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

241–250 of 321 posts

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

#241

Post by bradlys »

dragontamer wrote: post #230
TylerE wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is a meaningful difference between Buies Creek, NC and Coulee City, WA. Its less about population size and more about distance from the urban center. Coulee City is a 2-hour drive from a major city (Spokane), while Buies Creek is maybe a 40-minute drive from a major city (Raleigh). ------- From MY perspective, both Buies Creek and Coulee City are rural. But from the perspective of someone who lives in Coulee Ci…

> From MY perspective, both Buies Creek and Coulee City are rural.

Yeah - for a person who is adjusted to only living in big cities then sure. However, Buies Creek is 30 minutes away from the downtown of a city. It is not rural by almost anyone else's definition.

It'd be like saying Atherton, CA is rural because it's a "smaller" town of 7k people. Ignoring that it's within a 8 million population metro and within 30-45 minutes of a 1 million population sprawling city (San Jose) and another 800k+ densely populated one (San Francisco).

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

#242

Post by bradlys »

TylerE wrote: post #217
bradlys wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Atherton is 7,000 people. It's also 30 miles outside of SF. Is that rural then?

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

#243

Post by throw0101a »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #146
throw0101a wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not in all desirable players. Only ones that limit construction. Toronto has more construction (120) cranes than anyone else in North America (Seattle & LA second at 50), and prices are still crazy even with a building boom. * https://www.on-sitemag.com/heavy-equipment/toronto-remains-u... * https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/economic/2019/0... And that 120 is just in the city proper, the suburbs have mor…

Cranes suggest there is demand, not that it has yet been met.

One can not "limit construction" (per GP) and yet still have high prices.

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

#244

Post by aidenn0 »

non-entity wrote: post #197
aidenn0 wrote: post #174

While housing is an issue (particularly in more prosperous coastal cities), if I made over $100k per year but couldn't afford a house in the $400k range, I don't think my response would be to rent a single-family house in Stapleton. There are more affordable apartments in the Denver area that are still in a good school district. Articles like this are starting to annoy me because I see the working poor and lower-midd…

> trying to live the lifestyle of young professionals in the 1980s I've been interested in the subject for while, but do you know of any recommended reading material about what being a YP in the 80s was like (socially, career wise, etc) and the economics of how it was possible?

I do not have any recommended reading. I had relatives that came of age in the late 70s and early 80s, so this was personal experience.

http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html suggests that young professionals being paid more was new around this time. I don't know if this is true or not. If it is true, then this would suggest that there was a sudden increase in disposable income among young professionals. Professionals were already a small fraction of workers, and social change is usually uneven, so it seems likely that in addition not all professional jobs experienced this shift at the same time.

If you suddenly give a small fraction of the population more money then they are likely to live it up because there aren't enough of them to drive the costs up in lock-step.

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

#245

Post by xupybd »

jriot wrote: post #165
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much did you pay for your home? $100k/yr gross household income would make it rough to own a 3/2 single family home in South Florida.

Our home was $348k - 4 bedrooms, 2 baths in Louisiana.

As a single with no dependants I've purchased a home at $360k and with a student loan.

It's only possible having boarders that pay rent and help with the bills.

The value has increased so much that I don't think it would be possible to own a home in my area on my salary any more.

Now I'm looking at getting married and the cost of living is going to be okay as long as we don't have kids soon. But I'm getting older and can't put that off too long.

I don't understand the housing market to know why it's like this but I'm not sure it's sustainable. People aren't going to be able to afford to have families at this rate. Also, If interest rates ever go back up I'm done.

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

#246

Post by notadoc »

notfromhere wrote: post #81
notadoc wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure ok, but over 6 years a starter house going from $19,000 to $30,000 in Dayton is a lot different on the affordability spectrum than an equivalent house going from $300,000 to $900,000 in Seattle.

you're not getting a starter home for 30k in Dayton unless it comes without walls and was a former meth lab.

There are tons of fixer uppers in Dayton for 10k-30k, look on Zillow

30k isn't even 1/4 of a down payment on a fixer upper on the west coast.

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

#247

Post by avgDev »

davidjnelson wrote: post #204
taborj wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enjoy life outside of work? Look, I enjoy my work and it's pretty meaningful work that affects people in real ways. But I work to live, not live to work. My job is a means to an end, that end being to have a fulfilling life that doesn't revolve around what I do for a living. Because of that, I find the quest to climb the corporate ladder has lost it's appeal. I'm cool staying at my current, well-paying, work from hom…

Amen. You could also consider starting a small business if you want to stay lower key. Corporate ladder does seem a bit... sad? But maybe some people like it! More power to them! Cool thing about a small business is you can create a long term sustainable lifestyle that suits you. I like the philosophy of TJ Holowaychuk with Apex (created expressjs and a million other amazing things), super cool. At one point it was r…

One could also work for a medium sized company. Build mission critical software, then maintain it.

I know a guy that has done this for a few companies and then moved onto consulting for them. Makes SV money in the midwest. Works whenever he wants, 99% of time remotely, and companies will sometimes wait if he has too much going on to do work for them.

The guy is living the life. So, I want to do the same.

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

#248

Post by dragontamer »

bradlys wrote: post #241
dragontamer wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a meaningful difference between Buies Creek, NC and Coulee City, WA. Its less about population size and more about distance from the urban center. Coulee City is a 2-hour drive from a major city (Spokane), while Buies Creek is maybe a 40-minute drive from a major city (Raleigh). ------- From MY perspective, both Buies Creek and Coulee City are rural. But from the perspective of someone who lives in Coulee Ci…

> From MY perspective, both Buies Creek and Coulee City are rural. Yeah - for a person who is adjusted to only living in big cities then sure. However, Buies Creek is 30 minutes away from the downtown of a city. It is not rural by almost anyone else's definition. It'd be like saying Atherton, CA is rural because it's a "smaller" town of 7k people. Ignoring that it's within a 8 million population metro and within 30-4…

> 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 of San Fran. It is a brisk 4-mile bike-ride from Atherton to Palo Alto and back, you don't even need a car if you live in Atherton and commute to Palo Alto.

There's NOTHING walking or biking distance to Buies Creek, NC. Rural is more about "distance from nearest metro".

--------

Buies Creek NC is 40-minutes to Raleigh. This is rural by my experience. True, Buies Creek NC is "less Rural" for people who are used to 2-hour drives (Coulee City to Spokane), but a 40-minute drive away from a big city is Rural by most people's definition of Rural.

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

#249

Post by avgDev »

kevstev wrote: post #118
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 don't think its fair to say that living outside a city has to be boring. Many value and enjoy being among nature. My ex-coworkers who live in rural areas seem to have a good time on their quads, tending their gardens that sometimes approach small farms, hiking/biking, boating on the lake in summer, ice fishing in winter, hunting, camping, etc. Your Friday night at a bar is their Friday night around a fire with thei…

I dislike bars, clubs, people in general.

I like outdoors, silence, beach.

I feel miserable around all the other "robots" in the city.

I feel decent enough in the suburbs with less people and more space.

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

#250

Post by xhgdvjky »

tathougies wrote: post #166
notadoc wrote: post #24

This is mostly a west coast problem, where housing is hugely inflated in every west coast state and city. And NYC too of course, but that's less surprising given its NYC. Sometimes I think these articles are written as clickbait for people in the midwest, southeast, northeast, where housing is still very cheap and jobs pay well.

> but that's less surprising given its NYC There's almost certainly as much (if not more) money on Sand Hill Rd than Wall St.

in fact I think living on wall St is becoming more affordable
Post reply on HN