3 ms·

Great map, but the financials are a bit misleading. Maybe a note qualifying the salary numbers with a message indicating that the stated number is more of a min

by scep12 14y ago

Great map, but the financials are a bit misleading. Maybe a note qualifying the salary numbers with a message indicating that the stated number is more of a minimum would help. Take Mission for example - would you really spend $2250 per month rent on an 82,000 salary? That's nearly 2 weeks' take-home pay after taxes. Good financial practice says that your rent/mortgage should only be 1 week's take-home pay. A responsible spender should make closer to $120,000 to be spending $2250/month on rent.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
gav 14y ago
I don't know what it is in SF, but the rule in NY is 40x monthly salary; you'd need $90k here for a $2250 rental. It's pretty tight if your rent is two months salary, but here where it generally covers heat and water, the saving from not owning a car makes up for it.
bicknergseng 14y ago
"most likely you can afford to live here" Seems like a good enough qualifier. Especially since these are median prices, so cheaper rents are to be found. not actually. SF is nuts.
- jseliger 14y ago
  >SF is nuts. True: but it can stop being nuts, or at least be less nuts, whenever voters want it to be: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/facebook_george_lucas_and_nimbyism_the_idiotic_rules_preventing_silicon_valley_from_building_the_houses_and_offices_we_need_to_power_american_innovation_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... . SF's housing price problem is entirely self-inflicted, even if many people seem to treat it as some law of nature.
notJim 14y ago
These numbers seemed way off to me. When I was making $80k, I thought $1700 was a stretch, I can't even imagine paying $2250. Here In NYC, the rule of thumb is 40x your monthly rent to get salary to qualify (so $2250 would mean $90k salary.) I guess it's different in SF?
binarycrusader 14y ago
I think you're failing to account for taxes and other things out here. At $100K+ year, someone out in the bay area will likely see only 64% of that in their paychecks. So by that rule, they'd have to find somewhere to live that cost them no more than $1230 per month. In the bay area, I'd say 1.5 ($1846) weeks to 2 ($2461) weeks of pay is a more realistic number. The only people I know that have rent/mortgage that is 1 week's take-home pay either make significantly more than $100K per year or have split the rent between multiple occupants/families. Being a single person in the Bay Area, or a couple with one income earner is not an easy task when you consider those figures.
thatthatis 14y ago
In the past century, in the US, people spent approximately 1/3 of their income on housing. Its been years since I did that analysis, and I can't find it anymore so I don't know if it was 1/3 of pre or post tax, but I do remember that it was remarkably consistent over time.
anmol 14y ago
You are right about responsible spending numbers. Tech workers making $80k-ish in SF can't really afford to live in the Mission, SoMa, South Beach etc. WITHOUT roommates. There just aren't any 1-beds for less than $2500 - $3000 in the Mission right now.

by scep12 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

gav 14y ago

I don't know what it is in SF, but the rule in NY is 40x monthly salary; you'd need $90k here for a $2250 rental. It's pretty tight if your rent is two months salary, but here where it generally covers heat and water, the saving from not owning a car makes up for it.

bicknergseng 14y ago

"most likely you can afford to live here" Seems like a good enough qualifier. Especially since these are median prices, so cheaper rents are to be found. not actually. SF is nuts.

jseliger 14y ago
>SF is nuts. True: but it can stop being nuts, or at least be less nuts, whenever voters want it to be: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/facebook_george_lucas_and_nimbyism_the_idiotic_rules_preventing_silicon_valley_from_building_the_houses_and_offices_we_need_to_power_american_innovation_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... . SF's housing price problem is entirely self-inflicted, even if many people seem to treat it as some law of nature.

notJim 14y ago

These numbers seemed way off to me. When I was making $80k, I thought $1700 was a stretch, I can't even imagine paying $2250. Here In NYC, the rule of thumb is 40x your monthly rent to get salary to qualify (so $2250 would mean $90k salary.) I guess it's different in SF?

binarycrusader 14y ago

I think you're failing to account for taxes and other things out here. At $100K+ year, someone out in the bay area will likely see only 64% of that in their paychecks. So by that rule, they'd have to find somewhere to live that cost them no more than $1230 per month. In the bay area, I'd say 1.5 ($1846) weeks to 2 ($2461) weeks of pay is a more realistic number. The only people I know that have rent/mortgage that is 1 week's take-home pay either make significantly more than $100K per year or have split the rent between multiple occupants/families. Being a single person in the Bay Area, or a couple with one income earner is not an easy task when you consider those figures.

thatthatis 14y ago

In the past century, in the US, people spent approximately 1/3 of their income on housing. Its been years since I did that analysis, and I can't find it anymore so I don't know if it was 1/3 of pre or post tax, but I do remember that it was remarkably consistent over time.

anmol 14y ago

You are right about responsible spending numbers. Tech workers making $80k-ish in SF can't really afford to live in the Mission, SoMa, South Beach etc. WITHOUT roommates. There just aren't any 1-beds for less than $2500 - $3000 in the Mission right now.