5 ms·
> that amount of money (300k+, for a family) What's that number intended to represent? It seems (1) too small to be the cost of a house in SF suitable for a fa
by gjm11 14y ago
> that amount of money (300k+, for a family)
What's that number intended to represent? It seems (1) too small to be the cost of a house in SF suitable for a family, (2) too large to be the annual (still less the monthly) cost of renting somewhere in SF suitable for a family, and (3) too large to be the salary you need to be making in SF to afford the rent or mortgage on a house suitable for a family. Is it intended to be the amount you need for a realistic downpayment when buying a house, perhaps?
(It looks to me as if you can rent a pretty decent house in SF for, say, $6k/month, which is certainly a whole lot of money but far less than $300k/year. If you want to buy, it seems like the figure is somewhere around $1M.)
- michaelochurch 14y ago300k per year to raise a family in the star cities-- a conservative estimate. That includes a mortgage (you don't want to be renting once you have kids), enough cleaning that you can both focus on your careers, nannies, vacations, and various educational assistance (possibly prep schools, possibly buying internships) needs to overcome the fact that your kids face a huge disadvantage in college admissions on account of where they live. (It might be a good idea, if you can't afford prep schools whose guidance counselors were hired because they know top-college admissions officers personally, to have your kids go out to Montana for two years to overcome this geographic adversity.) For a $1 million house, you're looking at a $4300 per month mortgage. You shouldn't be spending more than 30% of after-tax money on housing, so that means you should be making $14,000 per month post-tax, which puts you right around $300k.
- wyclif 14y agoWhy don't you want to rent once you have kids? Full disclosure: we have a 2-year old.