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

61–70 of 321 posts

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

#61

Post by opencl »

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?

A large chunk of the midwest is like that. Housing is very cheap in the small-medium cities (and the big cities are still a lot cheaper than the coasts) and you'll usually find a few local software companies + satellite offices of bigger ones that pay in that range.

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

#62

Post by PopeDotNinja »

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.

I was living in San Francisco on an after tax income of $500/week for most of 2010-2011. Prices are a bit higher now, but I think I could scrape by on that amount if I had to. I wouldn't want to though.

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

#63

Post by imtringued »

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.

Why isn't a 1 hour commute enough to find cheap land/housing?

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

#64

Post by aledalgrande »

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.

Problem is a lot of companies get smart and "pay by location". I've seen big cos from the Bay offering half the salary (before currency exchange) for workers in Vancouver.

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

#65

Post by tachyonbeam »

glouwbug wrote: post #11
ceejayoz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It remains an enormous amount of money for a lot of people.

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

I would have said a lot of people want, rather than a lot of people "feel entitled to". It's debatable what people are "entitled to", but we live in an age where it would be well within our technological reach to build comfortable homes for everyone. It would however be politically impractical to reallocate land and resources to make that happen, because the people who currently own most of the resources feel entitled to keeping them.

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

#66

Post by zajd »

asdfman123 wrote: post #35
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".

1) Take this list of metropolitan areas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistic... 2) Remove most of the coastal cities (SF, NYC, Boston, Seattle, Portland, etc. etc.) 3) End up with a list of metros with decent paying jobs and not exorbitantly expensive housing

Counterexample: Denver

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

#67

Post by notadoc »

notfromhere wrote: post #46
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.

Sure ok, but over 6 years a starter house going from $19,000 to $30,000 in Dayton is a lot different on the affordability spectrum than an equivalent house going from $300,000 to $900,000 in Seattle.

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

#68

Post by lukeschlather »

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…

> That's both the mother AND father working to bring home $59,039 on the average (before taxes and other costs).

This isn't accurate. That's everyone in the household collectively working to bring home 59,039 on average. 27% of "households" are individuals. 34% of households are couples (that is to say, two people with no dependents. If they're mothers or fathers, they're empty nesters.) So only about a third of households have more than two people (presumably parents + children.)

Not sure what the median income for households with two working parents + children is.

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

#69

Post by sjdb77 »

aledalgrande wrote: post #64
sjdb77 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Problem is a lot of companies get smart and "pay by location". I've seen big cos from the Bay offering half the salary (before currency exchange) for workers in Vancouver.

The trick is usually to get a job locally in SF, do well for a couple years, and then ask to work remote.

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

#70

Post by sjg007 »

g2ah5z wrote: post #51
dfxm12 wrote: post #19

I'm behind a paywall, so I'm sure they pick up on this, but the biggest problem I ran into when I thought I could afford a house was the down payment. You can make $100k (or less!) and quite easily afford a monthly mortgage payment, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have enough saved up for a down payment.

You only need 3.5% down with an FHA loan. To put that in perspective, a $300,000 home would only require $10,500 down.

You can buy as low as 3% down and then there are the NACA loans and a slew of zero down programs.
Post reply on HN