5 ms·

live in sf on $65k? where?

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• benatkin 4y ago
  I didn't say 100% too high. 65k + 1 * 65k = 130k 65k + 0.5 * 65k = 97.5k 86k + 0.5 * 86k = 129k That would be $7000/mo minus taxes of course. Possibly more than half the money would be spent on rent. But the amount shouldn't be completely sufficient, for the same reason many haven't been paying themselves at all.
  • the_mar 4y ago
    that's not what 50% too high means, sir. But even so, living in SF on 97K before taxes is questionable experience. It also seems that with 30K a year or 2.5K a month we are essentially nickel-and-diming. As a CEO you have to sometimes look presentable, you may need to travel, you also need to eat, exercise and rest. Sure you can do ramen style for couple years in your 20s, but how much money will you realistically save your startup if you pay yourself 97 vs 130k
    • benatkin 4y ago
      Kinda hard to find answers on Google but here's one that does the same thing I did: https://www.wyzant.com/resources/answers/287237/word_problem https://www.wyzant.com/resources/answers/287237/word_problem Here's another one: https://www.wired.com/2015/01/coin-jar-crowd-wisdom-experiment-results/ https://www.wired.com/2015/01/coin-jar-crowd-wisdom-experime... > The actual value of the coins was $379.54. The mean value (x̅) of the 602 guesses submitted was $596.12, about 57 percent too high. What's more, a massive (by crowd-wisdom standards) 40 percent of the individual guesses were closer to the actual value than that of the crowd. Here "57% too high" you can arrive at the original number by dividing by 1.57.