Live data from Hacker News

In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

mercurynews.com

311–320 of 428 posts

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#311
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Televisions were prohibitively priced as to make one even a stretch. It's just astounding how cheap televisions have become. A 32" flatscreen is like $150, and weighs ten pounds.

Whereas content is $100/month when it used to be $0.

Broadcast TV is still free. Movies always cost a fair amount of money.

An internet connection with youtube is $30 which is WAY more variety than "back then".

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

must be in the Sun Belt I'd try to sell you on Minnesota except for this :-) Well, we do get tons of sun (similar solar insolation numbers to Houston, TX), but it can be bright and sunny and still -25F

I had a friend who did try to sell me on Minneapolis. What put me off ultimately was finding out that central AC is difficult to find outside of the Sun Belt.

I guess in older homes. There's not a single home being built in the Minneapolis metro area (in my experience!) that doesn't have central A/C. This is a state of temperature extremes! It gets hot here in summer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Minneapolis%E2%80%9...

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one wants to live in Detroit. Uber couldn't even convince its workforce to commute to Oakland; they backed out of a deal to move their office there a month ago.

Oakland is great except for the poverty and side-effects of poverty. An influx of capital and ownership drives away poverty and makes it a non-issue.

I don't really get what you are trying to say here.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much does that have to do with our increasing desire for more space though? The square footage of living space per person in a new home has increased from 506.6 to 980.7 since 1973. https://www.aei.org/publication/todays-new-homes-are-1000-sq...

I've seen this argument before and it's not a clear-cut relationship to desire at all. Did home buyers absolutely demand more and more space, or did developers realize they could make more by building bigger and bigger homes? Now we are in a situation where many, many young people looking to move to cities would be perfectly happy with smaller living spaces at associated smaller costs, but those properties straight u…

The space doesn't cost as much as it once did. In almost every market, the land is the expensive part, not the house. Modern building materials are cheap and energy efficient. I moved from a 1400sqft 1930 built house to a 3600sqft 2014 built house, and the new house costs half as much as the old one to heat and cool. For a builder, there's hardly any reason not to build the largest house that fits on the property, because most of the high cost components are the same if you have a small house or a large house.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#315
post #21

Single income, Alameda county ( Fremont ), family of 4 No car payment, No credit card debt, 130k will let you live and eat with a bit of room to go do things once a month. If you have a car payment and or credit cards kiss that once a month thing goodbye 150k will let you have a car and do things Source : I left that area recently

Honest question. I just looked at Redfin and the average house costs around $1.2mm. How would anyone making $130k with 4 dependents buy a house? You seem to fit that criteria so I'll ask you. How on earth did you afford that? Because based on my simple math there just isn't enough money for it to be possible.

Simple, you don't buy a house. At least, not unless you can afford to pay cash. For most people, buying a house on a mortgage is financial suicide. It only makes sense to buy a house on a mortgage if the price-to-rent ratio is under 25. Anything over that and you could rent the same house and invest the money you save and come out ahead. The price-to-rent ratio in San Francisco is 45.88, meaning that a house that rents for $1000/month costs $550,560 to buy. Your monthly payment on a $550,560 mortgage would be $2,603. Conservatively investing $1603/month in an index fund for 30 years would yield $1,122,003 after inflation.

https://smartasset.com/mortgage/price-to-rent-ratio-in-us-ci...

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#316
post #76
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My reaction exactly. Americans use way too much, to be honest. 8k sq ft is more than enough for like 7+ families.

After living in 'cramped old london' for over a decade (still), I can only dream of the luxury of 800 Sq.m. Where do I sign up? :) fitting multiple people/families into anything less is just bad living standards as far as I'm concerned. You work hard all day long to go back to such a depressing existence. Time to start living fellow HN'ers!

Eh, grass is greener. Some of us worked hard to live in lively, crowded European cities. The suburbs have their downsides. For me, it was crushing loneliness.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#317
post #21

Single income, Alameda county ( Fremont ), family of 4 No car payment, No credit card debt, 130k will let you live and eat with a bit of room to go do things once a month. If you have a car payment and or credit cards kiss that once a month thing goodbye 150k will let you have a car and do things Source : I left that area recently

Same for me. At $130k I was paying off debts at $2k/month but otherwise living paycheck to paycheck. At $160k I now finally have a little extra, replaced my old broken car and have a little cash to save. Rent is $1450 for a studio with no kitchen. I am 32 and single but want a home. I grew up in this area and I feel like I'll have to work forever and start saving aggressively to be able to buy a home and have anythin…

Answer: you live like a king at 100+ in lots of major cities.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So long as you and your partner are both making 6 figures That's a pretty high bar for cost of living. Here in Charlotte, NC, I make half of that, and could support two people without any difficulty.

Yeah. There's definitely a culture tax in the NW. I can freely enjoy the virtues of legal cannabis, frequent the best coffee shops in the world, and hike the glacial peaks all in the same day. To me that's worth the cost.

In Charlotte, I'm 2 hours away from the Appalachian mountains, and can easily get good coffee.

I wouldn't consider legal marijuana worth $100k a year, personally.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a minority race and if so would you say that Utah is friendly to non-whites ?

Utah is pretty friendly overall on account of the high Mormon population. Metro-SLC is pretty liberal and tolerant. The further out you go, the more ignorance you'll encounter. My bigger issue is the beer. 2.5% whatttttt?

Actually friendly or just polite?

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#320

For a family of 4. That's the critical bit left out of the article title. 104k is low income for a family of 4, in some areas. Which makes sense when it's hard to find somewhere to live alone, in SF, even at 100k. Finding a place big enough for a family of 4 plus all the costs related to 4 humans? Not surprising in the least.

How much does that have to do with our increasing desire for more space though? The square footage of living space per person in a new home has increased from 506.6 to 980.7 since 1973. https://www.aei.org/publication/todays-new-homes-are-1000-sq...

Across America that is true, but in hot real estate markets people are chopping up houses into smaller condos and new apartments have tiny rooms.

I bet living space per person in the bay area, NYC, DC, etc. has gone down over that same period.

Post reply on HN