6 ms·

There must be a study out there demonstrating that people systematically undervalue (or outright neglect) cost-of-living in a region when taking a job offer. On

There must be a study out there demonstrating that people systematically undervalue (or outright neglect) cost-of-living in a region when taking a job offer. One of my friends graduated from my phd prog (uc san diego) a few months ago and immediately took a job offer in SF. He said it was his best offer by more than $20k/yr. Every time I've spoken with him since, he complains about how expensive it is to live there and how much he pays for rent for an apartment in Berkeley area. Though when I ask if he is considering looking for a job elsewhere soon, he just says nah, the money is too good to leave. The thing is, even knowing this, I can totally see myself in an interview soon, somewhere in the valley, and getting an offer that makes me go 'well shit, how could i not afford a nice apartment on that salary'. How bad is it guys? Could someone making $140k/yr ever expect to be a homeowner in SF/SV?

monkeynotes 9y ago
If you are being paid $20k a year more than elsewhere, after tax perhaps that equates to ~12-16k a year. You'd therefore be able to afford between 1-1.5k a month more in expenses than earning the comparable salary offered elsewhere. I'd suggest that in SF that you maybe, just maybe break even (renting that is), but more than likely you are worse off financially. However, SF will more than likely be a better place for career growth and opportunity. You shouldn't undervalue that, especially at the beginning of your career. As far as buying a house goes, depends on what kind of commute you can tolerate and how much downpayment you have. I think you'd struggle to be comfortable on anything less than $200k.
- Retric 9y ago
  Even if your after tax cash flow is similar Social Security befits from higher salaries. Another consideration is there are larger benefits to downgrading your lifestyle. Living in a Tiny studio apartment in SF or even having roommates frees up a lot more cash than it does in most places. Going without a car in NYC is a minimal sacrifice for significant rewards.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  >However, SF will more than likely be a better place for career growth and opportunity. You shouldn't undervalue that, especially at the beginning of your career. Unless you plan to spend your entire career there having your the vast majority professional network is a bad thing because it means it's much harder to cut and run. If you don't cut and run you wind up with a wife, kids, a stupidly overpriced house in the suburbs, etc.
  - monkeynotes 9y ago
    Every life is different, I have friends who had children in SF and left to find good jobs and houses elsewhere, it's more than possible. All I'd suggest is just going in with your eyes open, and your point is definitely one worth considering when evaluating moving to SF.
  - dagw 9y ago
    A lot of people who start in SF probably end up somewhere else a decade or so down the line due to the reasons you mention. So even if your network starts out being purely SF based, in a few years those people (and thus your network) will probably end up being spread over a much wider area.
mcntsh 9y ago
> Could someone making $140k/yr ever expect to be a homeowner in SF/SV You could buy in Vallejo and commute over 1.5 hours to the city every day. Within most "desirable" cities in the Bay Area, houses will be out of your reach.
- subroutine 9y ago
  My god, 1.5 hours :( My current commute to work, from utc to la jolla, is 4 minutes.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- rsync 9y ago
  "You could buy in Vallejo and commute over 1.5 hours to the city every day. Within most "desirable" cities in the Bay Area, houses will be out of your reach." I assume you mean 1.5 hours, round trip - either on the vallejo ferry (right to the core of SF) or timing your commute by car to miss rush hour. That fits my own experience well. And if so, I don't know why that's so terrible. My generation (generation X) was raised by parents who routinely and happily made similar sacrifices - either longer commutes or a second, part time job as a UPS driver or an extra shift at the nursing job, etc. to make our lives work. I don't understand how these minor sacrifices, which were nearly universal in the suburban middle class we were raised in, are now "unthinkable" and clear evidence of "social pathology".
  - dagw 9y ago
    I don't understand how these minor sacrifices, which were nearly universal in the suburban middle class we were raised in, are now "unthinkable" Maybe because we saw and experienced that life and realized that we didn't want that for ourselves and our kids.
    - rsync 9y ago
      TANSTAAFL.
jonnycoder 9y ago
I'm totally happy living in the Sacramento area and I own two properties on sacramento-software-engineer pay. The downside is certainly less money and definitely way less opportunities if I was looking, but upside is much less traffic and being closer to outdoor recreation. And of course owning whatever type house I want within reason.
usaar333 9y ago
> Could someone making $140k/yr ever expect to be a homeowner in SF/SV? You probably can't. But you can rent. And rents plateaued a couple of years ago. > There must be a study out there demonstrating that people systematically undervalue (or outright neglect) cost-of-living in a region when taking a job off Higher COL regions generally provide higher quality of life (why else do people pay more to live there?). I find that the highest "life value" I can get is in the Bay Area (huge tech scene, great weather/outdoors, generally solid culture)
llsf 9y ago
I arrived in the SV 12 years ago (2006) with already $20k savings. I had a $100k job initially to now $140k. My rent was $1,400 for tiny but cute studio. I stayed in that studio for 5 years (until 2011) and managed to saved $100k total. I bought a place in SF with my partner, we put $200k down ($100k each) for a ~$800k 2br/2ba. We now pay $3k per month so $1,500 each per month which is not much more than I used to pay when single in my studio (granted, now I need to add HOA ($150/month) and property tax (but could be deducted from taxes)). So, I would say it was possible but as a couple with same kind of income. Now (2018) I don't think we could afford the exact same condo (maybe worth now up to $1.2M). We could afford something smaller and/or less central. But having said that, I was very surprised when talking with (younger) coworkers who have the same salary ($140k), on how little to none they were actually saving. It is tempting to eat our for both lunch and dinner, etc in the City, but it gets expensive very quickly. To be a homeowner anywhere, you need to save. To be homeowner in SF/SV you need to save even more, and be a couple. Not impossible, but more difficult. Save early, and as much as you possibly can, that would determine your future purchase power.

monkeynotes 9y ago

If you are being paid $20k a year more than elsewhere, after tax perhaps that equates to ~12-16k a year. You'd therefore be able to afford between 1-1.5k a month more in expenses than earning the comparable salary offered elsewhere. I'd suggest that in SF that you maybe, just maybe break even (renting that is), but more than likely you are worse off financially. However, SF will more than likely be a better place for career growth and opportunity. You shouldn't undervalue that, especially at the beginning of your career. As far as buying a house goes, depends on what kind of commute you can tolerate and how much downpayment you have. I think you'd struggle to be comfortable on anything less than $200k.

Retric 9y ago
Even if your after tax cash flow is similar Social Security befits from higher salaries. Another consideration is there are larger benefits to downgrading your lifestyle. Living in a Tiny studio apartment in SF or even having roommates frees up a lot more cash than it does in most places. Going without a car in NYC is a minimal sacrifice for significant rewards.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>However, SF will more than likely be a better place for career growth and opportunity. You shouldn't undervalue that, especially at the beginning of your career. Unless you plan to spend your entire career there having your the vast majority professional network is a bad thing because it means it's much harder to cut and run. If you don't cut and run you wind up with a wife, kids, a stupidly overpriced house in the suburbs, etc.
- monkeynotes 9y ago
  Every life is different, I have friends who had children in SF and left to find good jobs and houses elsewhere, it's more than possible. All I'd suggest is just going in with your eyes open, and your point is definitely one worth considering when evaluating moving to SF.
- dagw 9y ago
  A lot of people who start in SF probably end up somewhere else a decade or so down the line due to the reasons you mention. So even if your network starts out being purely SF based, in a few years those people (and thus your network) will probably end up being spread over a much wider area.

mcntsh 9y ago

> Could someone making $140k/yr ever expect to be a homeowner in SF/SV You could buy in Vallejo and commute over 1.5 hours to the city every day. Within most "desirable" cities in the Bay Area, houses will be out of your reach.

subroutine 9y ago
My god, 1.5 hours :( My current commute to work, from utc to la jolla, is 4 minutes.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
rsync 9y ago
"You could buy in Vallejo and commute over 1.5 hours to the city every day. Within most "desirable" cities in the Bay Area, houses will be out of your reach." I assume you mean 1.5 hours, round trip - either on the vallejo ferry (right to the core of SF) or timing your commute by car to miss rush hour. That fits my own experience well. And if so, I don't know why that's so terrible. My generation (generation X) was raised by parents who routinely and happily made similar sacrifices - either longer commutes or a second, part time job as a UPS driver or an extra shift at the nursing job, etc. to make our lives work. I don't understand how these minor sacrifices, which were nearly universal in the suburban middle class we were raised in, are now "unthinkable" and clear evidence of "social pathology".
- dagw 9y ago
  I don't understand how these minor sacrifices, which were nearly universal in the suburban middle class we were raised in, are now "unthinkable" Maybe because we saw and experienced that life and realized that we didn't want that for ourselves and our kids.
  - rsync 9y ago
    TANSTAAFL.

jonnycoder 9y ago

I'm totally happy living in the Sacramento area and I own two properties on sacramento-software-engineer pay. The downside is certainly less money and definitely way less opportunities if I was looking, but upside is much less traffic and being closer to outdoor recreation. And of course owning whatever type house I want within reason.

usaar333 9y ago

> Could someone making $140k/yr ever expect to be a homeowner in SF/SV? You probably can't. But you can rent. And rents plateaued a couple of years ago. > There must be a study out there demonstrating that people systematically undervalue (or outright neglect) cost-of-living in a region when taking a job off Higher COL regions generally provide higher quality of life (why else do people pay more to live there?). I find that the highest "life value" I can get is in the Bay Area (huge tech scene, great weather/outdoors, generally solid culture)

llsf 9y ago

I arrived in the SV 12 years ago (2006) with already $20k savings. I had a $100k job initially to now $140k. My rent was $1,400 for tiny but cute studio. I stayed in that studio for 5 years (until 2011) and managed to saved $100k total. I bought a place in SF with my partner, we put $200k down ($100k each) for a ~$800k 2br/2ba. We now pay $3k per month so $1,500 each per month which is not much more than I used to pay when single in my studio (granted, now I need to add HOA ($150/month) and property tax (but could be deducted from taxes)). So, I would say it was possible but as a couple with same kind of income. Now (2018) I don't think we could afford the exact same condo (maybe worth now up to $1.2M). We could afford something smaller and/or less central. But having said that, I was very surprised when talking with (younger) coworkers who have the same salary ($140k), on how little to none they were actually saving. It is tempting to eat our for both lunch and dinner, etc in the City, but it gets expensive very quickly. To be a homeowner anywhere, you need to save. To be homeowner in SF/SV you need to save even more, and be a couple. Not impossible, but more difficult. Save early, and as much as you possibly can, that would determine your future purchase power.