Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not everyone who doesn't make 200,000 a year should live like that.
You are right, I was not making $200k. But It is what it is? If you don't like it, you can move to Oregon or Texas.
My kid was making the equivalent of $80k a year and she had to live in a dinky little room. This year, she turned down similar job but much higher pay, more like $96k a year. She doesn't want to go through similar experience.
Do you perhaps live in a place where 50k makes you upper middle class OR did you buy a house back in the 80s in the bay area?
No, I live in the Bay Area like you do. I'm one of those people you call "rental serfs". But I have 401K balance that is a nice multiple of my income. I don't care about having a lot of living space. At some point, rent increases might force me out. But I will not bellyache incessantly about it.
No, I live in the Bay Area like you do. I'm one of those people you call "rental serfs". But I have 401K balance that is a nice multiple of my income. I don't care about having a lot of living space. At some point, rent increases might force me out. But I will not bellyache incessantly about it.
Why not go to Texas or Oregon yourself and live the American dream?
I'm a firm believer in the old school 28% for mortgage, taxes, and insurance. It means buying less house than a lender would "qualify" you for. For a married couple, that keeps a roof over your head if disaster strikes and one of the couple can't work for an extended period of time.
I was reading a article that stated that most financial experts and banks feel that your rent or mortgage should be 30% of your monthly gross income which makes no sense. Shouldn't it be 30% of what you bring home after taxes instead of before taxes since the money you are living off of is the Net income?
I just checked and my rent is 36% of my monthly gross income and 47% of my net income. So why are the experts and banks saying it should be 30% of the gross income when the taxes are not out yet?
Either way, you are spending too much on housing!
It shouldn't be MORE than 30% of either, so you have enough to live on, or, in your case, you can manage more easily if you get laid off.
I know, because I got laid off 2.5 years ago, so I started to make much less, and my mortgage payment was 100% of my take home pay. All the rest of my expenses came out of child support. I took a second job, but my mortgage payment is still more than %50. I have a home equity line that keeps me afloat, and I will find out about my promotion next week, which would put me back up to my pre-layoff income and back down to %33 of my income being spent on my mortgage. And I can pay off that home equity line.
Why not go to Texas or Oregon yourself and live the American dream?
I'm doing ok here at this point in time, putting a decent amount in savings, etc., thank you very much. If my rent increases become unsustainable, I will reevaluate. I will move long before I'm living payday to payday, and it probably won't be to Texas or to Oregon. As another poster said, Oregon isn't all that cheap, anyway. They have the same NIIMBYism as California does which restricts development, allowing home prices and rents to skyrocket.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
