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

71–80 of 321 posts

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

#71

Post by notfromhere »

pwinnski wrote: post #53
notfromhere wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rural folk don't understand that even if you're making 100k in the big city, a lot of that is eaten up by housing costs. The fantasy of what people who don't earn 100k think 100k buys you is very different from the reality of what lifestyle 100k affords.

Instead of looking down on rural folk, consider the possibility that what people like you and me who earn 100k spend might be very different from what we need to spend. After all, people in big cities by and large don't earn $100k either, and yet they manage to live somehow!

I don't look down at them, I grew up in a small town and spend a lot of time in rural America. Most will not get that 100k is not a lot of money in an urban area, especially if you have dependents, since that's more money than anyone they know makes.

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

#72

Post by RHSeeger »

elicash wrote: post #26
notfromhere wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rural folk don't understand that even if you're making 100k in the big city, a lot of that is eaten up by housing costs. The fantasy of what people who don't earn 100k think 100k buys you is very different from the reality of what lifestyle 100k affords.

Median household income in NYC is $57,782. (Individual is $50,825.) And yeah, NYC is a huge, diverse city but even Manhattan's median income is $79,781 in 2017. (Corrected figure)

The census data [1] seems to indicate it was $79,781 in 2017 (in 2017 dollars, so $83,569.23 today). Not a large amount, but still 25% higher than the 66.7k number

[1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newyorkcountyma...]

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

#73

Post by toomuchtodo »

aledalgrande wrote: post #64
sjdb77 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remote work is becoming more "real" by the day, so it's certainly possible in the age of the internet to work remotely in a low cost location while making a salary competitive with a higher cost of living city like SF/NY/LA.

Problem is a lot of companies get smart and "pay by location". I've seen big cos from the Bay offering half the salary (before currency exchange) for workers in Vancouver.

The solution is to not work for those companies.

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

#74

Post by eth »

dfxm12 wrote: post #19

I'm behind a paywall, so I'm sure they pick up on this, but the biggest problem I ran into when I thought I could afford a house was the down payment. You can make $100k (or less!) and quite easily afford a monthly mortgage payment, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have enough saved up for a down payment.

I agree with you on the down payment but from a slightly different POV. There are cases where even saving up to 20% to avoid PMI doesn't also help - particularly states like NJ where you could own a "modest" $300k house but still be out $10k + per year in property taxes.

In order to get mortgage + taxes down to a reasonably "affordable" amount (approx. 40% of take home spent on housing) you need to be looking at up to 40% down to offset the tax expense.

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

#75

Post by dragontamer »

lukeschlather wrote: post #68
dragontamer wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Median household income in USA is $59,039. That's both the mother AND father working to bring home $59,039 on the average (before taxes and other costs). Its clear you live in a rich area where $100k isn't much. But that's also why a large chunk of Americans think that "city-folk" are disconnected from reality. $100k is a lot for many people. My sister lives in an area (in USA) where a 2-bedroom apartment is just $50…

> That's both the mother AND father working to bring home $59,039 on the average (before taxes and other costs). This isn't accurate. That's everyone in the household collectively working to bring home 59,039 on average. 27% of "households" are individuals. 34% of households are couples (that is to say, two people with no dependents. If they're mothers or fathers, they're empty nesters.) So only about a third of hous…

Fair point.

The main thing I wanted to point out was that 59k / year "households" are typically more than one person. Maybe 2 or 3 people (if you have 2-working roommates in your house, that's 3-incomes in a single household).

IIRC, the 59k / year per house is roughly 2-working people per house (2x income streams per housing unit).

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

#76

Post by baron_harkonnen »

dragontamer wrote: post #7
notfromhere wrote: post #2

It's been a long time since $100k was a lot of money

Median household income in USA is $59,039. That's both the mother AND father working to bring home $59,039 on the average (before taxes and other costs). Its clear you live in a rich area where $100k isn't much. But that's also why a large chunk of Americans think that "city-folk" are disconnected from reality. $100k is a lot for many people. My sister lives in an area (in USA) where a 2-bedroom apartment is just $50…

Over 80% of Americans live in an urban area[1] so it's pretty absurd to claim "city-folk" represents some elite minority. Median household income in NYC is $57,782 [2]. The idea that America is split into some wealth urban minority vs a near majority of lower income rural population that understands "reality" is complete fantasy.

It doesn't change the fact that $100k is still a lot of money, but the people for whom that a lot a money aren't on some farm in the middle of the country, they're driving your uber, greeting you at the entrance to your apartment and delivering your instacart.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...

[2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newyorkcitynewy...

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

#77

Post by MrMember »

Tehchops wrote: post #10

There's very few places where there is an overlap of "jobs that pay $100k" and "homes that can be afforded at $100k salary".

Look for places that other people don't want to live. There are plenty of midwestern cities with senior developer jobs paying $100k+ and a low cost of living. My two bedroom condo 20 minutes from the downtown of a major metro area was $80k.

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

#78

Post by lukevp »

Tehchops wrote: post #10

There's very few places where there is an overlap of "jobs that pay $100k" and "homes that can be afforded at $100k salary".

Housing in Texas is still very cheap comparatively. And salaries are $100k+ in tech. You can get a house in round Rock ( for example 1309 green terrace Dr is on the market for under $240k and it's a 2300 sqft house with a 2 car garage ) and it's an 18 minute drive from Apple and Facebook.

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

#79

Post by notfromhere »

imtringued wrote: post #63
notfromhere wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the sweet spot in terms of arbitrage right now is: find full time employment at a high earning job in a major metro area, move far enough from that metro area to work remote while being able to come into the office a handful of times per month. A three hour commute is easier when you only do it twice a week, or a few times a month.

Why isn't a 1 hour commute enough to find cheap land/housing?

At least where I'm at, those areas have already been built out at least twenty years ago. So unless you want to buy a McMansion, housing isn't cheap.

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

#80

Post by uwuhn »

chadlavi wrote: post #27

I know millennials with combined household incomes in excess of $200k who can't afford to buy, because huge student loans are required to get that kind of income if mommy and daddy aren't rich in the first place.

What's their occupation? You don't need huge student loans to get that kind of salary as a software engineer.
Post reply on HN