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

261–270 of 321 posts

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

#261

Post by elicash »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #38
elicash wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Median household income in NYC is $57,782. (Individual is $50,825.) And yeah, NYC is a huge, diverse city but even Manhattan's median income is $79,781 in 2017. (Corrected figure)

Hence Scott Sumner's headline a while ago, "The Typical Rich Family Is A Cop Married To A Nurse". https://www.themoneyillusion.com/the-typical-rich-family-is-...

Great observation, but the analysis here seems wrong to me.

If you took the median income of people between 45 and 60, I bet people here would STILL be shocked at how low it is. The reason isn't a lack of taking life stage into consideration (the link has no analysis of the numbers there). It's mostly about rich folks refusing to admit they're rich relative to most people.

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

#262

Post by CapricornNoble »

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…

Jeeeez, rental prices in the States are INSANE.

I live in a dense urban area of ~1 million, on a tropical island. My 550 sqft apartment is ~$520. Hardwood floors, natural gas range and hot water, structure is proof against typhoons up to Category 5 (already experienced several), as well as earthquakes. Gigabit fiber optic internet @$35/month Speedtests around 550MB. Daily flights to practically every major city in Asia.

HOUSES, however, are insanely priced. The mortgage rates are low (1-3%, slightly less than 1% if you are a government employee) but the principal is stratospheric for the size of home and land you are buying.

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

#263

Post by TylerE »

bradlys wrote: post #256
dragontamer wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah - for a person who is adjusted to only living in big cities then sure I've never lived in any big city. Literally never. Not even close, always 20+ minutes away from the major city. The thing is: suburbia itself is a network of smaller cities. Buies Creek has no "smaller city" near it. Buies Creek IS the city. -------- To continue your Atherton example... Atherton is a suburb of ___Palo Alto___, not a suburb o…

> Not even close, always 20+ minutes away from the major city. lol - this is so disconnected from how anyone who lives a truly rural lifestyle would think of it. 20 minutes is a joke! Living multiple hours away is considered more standard.

By whom?

99% of the rural population isn't Eastern Montana.

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

#264

Post by TylerE »

bradlys wrote: post #259
dragontamer wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because its 4-miles away from Palo Alto (city of 60k). Rural is mostly about being far away from urban centers. Buies Creek NC is 30+ miles from its nearest population center (10k+ citizens). While Atherton is 4-miles away from its nearest population center (60k+ citizens in Palo Alto).

It has a population center of 20k within 15 miles. That was only one that I looked at. I didn't even have to try for that. I know nothing about that region but at an eagle eye's glance, it's obviously a suburb. It's part of an incorporated metropolitan area. It is, therefore, a suburb. It is not rural. Atherton isn't a suburb of Palo Alto btw. Palo Alto is the suburb.

Can I say how much you've moved the goal posts here? The original post was about some place that wasn't a "big city", not an isolated rural farm.

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

#265

Post by glandium »

soren_dahl wrote: post #111
aledalgrande wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Angola 120.056?!

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

#266

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#267

Post by RhysU »

lukevp wrote: post #78
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".

Housing in Texas is still very cheap comparatively. And salaries are $100k+ in tech. You can get a house in round Rock ( for example 1309 green terrace Dr is on the market for under $240k and it's a 2300 sqft house with a 2 car garage ) and it's an 18 minute drive from Apple and Facebook.

And no state income tax, though property taxes will take your breath away.

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

#268

Post by arebop »

sjdb77 wrote: post #239
arebop wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just Obamacare will cost you $20k. Of course, on $40k/year I suppose one would be taking subsidies or medicaid instead of paying full freight. But, then I guess it could be said you can make it in SF on $0/year...

No, for a single person a gold plan for Kaiser is $500/month, so $6k a year, but yes if I have $40k in investment income then I'd qualify for a premium tax credit, in this case my premium is capped to $318/month with the rest as a tax credit.

When I check at coveredca.com, I see the cheapest plan by estimated total cost [kaiser bronze] is $18069/year. Perhaps you're younger, or assuming that you will not actually have to use any medical services or products?

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

#269

Post by friendlybus »

rchaud wrote: post #238
refurb wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly housing is very expensive in the cities in Vietnam, on a relative basis. A friend’s mother sold a 1000 sq ft home in Saigon for $250,000. New apartments are often $100k+. Considering the average wage is $6,000 in Saigon, the housing is outrageous.

Similarly, a good chunk of urban housing in Canada, Australia and NZ are priced completely out of line with what median salaries in those areas could afford. These are likely houses marketed towards "investors", aka rich people who don't need a mortgage or have a network of private lenders who specialize in providing credit for the house-flipping industry.

That's going to change quite drastically quite soon. The talk around the industry and in society generally is that house prices in Aus at least are going to dip.
Post reply on HN