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

Post by sometimelurker » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 3:54 PM UTC

rich_sasha wrote: post #18

I suppose a big change over the past 50 years is that we really boosted jobs that must be done in big cities. Wanna earn a lot of money? Take on a lot of debt and become a lawyer/accountant/etc. But we didn't create more cities. There's more people competing for the same small amount of commutable real estate, and the winners are the top earners. I'm not sure how you fix it. The organic fix ought to be that businesse…

Post by apparent » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 4:25 PM UTC

cherry_tree wrote: post #167

apparent wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by apparent » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

stackbutterflow wrote: post #164

apparent wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Post by seanmcdirmid » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 4:33 PM UTC

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.

Post by rsynnott » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 5:11 PM UTC

gogobio wrote: post #169

rsynnott wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.