Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 428 posts

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

#361

Post by tropo »

kmonsen wrote: post #223
phkahler wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> That sounds great, but one of the common rebuttals is that the job market (remote or otherwise) may be more challenging outside of the Bay Area. It amazes me how many people in tech can't do simple math. Hint: The Detroit area job market is on fire, but you will pass it over if your idea of compensation doesn't take into account cost of living. I'm sure there are several other cities that can say the same.

I'm not an expert, but from my experience this is not true. If you do well in Bay Area (lets say ~500k total comp) it will be hard to match that in another area even including cost of living.

If you are mostly just saving that money, perhaps to later do early retirement in a place like Tennessee or Kentucky, sure. Cost of living doesn't impact you much when you live in a tiny apartment.

If you want to raise a big family, you're better off elsewhere. Even with a really reduced total comp, say ~300k, you could have a 6-bedroom house on the beach or on a 30-acre lot. You could have a guest house and servant's quarters.

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

#362

Post by phkahler »

jdhn wrote: post #321
phkahler wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> That sounds great, but one of the common rebuttals is that the job market (remote or otherwise) may be more challenging outside of the Bay Area. It amazes me how many people in tech can't do simple math. Hint: The Detroit area job market is on fire, but you will pass it over if your idea of compensation doesn't take into account cost of living. I'm sure there are several other cities that can say the same.

I don't know if I would call the Detroit market hot, it took me about 3-4 months to find a new job. However, I'm not a software developer, so rhat could also have something to do with it.

Every single person I know in software has a decent job and I'm having a hard time finding good people. We're slowly increasing staff, but it's hard. Back in 2008-9 I worked somewhere that was hiring a LOT and the problem was just sifting through the mountains of people after the crash. This is the complete opposite. Part of the problem is internal - since management wants to operate very lean we need to find really good people, but there aren't very many average ones showing up either.

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

#363

Post by CalRobert »

scholia wrote: post #323
CalRobert wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You live in the centre when you're young and single and changing jobs. You move to the suburbs when you have married, settled down and want kids, a garden, good local schools etc. When the kids have moved out, you can downsize to that retirement place in Spain... except that may not work as well after the UK leaves the EU.

Well, I don't live in the UK, so there's that. I am expecting a child within a few months and hope to stay in the city; we'll see how it pans out.

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

#364

Post by genkimind »

douche wrote: post #107
ryanSrich wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just remember that you'll want to select a city that has a decent economy and tech scene in the event that you lose your job and need to take a location dictated position. So long as you and your partner are both making 6 figures you should be able to afford any of the following cities: - Seattle - Portland - Austin - Denver

Most of southern New Hampshire is within commuting distance of Boston - plus there are no income taxes. Housing is a little pricey, but not compared to Bay Area prices. A 200k+ household income would let you live like kings.

I left New Hampshire a long time ago. It's quite boring.

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

#365

Post by tropo »

matwood wrote: post #131
archeantus wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We moved to Utah where the tech scene is actually quite strong, and the cost of living is significantly less. We bought an 8k sq ft house for the price of many 1,500 sq ft town homes we had been putting offers in on in California. It can be such a rat race down there, it is refreshing to remember that it doesn't have to be that way. Life exists outside of The Valley, and it happens to be a pretty darn good one (and a…

Hopefully 8k sqft was a typo. I feel like 2500sqft is too much sometimes.

It's Utah. You know, Mormons. The bit about them having huge families is real.

With one kid or wife per bedroom and 1000sqft for kitchen/dining/whatever, you have room for 28. (4 wives, 6 kids each) Making the non-bedroom part of the house more luxurious and adding a bathroom to each bedroom, you have room for about 16. You can hit that even without polygamy.

He may be counting a large garage. That could be 1000sqft by itself, so knock off 3 or 4 bedrooms.

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

#366

Post by infinite8s »

ryanSrich wrote: post #261
zrail wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> moving to the numbers I lived in Portland for six years and never once heard this expression and yet I know exactly what you mean.

20 years ago = 57th is bad 10 years ago = 82nd is bad Now = 122nd is bad I count myself lucky to live West of 82nd.

That was the same with the Upper East/West side of manhattan, (although truncate the timeframe by 1/2 and going N/S instead of E/W).

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

#367

Post by cm2012 »

bardworx wrote: post #163
cm2012 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The median annual family income (for a whole family including all earners) is 50k. 100k for a family is in the top 20% of NYC.

I live in Brooklyn, by Verrazano bridge which is an hour away from Manahattan by train. I don't know how a family can servive on 50k in a working class neighborhood like mine. I believe there is a great disparity in NYC between Section 8 housing and regular, rent stabilized, apartments. Section 8 brings down family income median as the housing is very affordable but cannot be classified as desirable by most standards…

Section 8 is only 8% of people in nyc.

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

#368

Post by closeparen »

coltalk wrote: post #334
closeparen wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're indicating that you rent for less than $1250/mo. A studio is out of the question at that rate; even a room in a shared apartment would be unlikely. People I know paying that little money for housing are an entire BART line away from the city (Richmond, Pittsburg, etc), have several roommates or a working spouse, and need cars. What do you pay for housing, what kind of housing is it, and is a lease like yours a…

$915/month for SRO. No special connections or status.

Ah. SROs seem to have a reputation for extremely poor physical condition, predatory management, a high concentration of unstable and dangerous people with untreated mental illnesses as neighbors, and locations in rough neighborhoods like the Tenderloin.

There seems to be a consensus that enduring long commutes, or just moving away, are preferable to living in those kinds of conditions. I've never heard of someone considering an SRO unless they had been previously homeless or institutionalized.

Even the starving artists seem to prefer sharing apartments (or using former warehouse/factory space as apartments) in the less glamorous parts of the East Bay.

I'd love to to live in a clean, safe, quiet, well-maintained SRO close to work at that price.

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

#369

Post by sidlls »

flubert wrote: post #357
sidlls wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) And this shows: public services and family friendly recreation are basically non-existent by comparison with the Bay 2) Possibly a gem in the rough, but having family who teach in OCPS I'm skeptical 4) Quite subjective; I personally don't enjoy 100% humidity and 100 degree temperatures 8 months out of the year in which one is constantly assaulted by mosquitoes and "love bugs" 5) again, subjective, although it's ha…

>6) I doubt you're going to find a 1500 sq ft. 3 bedroom town home for $1k per month (1/4 of what I pay 20 miles south of SF), and you're leaving out other costs, hidden costs, including commute and items related to the lack of public services and much higher utilities costs; the cost of living is lower, but not 75% lower Are we talking town homes for rent? * 3 beds; 2.5 baths; 1,528 sqft; $1,000/mo https://www.zillo…

The sale prices for some of those don't factor in homeowners insurance or property taxes, which can easily double the total payment. Also, I don't see anything from Oviedo, specifically, in that list.

The first item, for example, is just north of I-10, which is northern Florida and even more conservative than the rest of the state.

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

#370

Post by Danihan »

BadassFractal wrote: post #341
Danihan wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, all the smartest, most capable people should stop having kids. Considering intelligence is something like 85% hereditary, that will work out excellently!

The smartest and most capable people will not be making 100k in the Bay area with a family of 4.

In your mind, what would the smartest and most capable people be doing?
Post reply on HN