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

In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 428 posts

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#31

Post by archeantus »

stevenwoo wrote: post #18
archeantus wrote: post #6

Wow, this resonates with me. In 2013 my wife and I were living in the Bay Area and had just welcomed our third child into the family. I was making 105k/yr at Apple (which seemed like a ton at the time!) but I felt like I was saving very little of that. I was approached on LinkedIn to take a job with matching pay but that was fully remote. I could live anywhere I wanted in the entire country. I jumped at the chance an…

What area of the country did you decide to move to, and why (besides the obvious cost saving)?

We decided to move to Utah. We have some family here and the tech scene is actually quite strong. Overall it has been a great move, and besides the nice people that we met in California, we haven't really missed the craziness of the rat race down there.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#32

Post by throwthisawayt »

archeantus wrote: post #20
gshulegaard wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, as an engineer finding myself thinking along similar lines, where did you end up moving?

We moved to Utah where the tech scene is actually quite strong, and the cost of living is significantly less. We bought an 8k sq ft house for the price of many 1,500 sq ft town homes we had been putting offers in on in California. It can be such a rat race down there, it is refreshing to remember that it doesn't have to be that way. Life exists outside of The Valley, and it happens to be a pretty darn good one (and a…

Are you a minority race and if so would you say that Utah is friendly to non-whites ?

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#33

Post by calvinv »

rogy wrote: post #16

Interestingly similar discussion going around in the UK at the moment after a UK MP came out saying that '£70,000' salary makes you 'rich'. 70k as a single income won't get you a flat in London in any reasonable time and you'll most certainly be renting forever on that kind if money in London. Even if its triple the average UK wage. Location means everything.

Agreed that won't make you rich in London but you can very easily buy a house outside of London or a 1-bed in London. I have friends who are on less than that and are buying in decent zone 2/3 areas. Mortgages are actually pretty cheap if you can save up the 10% deposit and live with a 10/15 min walk to a station.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#34

Post by lisper »

cbhl wrote: post #12
ShakataGaNai wrote: post #2

For a family of 4. That's the critical bit left out of the article title. 104k is low income for a family of 4, in some areas. Which makes sense when it's hard to find somewhere to live alone, in SF, even at 100k. Finding a place big enough for a family of 4 plus all the costs related to 4 humans? Not surprising in the least.

Once upon a time, a family of four had the same number of working adults as a family of one.

Once upon a time a family of four would live in a 1200 square foot house and own one car and one television, would rarely travel, rarely go out to eat. That kind of life style can still be sustained even in the Bay area on $100k/yr.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#35

Post by derefr »

cbhl wrote: post #12
ShakataGaNai wrote: post #2

For a family of 4. That's the critical bit left out of the article title. 104k is low income for a family of 4, in some areas. Which makes sense when it's hard to find somewhere to live alone, in SF, even at 100k. Finding a place big enough for a family of 4 plus all the costs related to 4 humans? Not surprising in the least.

Once upon a time, a family of four had the same number of working adults as a family of one.

Keep in mind that 1. California has high taxes, and 2. those taxes go down as your number of dependents goes up. Your employer has the same number in your salary column either way, but your take-home pay tends to rise to match your needs, up to a point. (It doesn't work out for e.g. n=8, but it tends to take care of n<4.)

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#36

Post by vkou »

cbhl wrote: post #12
ShakataGaNai wrote: post #2

For a family of 4. That's the critical bit left out of the article title. 104k is low income for a family of 4, in some areas. Which makes sense when it's hard to find somewhere to live alone, in SF, even at 100k. Finding a place big enough for a family of 4 plus all the costs related to 4 humans? Not surprising in the least.

Once upon a time, a family of four had the same number of working adults as a family of one.

Yes, but any spare income earned by multiple working adults in a family will eventually be siphoned up by either landlords, or banks.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#37

Post by throwthisawayt »

anon374939 wrote: post #19

After two years in San Francisco, I had to move back to my small(er) home town city because I ultimately realized there's little to no future for me in a city like San Francisco, despite making 250k/yr. I'd have to make at minimum $1M per year for a similar lifestyle (and even then, the stress of living in the bay area will reduce years from your lifespan... what's each year of your life worth to you?).

Where did you go?

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#38

Post by bonzini »

cbhl wrote: post #12
ShakataGaNai wrote: post #2

For a family of 4. That's the critical bit left out of the article title. 104k is low income for a family of 4, in some areas. Which makes sense when it's hard to find somewhere to live alone, in SF, even at 100k. Finding a place big enough for a family of 4 plus all the costs related to 4 humans? Not surprising in the least.

Once upon a time, a family of four had the same number of working adults as a family of one.

That did not last for long though, maybe forty years from after the second world war till the early 80s. The model that did last for centuries had families of 8-12 people, with men working in the fields and women looking after children and grandchildren.

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#39

Post by ryanSrich »

gshulegaard wrote: post #14
archeantus wrote: post #6

Wow, this resonates with me. In 2013 my wife and I were living in the Bay Area and had just welcomed our third child into the family. I was making 105k/yr at Apple (which seemed like a ton at the time!) but I felt like I was saving very little of that. I was approached on LinkedIn to take a job with matching pay but that was fully remote. I could live anywhere I wanted in the entire country. I jumped at the chance an…

Just curious, as an engineer finding myself thinking along similar lines, where did you end up moving?

Just remember that you'll want to select a city that has a decent economy and tech scene in the event that you lose your job and need to take a location dictated position.

So long as you and your partner are both making 6 figures you should be able to afford any of the following cities:

- Seattle

- Portland

- Austin

- Denver

Re: In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income”

#40

Post by [deleted] »

cbhl wrote: post #12
ShakataGaNai wrote: post #2

For a family of 4. That's the critical bit left out of the article title. 104k is low income for a family of 4, in some areas. Which makes sense when it's hard to find somewhere to live alone, in SF, even at 100k. Finding a place big enough for a family of 4 plus all the costs related to 4 humans? Not surprising in the least.

Once upon a time, a family of four had the same number of working adults as a family of one.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN