5 ms·

Yeah, assuming a household of 2+2 in NYC/SF/Seattle: * Renting a 3 bed near work (financial district) will cost around $70k/yr * a nice car (a BMW M3-ish) + a

by screye 4y ago

Yeah, assuming a household of 2+2 in NYC/SF/Seattle: * Renting a 3 bed near work (financial district) will cost around $70k/yr * a nice car (a BMW M3-ish) + a cheap van (costs around $20k/yr * Ordering in everyday costs $40k/yr * Nice vacations and trips will easily cost $30k/yr total = $160k/yr wage = (250k x 0.7(taxes)) - 30k (401k, HSA) = $145k/yr __________ Yep, I can totally see how allowing common types of 'tech-people life creep' will quickly lead to a paycheck-paycheck situation. I only outlined the macro-costs, and those still add up. Of course, this also clearly outlines the main savings a person can make: * Save on rent. always. 33% of your wage is a recommendation for poor-americans. Don't rent at 33% if you're making $250k (70k -> $35k) * Cook if you can or pickup from your local street vendor, not doordash.($40k -> $15k) * Buy a cheap car, or none at at all. _________ It also outlines why a subsection of HN has been shouting about urban infrastructure reform in the US. Higher density, more middle housing and better public transports allows for more housing supply, more walkable amenities and car-free lifestyles. * Car free = save 15k/year (assume 5k for ubers, car rentals when needed, public transport) * More walkable density = cheap food downstairs (NYC is an excellent example of this) * More housing = cheaper rent (the biggest culprit) __________ The numbers are staggering. I haven't added any of the extra costs that come with emergency medical care or children (except food and living). $250k is the top 5 percentile of households the US. Unless America makes its infrastructure efficient and sustainable, the current framework will bankrupt literally 95% of irresponsible spenders in HCOL regions in the US. Worst of all, the cities are ugly, the concrete landscape is hellish and the hedonistic treadmill quickly catches up, as the new luxuries start feeling no different than a Motel or a Corolla.

sieabahlpark 4y ago
Wow if only not owning a car worked outside of a city. Except it doesn't, even in the city, if you have family outside of the city how do you visit them? Would you rent a car or have someone make the trip to get you?
- jghn 4y ago
  I interpreted the GP as suggesting instead of BMWs, Teslas, and nice SUVs there are cheaper alternatives. This includes more bottom of the barrel cars. On your other question, I was a carless city dweller for many years. And yes I would fill in the blanks with rental cars on occasion.
  - screye 4y ago
    Yeah, I understand that a family of 4 will want to own 1 car. However, upper-middle class American families often have 2/3 cars due to lack of public transport infrastructure. Alternately, the densest cities can allow for a car-free lifestyle with rentals for out-of-town trips. However, the costs might be the same as owning a standard sedan. ($30-40k). I won't consider this bottom of the barrel at all.
ezsmi 4y ago
If the +2 is kids than you left off an important $48K/yr expense. https://patch.com/california/san-francisco/how-much-it-costs-raise-child-california-study https://patch.com/california/san-francisco/how-much-it-costs...
jghn 4y ago
A hidden factor I don't think you hit on in your analysis was "- 30k (401k, HSA)". This right here is a huge difference. Sad as it might be, the numbers on what average people sock away in 401Ks is not good. So it's another example of a choice people make. As with most of these situations there's a right answer. In this case if one can one should choose to invest in their 401Ks and such. But it's still a factor of not having an apples to apples comparison in these conversations between low income and high income people living paycheck to paycheck.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by screye 4y ago

sieabahlpark 4y ago

Wow if only not owning a car worked outside of a city. Except it doesn't, even in the city, if you have family outside of the city how do you visit them? Would you rent a car or have someone make the trip to get you?

jghn 4y ago
I interpreted the GP as suggesting instead of BMWs, Teslas, and nice SUVs there are cheaper alternatives. This includes more bottom of the barrel cars. On your other question, I was a carless city dweller for many years. And yes I would fill in the blanks with rental cars on occasion.
- screye 4y ago
  Yeah, I understand that a family of 4 will want to own 1 car. However, upper-middle class American families often have 2/3 cars due to lack of public transport infrastructure. Alternately, the densest cities can allow for a car-free lifestyle with rentals for out-of-town trips. However, the costs might be the same as owning a standard sedan. ($30-40k). I won't consider this bottom of the barrel at all.

ezsmi 4y ago

If the +2 is kids than you left off an important $48K/yr expense. https://patch.com/california/san-francisco/how-much-it-costs-raise-child-california-study https://patch.com/california/san-francisco/how-much-it-costs...

jghn 4y ago

A hidden factor I don't think you hit on in your analysis was "- 30k (401k, HSA)". This right here is a huge difference. Sad as it might be, the numbers on what average people sock away in 401Ks is not good. So it's another example of a choice people make. As with most of these situations there's a right answer. In this case if one can one should choose to invest in their 401Ks and such. But it's still a factor of not having an apples to apples comparison in these conversations between low income and high income people living paycheck to paycheck.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]