, next to Nowhere, IA and Cornfields, OH. Few years ago I saw stats in Mercury News that proportion of single guys to single girls in Silicon Valley is 2nd worst in the nation. Not sure who was first. Probably East Bay?
July 11th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I see absolutely loads of vacant office space from the East Bay, to my job in SV every single day. Some of these office buildings are huge and sit empty. So I’m not sure if I buy that capacity as mazed out.
In regards to staying, well I graduated in 2000, got out here 2001. That means I missed the tech boom, lived through the bust, and didn’t make enough to buy once I did get a decent job, but by the time I started making the “big bucks”, housing prices were ridiculously high and my pain limit was reached. So I missed on both booms.
So I too believe that if you graduated in 1998, got a job, and bought a house prior to 2000, you just might be thinking of staying because you “got in” at the right time. As for almost all of my friends who got here at the same time as I, none are thinking of buying or staying. I had one friend move to LA who might stay there because prices have fallen enough to almost make sense to buy.
It also helps that many of the SF bay area type jobs have expanded to other cities. Hence I feel comfortable with the idea of having a good career elsewhere.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Online dating in the Bay Area probably mirrors the “real world” When I was single, craigslist had a billion guys, and 10 girls on the site. I never bothered responding to female ads because my female housemate would post and she would get 200+ responses in an hour. Sort of daunting.
There’s some good looking people in the BA. Where I come from, 75% of the populace is obese. I recall going to NYC and thinking that there was a lot of attractive women. But they looked like the kind of women who probably only dated executives and lawyers.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
There are FOR LEASE signs all over Sunnyvale, so I don’t know what WG is referring to. Maybe some investors bought commercial property at the peak and can’t afford to lease it for current market rates?
As for dating, I met my ReasonForLiving at work, as did almost everyone else I knew. In 1989-90 we were all single, then within 2 years everyone in my group of friends all got married. It’s like there’s some internal timer that goes off.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
It seems like most of my friends are doing the whole “eternal girlfriend” thing. One friend has been dating the same girl for almost 10 years. Another guy has been dating his for 5. Two have bought houses with their girlfriends. ( Super-bad idea!)
Its there choice but… GET MARRIED ALREADY!
July 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
It seems like most of my friends are doing the whole “eternal girlfriend” thing
It’s like the eternal beta thing.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
If there was a competition for city with ugliest and worst dressed girls, SF would be in the top 5 for sure, next to Nowhere, IA and Cornfields, OH.
———-
Isn’t the whole concept of “well-dressed” and “ugly-dressed” come from fashion world? If so, why do I have to care about their standard?
July 11th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
There are FOR LEASE signs all over Sunnyvale, so I don’t know what WG is referring to. Maybe some investors bought commercial property at the peak and can’t afford to lease it for current market rates?
I don’t think there was a commercial RE bubble, or if there was, at least it didn’t mirror the residential RE bubble.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Okay, I found a 94087/CUSD house for a 3/4 mil. It’s small but it is a house, not a townhouse, and this has been an area that’s hard to find a place for sale at all, let alone at a lower one.
Kind of a marginal neighborhood but schools are close by except for the middle school (Nimitz Elemntary & Fremont HS). I think Nimitz is the 2nd lowest scoring school in the district, and so is Fremont HS. But what do you want? It’s a HOUSE in used-to-be-RBA 94087!
Also check out the pictures because it looks like it was decorated in Late Crayola.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Tell you what,
I just had an idea for getting prices in the BA to drop: portable trailer schools. Yes- highly rated schools that show up at all neighborhoods via semi truck housed in giant trailers. Therefor, all neighborhoods will have ‘excellent’ schools thus it won’t become the cash-cow of realtors to tout a specific area because it’ll become generic.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
bob, once again you have what sounds like an outragious idea that has already been implemented (though not as you meant it).
Just about every school around here has several “portable” buildings that have been in place for YEARS without permanent structures going in to replace them. My kids wonder why schools in movies are always 2-story fortresses with tiled hallways, locker banks, and intimidating stairways, when all they’ve known are unconnected buildings with doors opening only to the fresh air.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
> Isn’t the whole concept of “well-dressed” and
> “ugly-dressed” come from fashion world? If so, why do
> I have to care about their standard?
Well-dressed is actually more complicated thing than it seems at first. Yes, there’s connection between fashion magazines and how people get dressed. It’s pretty much social thing. In society where ratio girls/guys is >1, girls get dressed every day as they go to a night club even if it’s a trip to grocery store. When this ratio < 1.0, then you see what you usually see in US: utterly obese and ugly dressed people who don’t care how they look. Every ugly b$%@$ has a chance to find a pair here, so who cares how sexy she is. Funny thing is that best dressed people in Bay Area are gays.
I personally don’t care what people are wearing as long as they look clean. However, when you’re single and want to impress somebody, you probably have to dress better than average person. Go to any Eastern European country or countries like Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina etc… and you’ll get the idea how feminine and sexy women may look. I know you came from India and have your own set of stereotypes… but believe me, there’er countries where sandals and sari are not considered to be fashionable.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
When you home-ownders get the bill for the coming $5 trillion (yes, that’s $5 trillion) Freddie/Fannie bailout–and trust me, it is coming on faster than a loaded freight train–your home “equity” or whatever you care to call it, won’t save you. Market forces will take care of your butt no matter who you are or what you think you “own.” The RBA will return to normal (meaning at least a 75% decline in prices from their still ridiculously overpriced levels).
BTW, when nobody can borrow anymore, what can the government do, FORCE PEOPLE TO BORROW? Lots of luck on that one. Fools will get what they deserve, all of you. Those of us in cash or other REAL ASSETS, AS OPPOSED TO DEBT DISGUISED AS HOME EQUITY, will be in great shape. (I’m still trying to figure out how folks with a mortgage consider themselves wealthy if they have zero in savings to offset their debt.) Can someone please tell me when DEBT BECAME WEALTH? Am I missing something here???????
July 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
buckborden - since when is cash more real than real estate? We’re not in Zimbabwe but still, that’s a dramatic statement you’re making.
Also home equity is appraised (or sold) value minus debt, last I checked. How could debt disguise as home equity?
Finally being wealthy is basically having the option not to work for as long as wished while sustaining one’s lifestyle level. Neither home equity nor debt really qualify unless you can get them to generate income…
July 11th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
It’s pretty much social thing. In society where ratio girls/guys is >1, girls get dressed every day as they go to a night club even if it’s a trip to grocery store. When this ratio < 1.0, then you see what you usually see in US: utterly obese and ugly dressed people who don’t care how they look.
——
Wow! Let’s get the facts straight -
Venezuela: 101 (more male, less female)
Brazil: 97. Argentina: 96 (more female, less male)
And USA: 97
Basically, USA ratio is no different from Brazil or Argentina. So, why females dress sexy there? May be it’s not really male/female ratio, but just cultural and social thing.
How about India? 107 (more male, less female). Still females try to look attractive (not necessarily sexy) to males, considering the fact India is primarily a male dominated society and males are primary breadwinners. So, may be it is not just social and cultural thing - it’s economic thing too.
Bottomline, concluding that females try to be more attractive when society has more females than males is utter bullshit.
Needless to say that the concept of “well-dressed” has nothing to do with “looking sexy” anyway. A welldressed person can look unsexy and ugly dressed can look sexy.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Regarding post #35, the link to male/female ratio stat:
http://www.xist.org/earth/pop_gender.aspx
July 11th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Finally being wealthy is basically having the option not to work for as long as wished while sustaining one’s lifestyle level.
——-
Damn, I thought some people work for the purpose of getting frequent flyer mileage.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Let’s chill on some of the baiting, shall we?
July 11th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
…been running around all day.
madhaus, in answer to your question in #14, it can be done. (That is, building equity in flyover land.) I mentioned it because I did it. I owned two houses out there (1993-1997 and 1997-2001, one at a time!) which yielded around $200,000 to bring out here. Then we rented for two years to get used to the prices here. I still think it was worth giving up all the extra space to come here.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
DreamT,
Debt is debt. Net worth is ASSETS MINUS LIABILITIES. You have a $750K mortgage, you have zero savings, you are negative $750,000, according to Finance 101. How can that be categorized as wealth? Cash is cash; real estate is just a building, and if you don’t own it outright, IT AIN’T YOURS. Believing otherwise is a delusion. And furthermore, if real estate is SO REAL or more “real” than cash, then why are folks walking away from their “wealth” when it loses value? Answer me that, please, dear gifted one.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
buckborden, I don’t think you’ll find anyone who has no equity in their house and no savings claiming to be wealthy. (The few I’ve come across just whine about their mortgage, when they shouldn’t have bought in the first place.) As you pointed out, the measure of wealth is assets minus liabilities. There is still a large percentage of homeowners with actual equity in their houses and won’t be walking away from them.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
buckborden - your assertions are generally in line with mine but your question definitely isn’t. “If real estate is SO REAL or more “real” than cash, then why are folks walking away from their “wealth” when it loses value?” -> well they don’t, they walk away from debt not wealth.
I also have some problems with other definitions you use. Real estate is land much more than a building (land accounts for about three times as much value as the house sitting on it).
Owning fully mortgaged real estate still give you specific rights, preferred access and ownership protection that you do not have as a renter, so saying ‘it ain’t yours’ is somewhat simplistic (not wrong, just simplistic).
Short of major flooding (and even then) land is here forever, whereas cash is fabricated and can become entirely worthless within a few years (such as during currency conversion as with the Euro - old currencies could only be exchanged at banks for a certain duration), and don’t get me started on inflation.
I don’t consider net worth and wealth to be equivalent (you used both words interchangeably apparently) because net worth is a raw number, whereas wealth, as wikipedia says, provides “a type of safety net of protection against an unforeseen decline in one’s living standard in the event of job loss or other emergency (…)” That’s why equity in your primary home may be included in measures of net worth, but is typically not included in measure of wealth because it’s illiquid - it takes a bank to approve a second mortgage on it for example.
Where’s my gift?
July 12th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Let’s chill on some of the baiting, shall we?
——-
Come on, burbed! I truly believed it. Or was it just a joke?
July 14th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Debt is debt. Net worth is ASSETS MINUS LIABILITIES. You have a $750K mortgage, you have zero savings, you are negative $750,000, according to Finance 101.
Ummm, you forgot something. If you have no savings, a $750K mortgage and a house worth $750K, then you are not negative $750K but ZERO. Slightly underwater after selling costs, but definitely not 3/4 mil in the hole.
This is Finance 101. You can argue that the house is the bank’s, not yours, but they don’t go after you for the $750K after you sell the house, they just take the proceeds.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“Debt is debt. Net worth is ASSETS MINUS LIABILITIES. You have a $750K mortgage, you have zero savings, you are negative $750,000, according to Finance 101.”
LOL, looks like someone failed Finance 101.