5 ms·

You honestly think that paying 100k out of pocket in addition to a recurring 4k a month (48k a year!) just on housing is reasonable?

TuringNYC 9y ago
I lived through the 2000 tech implosion and in 1999, people though things like this were reasonable. Amongst people who think this is reasonable are probably - Dual earners hoping to bite the bullet before it gets crazier - Those with <8yrs experience who have never seen a downturn or jobs go dry - Lawyers, VCs, etc to whom this is nothing.
- gnicholas 9y ago
  As a former lawyer, I can say that prices these days are high for lawyers and other service providers. Associates/employees are paid hourly so there's limited upside. You can buy a house on a single legal salary, but you won't have much cushion. Law firm partners are in a much better position, but you can't make equity partner (not just "income partner", which is basically a glorified title they give so you can go get more clients) until you're about 40. And nobody wants to wait that long to buy a home. Basically, "law firm partners" can be clumped together with VCs, since they both hold stakes in (hopefully) profitable businesses. But most lawyers are not partners.
scruple 9y ago
Reasonable? Absolutely not. Reality? Yes, unfortunately.
gnicholas 9y ago
The SF area is a desirable part of the country because of weather and cultural reasons (for some). So people who live here are basically buying access to good climate and desirable activities/amenities. It's also worth noting that these figures are for a mortgage, which is in part an investment. When the trend of SF area real estate is factored in, it doesn't look as crazy. If you purchase in very popular areas (Palo/Menlo/north MV, on the Peninsula), you're pretty well insulated from downside market risk. Even during the '08 recession, things mostly just flattened out for a couple years (and have since gone on a tear). People used to joke about million-dollar-fixer-uppers. Now even the fixer-uppers are well over a million...

TuringNYC 9y ago

I lived through the 2000 tech implosion and in 1999, people though things like this were reasonable. Amongst people who think this is reasonable are probably - Dual earners hoping to bite the bullet before it gets crazier - Those with <8yrs experience who have never seen a downturn or jobs go dry - Lawyers, VCs, etc to whom this is nothing.

gnicholas 9y ago
As a former lawyer, I can say that prices these days are high for lawyers and other service providers. Associates/employees are paid hourly so there's limited upside. You can buy a house on a single legal salary, but you won't have much cushion. Law firm partners are in a much better position, but you can't make equity partner (not just "income partner", which is basically a glorified title they give so you can go get more clients) until you're about 40. And nobody wants to wait that long to buy a home. Basically, "law firm partners" can be clumped together with VCs, since they both hold stakes in (hopefully) profitable businesses. But most lawyers are not partners.

scruple 9y ago

Reasonable? Absolutely not. Reality? Yes, unfortunately.

gnicholas 9y ago

The SF area is a desirable part of the country because of weather and cultural reasons (for some). So people who live here are basically buying access to good climate and desirable activities/amenities. It's also worth noting that these figures are for a mortgage, which is in part an investment. When the trend of SF area real estate is factored in, it doesn't look as crazy. If you purchase in very popular areas (Palo/Menlo/north MV, on the Peninsula), you're pretty well insulated from downside market risk. Even during the '08 recession, things mostly just flattened out for a couple years (and have since gone on a tear). People used to joke about million-dollar-fixer-uppers. Now even the fixer-uppers are well over a million...