4 ms·

You can certainly save money if you make that much living in sf. Your take home would be about 65k. A very nice apartment shared with one roommate should not co

You can certainly save money if you make that much living in sf. Your take home would be about 65k. A very nice apartment shared with one roommate should not cost more than 2k a month, leaving you with 40k for food, entertainment, and travel. If you can't save some of this that is a comment on your priorities, not the fundamental difficulty of living in sf.

aaronblohowiak 13y ago
Is your estimate of 65 including state (10%) and city (1.5%) taxes?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  Yes. It might actually be a bit conservative, since the overall burden for a single person making $100k with 10% state taxes is around 20% for federal taxes. And the CA overall burden is going to be more like 8.9% (marginal is 9.3% below $1M). So, let's do the numbers to be sure. 100 000 - 7 009 (2013 CA on 100 000 -- not sure if std deduction should be factored in) - 17 820 (2012 Federal on 87 000 -- GI - state - std deduction) - 7 650 (Soc sec + Medicare) ======= 67 521
- gkop 13y ago
  The city 1.5% tax is paid by employers and has no bearing on the $100K base salary or take home pay.
sbisker 13y ago
That may have been true a year ago, but a 2br apartment for 1k a person would currently put you no closer to the city than the outer richmond.
- nandemo 13y ago
  James is saying 2k per person (~24k per year, leaving you with ~40k).
nilkn 13y ago
For comparison, my roommate and I in Houston pay $1950/month for our apartment (or $975/person). 1300 sq ft, brand new hardwood floor, granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, huge windows, rain showers, full-sized washer/dryer in-unit, concierge service, etc. I also walk to work; it takes me about 5 minutes. So we're paying almost exactly half what the rent would be in SF, assuming the apartment you had in mind is of the same quality. We individually make a lot more than half the wage we'd get if we went to SF, though.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  > We individually make a lot more than half the wage we'd get if we went to SF, though. But, you live in a place where it is unpleasant to be outside well more than half the year, and the typical dev in your area gets paid a lot less than the typical dev in SF (and, remember that ratios aren't really important when it comes to saving, only net [1]). Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Houston is a fine place for you, but it's important to be complete rather than just stating the pros. [1] I.e. you make twice what it costs to live in Houston, while I make only 25% more what it costs to live in SF. But if it cost $10000 to live in Houston and $100000 to live in SF, I'm still better off.
  - nilkn 13y ago
    Honestly, the weather here is great. I don't mind it at all. Your mileage may vary of course, but I find most people here do not find the weather to be a problem. > remember that ratios aren't really important when it comes to saving, only net Agreed, but the ratios have a big impact on what the net is. Right now, I wouldn't really be any better off going to SF in terms of saving potential. From talking with friends, the pay raise I'd get wouldn't be enough to justify it, from a purely financial viewpoint. If I stayed there for long enough, though, my salary would probably rise enough to put things in favor of SF in the end. But that's assuming I rent my whole life. At some point I'd like to buy a house. Now things are in favor of Houston--hugely so. The average home price in SF has went above $1M recently, but in Houston it's in the 100s. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/san-francisco-median-home-price_n_3356238.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/san-francisco-media... http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2013/05/median-home-price-hits-all-time-high/#12494-6 http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2013/05/median-home-pric... In Houston, a $1M house gets you one of two things, depending on where you buy: (1) if you buy in a suburb, you'll get a mansion; (2) if you buy in the city ("in the loop"), you'll get a very nice house in probably a place like River Oaks (unambiguously the best neighborhood of Houston and possibly Texas). IMHO, you need an income of well over $300k to afford a $1M house. How many developers in SF make that kind of money? Even in the HN demographic, it's got to be a very, very small number. Yet I could easily afford a median-priced Houston home on my starting salary out of college. I choose to rent just because I enjoy walking to work. Anyway, strictly speaking the best strategy might be to go to SF for some of your twenties, live a crappy life but save like crazy, and then come somewhere more cost effective and buy a house, maybe also using your higher SF income to negotiate a higher wage here as well.

aaronblohowiak 13y ago

Is your estimate of 65 including state (10%) and city (1.5%) taxes?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jamesaguilar 13y ago
Yes. It might actually be a bit conservative, since the overall burden for a single person making $100k with 10% state taxes is around 20% for federal taxes. And the CA overall burden is going to be more like 8.9% (marginal is 9.3% below $1M). So, let's do the numbers to be sure. 100 000 - 7 009 (2013 CA on 100 000 -- not sure if std deduction should be factored in) - 17 820 (2012 Federal on 87 000 -- GI - state - std deduction) - 7 650 (Soc sec + Medicare) ======= 67 521
gkop 13y ago
The city 1.5% tax is paid by employers and has no bearing on the $100K base salary or take home pay.

sbisker 13y ago

That may have been true a year ago, but a 2br apartment for 1k a person would currently put you no closer to the city than the outer richmond.

nandemo 13y ago
James is saying 2k per person (~24k per year, leaving you with ~40k).

nilkn 13y ago

For comparison, my roommate and I in Houston pay $1950/month for our apartment (or $975/person). 1300 sq ft, brand new hardwood floor, granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, huge windows, rain showers, full-sized washer/dryer in-unit, concierge service, etc. I also walk to work; it takes me about 5 minutes. So we're paying almost exactly half what the rent would be in SF, assuming the apartment you had in mind is of the same quality. We individually make a lot more than half the wage we'd get if we went to SF, though.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
> We individually make a lot more than half the wage we'd get if we went to SF, though. But, you live in a place where it is unpleasant to be outside well more than half the year, and the typical dev in your area gets paid a lot less than the typical dev in SF (and, remember that ratios aren't really important when it comes to saving, only net [1]). Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Houston is a fine place for you, but it's important to be complete rather than just stating the pros. [1] I.e. you make twice what it costs to live in Houston, while I make only 25% more what it costs to live in SF. But if it cost $10000 to live in Houston and $100000 to live in SF, I'm still better off.
- nilkn 13y ago
  Honestly, the weather here is great. I don't mind it at all. Your mileage may vary of course, but I find most people here do not find the weather to be a problem. > remember that ratios aren't really important when it comes to saving, only net Agreed, but the ratios have a big impact on what the net is. Right now, I wouldn't really be any better off going to SF in terms of saving potential. From talking with friends, the pay raise I'd get wouldn't be enough to justify it, from a purely financial viewpoint. If I stayed there for long enough, though, my salary would probably rise enough to put things in favor of SF in the end. But that's assuming I rent my whole life. At some point I'd like to buy a house. Now things are in favor of Houston--hugely so. The average home price in SF has went above $1M recently, but in Houston it's in the 100s. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/san-francisco-median-home-price_n_3356238.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/san-francisco-media... http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2013/05/median-home-price-hits-all-time-high/#12494-6 http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2013/05/median-home-pric... In Houston, a $1M house gets you one of two things, depending on where you buy: (1) if you buy in a suburb, you'll get a mansion; (2) if you buy in the city ("in the loop"), you'll get a very nice house in probably a place like River Oaks (unambiguously the best neighborhood of Houston and possibly Texas). IMHO, you need an income of well over $300k to afford a $1M house. How many developers in SF make that kind of money? Even in the HN demographic, it's got to be a very, very small number. Yet I could easily afford a median-priced Houston home on my starting salary out of college. I choose to rent just because I enjoy walking to work. Anyway, strictly speaking the best strategy might be to go to SF for some of your twenties, live a crappy life but save like crazy, and then come somewhere more cost effective and buy a house, maybe also using your higher SF income to negotiate a higher wage here as well.