4 ms·

>>Neither $250k household income nor a $1.7M home are signs of actual wealth in the Bay Area. They are though. They're not signs of relative wealth.

by moate 7y ago

pmiller2 7y ago
How do you figure? You can’t eat home equity, and someone with a $250k salary paying off a $1.5M mortgage is probably struggling. (Whether that’s a stupid thing to be doing or not isn’t relevant to the example.)
- moate 7y ago
  Let's hit the ol dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wealth https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wealth Also, What? Why is that person "struggling"? That's 50K annually in principle and an extra 2500 in interest (at 5%) assuming you had a 0% down payment. Assuming you're paying half your income to taxes, you still have 72,500 left annually after making those home payments for whatever else you need to live off of. I get that this is fast and dirty back of a napkin math, but when you're mortgage is only 6X your annual income, you're probably doing fine. If you're struggling to exist with 72,500, we have very different definitions of "struggling". My original point is this: "Wealth" is generally relative, and I accept that, but I can't believe that the holdings and wages are so out of proportion with the rest of the country that someone can attempt to make the claim that pulling in a quarter of a million dollars annually and living in a 1.5 million dollar home doesn't make you wealthy. Signed: someone from the NYC tri-state where we have had "old money" families forever but still know what rich people look like. (Final point: yes, you can eat home equity because you can convert it into liquidity most of the time.)
- imtringued 7y ago
  1.5 million over 30 years means $4166 per month (ignoring interest because it's untaxed and almost 0%). When you look at the median 1BR price in San Francisco that mortgage is absolutely nothing in comparison.

>>Neither $250k household income nor a $1.7M home are signs of actual wealth in the Bay Area. They are though. They're not signs of relative wealth.

by moate 7y ago

>>Neither $250k household income nor a $1.7M home are signs of actual wealth in the Bay Area. They are though. They're not signs of relative wealth.

pmiller2 7y ago

How do you figure? You can’t eat home equity, and someone with a $250k salary paying off a $1.5M mortgage is probably struggling. (Whether that’s a stupid thing to be doing or not isn’t relevant to the example.)

moate 7y ago
Let's hit the ol dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wealth https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wealth Also, What? Why is that person "struggling"? That's 50K annually in principle and an extra 2500 in interest (at 5%) assuming you had a 0% down payment. Assuming you're paying half your income to taxes, you still have 72,500 left annually after making those home payments for whatever else you need to live off of. I get that this is fast and dirty back of a napkin math, but when you're mortgage is only 6X your annual income, you're probably doing fine. If you're struggling to exist with 72,500, we have very different definitions of "struggling". My original point is this: "Wealth" is generally relative, and I accept that, but I can't believe that the holdings and wages are so out of proportion with the rest of the country that someone can attempt to make the claim that pulling in a quarter of a million dollars annually and living in a 1.5 million dollar home doesn't make you wealthy. Signed: someone from the NYC tri-state where we have had "old money" families forever but still know what rich people look like. (Final point: yes, you can eat home equity because you can convert it into liquidity most of the time.)
imtringued 7y ago
1.5 million over 30 years means $4166 per month (ignoring interest because it's untaxed and almost 0%). When you look at the median 1BR price in San Francisco that mortgage is absolutely nothing in comparison.