[Chronic9q]

Ladies and gentlemen, the above comments are excellent examples of millennials who have no business moving to a place they can barely afford.

If you need to significantly lower your quality of life just to work in a cool place, you seriously need to rethink your life plans.

[csallen]

They were talking about how to save money, and from that limited discussion you came to two completely unjustified conclusions: (1) their overall quality of life will be lower in SF, and (2) the only benefit is that SF is "cool". Nothing they said suggested either of those two things.

[chii]

Logically, one would try to save money by cutting the largest disposable expense first, before proceeding to the next largest, in order.

By the time you'd get to the expense of owning a car, I presume a lot of other luxury expense would've been dispensed. Therefore, it's logical to assume you'd get a lower quality of life as a result.

[Lambdanaut]

What is quality of life?

If lacking a car, you find yourself walking more, aren't you healthier? Doesnt San Fran have among the greatest selection of fresh foods in the country?

We can go on, but clearly cutting expenses doesn't necessarily mean a lower quality of life.

[lmm]

Cars are a very expensive luxury. Probably the first thing I cut from my life. I am genuinely struggling to think of any more expensive luxury (housing costs more but it's pretty much a necessity).

[thaumasiotes]

The cost of owning a car is not equal in all locations.

[Ericson2314]

Nor is there benefit

[shostack]

You pretend as if people are just moving for some "cool" factor and not because the location offers things other places do not, such as real cultural and lifestyle differences, and most importantly, job opportunities for certain professions the likes of which are simply not found in such quantities (or potentially quality) in other places.

You pay a premium for reduction in economic risk and a desirable lifestyle. The fact that younger generations overall have a lower standard of living due to baby boomers and fiscal policy decisions doesn't mean they are irresponsible.

[zten]

What's the issue with having roommates and not permanently occupying a parking spot?

[acchow]

I can (easily) afford SF. I can also afford to own a car in SF. I prefer not to because it is expensive and I prefer to spend my money on other things.

Also, contrary to your assumptions, I find my "quality of life" has dramatically increased since getting rid of a car due to not needing to stress out in traffic (and dodging cyclists); not doing any car maintenance ever; never needing to look for parking and the unknown time duration that could require.

[wutbrodo]

TL;DR: Without even knowing anything about the topic in question, it should be blindingly obvious how stupid it is to consider "being in a cool place" in opposition to "quality of life". Particularly because "being in a cool place" doesn't just mean enjoying the cachet of getting to say you live somewhere, it means enjoying the reasons that people think the place is cool: the abundance and diversity of natural beauty within a short trip, the weather, the huge amount of things to do (arts/music/cultural events/non-cultural events), even just something as simple as enjoying the aesthetics and rhythm of a place. On top of that, the flood of people moving into these places hasn't been because it's "cool", it's in large part been because of economic opportunity. You should really glance at a newspaper once in a while...

As far as not having a car: I grew up in Los Angeles and I can tell you that the ~10 years I've spent living without a car in SF is a trillion times better, in almost every way. Even leaving the absurd expense aside, the hassle of having a 2-ton ball and chain that needs to be fueled, parked, maintained, and moved around with you everywhere you go is not even close to worth the advantages, particularly when you can rent a car as needed and still end up paying tons less. It's hard to oversell the relative freedom of being able to make plans on the fly with friends all over the city while rarely having to figure out the logistics of how you're gonna get around and how to fit your car into your plans. Having spent a lot of time in both living situations, I'm close to the point where I consider every non-discretionary mile traveled in a car to be a failing of transit policy. And I actually enjoy driving! I just get my fill of it once every month or two when I happen to be on an excursion with friends where I'm the one driving, and being required to do so (and required to own a car) is ridiculous. On top of that, the fact that my transpo budget is almost nil means that I get to rent as nice a car as I feel like and don't have to think about whether it's "practical" to own.

Regarding roommates, this doesn't appear to be a Bay thing as much as a "dense city" thing. My take on it was always that if I'm spending enough time in my apartment that having a roommate is annoying, I'm probably living in a boring-ass city. So far, this has held up pretty damn well: I spend only a couple waking hours in my apartment each day, and I enjoy the company of my roommate quite a bit in this hours (for example, we often cook together). I readily admit that this is a preference thing and it's just as legitimate that some people are considerably more couch-and-television-bound, but it's sort of bizarre to claim that that's objectively a "lower quality of life".

As far as keeping track of expenses, I have something like an 80% savings rate and I still keep a casual eye on my discretionary expenses. How is being aware of your expenses a lower quality of life?