Moving to SF?

Lived in Tampa 4 years, didn't find much economic opportunity at all. Those surveys and statistics pages always seem to be pointing to something other than what I can take advantage of. If I had been at the time in the frame of mind I am now (which is that I should willingly change or lie about field tactics background and education in the hopes of securing a living wage) maybe Tampa would have been great for me. But my experience of trying to be a "typical humanities grad" there was disastrous. I have visited Houston and perceive similar, though have no experience.

Part of what's going on here is that dudes are responding from the point of view of established, "normal style" middle class professionals. But I'm asking from the point of view of a consistent failure with no savings. When I'm comparing cities, it isn't about what it would be like in the suburbs in a ranch home and a comfortable drive in my air-conditioned SUV to a reliable workplace with full benefits and computers for everyone. It's about whether or not I can survive in a dangerous neighborhood while moon-lighting at two or three minimum-wage jobs until I can actually find something with a desk.

It appalls and annoys me, especially since I've got the education / ability / resume / experience to (on my off moments) believe I "deserve" better, but I've got to think of things in terms of bare mimimum feasibility, not in terms of the several different upper echelon styles I would prefer. Food in restaurants being nicer in SF than Tampa? Who cares. I won't be able to afford restaurants.

Maybe I need to alter my "core beliefs" about what I WILL be able to afford (or "should" be able to), thanks to a lifetime of degrading training at the hands of people wealthier than me who managed to fool me into being their lackey. If I can fix my aim on something higher, perhaps I'll hit it.

If I were looking for metro areas with good job opportunities, I'd check out http://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.t0…

I think we had a discussion some time back about best cities for SC's. My favs are Tampa and Houston.

The word about SF strip clubs has been pretty gloomy in recent years, between less permissive LE & prosecutors and Deja Vu buying up so many clubs in town. Your timing might not be so hot, unless your aim truly is to avoid temptation, in which case you'd be better off there now than 5-10 years ago.

I've visited SF many times. I have to say it is quite a beautiful city. Even the homeless seem cleaner and better dressed. The costs however are insane. That applies to just about all of coastal California. I liked the weather there. It never snows unless you go up to the mountains, but it's never hot and muggy either (unless you go into the interior). It's like a constant spring/fall in the city and the nearby coast.

BG: I love SF for the cosmopolitan nature of the city, combined with the opportunity for nature and outdoor activities. Those two things, in such abundance, are hard to find in other cities. I live in Boston, which has both but not to the same extent. I give the weather in the Bay Area the nod over Boston (if you don't like the day's weather in SF, good weather is usually a short drive away). And while Boston is comsmoplitan, I prefer the open-ness of society in SF over the conservatism of Boston.

Shadow -- if I could I would. I can't. So I have to find alternate solutions.

Are you drinking? :)

As someone who absolutely loves San Francisco the best part of it is the people IF you can freely coexist with all types. The only other city (in the US) that comes close to the energy of SF is New York. The streets, the parks, the bridges, the wharf, wine country, the Giants, THE FOOD,. I could go on and I am not even an partier. If you don't like sharing your life with the most diverse group of people on the planet than you may want to reconsider SF. I've only been there for days at a time and it's possible that the persistent homelessness, somewhat inconsistent weather and high cost of things may deter someone from not liking the place much.

Hey shadowcat, just saw your suggestion about solo career focus.

The concept of choosing one thing and focusing on it? That's been THE PROBLEM and certainly isn't the solution. I hadn't wanted to go into it here, but really, "choosing" is something I'm rejecting right now. What I WOULD have chosen, would have been either (a) performing music; but mom and dad didn't do me the favor of making that possible, because I never studied music when I was young, and when I discovered my talent it was too late to make sufficient progress on any instrument; or (b) military, which I many times attempted with recruiters and friends, but my asthma prevented it (although NOW that it's too late, I've learned that there would have been a way around that).

I was attracted to the military for the adventure, the outdoorsiness, and the chance to become a "recognized leader." That "status" is not offered in any office environment, where sucking up works better than heroism. Being a suck-up simply rubs against my grain so much that I fail at office politics and end up being rejected by the system. They find me out before I get high up enough to demonstrate (or, at least, have tested) what I consider my natural strength of character as a leader.

Just like Microsoft preferring to have software programmers lead program design and business management teams. Silly choice. Leaders aren't necessarily good at the smaller tasks that they delegate to others. But unfortunately for me, seldom do organizations hire a non-participant in at an upper level where he directs the lower levels before requiring him to participate (for a prohibitively long time, for me) in those levels regardless of their inapplicability to ultimate leadership, championship, and heroism.

I understand why people would suggest picking one thing and sticking with it. In fact, a heated exchange in one of the major book reviews centered on that very concept about a year and a half ago, when a major publisher came out with a sort-of-self-help book that included the life stories of people who had lived most of their lives in "search mode" rather than the mode that happens AFTER the search is completed. They were unhappy at their failure to contribute more predictably, but also happy at their success at rejecting the tradition that one must somehow limit one's passion to a single field, and limit one's career to that field. And that is, merely, a tradition; and one that is no more than fifty years old.

In fact, there was one ironic portion of that exchange that included members of the WWII generation thinking of the younger people as "lacking discipline," but the younger people pointing out that they had MORE discipline because they often did not get the positive reinforcement that the WWII generation could have relied on. In other words, the old COMFORT and SECURITY that one field, or one calling, would lend you, is something that used to exist in the work world and now is merely a pipe dream from out of the past.

I'd direct you to Lobensine's "Renaissance Soul," which opens in this manner: "Do you feel a pang of envy when you hear someone say, 'I've always known exactly what I wanted to do ever since I was a kid'?" For me, singular focus always felt like a death sentence. I remember the sense of dread I had, even as young as fourteen, when I'd go in to my dad's office and have to do the same thing week after week. The repetition, after mastery, rubs us "renaissance souls" (bad terminology) the wrong way. We prefer SOLVING the problem and them moving on, NOT repeating the solution over and over. We tire of the lack of creative problem-solving that takes place soon after the solution has been found.

Your point about ignoring the strip-club situation, and preferring instead to find a good job? Well, duh. I'm certainly thinking along those lines. I simply didn't front those questions here, because this is a strip-club board. I'm only letting the discussions here influence any longer-term decision by no more than 1%. But it's 100% of this thread. Math is confusing. :)

Yeah, I've been Googling city costs, and it seems that for housing, what I get for abt $540 here in Jackson is going to be as much as $1500 a month rental. But I don't need what I get here in Jackson, and in fact (many of you may be surprised to learn) Jackson is pretty damn annoying for things like rental. It's so small a city that there aren't any apartments; hence, the supposed cheap housing costs don't really transfer to my own life.

I actually like living in small places -- less to clean, more efficient. If there is a trade-off of space for cost, without concurrent reduction in efficiency / class / location, maybe I'm one of those people who can find a loophole in the pricing system.

The issue might be, for me, the cost of getting extras, especially at a strip club. I wonder if there are any decent internet resources to find out city comparisons. :)

Cost of good & happy times in clubs shouldn't be a concern. The real concern is the cost of housing in SF Bay area; whether it is aptartments or houses.
You can get legally everything in brothels in Reno/Carson City area. It's about 4 to 5 hours drive from the Bay area.

Hey Mickkeyc, what's so great about SF? I would be initially living in Santa Cruz (which as I understand it is more than an hour away) and looking for employment. I choose SF as much for the free house and the general "attitude" of the city, as anything else. But then there is the threat of earthquakes. Seems sort of silly for me to go from the US Gulf Coast after Katrina straight toward the Juan de Fuca plate ...

Well I wouldn't let the sexual addiction issue get in the way of moving to such a fabulous place. SF is a truly great and unique city; I woudl give it a shot and work on the addiction issue

BG: I can't speak to your situation and how you handle clubbing, but I know how >>I<< am, and I know that it's a damn good thing that I don't live any closer to good clubs and/or my current fave girl.

Fortunately, I am about a 1.5 hr drive from anything decent in any direction. If I were any closer, I'd probably be find myself getting into much more "trouble" and/or standing in the local soup line.

Maybe the mere fact that there would be readily available (and relatively reliable) AMP's would solve some problems, instead of create them ... ?

BG: Whatever you're getting in MS, TN, etc--- At least DOUBLE the $$$ in SF. MBOT can eat up your rent free $$ fast. Not to mention gas probably 30c more per gal.

From one ultra liberal socialist to another (well I don't if you'd describe yourself as socialist) unless you regularly engage in self-destructive behaviour you can rule out getting yourself in trouble at MBOT. The prices are fucking ridiculous and the interaction is about as sterile as you'd find in that enviro. I can't speak of the other clubs but would imagine them no different than SC's you'd find in other locales.