4 ms·

I’m not OP but my numbers are similar. I spent most of my twenties in college and grad school. Then worked in the Midwest in my early thirties making $100k-$13

by freyr 5y ago

I’m not OP but my numbers are similar. I spent most of my twenties in college and grad school. Then worked in the Midwest in my early thirties making $100k-$130k. I moved to Silicon Valley and took a job for $150k. That was a downgrade considering the much higher cost of living, but it seemed like a good stepping stone at the time. I stayed at that company for way too long working towards a promotion that was dangled in front of me but never came, and finally switched to FANG for a 2X increase in total comp. And many people at my age in the company make about 2X+ of what I make now. The housing prices here are so crazy that I’m ready to throw in the towel on SV, even if it means a pay cut. My QOL was highest outside of the Bay Area working for less.

akie 5y ago
In the end, those who own the apartments and the buildings will always be able to capture a significant part of the economical output of a city or country. All that clever software that increased the company's revenue by 10%? A large part of those additional earnings ended up in some landlord's pocket. We're all just working around the clock so that landlords can increase their rents and sip cocktails.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  That’s my main issue with the way our society is structured. There’s a class difference between those who own a property and those who don’t even if they do the exactly same job. I don’t even talk about the people who have not done single contribution to the society and live of on the rent of inherited properties. It’s like the peasants who work all day and have nothing when people from blue blood are having generations living of their backs in castles. Having an elite is fine, it’s even better when class movement is feasible but when you have a large class of people doing nothing or rewarded drastically differently for the same input, things are not fine.
  - rightbyte 5y ago
    Ye. You need to own "the means of production", which in eg. New York or SV is the house you live in, since the house is the reason you can work close to the easy money. A friend is thinking about to open a restaurant in a very attractive location, but I said, if you don't own the property the restaurant is in, the land lord will just increase rent until the any profit is barely OK anyways. There is no money in that.
    - caminante 5y ago
      > if you don't own the property the restaurant is in, the land lord will just increase rent until the any profit is barely OK anyways. Then, contract around it with a capped escalation factor? And doesn't this apply to any <insert business> renting space?
      - rightbyte 5y ago
        No, I don't think it applies to all businesses. Like, restaurants are tied to a location and reputation. An office not so much. Bigger corporations like McDonalds or Starbucks probably have more bargain power and a better picture of how much a location will pay out, etc.
    - Delk 5y ago
      Are you sure most restaurants aren't renting their premises in any case? Owning a property sounds like a massive investment before you're even able to do any business. Of course the restaurant business is probably hit-and-miss and risky, and owning the premises might give you more stability, at least if you don't have a large amount of debt. It sounds to me like your stance might be quite cynical in the sense that almost nobody would try starting a restaurant if they considered owning their premises a necessity.
idontwantthis 5y ago
You're making $300k and not financially comfortable starting a family?
- emrah 5y ago
  Welcome to SV
  - maccard 5y ago
    If you think you can't live on 300k with a family in the bay area, then you need a serious reality check. On a $300k income, even with one earner, you can comfortably afford a $1m+ home (of which there are plenty of single family homes available in many parts of the bay area), and while yes the COL for things like groceries/eating out is higher than in Austin TX, it's not high enough to seriously claim that it's not liveable
    - metaltyphoon 5y ago
      300k is probably total comp. Meaning that base could be around 170k to 180k. Cut half of that in taxes. That's what you keep.
    - freyr 5y ago
      Show me a 3-4 bedroom house for $1M, and I’ll tell you how many hours the commute would take. I work on the Peninsula. 90% of 3+ bedroom houses currently on the market here cost over $1.75M. Those below that, in the bottom 10%, are what you’d expect to find in the bottom 10%. There are many great places to live where I wouldn’t be forced to choose between that or spending a couple hours a day in traffic. Less money and higher quality of life.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by freyr 5y ago

akie 5y ago

In the end, those who own the apartments and the buildings will always be able to capture a significant part of the economical output of a city or country. All that clever software that increased the company's revenue by 10%? A large part of those additional earnings ended up in some landlord's pocket. We're all just working around the clock so that landlords can increase their rents and sip cocktails.

mrtksn 5y ago
That’s my main issue with the way our society is structured. There’s a class difference between those who own a property and those who don’t even if they do the exactly same job. I don’t even talk about the people who have not done single contribution to the society and live of on the rent of inherited properties. It’s like the peasants who work all day and have nothing when people from blue blood are having generations living of their backs in castles. Having an elite is fine, it’s even better when class movement is feasible but when you have a large class of people doing nothing or rewarded drastically differently for the same input, things are not fine.
- rightbyte 5y ago
  Ye. You need to own "the means of production", which in eg. New York or SV is the house you live in, since the house is the reason you can work close to the easy money. A friend is thinking about to open a restaurant in a very attractive location, but I said, if you don't own the property the restaurant is in, the land lord will just increase rent until the any profit is barely OK anyways. There is no money in that.
  - caminante 5y ago
    > if you don't own the property the restaurant is in, the land lord will just increase rent until the any profit is barely OK anyways. Then, contract around it with a capped escalation factor? And doesn't this apply to any <insert business> renting space?
    - rightbyte 5y ago
      No, I don't think it applies to all businesses. Like, restaurants are tied to a location and reputation. An office not so much. Bigger corporations like McDonalds or Starbucks probably have more bargain power and a better picture of how much a location will pay out, etc.
  - Delk 5y ago
    Are you sure most restaurants aren't renting their premises in any case? Owning a property sounds like a massive investment before you're even able to do any business. Of course the restaurant business is probably hit-and-miss and risky, and owning the premises might give you more stability, at least if you don't have a large amount of debt. It sounds to me like your stance might be quite cynical in the sense that almost nobody would try starting a restaurant if they considered owning their premises a necessity.

idontwantthis 5y ago

You're making $300k and not financially comfortable starting a family?

emrah 5y ago
Welcome to SV
- maccard 5y ago
  If you think you can't live on 300k with a family in the bay area, then you need a serious reality check. On a $300k income, even with one earner, you can comfortably afford a $1m+ home (of which there are plenty of single family homes available in many parts of the bay area), and while yes the COL for things like groceries/eating out is higher than in Austin TX, it's not high enough to seriously claim that it's not liveable
  - metaltyphoon 5y ago
    300k is probably total comp. Meaning that base could be around 170k to 180k. Cut half of that in taxes. That's what you keep.
  - freyr 5y ago
    Show me a 3-4 bedroom house for $1M, and I’ll tell you how many hours the commute would take. I work on the Peninsula. 90% of 3+ bedroom houses currently on the market here cost over $1.75M. Those below that, in the bottom 10%, are what you’d expect to find in the bottom 10%. There are many great places to live where I wouldn’t be forced to choose between that or spending a couple hours a day in traffic. Less money and higher quality of life.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]