4 ms·
Keep in mind that it's not just how much money one makes, but it's also when one moved to San Francisco and whether they bought when home prices were much lower
by linguae 10y ago
Keep in mind that it's not just how much money one makes, but it's also when one moved to San Francisco and whether they bought when home prices were much lower than today or whether they secured rent-controlled housing at lower rents than today's market levels that makes a dramatic difference in affordability. There are some people making less than the median income yet have very low living expenses because they were able to secure a mortgage or rent-controlled housing back when housing was much cheaper.
- the_gastropod 10y agoLet's say this person making $160k takes home ~$90k after 401k and taxes and such. And let's say their rent is 50% of their take home ($45k/year or $3750/month). 1. That's ~$300/mo more than the average 1 BR apartment [1], so seems reasonable. 2. That leaves another $3750/month for non-rent spending money, which itself, more than most Americans earn in salary. (note: this leaves a LOT of room to spend more in rent if you need a 2br, 3br, etc) So yes. San Francisco is expensive. But if you feel like it's a struggle while earning $160k, you probably have a lot of fat you need to cut in your budget. [1] https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-san-francisco-rent-trends/ https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-san-francisco-ren...
- talmand 10y agoRating cost-of-living solely by monthly rent is naive. Having a family is expensive, so be sure to cut that fat too.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- SmellTheGlove 10y agoYou're pretty much making the same point as the people mentioned in the article, just framed positively. Single renters can get by if they're willing to spend a large portion of their take-home, but a family on the same salary cannot. 35 year old me could not live like 25 year old me.