7 ms·

At $150k in the Bay Area you’re going to be renting and spending 2 hours a day on public transit. Those roles made sense as a career stepping stone up to homeow

At $150k in the Bay Area you’re going to be renting and spending 2 hours a day on public transit. Those roles made sense as a career stepping stone up to homeownership & family supporting roles. I don’t anticipate too many senior folks taking them unless they get exceptions to go remote or they already have mega home equity / rent control.

jcadam 4y ago
That's freaking hilarious, I didn't cross $150k until I was just shy of 40 years old. My first SWE job paid $55k. Not in the bay area, though.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- laidoffamazon 4y ago
  People working at Cisco aren't cracking $150k until they're mid-level at minimum. The people on this thread are completely out of touch.
  - closeparen 4y ago
    AFAIK people aren’t giving up middle class lives elsewhere in the US and relocating for Cisco.
    - laidoffamazon 4y ago
      To most people, Cisco would be considered a high paying employer. If anything, people are giving up middle class lives in other countries and relocating to San Jose for Cisco.
      - closeparen 4y ago
        Living 5 adults to a house in San Jose might genuinely be better than living in India. I wouldn’t know. The point is if you have moved to Wisconsin or whatever, it would be foolish to move back to San Jose for that.
barbazoo 4y ago
I'm curious and asking in good faith, $150k in CA seem to translate to just over $100k take home. Looking at Zillow there seem to be an abundance of places all over the bay area around $2.5k (1bdrm) and $3.5k (2bdrm) which sound not too bad on one and 2 incomes respectively, just like what everyone else is doing, around a third of your income. I don't get why you're assuming one would have commute 2 hours a day. Is transit that bad even if you're close to where you work? I honestly don't get it fully. Don't get me wrong, it sucks and I wish housing was cheaper but I think that's just the way it is now for everybody that has to work in person somewhere. And 25% of your take home income spent on housing isn't too bad at all and that's at the lower end of the spectrum GP is talking about here ($150k-$200k).
- tmpz22 4y ago
  I've spent most of my career in the Bay - $150k in the Bay Area without child expenses in a single-earner household with the following common lifestyle choices will about break even month-to-month while fully funding a 401k (in the "core" Bay Area - SF, the Peninsula, parts of Oakland/Berkley): Eats out frequently, goes out for drinks occasionally, travels a few times a year, owns a new mid-range car, lives in a modern apartment complex or small home/condo near a downtown area (with a < 30 minute commute). New electronics, big TV, minimal but high quality furniture. Pairing back on those choices you can begin to save every month, but not at a pace to buy a home in a reasonable time frame. On dual income assuming consistent earnings YoY you can start to buy a house in a cheaper neighborhood later in life, around the time many are starting to have kids. I have to imagine kids can put a 5-10 year delay on buying a house without various kinds of assistance.
  - closeparen 4y ago
    > Pairing back on those choices you can begin to save every month, but not at a pace to buy a home in a reasonable time frame. That’s what I’m saying. > On dual income assuming consistent earnings YoY you can start to buy a house in a cheaper neighborhood later in life, around the time many are starting to have kids. Dual tech income folks are in a great spot, but with gender ratios as they are, there can’t be very many such couples. Also this could be a function of social circle but I find many women (even in tech) expect a husband to provide for them while the kids are young.

jcadam 4y ago

That's freaking hilarious, I didn't cross $150k until I was just shy of 40 years old. My first SWE job paid $55k. Not in the bay area, though.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
laidoffamazon 4y ago
People working at Cisco aren't cracking $150k until they're mid-level at minimum. The people on this thread are completely out of touch.
- closeparen 4y ago
  AFAIK people aren’t giving up middle class lives elsewhere in the US and relocating for Cisco.
  - laidoffamazon 4y ago
    To most people, Cisco would be considered a high paying employer. If anything, people are giving up middle class lives in other countries and relocating to San Jose for Cisco.
    - closeparen 4y ago
      Living 5 adults to a house in San Jose might genuinely be better than living in India. I wouldn’t know. The point is if you have moved to Wisconsin or whatever, it would be foolish to move back to San Jose for that.

barbazoo 4y ago

I'm curious and asking in good faith, $150k in CA seem to translate to just over $100k take home. Looking at Zillow there seem to be an abundance of places all over the bay area around $2.5k (1bdrm) and $3.5k (2bdrm) which sound not too bad on one and 2 incomes respectively, just like what everyone else is doing, around a third of your income. I don't get why you're assuming one would have commute 2 hours a day. Is transit that bad even if you're close to where you work? I honestly don't get it fully. Don't get me wrong, it sucks and I wish housing was cheaper but I think that's just the way it is now for everybody that has to work in person somewhere. And 25% of your take home income spent on housing isn't too bad at all and that's at the lower end of the spectrum GP is talking about here ($150k-$200k).

tmpz22 4y ago
I've spent most of my career in the Bay - $150k in the Bay Area without child expenses in a single-earner household with the following common lifestyle choices will about break even month-to-month while fully funding a 401k (in the "core" Bay Area - SF, the Peninsula, parts of Oakland/Berkley): Eats out frequently, goes out for drinks occasionally, travels a few times a year, owns a new mid-range car, lives in a modern apartment complex or small home/condo near a downtown area (with a < 30 minute commute). New electronics, big TV, minimal but high quality furniture. Pairing back on those choices you can begin to save every month, but not at a pace to buy a home in a reasonable time frame. On dual income assuming consistent earnings YoY you can start to buy a house in a cheaper neighborhood later in life, around the time many are starting to have kids. I have to imagine kids can put a 5-10 year delay on buying a house without various kinds of assistance.
- closeparen 4y ago
  > Pairing back on those choices you can begin to save every month, but not at a pace to buy a home in a reasonable time frame. That’s what I’m saying. > On dual income assuming consistent earnings YoY you can start to buy a house in a cheaper neighborhood later in life, around the time many are starting to have kids. Dual tech income folks are in a great spot, but with gender ratios as they are, there can’t be very many such couples. Also this could be a function of social circle but I find many women (even in tech) expect a husband to provide for them while the kids are young.