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

111–120 of 321 posts

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

#111

Post by soren_dahl »

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.

Gitlab, for example. You can see the multiples in the json used for the salary calculator (eg. Vancouver 57.367 % of a SF salary): https://about.gitlab.com/salary/data.json

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

#112

Post by Joelexander »

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.

Ive thought a lot about this.

For many residents, building more housing and letting more people in would irreparably change the “character” of the neighborhood. This can mean more crime, traffic, and pollution.

Past a certain density automotive transportation becomes unfeasable and people will be forced to rely on public or other alternative forms of transportation like walking or riding a bike.

Reducing housing costs would mean changing the way we build cities,shifting to a European or Asian model. Whereas most Californians are very attached to their way of living.

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

#113

Post by thaumasiotes »

notfromhere wrote: post #25
vsareto wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

home ownership, two kids, college education, and regular travel, all while being financially comfortable and saving for retirement are what the hallmarks of the american middle class dream used to be. A 100k household income doesn't afford you that anymore.

"Regular travel"? This is not a historically aware definition of "the American dream". Regular travel isn't even a goal of most people today.

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

#114

Post by 2sk21 »

notfromhere wrote: post #81
notadoc wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you're not getting a starter home for 30k in Dayton unless it comes without walls and was a former meth lab.

Indeed - even cities like Nashville have seen dramatic increases in home prices in recent years: https://www.nashvillepublicradio.org/post/after-years-surgin...

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

#115

Post by hogFeast »

jriot wrote: post #98

I am 34 years old working remotely as data scientist, making $107k TC. My wife who I've been married to for 13 years is a stay-at-home mother as we have two children in grade school. Since they are in the school she is turning in our half-acre into a sustainable garden with chickens. We own our home, are financially comfortable while saving $1500 a month, and travel. We were planning a 2-month trip to Japan this upco…

Thanks for telling everyone how great your life is going. I came here, and I was worried that I wouldn't hear about you and how well your life is going...but I am relieved now that I have heard how great your life is going.

Serious comment as the above will totally tilt the neckbeards who will miss the point: housing is a problem in aggregate, bad policies are a function of local/individual thinking. Every thread about housing (or personal finance) has these comments - I have my pension so everyone else should be fine - they are dumb and part of the problem. What seems a logical viewpoint individually, is catastrophic in aggregate.

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

#116

Post by paxys »

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.

Unless you get very lucky with housing living off $40k/year is pretty difficult in San Francisco. Even if you manage I would definitely not call it comfortable.

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

#117

Post by sjdb77 »

claudiulodro wrote: post #110
sjdb77 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And then just work for that company forever? What's the end-game?

Work for yourself eventually?

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

#118

Post by kevstev »

journalctl wrote: post #89
notfromhere wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you want to be mind-numbingly bored, sure. Despite the cost of living in a city, I (and others who enjoy city life) would much rather pay to enjoy amenities like public transit and being able to walk to a bar.

I don't think its fair to say that living outside a city has to be boring. Many value and enjoy being among nature. My ex-coworkers who live in rural areas seem to have a good time on their quads, tending their gardens that sometimes approach small farms, hiking/biking, boating on the lake in summer, ice fishing in winter, hunting, camping, etc.

Your Friday night at a bar is their Friday night around a fire with their hounds.

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

#119

Post by swlkr »

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.

I do this and I want other people to know it's possible too.

I'm putting together a list of the best places to live for remote workers with families, hoping to turn it into a little website that you can filter by schools, available internet speeds, median house price, that sort of thing.

Hopefully it will help someone out there when there's more data.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X2JihFpA97EEAMz8kD-j...

Post reply on HN