Salary to "Live Comfortably" (San Jose, San Francisco: section 8, high crime, purchase)

[TheGreatCurve]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

60k lower middle class wut. The median in the entire country is 52k for a household (2 incomes) and 33k per capita.

Yes, I consider a $60K household to be lower middle class. Don't forget that many households are just one person or only have one wage earner so that brings down the median household income. So if a family of 4 had two wage earners each making only $30K, that makes for a $60K household. I would say that if you're only making $30K, that's pretty much lower middle class just about anywhere in the U.S. And a family of 4 with $60K in total income is also lower middle class. It's usually families that buy houses.

The average cost of a house nationally was $248K in mid-2015: Average US home price nudges up to $248,000

Try buying a $248K house with only $60K in gross income. $60K in income is not going to buy you much house anywhere in the U.S.

BTW, per capita income is not relevant because that includes all the people who don't work or don't have any income, e.g., kids, retired people, dependents, unemployed, etc. For example, the per capita income in the family of 4 above with two wage earners is only $15K ($60K/4).

[TheGreatCurve]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

It generally does. Otherwise the per capita and the household would be the same.

No. There are many households of just one person or one wage earner. Most single and many elderly people live in a household of one person.

Per capital income is the total of all the income earned by everyone in the country who earn an income divided by the entire population of the country, including all the people who don't work, which is more than half of the total population. There are 320 million people in the U.S. but there are only about 150 million total jobs. Per capita income includes all those people who don't have jobs (e.g., kids, retired, dependents, unemployed, etc.)

US Employment and Jobs | Department of Numbers

[abqcd]

The problem with the OP's question is that everybody has a different definition of "comfortable". If you really want to make these kinds of objective comparisons, you have to use a standard cost of living calculator. You simply aren't going to get a reasonable answer to this question from the peanut gallery. Most responses are extremely preachy and moralistic: "How dare you assert that you can't live comfortably on $45K/yr in Cupertino! I've been doing that for 37 years with my 12 cats and my 17 dogs! You capitalist, materialistic, pig!"

I used the COL calculator, and it told me we would need a family income of $750K/yr in Mountain View. And while that might be true, it also assumes that I wouldn't be willing to downsize my house at all, and I would still be driving a Porsche and not a Civic. However, I would be willing to make those "sacrifices", but it is nevertheless a quality of living decrease.

[aramax666]

750K to drive a Porsche in MV? I am not sure which calculator you are looking at. The reality on the ground is quite different. Besides, if you are driving a Porsche, you are most likely doing well for your self.

But you are right about subjectivity of comfortable.

SV is a dynamic place. You have to come here and invest and try to keep up. But if I came to the bay area, today, It would be a scary place , indeed for me.

Originally Posted by abqcd

The problem with the OP's question is that everybody has a different definition of "comfortable". If you really want to make these kinds of objective comparisons, you have to use a standard cost of living calculator. You simply aren't going to get a reasonable answer to this question from the peanut gallery. Most responses are extremely preachy and moralistic: "How dare you assert that you can't live comfortably on $45K/yr in Cupertino! I've been doing that for 37 years with my 12 cats and my 17 dogs! You capitalist, materialistic, pig!"

I used the COL calculator, and it told me we would need a family income of $750K/yr in Mountain View. And while that might be true, it also assumes that I wouldn't be willing to downsize my house at all, and I would still be driving a Porsche and not a Civic. However, I would be willing to make those "sacrifices", but it is nevertheless a quality of living decrease.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by abqcd

I used the COL calculator, and it told me we would need a family income of $750K/yr in Mountain View. And while that might be true, it also assumes that I wouldn't be willing to downsize my house at all

It isn't true at all because it assumes that one must have a SFH to live comfortably. Many people live comfortably renting a room or renting an apartment or condo.

The median income around here is 100k, that's your middle class income. Whatever housing one can afford on that salary would be middle class.

Some would say that the middle class isn't comfortable and you need that upper class housing -- a single family home in a an excellent school district -- before you're comfortable. I would disagree.

I'm far from comfortable myself, but that is expected because I only make a dollar above minimum wage. If I made 100k I would be VERY comfortable. Even at $20/hr I would be fairly comfortable, actually, but not necessarily where I want to be.

[abqcd]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

It isn't true at all because it assumes that one must have a SFH to live comfortably. Many people live comfortably renting a room or renting an apartment or condo.

The fact of the matter is, if I go from a SFH to an apartment, that is a quality of life decrease. I like not hearing what my neighbors do at night, knowing when they vacuum at 5 AM, and my wife likes to have her own garden.

However, I would be willing to downsize, having a "lower quality of life", in order to afford a more dynamic city. The reason is, there is more to quality of life than simply the size of your house or the car you drive. For instance, I wouldn't live on the South Pole, even if it had the lowest cost of living in the world.

[abqcd]

Originally Posted by aramax666

750K to drive a Porsche in MV? I am not sure which calculator you are looking at. The reality on the ground is quite different. Besides, if you are driving a Porsche, you are most likely doing well for your self.

I think the calculators break down at higher income because people only have so many fixed costs. For instance, right now, we save a lot of our income. I don't spend 100% of my income on housing and food today, and I wouldn't in MV, so I wouldn't need 750K.

That said, the calculators probably underestimate for most people, because they don't take into account taxes fully. I figure the taxes in MV vs. here are 7% of income higher, plus 12K/yr on property tax and a few hundred more on things like auto registration, etc.

But the main reason I haven't made the jump to the Bay Area yet is that the wife doesn't want to continue to bring in the $$$ after we have kids. So if we took out a huge mortgage to live in SV, and the wife get's pregnant, it's going to be cans of beans and rice for dinner. These high COL areas make you a slave to the company.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by abqcd

So if we took out a huge mortgage to live in SV, and the wife get's pregnant, it's going to be cans of beans and rice for dinner. These high COL areas make you a slave to the company.

Then don't take out a huge mortgage. Rent, or buy a condo or something. What would make you a slave to the company is the idea that you have to live in a large SFH in an excellent school district. Middle class here is multi-family buildings.

All I can say is that people live here and raise families on minimum wage and just barely above it. So if you're making six figures and you can't afford the area, you're doing something wrong.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Then don't take out a huge mortgage. Rent, or buy a condo or something. What would make you a slave to the company is the idea that you have to live in a large SFH in an excellent school district. Middle class here is multi-family buildings.

All I can say is that people live here and raise families on minimum wage and just barely above it. So if you're making six figures and you can't afford the area, you're doing something wrong.

Most people in this country are not comfortable or happy to have roommates forever. Owning a home is something that gives them something to be proud of, something to call their own. Even condos are nothing more than glorified renting

[plot]

I don't think a salary of 100k a year will go far in the Bay Area.

If you making 100k I do not think you would necessary be suffering but I do not think families with 2 kids making 100k are comfortable. They would probably be saving very little every month or living pay check.

Also lot of people seem to relate quality of living directly to their house. If I was a young single millionaire I could buy a 1-2 bedroom condo in a high-rise. Does that my quality of life is bad because I live in a 1 bed condo? Does a family who lives in a 2 million dollar shake in Palo Alto has a lower quality of life compared to a family who owns a 2k sqft modern house in Evergreen San Jose? Perhaps that Palo Alto family take lots of vacations, participate lots in out door activities, participate in events while the San Jose family work 50 hours a week and their kids just stay in doors and play video games. Personally I think the size and age of the house one lives in adds very little to ones quality of life. There is more to life then owning a big house.