3 ms·
Let'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)
by the_gastropod 10y ago
Let'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.