Income needed to live in SanFran? (San Francisco, Oakland: for sale, rental, health insurance)

[Larry Siegel]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

A "Beemer" is a motorcycle. Cars are "Bimmers". Everything you said before is invalidated.

Glad you have a sense of humor.

[CFL_City]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

the OP was asking how much money to recreate their houston lifestyle in
san francisco what's wrong with answering the question and leave it at that.
i don't think whether others find it reasonable is relevant.she may not want your lifestyle

for a lot of people if someone can't afford a car, has to rent a crappy apartment, can't afford to dine at places like michael minna,can't afford a nice international vacations a couple of times a year and you live in san francisco
is not any different than
someone can't afford a car, has to rent a crappy apartment, can't afford to dine at places like michael minna,can't afford a nice international vacations a couple of times a year and you live in houston or modesto.

you can be working poor anywhere. not much difference to a lot of people
being wealthy in san francisco is a lot different (fun)than being wealthy in houston or modesto.

Yeah, so this post is like a mœbius strip of wrong.

What's not relevant is the idea of a Houston lifestyle in San Francisco. The housing stock just doesn't exist and the culture is much different. There is no way the OP could get an accurate answer to it. It's like asking how fast a fish could run a mile. People are giving reasonable answers to how fast a fish might be able to swim a mile.

Now, you don't need a lot of money to rent more than a "crappy apartment", plenty of people with a good amount of money choose to forego the hassle of car ownership, and I suspect that the income you would define as "working poor" in San Francisco is actually higher than the median income.

Being able to bicycle to Marin is a whole hell of a lot better, and the same price and time commitment, as bicycling to, uh, Missouri, Texas? If you can't/don't want to eat at Michael Minna, the dinner you get at a much more reasonable price point in San Francisco is going to be much much better than what you'd get at the same price point in Houston. Can't/don't want to take an international vacation? Hop in the car (or spend $60 to rent one for the weekend) and drive to Yosemite or Big Sur. Or just hang around in the city - the weather is amazing. So yeah, life is great here with or without a lot of money. As I was saying, a failure of imagination (and/or budgeting, in reference to the post which claimed you'd need $12,000 a month after rent just to enjoy life here)

Catching up on some other posts, it goes on, and on... A centrally located loft in Houston is still a centrally located loft in Houston. That's no better (and arguably far worse) than a modest 1 bedroom in a lot of San Francisco neighborhoods. Heck the entire area of San Francisco could probably fit into the geographic space of "centrally located" Houston. Here, check out these search results; I even filtered out the less desirable neighborhoods:

SF bay area apts/housing for rent classifieds - craigslist

803 results for 1+ bedrooms less than $4,000, most are multiple bedrooms, many very upscale 1 bedrooms in locations far superior to "Central Houston" with views, decks, working fireplaces, parking, updated kitchens, etc. for much less than $4,000. And since (for some reason that you never explained) you felt that all other expenses should be a multiple of rent, that affects their prices as well. That you feel the only other alternative is "cramped and rundown" is incredible.

It's frankly irrelevant what you've written elsewhere. You've written enough here that displays a set of truly unsupportable assumptions that leave your "analysis" questionable at best. Even if you were correct about not paying more than 25% of your pre-tax income to rent (that might work for some people, but you're painting with a broad brush), the error from assuming such an unrealistic rent quickly propagates into a much larger error than choosing what you perceive to be an incorrect percentage. That's just math.

[Larry Siegel]

OK, $3000. x 4 is $12,000/mo, $144,000/year.

Where I live, no one will rent to you unless you make 4x the rent. There's a reason. People have other expenses, and taxes on six-figure incomes are huge...practically criminal.

I'm aware that some San Franciscans spend half their income on rent. That does not make it a good idea. When I lived in San Francisco as a young single guy I spent $200 a month on rent out of a gross income of $1300. This was obviously decades ago. There are people who would have rented a place for $495, and they would have looked rich. They're presumably still working, and I'm not. I don't need the money.

Of course I'm painting with a broad brush. The question was what it would take to replicate a rather lavish Sunbelt lifestyle in one of the world's most crowded and expensive cities. So I answered it. If someone asked me what it takes for a single person to get by in SF, I would have responded with a much, much lower number.

I love SF, and the assumption that it is worth a drastic housing sacrifice to live there rings true to me. However, "assume" makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me." Somebody must like Houston, or it wouldn't have a population of 5 million, including a couple million who could afford to move. So I would be careful about assuming that someone contemplating a move from HOU to SF really wants to adopt a low-consumption, outdoorsy, bohemian existence when she says pretty clearly that she does not. Horses for courses.

As Forrest Gump said, that's all I have to say about that.

[ssmaster]

the op specifically put the size of the apartment they were interested in and also gave the make and model of their bmw.
most of the apartments in the 1000-1100 range do run $3000-$4000. if that's what the op wants that's how much they will need to pay and they will need parking for their 5 series BMW which can run $60,000+

if she is willing to pay for it she can find it. some people like luxury cars if that 's what they want good for them.
just give her the information she wants instead of telling her to change her lifestyle.


when i was young I lived in a 1000 square ft apt with a 911.it's not impossible.(thanks mom and dad!)

[jaypee]

Originally Posted by GirlFromHouston

What kind of salary would I need to live in a nice property about the same size as I have now in a good central location in SF and still be able to pay my other bills - food, gas, car, insurance, etc.? I'm wanting to keep my current lifestyle basically. Not looking to live with 3 roomates like I'm in college again or go on a ramen noodle diet.

Since the biggest expense is going to be rent, multiply your current rent by 3-4x and add them to your current expenses. That'll give you a rough idea and you can work backwards to see how much salary you'd need to command. Don't forget to account for 9-10% CA state income tax.

[asnboy1084]

I'm the only one that agree's with Larry. I make about 100k and I laughed at living in the city. That would be possible IF I ditched my car and found a roomate. My salary requirement is 150k for the city. Sure it can be done for less, but lets be honest, what kind of lifestyle do you really want? Do you want a car? A decent place with a short commute? Adequate savings and play money? If so Larry's figure are accurate. If you make less money you will have a better lifestyle in a surrounding city, and that's why I live in Oakland. And I know plenty of people that make well into the 6 figures and won't live in the city. Taxes and deductions are insane on single people.

[capoeira]

Originally Posted by CFL_City

Now, you don't need a lot of money to rent more than a "crappy apartment"

The difference is in the definition of what is crappy. What is considered nice in SF is crappy in most areas of the country.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by capoeira

The difference is in the definition of what is crappy. What is considered nice in SF is crappy in most areas of the country.

Weak.

[CrossCountryTrip]

You'll be okay. Like others said, you're sure as hell not going to be living like you were in Houston, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Obviously, if you do decide to move, ditch the car and pick up a scooter/motorcycle. Rent a car if you need to travel outside of the city. You're appliances won't be high at all and groceries are easy enough to get inexpensive. Welcome

[jade408]

Originally Posted by capoeira

The difference is in the definition of what is crappy. What is considered nice in SF is crappy in most areas of the country.

100% true. You are paying for the California lifestyle not apartment quality.