6 ms·

San Francisco, New York, Boston, Seattle, maybe Chicago. This list is not exhaustive.

by jamesaguilar 13y ago

huu 13y ago
Just make sure you don't live in those cities proper :P
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  You can do it there too. I'd guess the average entry-level programmer in SF makes 80k a year. 2000/mo on rent (which is honestly a pretty nice place if you're sharing) leaves you with 20k to play with while still saving netting about 20k after taxes. Of course, if you live in the valley, you could save more, but the point is to illustrate that many (single, no dependents) tech workers can live in SF and still save.
  - ars_technician 13y ago
    Your math implies 64k after taxes, which is only 20% and is completely wrong. The effective tax rate in Cali after federal and state is closer to 40%. That leaves 48k after taxes. Take out the 24k you blew on the 2k/mo apt and you're down to 24k and you haven't even put food on your plate or paid for transportation costs. Take out 4k for food assuming you don't eat at nice restaurants. Take out 2k for a train pass and maybe another 0.5k for other transportation when the train isn't adequate. You are now down to 17.5k and you haven't saved anything or done anything 'to play'. There is a reason the poverty level is around 70k in that area. 80k looks good on paper but in reality it's crap. It's about parity with a 37k salary in Austin, TX. http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/austin-tx/80000 http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/au...
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      I don't think it'll be 40% for someone making 80k per year. The effective federal rate on the first 80k is around 20%. The CA rate should be 9-10%. Maybe another 5% for soc sec. But I also made a very generous assumption re: apartment spend. I think my point stands.
      - ars_technician 13y ago
        No, it doesn't still stand. You just adjusted from your initial 20% up to 35%, which essentially eliminates most of the 'savings' money you mentioned in your post. Also, the apartment assumption isn't that generous. If you want to live in SF by yourself, that's what you will pay for a decent apt.
        jamesaguilar 13y ago
        > If you want to live in SF by yourself Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about someone who is making the bare minimum effort to save money. My mistake.
        ars_technician 13y ago
        That doesn't even make sense. If someone is making the bare minimum effort, then they would probably live by themselves. Are you sure you thought that message through?
        jamesaguilar 13y ago
        No, if you live by yourself in SF, you are not making any realistic effort to save money, because you have not attempted to optimize your largest expense. OK, I'm done talking about this shifted scenario from what we started talking about. When you want to talk about how hard it is to save money in SF if you actually make any serious effort, I'm happy to resume.
        ars_technician 13y ago
        Read your own message. You said you said the following: >I thought we were talking about someone who is making the bare minimum effort to save money Do you know what the bare minimum effort means? You are the one suggesting bare minimum effort now.
        13y ago
  - pkteison 13y ago
    I don't see how the numbers work out that well. http://www.payrollforamerica.com/calculators/California-payroll-calculator.php http://www.payrollforamerica.com/calculators/California-payr... suggests the numbers are: $13.4k to feds, $5k social security, $1.1k medicare, $5k california, $800 CA SDI Leaving you with $54,725. $24k to housing and $20k to savings would leave you with just over $10k to eat, shop, pay for transportation, etc. So, don't try to have a car. Even carless, though, it seems much easier / more likely / more realistic to do it the other way around - $20k on food/entertainment/shopping/etc and $10k to savings.
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      Granted. I was too generous on the housing budget, but too conservative on tax expenses.
benihana 13y ago
All of those places have prohibitively high cost of living to make saving six months of salary very much not trivial. It's possible, but it isn't anywhere close to trivial.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  I know the cost of living at least in SF, and it is my contention that most entry level engineers should be able to save six months expenses per year trivially. Of course, if you eat out every night and blow all your money on booze, partying, and the most upscale apartment you can find, it would be harder. But a person who is making any real effort would not find it difficult.
  - ars_technician 13y ago
    >But a person who is making any real effort would not find it difficult. As long as they don't have a family or want to build equity in a home. The justifications for the costs in this thread are so myopic that it's baffling.
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      I guess if you plan on remaining an entry-level engineer for your whole life, it would indeed be difficult to afford a home in SF. (This bit about family and house is known as "shifting the goal-post," btw. We're talking about the ability of a single engineer to save six months' living expenses.)
      - ars_technician 13y ago
        Assuming a promotion is known as "shifting the goal-post" too. You are essentially saying you are correct as long as you make more money than the original amount specified. Okay, you said it's trivial for an entry-level engineer to save six months living expenses. That's $12k for housing and ~$4k for food and transportation. That's the majority of the leftover money after rent, taxes, transportation, and food for a year without any savings. I'm not sure you are correctly using the term 'trivial'.
MartinMcGirk 13y ago
I was under the (perhaps false) impression that living costs were so much higher in these places as to make saving just as tough as working anywhere else on a lower salary? If I'm wrong about that I really need to go get an American Visa from somewhere...
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  I would say the difference is more that people who live in these places mistake their wants for needs at a higher rate than elsewhere. It is not terribly difficult to save in SF. See my other comments in this thread.

San Francisco, New York, Boston, Seattle, maybe Chicago. This list is not exhaustive.

huu 13y ago

Just make sure you don't live in those cities proper :P

jamesaguilar 13y ago
You can do it there too. I'd guess the average entry-level programmer in SF makes 80k a year. 2000/mo on rent (which is honestly a pretty nice place if you're sharing) leaves you with 20k to play with while still saving netting about 20k after taxes. Of course, if you live in the valley, you could save more, but the point is to illustrate that many (single, no dependents) tech workers can live in SF and still save.
- ars_technician 13y ago
  Your math implies 64k after taxes, which is only 20% and is completely wrong. The effective tax rate in Cali after federal and state is closer to 40%. That leaves 48k after taxes. Take out the 24k you blew on the 2k/mo apt and you're down to 24k and you haven't even put food on your plate or paid for transportation costs. Take out 4k for food assuming you don't eat at nice restaurants. Take out 2k for a train pass and maybe another 0.5k for other transportation when the train isn't adequate. You are now down to 17.5k and you haven't saved anything or done anything 'to play'. There is a reason the poverty level is around 70k in that area. 80k looks good on paper but in reality it's crap. It's about parity with a 37k salary in Austin, TX. http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/austin-tx/80000 http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/au...
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    I don't think it'll be 40% for someone making 80k per year. The effective federal rate on the first 80k is around 20%. The CA rate should be 9-10%. Maybe another 5% for soc sec. But I also made a very generous assumption re: apartment spend. I think my point stands.
    - ars_technician 13y ago
      No, it doesn't still stand. You just adjusted from your initial 20% up to 35%, which essentially eliminates most of the 'savings' money you mentioned in your post. Also, the apartment assumption isn't that generous. If you want to live in SF by yourself, that's what you will pay for a decent apt.
      - jamesaguilar 13y ago
        > If you want to live in SF by yourself Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about someone who is making the bare minimum effort to save money. My mistake.
        ars_technician 13y ago
        That doesn't even make sense. If someone is making the bare minimum effort, then they would probably live by themselves. Are you sure you thought that message through?
        jamesaguilar 13y ago
        No, if you live by yourself in SF, you are not making any realistic effort to save money, because you have not attempted to optimize your largest expense. OK, I'm done talking about this shifted scenario from what we started talking about. When you want to talk about how hard it is to save money in SF if you actually make any serious effort, I'm happy to resume.
        ars_technician 13y ago
        Read your own message. You said you said the following: >I thought we were talking about someone who is making the bare minimum effort to save money Do you know what the bare minimum effort means? You are the one suggesting bare minimum effort now.
        13y ago
- pkteison 13y ago
  I don't see how the numbers work out that well. http://www.payrollforamerica.com/calculators/California-payroll-calculator.php http://www.payrollforamerica.com/calculators/California-payr... suggests the numbers are: $13.4k to feds, $5k social security, $1.1k medicare, $5k california, $800 CA SDI Leaving you with $54,725. $24k to housing and $20k to savings would leave you with just over $10k to eat, shop, pay for transportation, etc. So, don't try to have a car. Even carless, though, it seems much easier / more likely / more realistic to do it the other way around - $20k on food/entertainment/shopping/etc and $10k to savings.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    Granted. I was too generous on the housing budget, but too conservative on tax expenses.

benihana 13y ago

All of those places have prohibitively high cost of living to make saving six months of salary very much not trivial. It's possible, but it isn't anywhere close to trivial.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
I know the cost of living at least in SF, and it is my contention that most entry level engineers should be able to save six months expenses per year trivially. Of course, if you eat out every night and blow all your money on booze, partying, and the most upscale apartment you can find, it would be harder. But a person who is making any real effort would not find it difficult.
- ars_technician 13y ago
  >But a person who is making any real effort would not find it difficult. As long as they don't have a family or want to build equity in a home. The justifications for the costs in this thread are so myopic that it's baffling.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    I guess if you plan on remaining an entry-level engineer for your whole life, it would indeed be difficult to afford a home in SF. (This bit about family and house is known as "shifting the goal-post," btw. We're talking about the ability of a single engineer to save six months' living expenses.)
    - ars_technician 13y ago
      Assuming a promotion is known as "shifting the goal-post" too. You are essentially saying you are correct as long as you make more money than the original amount specified. Okay, you said it's trivial for an entry-level engineer to save six months living expenses. That's $12k for housing and ~$4k for food and transportation. That's the majority of the leftover money after rent, taxes, transportation, and food for a year without any savings. I'm not sure you are correctly using the term 'trivial'.

MartinMcGirk 13y ago

I was under the (perhaps false) impression that living costs were so much higher in these places as to make saving just as tough as working anywhere else on a lower salary? If I'm wrong about that I really need to go get an American Visa from somewhere...

jamesaguilar 13y ago
I would say the difference is more that people who live in these places mistake their wants for needs at a higher rate than elsewhere. It is not terribly difficult to save in SF. See my other comments in this thread.