2 ms·

Your first listing is an apartment. Shouldn't have to explain why that's not a house. Your second listing has an estimated sale value of nearly $1.7m. Your thi

Your first listing is an apartment. Shouldn't have to explain why that's not a house. Your second listing has an estimated sale value of nearly $1.7m. Your third is nearly $2mil. Have you ever tried to get a loan for that much at that income with a traditional 20% down? (Assuming you have 350-400k laying around) You will not get approved for a loan on that at $250k/yr. Your monthly cost on that first home is $8,375 after tax (tax is around 1.2-1.6% in CA) + insurance. That's past the maximum 36% of gross monthly income. https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/mortgages/how-much-can-i-borrow-calculator https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/mortgages/how-much-can-i-... Try the calculator. In general, going past 4x yearly income is not going to get approved by a bank. Theoretically, you might find some lender who'd do it but I haven't seen many. Most people buying here are buying homes with cash or really large down payments. The fact you're even mentioning negotiations on buying homes in the bay area tells me you have no idea how the market here works. There are bidding wars - there aren't negotiations. At this point - it's obvious that you're completely out of touch. You think spending 50%+ of your take home pay on rent is sustainable and that you can somehow retire with that expense. Maybe lay off the tidepods?

tidepod12 6y ago
If you're just going to move the goalposts, then this discussion is pointless. But in good faith, I'll try one last time: >Your first listing is an apartment. Shouldn't have to explain why that's not a house. It's not an apartment, it's a condo, which is a form of housing. >Your second listing has an estimated sale value of nearly $1.7m. At $1.7m sale price you're still close to the 30% rule and still have more than 5k/mo discretionary spend, which again, is more than most americans make monthly, period, even before paying for a house. The fact that you think this would make you "poor" is absurd and quite frankly, insulting. I'm sure my friend who owns that house in Sunset and has a boat and goes on nice vacations all the time will be bummed to hear that he's apparently "poor". I'll also let my Nob Hill friend know, too. Tell me, do you think commenting on their pic from the St Regis Bora Bora is a good way to break the news to them that they are actually poor? All of this is also completely ignoring the fact that this is talking about someone making $250k/yr (which is near the beginning of their career for a FAANG engineer) paying for this house by themselves, when in reality the expectation in the entire rest of the world is that you shouldn't be expecting to buy a home like this until your 30s or 40s. There's a reason "starter homes" are a thing, and these listed homes are not that. You have incredibly warped expectations if you think that the target market for these 3br, 3bath homes are 25 year old single people. If you were an engineer in your 30s, you're looking at an income more like 300-400k at a FAANG, and if your spouse also has an income, these houses are trivially affordable. Again, the median family income in SF is less than $100k, and they seem to be doing fine. For you to sit here and try to argue that "$300k isn't enough" is ludicrous and reeks of ultra privilege. You need a reality check.
- whynaut 6y ago
  > You can't buy a house now with $250k/yr in inner sunset. Go to Zillow and find me a nice house you can afford on $250k/yr and won't be house poor in the end with. > You're not even close to being "poor in the end with it" > The fact that you think this would make you "poor" is absurd and quite frankly, insulting "House poor" is a distinct term that describes a home purchase where home expenses (not just mortgage) drain cash flow in a way that prevents hitting other goals - hence this point: > You shouldn't be spending close to 50% of your take home on RENT. You will never be able to retire and live the same lifestyle. A very different notion than "poor" alone. Also, you'd have to put at least closer 25-30% down on that home without absolutely perfect credit; jumbo loans have been tightening awhile. > Again, the median family income in SF is less than $100k, and they seem to be doing fine. What do you mean by doing fine, exactly? Not to nitpick, but I was under the impression most people buying in SF are not native to the city.

tidepod12 6y ago

If you're just going to move the goalposts, then this discussion is pointless. But in good faith, I'll try one last time: >Your first listing is an apartment. Shouldn't have to explain why that's not a house. It's not an apartment, it's a condo, which is a form of housing. >Your second listing has an estimated sale value of nearly $1.7m. At $1.7m sale price you're still close to the 30% rule and still have more than 5k/mo discretionary spend, which again, is more than most americans make monthly, period, even before paying for a house. The fact that you think this would make you "poor" is absurd and quite frankly, insulting. I'm sure my friend who owns that house in Sunset and has a boat and goes on nice vacations all the time will be bummed to hear that he's apparently "poor". I'll also let my Nob Hill friend know, too. Tell me, do you think commenting on their pic from the St Regis Bora Bora is a good way to break the news to them that they are actually poor? All of this is also completely ignoring the fact that this is talking about someone making $250k/yr (which is near the beginning of their career for a FAANG engineer) paying for this house by themselves, when in reality the expectation in the entire rest of the world is that you shouldn't be expecting to buy a home like this until your 30s or 40s. There's a reason "starter homes" are a thing, and these listed homes are not that. You have incredibly warped expectations if you think that the target market for these 3br, 3bath homes are 25 year old single people. If you were an engineer in your 30s, you're looking at an income more like 300-400k at a FAANG, and if your spouse also has an income, these houses are trivially affordable. Again, the median family income in SF is less than $100k, and they seem to be doing fine. For you to sit here and try to argue that "$300k isn't enough" is ludicrous and reeks of ultra privilege. You need a reality check.

whynaut 6y ago
> You can't buy a house now with $250k/yr in inner sunset. Go to Zillow and find me a nice house you can afford on $250k/yr and won't be house poor in the end with. > You're not even close to being "poor in the end with it" > The fact that you think this would make you "poor" is absurd and quite frankly, insulting "House poor" is a distinct term that describes a home purchase where home expenses (not just mortgage) drain cash flow in a way that prevents hitting other goals - hence this point: > You shouldn't be spending close to 50% of your take home on RENT. You will never be able to retire and live the same lifestyle. A very different notion than "poor" alone. Also, you'd have to put at least closer 25-30% down on that home without absolutely perfect credit; jumbo loans have been tightening awhile. > Again, the median family income in SF is less than $100k, and they seem to be doing fine. What do you mean by doing fine, exactly? Not to nitpick, but I was under the impression most people buying in SF are not native to the city.