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

141–150 of 321 posts

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

#141

Post by francisofascii »

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #76
dragontamer wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Over 80% of Americans live in an urban area[1] so it's pretty absurd to claim "city-folk" represents some elite minority. Median household income in NYC is $57,782 [2]. The idea that America is split into some wealth urban minority vs a near majority of lower income rural population that understands "reality" is complete fantasy. It doesn't change the fact that $100k is still a lot of money, but the people for whom t…

The US definition of "urban" is basically anything that is not rural. Includes suburbs and small towns. People who don't consider themselves city folk and have never used Uber or heard of instacart.

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

#142

Post by ska »

aetherson wrote: post #105
ed312 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Struggling with rent vs buy right now for this very reason. I know financially it would be better to buy, but then you lose the flexibility to go after a great opportunity in even another part of a major city.

You know that you can sell houses before you pay off your mortgage, right? If you aren't in an area with very high housing costs (which, obviously, very many readers of this site are), it's not even that big a deal to sell your house when you need to. If your house constitutes 40% of your net worth, and you take a 5% hit on your sale price, then your net worth has declined... 2%. A good job is worth that. Admittedly,…

Closing costs will kill you if you are doing this too often. If you are pretty certain you will stay at least 5 years, you should be ok.

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

#143

Post by brixon »

rwmurrayVT wrote: post #101
chadlavi wrote: post #27

I know millennials with combined household incomes in excess of $200k who can't afford to buy, because huge student loans are required to get that kind of income if mommy and daddy aren't rich in the first place.

You certainly don't need to be drowning in student loan debt to reach that. You could go to a state school and get an excellent job. That's just poor financial decision making. Where I live you could go to UVa, VT, or maybe VCU.

You also have to factor consumerism and entitlement into the issue. I make white collar money, but live in a blue collar neighborhood. This makes housing more affordable and there is no temptation for "Keeping up with the Joneses".

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

#144

Post by taborj »

mikebonnell wrote: post #133
swlkr wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

How would one contribute to this?

Agreed, I want to contribute.

So I can direct people away from where I live, so the prices don't skyrocket.

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

#145

Post by ConceitedCode »

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #76
dragontamer wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Over 80% of Americans live in an urban area[1] so it's pretty absurd to claim "city-folk" represents some elite minority. Median household income in NYC is $57,782 [2]. The idea that America is split into some wealth urban minority vs a near majority of lower income rural population that understands "reality" is complete fantasy. It doesn't change the fact that $100k is still a lot of money, but the people for whom t…

The US census counts the suburbs as urban. I don't believe most people referring to "city-folk" are referring to people in the suburbs.

"To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to criteria must encompass at least 2,500 people, at least 1,500 of which reside outside institutional group quarters."

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/faq/...

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

#146

Post by mixmastamyk »

throw0101a wrote: post #122
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in all desirable players. Only ones that limit construction. Meanwhile in desirable places which allow more construction, like Tokyo, housing prices have stabilized [1]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-af...

> Not in all desirable players. Only ones that limit construction. Toronto has more construction (120) cranes than anyone else in North America (Seattle & LA second at 50), and prices are still crazy even with a building boom. * https://www.on-sitemag.com/heavy-equipment/toronto-remains-u... * https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/economic/2019/0... And that 120 is just in the city proper, the suburbs have mor…

Cranes suggest there is demand, not that it has yet been met.

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

#147

Post by brixon »

rwmurrayVT wrote: post #135
Yhippa wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget the highly underrated community college systems in VA.

I hear community colleges put out there as an option to move into a 4 year state school often. I can't help but think it applies to many more states than I expected initially.

A lot of states have this, but follow the plan. Don't take random CC classes, only take ones that will transfer to schools they have agreements with. I did CC for a year and they marked the classes with an * which would transfer to the closest university.

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

#148

Post by hogFeast »

aledalgrande wrote: post #52
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.

I would say that is a problem in any place where it is desirable to live these days. Locations I've experienced first hand: London, Sydney, Bay area, Los Angeles, Vancouver... and I'm sure there are many more where you can't buy on that salary.

This isn't really the case.

First, to talk about the place I know best, cities in the UK outside London are pretty expensive too. The UK has a disproportionate share of the world's expensive cities, despite being a relatively middle-income country. Demand isn't rising fast, it is just impossible to build (usually due to "environmental" planning regulations). That is an unforced error.

Second, there are examples of large cities that don't have these issues. Berlin is probably one of the most well-known examples, they had a ton of public housing. They started breaking some of these buildings up, and guess what...rents are going up.

Third, it is worth getting some perspective on this. There are cities that have almost no land that have managed much higher growth. Property in Singapore, for example, is expensive by international standards but, given per capita incomes and given the population density, they have actually not done badly (particularly when you look at access instead of average price). That is equally true of China (some cities in China have gone for 0 to millions of people...this makes the growth in most Western cities look flaccid). You could even say that New York has managed this reasonably well too (there has been investment in transport infrastructure at least, which is another cause of rising prices in some cities).

It is hard to generalise about this because policy is often made locally. But I think it is also clear that part of the problem is local policy causing a problem in aggregate. That is systemic and unrelated to demand.

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

#149

Post by rwmurrayVT »

mrlase wrote: post #124
rwmurrayVT wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You certainly don't need to be drowning in student loan debt to reach that. You could go to a state school and get an excellent job. That's just poor financial decision making. Where I live you could go to UVa, VT, or maybe VCU.

PA, for example where I went to school, was still nearly $20k/year for tuition at the flagship state schools. I know a lot of people in-state that ended up with over $100k debt.

$100k in student loans @ 4% and a 10 year pay off period. That's over $70k net pay in Philadelphia. I'd imagine you could certainly afford to buy a home after a short period of time saving for a down payment. If the dual income household is over $200k gross then it's just poor financial decision making.

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

#150

Post by taborj »

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?

Enjoy life outside of work? Look, I enjoy my work and it's pretty meaningful work that affects people in real ways.

But I work to live, not live to work. My job is a means to an end, that end being to have a fulfilling life that doesn't revolve around what I do for a living.

Because of that, I find the quest to climb the corporate ladder has lost it's appeal. I'm cool staying at my current, well-paying, work from home job until I retire. I don't want to be running a company, I want to be running my life.

Post reply on HN