4 ms·

"Only" 90k.

rwmurrayVT 11y ago
"Only" counts for something when you have to pay half of it to live in a reasonable location. That 90k in SF is around 50k in Hampton-Roads VA. That 90k in Oakland is around 60k.
- theseatoms 11y ago
  Do people not commute from Oakland? Is the BART ride too long? Or are rents in Oakland just as high? I've only visited the Bay Area a few times, so please feel free to correct me on this one.
  - Apocryphon 11y ago
    1. More and more people are commuting from there. 2. To some, yes, because BART is getting crowded so many end up standing in a wall to wall claustrophobic space. 3. They are climbing higher, especially since Uber is moving to there, and they're only the vanguard. It's also been discussed as a cheaper alternative to SF for at least two or three years now.
  - BrianEatWorld 11y ago
    Oakland is almost just as bad. I managed to make do with 50K a year, but I lived in San Jose and didn't have the expenses of car ownership. Living in SJ required a 20 minute walk to CalTrain and then a 45 minute ride to the city by CalTrain (if I caught the express) and then another 15 minute walk to work.
  - coke12 11y ago
    BART from Oakland only goes along Market, which is only walking distance from about half of SOMA (where most of the tech people work). That whole area can be pretty rough, especially after dark. Personally I'd rather walk to 4th & King and commute via Caltrain, but the peninsula is more expensive and Caltrain only has one stop in downtown SF vs 4 for BART (Embarcadero, Montgomery, Powell, Civic Center).
- wdmeldon 11y ago
  What the hell does "reasonable location" even mean?
  - rwmurrayVT 11y ago
    It means you aren't spending 4 hours a day commuting. The comments all around you describe the situation in SF and the surrounding area.
    - wdmeldon 11y ago
      Are there no places available in the lower end range with 1 hour commutes? I know there is a shortage of low priced apartments, but they have to exist.
m3talridl3y 11y ago
Don't worry, 75% will go to the cost of the privilege of living in the bay area.
gsibble 11y ago
90k is essentially broke in SF.
- no_wave 11y ago
  You're insane
  - beambot 11y ago
    In SF, a nice two bedroom apartment runs about $6k/mo. It is insane, not GP.
  - kec 11y ago
    The median 2 bedroom apartment in SF is currently about $4600/month. This means that even with a roommate to split the bills with, at a salary of $90k you're looking at spending nearly 50% of your take home just on rent. Add in utilities, food, transportation, etc and $90k pretty rapidly stops looking so great.
    - no_wave 11y ago
      You could easily live in a 3-bedroom and pay $1700 a month in rent. You'll only have $3000 a month to pay for food and transportation - oh my god, the privation, how is anyone supposed to make it?
  - pc86 11y ago
    "in SF" in a pretty important qualifier. On top of a 28% federal tax rate you're paying 12% state income tax. San Francisco has a 1.5% income tax as well. So on $90k/yr you're down to about $4500 a month take home but that's excluding any payroll taxes outside of income. Several hundred dollars there. You're already in "spend half my check on rent" territory. Even though 90k is ~3x the average personal income for the US, when you're living in one of the most expensive cities in the country, you can absolutely be broke on that.
    - lgg 11y ago

"Only" 90k.

"Only" counts for something when you have to pay half of it to live in a reasonable location. That 90k in SF is around 50k in Hampton-Roads VA. That 90k in Oakland is around 60k.

theseatoms 11y ago
Do people not commute from Oakland? Is the BART ride too long? Or are rents in Oakland just as high? I've only visited the Bay Area a few times, so please feel free to correct me on this one.
- Apocryphon 11y ago
  1. More and more people are commuting from there. 2. To some, yes, because BART is getting crowded so many end up standing in a wall to wall claustrophobic space. 3. They are climbing higher, especially since Uber is moving to there, and they're only the vanguard. It's also been discussed as a cheaper alternative to SF for at least two or three years now.
- BrianEatWorld 11y ago
  Oakland is almost just as bad. I managed to make do with 50K a year, but I lived in San Jose and didn't have the expenses of car ownership. Living in SJ required a 20 minute walk to CalTrain and then a 45 minute ride to the city by CalTrain (if I caught the express) and then another 15 minute walk to work.
- coke12 11y ago
  BART from Oakland only goes along Market, which is only walking distance from about half of SOMA (where most of the tech people work). That whole area can be pretty rough, especially after dark. Personally I'd rather walk to 4th & King and commute via Caltrain, but the peninsula is more expensive and Caltrain only has one stop in downtown SF vs 4 for BART (Embarcadero, Montgomery, Powell, Civic Center).
wdmeldon 11y ago
What the hell does "reasonable location" even mean?
- rwmurrayVT 11y ago
  It means you aren't spending 4 hours a day commuting. The comments all around you describe the situation in SF and the surrounding area.
  - wdmeldon 11y ago
    Are there no places available in the lower end range with 1 hour commutes? I know there is a shortage of low priced apartments, but they have to exist.

m3talridl3y 11y ago

Don't worry, 75% will go to the cost of the privilege of living in the bay area.

gsibble 11y ago

90k is essentially broke in SF.

no_wave 11y ago
You're insane
- beambot 11y ago
  In SF, a nice two bedroom apartment runs about $6k/mo. It is insane, not GP.
- kec 11y ago
  The median 2 bedroom apartment in SF is currently about $4600/month. This means that even with a roommate to split the bills with, at a salary of $90k you're looking at spending nearly 50% of your take home just on rent. Add in utilities, food, transportation, etc and $90k pretty rapidly stops looking so great.
  - no_wave 11y ago
    You could easily live in a 3-bedroom and pay $1700 a month in rent. You'll only have $3000 a month to pay for food and transportation - oh my god, the privation, how is anyone supposed to make it?
- pc86 11y ago
  "in SF" in a pretty important qualifier. On top of a 28% federal tax rate you're paying 12% state income tax. San Francisco has a 1.5% income tax as well. So on $90k/yr you're down to about $4500 a month take home but that's excluding any payroll taxes outside of income. Several hundred dollars there. You're already in "spend half my check on rent" territory. Even though 90k is ~3x the average personal income for the US, when you're living in one of the most expensive cities in the country, you can absolutely be broke on that.
  - lgg 11y ago