How much must you earn per month to live in LA??? (Los Angeles: for rent, insurance)

[timelesschild]

Ohhhh, that's why a single person can spend as much money as you all are talking about.... I've been wondering about that. I can feed a family of 5 on $5, and we eat well. But we cook. If we ate Subway, we'd go broke fast, and you're right- that's cheap for restaurant food.

[JonathanLB]

No, it's just cheap in general. $5 is nothing for a meal. Anything less than $10 is nothing, especially if you only eat like that once a day. Spending $20 or less on food per day for one person is cheap, I have no idea how anyone could think otherwise. I guess if I grew up in the ghetto or something maybe, but the only way to keep food costs that ridiculously low is Ramen noodles, and by the way I have those sometimes too, haha. But even eating cereal, which is very cheap food, is about $1.75 per meal probably with the milk included. Maybe as low as $1.50, maybe as high as $2.

And that doesn't add up, let's be honest here. Even if you spent $250 per month on your food, and I spent $600 a month, so what? $350/month isn't significant, that isn't going to make the difference between living at a high level and not. It's not like we're talking about thousands of dollars. And Subway isn't "eating out," at all. You pick it up and you go, couldn't be any cheaper or easier.

It's all about what your time is worth, though. My time is worth at least $25/hr, so I'm not going to waste time cooking for myself, when it's just me, when I could just be working and make that money back easier. To spend 30 minutes per day, which isn't much, cooking to save even $10 per day let's say (and there's no way you'd save that much, since I only spent about $15/day tops, so really only $450/month on food) is really a bad deal. The inconvenience of that just wouldn't make sense. Even at that rate, it'd put you at $20/hr. But since in reality you're going to spend 30 minutes at least and save more like $5, you have to be a minimum wage employee to think cooking is a smart financial decision. If you do it for health reasons, that's different.

[timelesschild]

Trust me, when you have a family of 5, it's quicker to cook.

Back when we had a family of 1, 2, 3, I was talking like you are talking. Nowadays, it is waaaayyyyy faster to cook. And I'm a good (and fast) cook. If I found myself suddenly single again, though, I'd be eating out. No cleanup.

[vegaspilgrim]

Originally Posted by JonathanLB

No, it's just cheap in general. $5 is nothing for a meal. Anything less than $10 is nothing, especially if you only eat like that once a day. Spending $20 or less on food per day for one person is cheap, I have no idea how anyone could think otherwise. I guess if I grew up in the ghetto or something maybe, but the only way to keep food costs that ridiculously low is Ramen noodles, and by the way I have those sometimes too, haha. But even eating cereal, which is very cheap food, is about $1.75 per meal probably with the milk included. Maybe as low as $1.50, maybe as high as $2.

And that doesn't add up, let's be honest here. Even if you spent $250 per month on your food, and I spent $600 a month, so what? $350/month isn't significant, that isn't going to make the difference between living at a high level and not. It's not like we're talking about thousands of dollars. And Subway isn't "eating out," at all. You pick it up and you go, couldn't be any cheaper or easier.

It's all about what your time is worth, though. My time is worth at least $25/hr, so I'm not going to waste time cooking for myself, when it's just me, when I could just be working and make that money back easier. To spend 30 minutes per day, which isn't much, cooking to save even $10 per day let's say (and there's no way you'd save that much, since I only spent about $15/day tops, so really only $450/month on food) is really a bad deal. The inconvenience of that just wouldn't make sense. Even at that rate, it'd put you at $20/hr. But since in reality you're going to spend 30 minutes at least and save more like $5, you have to be a minimum wage employee to think cooking is a smart financial decision. If you do it for health reasons, that's different.

I know exactly what you're talking about. Cooking only makes sense when you're able to make something in bulk to feed at least several people. I'm single too, and I don't cook, but I do make a lot of sandwiches. Although sandwiches take less than 5 minutes to prepare. Why spend $5 on one sandwich a day at Subway (which isn't much of a meal anyway) when for $10 you could buy an entire week's supply of sandwich meat at the deli at Ralphs, a loaf of bread for $4.00, a few tomatoes and onions for a few bucks, a 12 pack of coke, and have the average cost of a sandwich meal at $2.50-$3.00? I guess that's only a 2 buck difference though. I eat a turkey sandwich every single day with microwaved frozen veggies (I'm religious about eating my veggies with every meal ) for either lunch or dinner or both. It may be bland, but at least it doesn't taste gross. I don't see the point of going out to get a crappy sandwich at Subway or Shiznos. When I go out I want something hot and tasty, something that's plain too much effort to do myself for one person. El Pollo Loco is one of my favorites. You can get a balanced meal at EPL with a drink for about $8.00. Baja Fresh (or Stale, depending on your pov) is pretty good too.

[rickca]

I don't think LA is really the place to be raising a family unless you are making in excess of $10,000 per month (assuming you don't have a lot of debt you are also paying off) at the absolute minimum.. why put the kids through the hassles of growing up in a place like LA when you could live somewhere cheaper in SoCal much more comfortably.. just my opinion but I think living on a budget in LA is much more suited to a single person or a couple with no kids.

[impala666]

Originally Posted by DontH8Me

How did your budget go from $1500 to $4000? Did you win the lottery between this post, and the one here?

HELP Moving from SRQ, FL to LA, CA with Family

No he got married and had two kids!

[timelesschild]

Originally Posted by rickca

I don't think LA is really the place to be raising a family unless you are making in excess of $10,000 per month (assuming you don't have a lot of debt you are also paying off) at the absolute minimum.. why put the kids through the hassles of growing up in a place like LA when you could live somewhere cheaper in SoCal much more comfortably.. just my opinion but I think living on a budget in LA is much more suited to a single person or a couple with no kids.

Well, quite honestly, our kids like it here and so do we. We don't find it to be a hassle or a burden - it's FUN! It's absolutely beautiful, and there are tons of things to do for cheap or free.

I'm not saying it's the one perfect solution for everyone - there isn't ROOM here for everyone on earth! - but it's sure working for us.

[Macross21]

2k per month for a single person will do. That's about equal to a 35k per year job. You won't be saving but you'll be getting by. For a family of four then 4k per month should be ok. Again not saving but getting by.

To be comfortable 60k for a single, 120k for a family.

[JonathanLB]

Originally Posted by rickca

I don't think LA is really the place to be raising a family unless you are making in excess of $10,000 per month (assuming you don't have a lot of debt you are also paying off) at the absolute minimum.. why put the kids through the hassles of growing up in a place like LA when you could live somewhere cheaper in SoCal much more comfortably.. just my opinion but I think living on a budget in LA is much more suited to a single person or a couple with no kids.

I totally agree. What really annoys me, though, is how in my condo building and its sister building, the Asian people ALL think that their tiny condos are perfectly adequate to raise families in. I have been to South Korea, I know they raise families of 4 in 700 sq. foot apartments, but the reason most of us live in a condo is because WE DON'T WANT TO SEE KIDS!!! This is for single people and couples. If you want to raise a family do what everyone else does, go to the burbs (lol). I've never seen anyone but an Asian family have kids in a condo building. Their kids deserve more space to play and hangout than that, but the only space we have is the terrace, which none of us want screaming little kids running around. This is a luxury condo tower, it's not for kids.

I don't ever want kids, for one, but I totally agree that if I were to have kids, I would want to have enough money so they live well. Competition is fierce in today's society, you shouldn't have kids unless you can afford to give your kids every advantage they will need to succeed. That costs money. The days of kicking your kids out at 18 and telling them they're on their own are over. Those kids turn out badly now, and who can blame them? You can't set someone up for failure, college is a basic requirement in society now to get even a pretty crappy job, like $12/hr, so if you have kids you owe it to them to give them the tools they need to succeed. Doesn't mean spoiling them rotten, just means not burdening them with horrible debt. I personally don't think anyone should have kids if they can't afford to send their kids to college. It's not fair to make people start out life with massive debt. Just don't have kids if that's the case. But of course, most people don't really seem to plan ahead as much as they should.

As for Subway, I love Subway, it's fantastic. I'd much rather get things fresh at Subway then buy ingredients for a week. The bread is much better that you get from Subway, you can't really get that from anywhere else that's fresh. I can choose whatever sandwich I want, get all kinds of things on it, and for $5. That's nothing. I can't beat that as a single person. I'm also biased though because my Subway is open 24 hours and is one block away, so the bread is ALWAYS fresh because it's extremely busy, probably the busiest gas station in Los Angeles, or at least one of them. It does ridiculous business, so the Subway remains open all night inside of the gas station's store.

[jc76]

quote Jonathanlb
I don't ever want kids, for one, but I totally agree that if I were to have kids, I would want to have enough money so they live well. Competition is fierce in today's society, you shouldn't have kids unless you can afford to give your kids every advantage they will need to succeed. That costs money. The days of kicking your kids out at 18 and telling them they're on their own are over. Those kids turn out badly now, and who can blame them? You can't set someone up for failure, college is a basic requirement in society now to get even a pretty crappy job, like $12/hr, so if you have kids you owe it to them to give them the tools they need to succeed. Doesn't mean spoiling them rotten, just means not burdening them with horrible debt. I personally don't think anyone should have kids if they can't afford to send their kids to college. It's not fair to make people start out life with massive debt. Just don't have kids if that's the case. But of course, most people don't really seem to plan ahead as much as they should.
Unquote---

EXACTLY my view on that subject! I can BARELY fend for myself, and without a college degree I am not bringing any life into this world unless I plan on living in Indiana or Kentucky my whole life.
I don't know, The whole "California Dream" is just kinda fading for me. I wanted to get into the movie biz, but I am realizing I'm not cut-throat enough to make it out there. Even though my chances of getting into that biz are super slim, I would still LOVE to live there mainly for the weather...but thanks to the outrageous rent I will most likely be in Indiana for a lonnnnng time.