91–100 of 154 posts
70% of rentable units in San Francisco are rent-controlled. I know many very high paid people who pay well below “market rate” for their apartments. If you do it right you can live in SF for less than many “cheaper” cities and yet make much more money.
How do you "do it right?"
70% of rentable units in San Francisco are rent-controlled. I know many very high paid people who pay well below “market rate” for their apartments. If you do it right you can live in SF for less than many “cheaper” cities and yet make much more money.
Rent controlled or rent stabilized? Because those are two very different things and I can find no evidence of the former being true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that would be much more useful, factoring in state/federal/city taxes including brackets is going to be very high effort in comparison to what was done here.
Even factoring in an approximation of federal tax would have made the comparison much better. Adding in an approximation of state tax would give a pretty decent boost to cities in states with no income tax (although you have to watch out for sales taxes in that case).
Why do we have a system that financially discourages dense concentrations of smart, productive, inventive people? It seems the market encourages people to avoid doing anything that would make their community attractive.
Also cities are more likely to build high-density commercial since those companies are generally bigger taxpayers and consume less government resources compared to residential.
When I see CFO/CTO with salaries of 171k, I do not know what to think. Is the term CFO/CTO overused? For me a CTO/CFO is someone in a publicly traded company, and in those scenario they usually make in the millions.
When I see CFO/CTO with salaries of 171k, I do not know what to think. Is the term CFO/CTO overused? For me a CTO/CFO is someone in a publicly traded company, and in those scenario they usually make in the millions.
The analysis comparing cities is just (mean salary - mean rent), which is going to make places with high income inequality look better than they are for most people. I'd like to see the 10%, 50% (median), and 90% quantiles for (after-tax salary - housing cost). I bet the rankings would be quite different depending on which of these you chose.
In Denver $1800 will get you a studio in desirable places to live, and will only get you a 2 BR out in deep suburbia or developments that come with 45 minute commutes. You're also going to have widely varying incomes between those two areas... i'd be willing to bet the after rent take home in the fringes of Denver sprawl is much worse than downtown due to ridiculous prices pushing low income workers farther and farther away from the city center while rent decreases at a much slower rate.
Also did they get their salary data from BusinessStudent or from Indeed? And where did they get their real estate data from?
70% of rentable units in San Francisco are rent-controlled. I know many very high paid people who pay well below “market rate” for their apartments. If you do it right you can live in SF for less than many “cheaper” cities and yet make much more money.
How do you "do it right?"