Job offer in SF....yes? no? hell no? (Los Angeles, San Jose: construction, college)

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

He's making way more than $12 a hour, so that's a bit of a stretch there, Ruth.

I see what you mean. lol But he's doing the "rent a room! " thing.


Anyway, it's nice to get an update. Thanks for the update, OP!

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

He's making way more than $12 a hour, so that's a bit of a stretch there, Ruth.

It does prove that people who make more than $12/hr rent rooms, and that it is a perfectly normal living situation in the Bay Area. Contrary to your claim that renting a room to yourself is equivalent to living in a slum or is somehow not acceptable for most people.

If you can pay $1000 per month in housing, that just means you make $3000/month after taxes. That's about $20/hr or so. 20-25. Not "way more than $12/hr." Makes it seem stupid that we have people who make 100k, 200k, claiming they can't get by in the Bay Area. If someone who works at Trader Joe's can raise a family in the Bay Area, the person who makes 100k surely can.

btw I have a new assignment with the temp agency starting soon (in a few days). It pays $14/hr.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by tonym9428

I ended up taking the job and have been here for four months. Ended up renting a room for 1K/month. No real expenses besides that. I don't know how people can't survive here on even 50K or 60K, much less 90K. I've save a ton of money over the past four months. I sense that a lot of the people complaining about their 200K household incomes are living way outside of their means.

Depends. I know a lot of people with $800/month student loan payments. Let's pretend you have some debt and a car payment. Well your money runs out really fast.

And then there is the opportunity cost of not having access to a financial cushion.

Rooms are much more expensive in SF. $1000 is a good deal! You also have a fairly short/cheap commute. If you were to work in SF, your commute would cost $12 a day. I assume your job chips in a lot for health care? I have worked at a few places where my outlay, as a single was still $120 per month.

And of course other people don't want roommates. It could be generational, but most people I know, in my age bracket, an important milestone is to have an apartment to yourself, as soon as it is financially feasible. And if you are accustomed to that, it is not a sacrifice you are willing to make.

That being said, depending on your standard of living it is workable at $90k. But if you plan to have a kid, even $$200k household income doesn't go far. That's the biggest problem.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by jade408

That being said, depending on your standard of living it is workable at $90k. But if you plan to have a kid, even $$200k household income doesn't go far. That's the biggest problem.

It's workable at $12/hr too! I don't know what ivory tower some of you live in where $90k is just barely getting by.

And people raise families while working at WalMart, so you definitely don't need 200k to raise a kid. 200k is the richest 1% of the country. You're telling me that only the richest 1% of the country can raise a kid in the Bay Area?

[jade408]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

It's workable at $12/hr too! I don't know what ivory tower some of you live in where $90k is just barely getting by.

And people raise families while working at WalMart, so you definitely don't need 200k to raise a kid. 200k is the richest 1% of the country. You're telling me that only the richest 1% of the country can raise a kid in the Bay Area?

Yes, if you want the middle class childhood you grew up with. My childhood home, in the boonies of San Jose, costs $900k these days. And if you work in the heart of Silcon Valley your commute would suck. Throw in savings, retirement, sports or music lessons and a few family vacations, well it adds up. Kids are a lot more expensive than they used to be.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

I can out save him by living at home what's your point? He might as well just stay in the Midwest.

What part of "it's a career move" don't you get? Clearly, he's getting paid a lot more than he would if he'd stayed in the mid-west.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by jade408

Yes, if you want the middle class childhood you grew up with. My childhood home, in the boonies of San Jose, costs $900k these days.

Well, that was in the past. We are one of the world's Great Cities now.

But no, you don't need 200k. You can buy a two bedroom condo for 300k if you make 100k (numbers are approximate and I can dig up links if needed). If a couple has a kid, all they need is two bedrooms, one for the couple and one for the child. That's middle class housing.

Your problem is that you're defining "middle class" as a type of housing, rather than as an income level. Middle class is just whatever one can afford on the median salary of a given area. Around here, the median is 100k. So therefore middle class housing is around 300-500k. Somewhere in that ballpark.

Our old house would be about 900k too...but my dad bought that when the IBM PC had only been out for three years, and IBM PCs -- 8088 at 4.77 Mhz and 640 KB of RAM -- were selling for $2000. Silicon Valley (and the rest of the Bay Area, since it is all one region) has exploded in importance and influence since then. No one should expect to be able to buy the most expensive type of housing on the median income.

If we build a lot of dense residential high rises -- something I strongly support -- the condos would sell for about 300k or so, since the median income is 100k. They wouldn't be single family homes, just 2 or 3 bedroom condos. That's the future. We can't even FIT enough single family homes in San Jose for everybody to have one! We have to build denser housing than that.

I was reading the forum for Los Angeles earlier today, and they make the same complaint. People share apartments there, too. Even if they make 50 or 100k. It's normal in large, desirable cities all over the world. It's a good thing: it means you live in a desirable area. I would rather live in a shack, HERE, than in a single family home somewhere that I do not wish to live.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

What part of "it's a career move" don't you get? Clearly, he's getting paid a lot more than he would if he'd stayed in the mid-west.

Not as big of a difference as you'd believe I'm
Sure especially after the COL adjustment aka adding 4000+ as a "sfh equivalence" per month fee

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Not as big of a difference as you'd believe I'm
Sure especially after the COL adjustment aka adding 4000+ as a "sfh equivalence" per month fee

I'm not able to make sense of your post. Did part of it get cut off, or something? In any case, the man (or woman) is happy;s/he's got his career boost, he's making off like a bandit, building up a tidy savings, he's got a 10-minute commute, and he'll be out of there in a couple of years, on to the next step in the career ladder. Why are you second-guessing him/her? Anyway, aren't you living in your mother's basement?

[ssmaster]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

It's workable at $12/hr too! I don't know what ivory tower some of you live in where $90k is just barely getting by.

And people raise families while working at WalMart, so you definitely don't need 200k to raise a kid. 200k is the richest 1% of the country. You're telling me that only the richest 1% of the country can raise a kid in the Bay Area?

$200,000 is not the top 1% income
It is $423,000 for the country
The top 1% threshold in San Francisco make $556,000
The top 5% threshold in sf is 429,000.

This wealth distorts the housing market. A lot of these people can afford and want single family homes resulting in bidding wars in the $1.5 to 2.5 million dollar range with the winner paying $300- $500 thousand over asking is not uncommon.

The city of sf passed legislation trying to stop them fom buying multi unit Victorians and converting them to single family homes.the demand fr single family home is so great they have to legislate people from making their property LESS valuable by converting it to single family home.