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

$100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 321 posts

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#41

Post by Accujack »

sjdb77 wrote: post #30
Tehchops wrote: post #10

There's very few places where there is an overlap of "jobs that pay $100k" and "homes that can be afforded at $100k salary".

Remote work is becoming more "real" by the day, so it's certainly possible in the age of the internet to work remotely in a low cost location while making a salary competitive with a higher cost of living city like SF/NY/LA.

If you're in a technical job and an occupation that allows it, sure.

Plenty of machinists, auto mechanics, health care professionals and welders aren't gonna have much luck working from home.

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#42

Post by dragontamer »

TylerE wrote: post #36
dragontamer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small town America will have $500 / month for a 2-bedroom apartment, while paying medical-doctors $200k+ / year. But you may be the only doctor around for 10s of miles. Which is why you'd be so valuable. I'm sure there are other $100k to $200k jobs that small towns need. No, you won't get high-tech or programming in small-town America. But there's more to life than just the tech-field. Its easy to forget because we'r…

Even in small towns $500 won’t get you much. A small, old, place in a marginal part of town.

It was walking distance from the local university + local hospital. My sister at the time was studying to be a medical doctor, so she needed to be close to those two spots.

There wasn't much else going on in the town aside from the university + hospital.

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#43

Post by czbond »

ed312 wrote: post #23
Tehchops wrote: post #10

There's very few places where there is an overlap of "jobs that pay $100k" and "homes that can be afforded at $100k salary".

If you find one, please share :) Less sarcastically: is there an index for this kind of thing? E.g. cost of living for an equivalent neighborhood plotted against median salaries for tech jobs?

Dallas, TX is one - but as resident, I up and moved to Denver because .... ugh.

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#44

Post by hanniabu »

dragontamer wrote: post #7
notfromhere wrote: post #2

It's been a long time since $100k was a lot of money

Median household income in USA is $59,039. That's both the mother AND father working to bring home $59,039 on the average (before taxes and other costs). Its clear you live in a rich area where $100k isn't much. But that's also why a large chunk of Americans think that "city-folk" are disconnected from reality. $100k is a lot for many people. My sister lives in an area (in USA) where a 2-bedroom apartment is just $50…

> Its clear you live in a rich area where $100k isn't much

You mean he doesn't live out in the sticks or a run-down city like Detroit (MI), Gary (IN), or Paterson (NJ). You don't need to live in a rich area for $100k to not be that much.

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#45

Post by benburleson »

vsareto wrote: post #14
glouwbug wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100k is not enough for your typical American dream, which a _lot_ of people feel entitled to

What is the typical american dream and why is there a typical version and an atypical version?

The classic American Dream is:

* A stable job (that pays "enough" and isn't too stressful)

* Own a home

* (optionally) Raise a family

* Enjoy weekends free, as well as vacations (and the ability to afford them)

At least that is my interpretation. If there are atypical American Dreams, I'm curious what those might include.

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#46

Post by notfromhere »

notadoc wrote: post #24

This is mostly a west coast problem, where housing is hugely inflated in every west coast state and city. And NYC too of course, but that's less surprising given its NYC. Sometimes I think these articles are written as clickbait for people in the midwest, southeast, northeast, where housing is still very cheap and jobs pay well.

every major metro has seen an increase in housing costs. West coast may be extreme, but this hits every metro across the country.

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#47

Post by tachyonbeam »

dragontamer wrote: post #7
notfromhere wrote: post #2

It's been a long time since $100k was a lot of money

Median household income in USA is $59,039. That's both the mother AND father working to bring home $59,039 on the average (before taxes and other costs). Its clear you live in a rich area where $100k isn't much. But that's also why a large chunk of Americans think that "city-folk" are disconnected from reality. $100k is a lot for many people. My sister lives in an area (in USA) where a 2-bedroom apartment is just $50…

Hmm, do most households have two people nowadays?

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#48

Post by taurath »

notfromhere wrote: post #32
dragontamer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small town America will have $500 / month for a 2-bedroom apartment, while paying medical-doctors $200k+ / year. But you may be the only doctor around for 10s of miles. Which is why you'd be so valuable. I'm sure there are other $100k to $200k jobs that small towns need. No, you won't get high-tech or programming in small-town America. But there's more to life than just the tech-field. Its easy to forget because we'r…

the sweet spot in terms of arbitrage right now is: find full time employment at a high earning job in a major metro area, move far enough from that metro area to work remote while being able to come into the office a handful of times per month. A three hour commute is easier when you only do it twice a week, or a few times a month.

A 3 hour commute each way is not easy even when you do it only twice a week

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#49

Post by diminoten »

uwuhn wrote: post #33
sjdb77 wrote: post #15

I'm in a mini-retirement right now and living in SF. It was surprising to learn that below like $50k you basically pay 0 in income tax in California. As a single person I can very comfortably live off $40k/year in investment income and pay no taxes right now.

>It was surprising to learn that below like $50k you basically pay 0 in income tax in California. Not if you're a contractor without a full-time employer. In college I did freelance work, and I lost nearly 30% to taxes despite making less than $5k a year from my work. Having your social security responsibility doubled is brutal.

You lost that because you didn't file for a tax return correctly...

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#50

Post by nxpnsv »

justinzollars wrote: post #9

$100,000 still a lot of money. You can buy a beer in Vietnam for 20 cents. The problem in the Bay Area, where I live, is we artificially limit the amount of housing. So prices move to infinity.

Just imagine the house you could build from 500000 Vietnamese beers...
Post reply on HN