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

In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 194 posts

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#161

Post by everdrive »

everdrive wrote: post #79
mbgerring wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't even see people entertain it for the purposes of arguing against it. Luckily, we have several recent real-life examples demonstrating why “fewer people” is not a viable solution: Because you either need to forcibly remove people, which involves an army of stormtroopers kidnapping people off the street and killing innocent people in the process, or you have to control pregnancy and childbirth, involving a le…

>Because you either need to forcibly remove people, which involves an army of stormtroopers kidnapping people off the street and killing innocent people in the process, or you have to control pregnancy and childbirth, involving a level of surveillance and government control over the most intimate parts of our lives I'm really sad to see this response. President deported a large number of illegal immigrants -- to the…

Sorry, that should be "President Obama"

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#162

Post by JKCalhoun »

Volundr wrote: post #90
TSiege wrote: post #2

Everyone I know is griping about the cost of living. There is no easy answer, but the only viable solution is building a lot more dense housing and public transit for said urbanism. Housing being this expensive is a choice. The economy and our society would be much healthier if we decided making sure there was ample housing in high demand areas. We've conflated having a home with a financial asset. We can't have plen…

> We've conflated having a home with a financial asset. And it's a really, really shitty one. My house has roughly doubled in value since I bought it, but in practice that's useless to me. I can't claim that value without rendering myself homeless. If anything it reduces my mobility by making it harder to move, since I really need to coordinate the sale of my current home with buying the new one to help absorb that $…

"I can't claim that value without rendering myself homeless."

Well, you can move.

I went from the Bay Area to Omaha, Nebraska without going homeless. I retired though, so there's that. (But my wife was able to work from home with the move.)

(Next stop: perhaps a double-wide trailer in Eloy, Arizona.)

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#163

Post by JKCalhoun »

rsynnott wrote: post #154
Volundr wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've conflated having a home with a financial asset. And it's a really, really shitty one. My house has roughly doubled in value since I bought it, but in practice that's useless to me. I can't claim that value without rendering myself homeless. If anything it reduces my mobility by making it harder to move, since I really need to coordinate the sale of my current home with buying the new one to help absorb that $…

Yeah, I think people miss this. Generally, the only way to benefit from growth in value of your home is to either downsize or to _die_. (Also, of course, depending on timescale, doubling may not be that impressive. If you'd put your money in a broad index fund about five years ago, it would also have doubled.)

"Downsize" can simply mean move to a region where the price of homes is less. Our home in Omaha is certainly not smaller in size than the one we left in San Jose.

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#164

Post by stackbutterflow »

apparent wrote: post #119
maxverse wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like both the point you quote and your response are valid, and not mutually exclusive. It's great that you were able to avoid lifestyle creep and that $200K felt like a lot of money that "had a huge impact on my later financial condition, and enabled me to do many things". And I think Katrine (from the article) feels like that should be a lot of money. I don't see lifestyle creep playing a role in her life. In…

I don't understand how rent, utilities, and groceries consume nearly everything that comes in unless you're vastly overspending in one category. If she's paying $60k in taxes then she's got $140k left. That's over $10k/mo. How can someone spend that much without lifestyle creep? I understand that one could feel pinched at that salary, when including saving for down payment, future kids, and retirement. But that's dif…

Can it be a case of she's not earning all of the $200k in cash?

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#165

Post by gogobio »

TSiege wrote: post #2

Everyone I know is griping about the cost of living. There is no easy answer, but the only viable solution is building a lot more dense housing and public transit for said urbanism. Housing being this expensive is a choice. The economy and our society would be much healthier if we decided making sure there was ample housing in high demand areas. We've conflated having a home with a financial asset. We can't have plen…

You're right about one thing - housing being expensive is a choice, it's a choice of those who have moved to SF and despite it making no sense for their financial situation just "trying to make things happen" there to stay there. These are the people who drive property costs up. It's not about "just building more", that's literally never the answer. Building more is solving just for one factor and when you build more - guess what's gonna happen? More density, even higher costs of living because guess what - more people moving means more demand on local services, shops, transit, so higher costs. On top of it - folks who buy these newly built properties aren't going to be making minimum wage at a local coffee and avocado toast shop - they're business owners, entrepreneurs, founders, etc. Your cost of living will keep rising with every new property built and every new transplant.

The real answer is taxes, taxing the shit out of these rich transplants and the corporations. You're in California I can't believe you lot aren't more progressive about jacking up the taxes on the rich to pave the way for a healthy society for the rest. But given that every single tech nerd that moves to SF sees themselves as a temporarily embarrassed millionaire or a not-yet-founder - good luck with that, I genuinely do not see even the younger crowd being pro taxing the rich in a city full of tech leeches.

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#166

Post by fragmede »

prewett wrote: post #114
maxverse wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like both the point you quote and your response are valid, and not mutually exclusive. It's great that you were able to avoid lifestyle creep and that $200K felt like a lot of money that "had a huge impact on my later financial condition, and enabled me to do many things". And I think Katrine (from the article) feels like that should be a lot of money. I don't see lifestyle creep playing a role in her life. In…

I'm confused about the quote, because the numbers do not add up to me. Elsewhere in the discussion SV apartments are quoted at $3500/month. When I rent, utilities tend to be under $100, and groceries are about $400. Let's be generous and say "utilities and groceries" are $1000. So "rent, utilities and groceries" are $4500/month, at total federal + CA state tax rate of 40% (estimating high), that means $90k/year to br…

Saving for retirement should be in the list, along with gym membership and entertainment. Transportation. Why is the default budget "rent, utilities, groceries"?

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#167

Post by cherry_tree »

apparent wrote: post #119
maxverse wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like both the point you quote and your response are valid, and not mutually exclusive. It's great that you were able to avoid lifestyle creep and that $200K felt like a lot of money that "had a huge impact on my later financial condition, and enabled me to do many things". And I think Katrine (from the article) feels like that should be a lot of money. I don't see lifestyle creep playing a role in her life. In…

I don't understand how rent, utilities, and groceries consume nearly everything that comes in unless you're vastly overspending in one category. If she's paying $60k in taxes then she's got $140k left. That's over $10k/mo. How can someone spend that much without lifestyle creep? I understand that one could feel pinched at that salary, when including saving for down payment, future kids, and retirement. But that's dif…

You think someone in California making 200k is paying an overall 30% in combined federal and state taxes? That seems out of touch with reality to me.

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#168

Post by gogobio »

Schiendelman wrote: post #78
bombcar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If SF wants to be New York of the East, let them be so. Everyone else can move literally anywhere else in the country, which is big.

This take is actively destructive. We need to let people CHOOSE to live WHERE they want to live - and let people who buy land CHOOSE to build housing for demand they perceive. That's it. That's the problem and the solution. It should be unconstitutional to limit housing production arbitrarily.

So go buy land and build a house, just CHOOSE to spend your money and buy land. What's so hard about that? Ah yes we conveniently forget in our youthfulness that we are not original and if thousands of software leeches choose to relocate en masse they will sky rocket the costs on just about everything - simple supply and demand.

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#169

Post by gogobio »

rsynnott wrote: post #154
Volundr wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've conflated having a home with a financial asset. And it's a really, really shitty one. My house has roughly doubled in value since I bought it, but in practice that's useless to me. I can't claim that value without rendering myself homeless. If anything it reduces my mobility by making it harder to move, since I really need to coordinate the sale of my current home with buying the new one to help absorb that $…

Yeah, I think people miss this. Generally, the only way to benefit from growth in value of your home is to either downsize or to _die_. (Also, of course, depending on timescale, doubling may not be that impressive. If you'd put your money in a broad index fund about five years ago, it would also have doubled.)

You conveniently exclude the third option which is to keep working your ass off, build a family with high total income and grow upwards. Your argument only accounts for personal and professional stagnation. Also - you could try dropping this insane San Fran pride linked to your identity and move to another area that is cheaper. The world is full of workarounds if you're not unreasonably vain, vapid, or lazy.

Re: In San Francisco, even $180k tech salaries are no longer enough

#170

Post by jdefr89 »

archagon wrote: post #112
jrowen wrote: post #34

Comparison is the thief of joy. I know plenty of people who live in SF on much lower salaries. Acting like you need AI bucks to survive is out of touch with the reality of the common man. A household that earns nearly 400k talking about "I'm not completely hopeless" is shameful. Take some lessons from people who earn a lot less and are more happy.

Seriously. I live in SF with a combined household income that's far less than that and have a pretty lavish lifestyle, eating out every day and whatnot. What are these people spending their money on? > But she said she saw the strain on friends who were earning below $200,000, for whom rent, utilities and groceries consume nearly everything that comes in. Let's assume $4000/m rent, $200/m utilities, eating out for $3…

I am at a similar salary. I live in Kendal Square; nearly on MIt campus for convenience and due to the fact I relocated to Cambridge from PA when I took my research pos at MIT lab. I pay 4000k a month for a STUDIO. That includes no utilities or anything. Then add groceries and all that stuff. Then add supporting your significant other and various other things…. trust me it disappears fast. Yes there is some cash left over if you do absolutely nothing but stay in your home… Things get tight. I shouldn’t feel pressure given my salary but sometimes I think if things really went downhill… my salary isn’t leaving me room for a care/worry free life style. Not the way it would have 10 to 15 years ago. Things are too expensive…
Post reply on HN