Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

andrenader.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 120 posts

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#31

Post by harmmonica »

thefaux wrote: post #2

The funny thing is that I just plucked 5MM out of a hat for my number 5 or so years ago when asked and I guess this analysis supports my intuition. The one big problem with renting is instability. If the owner decides to sell the property, it may be difficult to find something equivalent on your terms or you may be forced to hop around a few times before settling.

A buyout, as sibling mentioned, could happen, but would likely not be enough to make up for losing your rent-controlled apartment. In SF, most apartment rentals are covered by rent control so you can more or less predict how much rent you'll be paying years into the future (the annual rent increases are capped by the city and though they are supposed to be tied to inflation the allowable rent increases are likely, practically speaking, less than the inflation rate (for example, looks like for the coming year the increase is capped at 1.7%)).

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#32

Post by the_real_cher »

generic92034 wrote: post #13
dataflow wrote: post #4

Doesn't this depend heavily on inflation? With the ballooning US debt, how do people imagine the government will continue to pay interest without massive inflation in a few decades?

The same as always? Pay old debt with new debt. Other countries might run into issues with exchange rates this way, but the status of the USD is dampening such effects.

how long can you do that for?

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#33

Post by koolba »

starttoaster wrote: post #18
coryrc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you bought a couple decades ago or inherited from your parents.

Not sure how it works in every state, but my property taxes are liable to increase year to year, for a home I own. Are you saying this is not the case in California? They just true up property taxes for a property upon next sale?

CA assessed value for property tax calculations is capped at 2% growth per year. So if you bought a house in the 1970s you’re never selling that thing as the tax hit on any new property annually would be much more. If anything, you keep the property, rent it out, and never do any major renovation that would trigger a full reassessment.

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#34

Post by dinobones »

photonbeam wrote: post #16
the_gipsy wrote: post #5

Companies are essentially subsidizing $1M (or more now?) mortgages if you are willing to go into their SV offices. You don't have to retire there! Just sell the house and move on.

I hadn’t heard of this, what are some example companies I can look at?

I think what he means is: Some SF companies pay very large compensation packages so that their engineers can afford to purchase homes.

I don't think this is true. There are only a handful of companies that pay $500k+ TC for senior+ engineers. The vast majority of companies top out at $250k, be it F500 or startups (not including their worthless "equity").

You can't afford a home, on your own, at $250k in the Bay Area. Realistically you need $500k+.

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#35

Post by jwells89 »

thefaux wrote: post #2

The funny thing is that I just plucked 5MM out of a hat for my number 5 or so years ago when asked and I guess this analysis supports my intuition. The one big problem with renting is instability. If the owner decides to sell the property, it may be difficult to find something equivalent on your terms or you may be forced to hop around a few times before settling.

Stability is one of the reasons why I bought a few years ago (albeit, not in the SF Bay Area). That ever-looming possibility of needing to move again come lease renewal time, whether that be due to rent hikes or the landlord deciding to do something else with the property wore on my nerves.

Of course home ownership isn’t all roses either, but I can at least rely on and plan around my mortgage payment not changing and not having to move unless I decide to do so independently.

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#37

Post by rdj »

starttoaster wrote: post #18
coryrc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you bought a couple decades ago or inherited from your parents.

Not sure how it works in every state, but my property taxes are liable to increase year to year, for a home I own. Are you saying this is not the case in California? They just true up property taxes for a property upon next sale?

California does handle it differently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 - "by assessing values at their 1976 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It prohibits reassessment of a new base year value except in cases of (a) change in ownership, or (b) completion of new construction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_19 - Some updates about transferring to family, farms, etc

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#38

Post by hparadiz »

foooorsyth wrote: post #23
the_gipsy wrote: post #5

Companies are essentially subsidizing $1M (or more now?) mortgages if you are willing to go into their SV offices. You don't have to retire there! Just sell the house and move on.

You don’t have to retire there, but it turns out that the Bay Area has one of the most pleasant climates in the entire world for humans and it is coupled with some of the most stunningly beautiful and varied terrain in the world. It’s hard to leave and call anything else retirement if you’re just considering climate, weather, and nature. My family did end up leaving the area but it was hard. I am still working. Would…

Entire central coast plus LA offers much of the same.

Re: How much is enough to FIRE in San Francisco?

#40

Post by hot_gril »

darknavi wrote: post #20
photonbeam wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn’t heard of this, what are some example companies I can look at?

Maybe they mean they pay more in the bay area because of the high housing costs.

That's what I understood too, but it seems more like enough to rent, not buy.
Post reply on HN