5 ms·

Jesus, 2k / person a month is insane. This is what people are talking about. This is not acceptable or normal. I pay $900 / person a month for a large house in

Jesus, 2k / person a month is insane. This is what people are talking about. This is not acceptable or normal. I pay $900 / person a month for a large house in Seattle that's a 15 minute commute from downtown. Even with the bay's high salaries you're not doing very well. Throw in bills and other expenses and you're looking at ~40% of your monthly income, assuming a salary of 130k. That's ~50k per person, per year, in addition to 100k down. I'm good on that, thanks.

tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
It's hardly insane for a house in a large metropolitan area! That's actually pretty reasonable, and lots of apartments in SF are 50% to 100% more in rent. If you look at current, or anything within maybe 5 years, house prices in Seattle I doubt you'll find much if anything within a 15 minute commute to downtown Seattle for a 900/month mortgage.
- jorblumesea 9y ago
  Other than NYC that's close to 50% more than what you can expect in any large American city. That is not reasonable in any sense of the word. 4k / month mortgage is around a $1 mil home value.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    Is a 50% variation in housing costs between large American cities not reasonable in any sense of the word? The per-capita GDP variation between large American cities is larger than that, and there's no good reason to expect housing to cost the same in very different cities. Some cities having housing cost at least 50% more (or double) the national average seems like something that would be the case in pretty much any country in any period of history.
  - tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
    So you're now moving the goalposts from 2k / month up to 4k / month? Nice.
- wil421 9y ago
  Absolutely insane. Going to buy a house with a 15 minute commute by train downtown. I’m looking to spend less than ~350k for a house with around 1500sq feet and fenced in yard. I will be spending less than $2k total a month. West coast is crazy.
  - NonEUCitizen 9y ago
    Where are you buying?
    - wil421 9y ago
      Atlanta and in an area that has exploded in the past 5 years. Comparable to Austin, Houston and maybe Portland. Maybe not so comparable for Portland anymore. Bankrate calculator says it’s $700k more expensive for the same house in SF.
      - bking 9y ago
        Yeah, ATL is adding a number of tech jobs (hopefully Amazon too). Cost of living is increasing, but relative to everywhere else it is cheap to live in the city center. Developments of apartments and condos has exploded, which is making for a nice urban feel.
  - softawre 9y ago
    I just paid 290k for a 3500sq-ft home with a big yard in a great school district. Indy aint so bad.
  - tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
    2k/month is fine. The guy I responded to is now moving the goalposts up to 4k/month, which is significantly more.
bduerst 9y ago
It's also hyperbole. It's closer to ~5K per month for a $1M mortgage with insurance and taxes in the bay today. By the rule of thirds, that's $60K/yr meaning $180K+/yr salary is necessary. This is for suburban living in a remodeled 70's ranch home, not in an urban area.
- oaijdsfoaijsf 9y ago
  But a $180k gross income is not particularly unusual in the Bay. I mean, that's still in junior engineer territory at one of the BigCos (Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.).
  - bduerst 9y ago
    For a techie who's in the top 10% of earners, sure, but we're talking about averages. $180k gross is ridiculous for the average job, even in the bay.
  - jorblumesea 9y ago
    What about regular people? Is everyone expected to be some high paid unicorn/big 4 engineer? Society is more than just rich techies.
    - s0rce 9y ago
      "Regular people" in big populated urban areas can't expect to own a detached home, they can live in condos/apartments like they do in Asian cities, NYC and other densely populated cities.
      - bduerst 9y ago
        The bay area isn't urban - we're talking about large stretches of suburbia. The area also isn't converting to urban despite the demand, which is part of what the article is talking about.
        s0rce 9y ago
ptero 9y ago
It is not that insane. IMO it is not sustainable (which is why I think I would not buy into SF real estate even if I worked there), but SF salaries are often significantly higher than elsewhere, so renting is a perfectly viable option. Assuming 40% tax bracket, a 30k salary difference gives you 1500/month extra after taxes that you can spend on your apartment. If you consider a couple with in demand tech skills they may be significantly better off financially moving to SF, where they are likely to both find very competitive salaries. In many other areas they may have to contend with one person getting into his best career path and the other choosing from limited options to be nearby. I am not advocating SF living, e.g. this is not my kettle of fish simply due to the quality of life choices, but from a purely financial viewpoint it is not that hopeless (yet?).
- jorblumesea 9y ago
  I don't think everyone is paid as highly as everyone claims. Sure, top engineers make enough to make it work but many only get marginal pay increases. I really don't think it balances out for most.
morgante 9y ago
> Throw in bills and other expenses and you're looking at ~40% of your monthly income, assuming a salary of 130k. That's not a very good assumption. $130k is on the low end for anyone with enough experience to be looking at a home purchase. I don't know why an absolute value is ever considered "insane." If salaries support it, it's not insane. Even with the high housing prices (caused mostly by regressive zoning policies), senior engineers at a big tech company or late-stage startups should be able to afford a home.

tytytytytytytyt 9y ago

It's hardly insane for a house in a large metropolitan area! That's actually pretty reasonable, and lots of apartments in SF are 50% to 100% more in rent. If you look at current, or anything within maybe 5 years, house prices in Seattle I doubt you'll find much if anything within a 15 minute commute to downtown Seattle for a 900/month mortgage.

jorblumesea 9y ago
Other than NYC that's close to 50% more than what you can expect in any large American city. That is not reasonable in any sense of the word. 4k / month mortgage is around a $1 mil home value.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  Is a 50% variation in housing costs between large American cities not reasonable in any sense of the word? The per-capita GDP variation between large American cities is larger than that, and there's no good reason to expect housing to cost the same in very different cities. Some cities having housing cost at least 50% more (or double) the national average seems like something that would be the case in pretty much any country in any period of history.
- tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
  So you're now moving the goalposts from 2k / month up to 4k / month? Nice.
wil421 9y ago
Absolutely insane. Going to buy a house with a 15 minute commute by train downtown. I’m looking to spend less than ~350k for a house with around 1500sq feet and fenced in yard. I will be spending less than $2k total a month. West coast is crazy.
- NonEUCitizen 9y ago
  Where are you buying?
  - wil421 9y ago
    Atlanta and in an area that has exploded in the past 5 years. Comparable to Austin, Houston and maybe Portland. Maybe not so comparable for Portland anymore. Bankrate calculator says it’s $700k more expensive for the same house in SF.
    - bking 9y ago
      Yeah, ATL is adding a number of tech jobs (hopefully Amazon too). Cost of living is increasing, but relative to everywhere else it is cheap to live in the city center. Developments of apartments and condos has exploded, which is making for a nice urban feel.
- softawre 9y ago
  I just paid 290k for a 3500sq-ft home with a big yard in a great school district. Indy aint so bad.
- tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
  2k/month is fine. The guy I responded to is now moving the goalposts up to 4k/month, which is significantly more.

bduerst 9y ago

It's also hyperbole. It's closer to ~5K per month for a $1M mortgage with insurance and taxes in the bay today. By the rule of thirds, that's $60K/yr meaning $180K+/yr salary is necessary. This is for suburban living in a remodeled 70's ranch home, not in an urban area.

oaijdsfoaijsf 9y ago
But a $180k gross income is not particularly unusual in the Bay. I mean, that's still in junior engineer territory at one of the BigCos (Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.).
- bduerst 9y ago
  For a techie who's in the top 10% of earners, sure, but we're talking about averages. $180k gross is ridiculous for the average job, even in the bay.
- jorblumesea 9y ago
  What about regular people? Is everyone expected to be some high paid unicorn/big 4 engineer? Society is more than just rich techies.
  - s0rce 9y ago
    "Regular people" in big populated urban areas can't expect to own a detached home, they can live in condos/apartments like they do in Asian cities, NYC and other densely populated cities.
    - bduerst 9y ago
      The bay area isn't urban - we're talking about large stretches of suburbia. The area also isn't converting to urban despite the demand, which is part of what the article is talking about.
      - s0rce 9y ago

ptero 9y ago

It is not that insane. IMO it is not sustainable (which is why I think I would not buy into SF real estate even if I worked there), but SF salaries are often significantly higher than elsewhere, so renting is a perfectly viable option. Assuming 40% tax bracket, a 30k salary difference gives you 1500/month extra after taxes that you can spend on your apartment. If you consider a couple with in demand tech skills they may be significantly better off financially moving to SF, where they are likely to both find very competitive salaries. In many other areas they may have to contend with one person getting into his best career path and the other choosing from limited options to be nearby. I am not advocating SF living, e.g. this is not my kettle of fish simply due to the quality of life choices, but from a purely financial viewpoint it is not that hopeless (yet?).

jorblumesea 9y ago
I don't think everyone is paid as highly as everyone claims. Sure, top engineers make enough to make it work but many only get marginal pay increases. I really don't think it balances out for most.

morgante 9y ago

> Throw in bills and other expenses and you're looking at ~40% of your monthly income, assuming a salary of 130k. That's not a very good assumption. $130k is on the low end for anyone with enough experience to be looking at a home purchase. I don't know why an absolute value is ever considered "insane." If salaries support it, it's not insane. Even with the high housing prices (caused mostly by regressive zoning policies), senior engineers at a big tech company or late-stage startups should be able to afford a home.