> A good rule of thumb is 25% of take home pay should go towards housing and up to 40% in the Bay Area. 40% can be done if you minimize costs like going out or

> A good rule of thumb is 25% of take home pay should go towards housing and up to 40% in the Bay Area. 40% can be done if you minimize costs like going out or have a second income. This is an interesting, and perhaps telling, assertion. 40% can be done if you minimize costs, not only in the Bay Area, but anywhere else. Thus, the implicit point here is apparently that the opportunity set in the Bay Area is so great that it's justifiable to allocate an additional 15% of pretax income just to live there, relative to anywhere else on the planet. I'm not sure if I buy that, especially within the context of taking a job that you've already been offered that has a defined comp package vs. moving somewhere to find a new job.