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

211–220 of 321 posts

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

#211

Post by itsbenweeks »

g2ah5z wrote: post #167
itsbenweeks wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of. You'd be left paying the difference of 3.5% to 20% (16.5% or $49,500) in a FHA Mortgage Insurance Premium (MIP). This means another loan that you need a 1.75% down payment for (making your downpayment ≈ 3.8% or $11,400) that adds another payment (≈ $400) in addition to the mortgage. MIPs last the entire life of the FHA loan, too.

Yes, it's effectively a higher interest rate on the entire loan, but my point was that you don't need a massive amount of cash up front to close the deal.

And it's still a valid point. It's good to mention that a <20% down payment has caveats, too.

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

#212

Post by journalctl »

taborj wrote: post #155
journalctl wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actually am thankful for folks who think living outside a major metro area is "mind-numbingly" boring. That means you'll stay in the city with all the other crazy people. See, these low-effort insults work both ways!

Cool. And thanks for car-induced climate change. I can’t wait for the oceans to turn to acid so you can enjoy your homesteading fantasy.

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

#213

Post by beefalo »

throwaway981211 wrote: post #181
tjr225 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "homes that can be afforded at $100k salary" There are many places throughout the south, midwest and northeast with decent job markets and dirt cheap housing. The mortgage on my 1800 sq foot house is nearly a third of the cost of my tiny one bedroom back in Seattle. The cost of the entire house is a tenth of a house in the Bay Area. I am fortunate to work remotely but when deciding where to live I wanted to be able…

How does your total comp fare relative to Seattle? I’m living in downtown Seattle now working for Amazon. I’ve been here almost 8 years. My TC is north of $300K, but the mental strain this fucking company has had on me has me constantly on the edge. I’m thinking about leaving to join another FANG company or drop out of big tech all together.

People I know who work remotely from the midwest for Bay Area/Seattle companies are ~200 TC when they would probably get ~400 if they moved.

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

#214

Post by swlkr »

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?

For now it's just the spreadsheet, (anyone can edit) but the website will be by done by Nov 11th.

That's the goal anyway, and then from there I could open source or just do weighted average input for people to rate their favorites w/ no login required.

It's early days.

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

#215

Post by TylerE »

dragontamer wrote: post #191
bradlys wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of "small town" are we talking about? Most "small town"s I think of don't have universities. Maybe a community college for the whole county.

Well, its all relative ain't it. Lets just say... Buies Creek, North Carolina. I've been to smaller towns, but I'd say population of 2,942 is small for most people. EDIT: Seems like prices may have gone up in recent years: I'm seeing $800 to $1000 on Rent.com, but there's still a listing or two for $600/month. Or maybe "word of mouth" is still king there. Buies Creek is still reasonably close to the Raleigh metropoli…

Yeah, that's my point. $500 is going to be sketch.

I'm actually pretty familiar with Buies...my mom's family all lives in Sanford and used to drive through there.

I work for a company that does rental listings so I look at these numbers a lot.

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

#216

Post by swlkr »

taborj wrote: post #144
mikebonnell wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Haha, for now it's just the spreadsheet like I mentioned in parent comment.

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

#217

Post by TylerE »

bradlys wrote: post #200
dragontamer wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, its all relative ain't it. Lets just say... Buies Creek, North Carolina. I've been to smaller towns, but I'd say population of 2,942 is small for most people. EDIT: Seems like prices may have gone up in recent years: I'm seeing $800 to $1000 on Rent.com, but there's still a listing or two for $600/month. Or maybe "word of mouth" is still king there. Buies Creek is still reasonably close to the Raleigh metropoli…

Yeah - 30 miles outside Raleigh isn't really a small town, IMO. It seems more like a suburb.

Nah, I'd say it counts. Population is under 5,000. It's very much NOT Raleigh.

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

#218

Post by tbyehl »

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.

Down payment is only a portion of the costs to buy a loan. My 3.5% down FHA mortgage on $309K purchase price cost me about $16K. My previous 5% down conventional on $103K was around $12K.

Moving in ain't free, either.

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

#219

Post by dinkleberg »

jandrese wrote: post #163
gg2488 wrote: post #131

I'm behind the paywall but I'm wondering if this is because, just maybe, younger people understand finances better. When I wanted to buy a house, I waited until I save up the 20%. I know plenty of friends in their late 20s and early 30s who have the same attitude. Me and my wife also paid for our wedding in cash, we waited until we could afford it. You have the millennial generation looking at their parents still wor…

The downside of saving a lot before you buy is that you still have to pay the rent while trying to save that money. Putting 20% down has advantages when making the loan (better rates mostly) so it makes sense, but saving beyond that is making your life more difficult. I think Student Loan debt is a huge factor in buying houses later. It's really hard to save if you're paying down debt as well as paying rent. It could…

Yeah in my area I'm paying probably $200+/month more for my small apartment than I would for a house that's 2-3 times the sqft. It's frustrating to know that I'd actually be saving money + building equity of I could just buy a house today. But saving up is hard when you're also paying off student debt.

My family has told me that you should always save up the 20%, but it seems like like the FHA 3.5% is the winners choice. If I wait until I have 20% down it's going to take ages and all that money spent on apartments is going to waste.

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

#220

Post by IshKebab »

cosmodisk wrote: post #152

I live in London. I'm not on 100K, however my salary is higher than 90% of the UK's population.If I'd compare our family income,we are better off than 75% of the country's households.These are just the stats. All 3 of us live in a one bedroom,rented flat in a decent area. We wouldn't even get a mortgage for the flat we live in (£300K)...The neighbors bought a house next door for £1M. Only pensioners and businessmen o…

90th percentile puts you on around £55k, for which you could absolutely get a mortgage on a £300k property (assuming you have a 10% deposit and your partner earns an average salary).
Post reply on HN