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.
You do understand that an individual worker in USA earns nowhere close to $100k right? So $100k would be luxury and even more so in LCOL area. Many luxury lifestyles do not need to high spending. There are many hacks.
The biggest cost is rent/mortgage. So you can do rent/house hacking and your biggest expense is cut in half which gives you more buyer power.
You keep going off on a tangent. Who cares what "an individual worker" in the USA makes? In 1980, even less people made $100k than they do today. The reality is that $100k just isn't what it used to be.
If you can't live comfortably with even $50k a year then you have a spending problem. It is not your income. $100k would be luxury and yes even in cities like SF you can do well on it.
Really far from the truth - you can't really get a rental with only $50K in a place like SF and not a decent one for $100K after you pay Fed and CA taxes - have to rent because certainly cannot buy. Certainly not "doing well" on that level. From financialsamurai.com;
Quote:
If you're only making $50,000 a year in San Francisco, you’ll probably live like a college student again. That is, you'll have to share a studio with a roommate, eat fast food, and attend as many free social events as possible. If you're in your 20s, that's probably manageable and not a deal breaker on your lifestyle. But if you're in your 30s, 40s and/or have a child to raise, SF city living is not going to be a comfortable or healthy lifestyle.
With a $50,000 a year salary, you must live like a pauper because it’s important to also save for retirement.
You keep going off on a tangent. Who cares what "an individual worker" in the USA makes? In 1980, even less people made $100k than they do today. The reality is that $100k just isn't what it used to be.
Inflation doesn’t apply to everyone. This is dependent upon what you are buying. People do get bargains.
Really far from the truth - you can't really get a rental with only $50K in a place like SF and not a decent one for $100K after you pay Fed and CA taxes - have to rent because certainly cannot buy. Certainly not "doing well" on that level. From financialsamurai.com;
You can live with a roommate and split costs. How do the fast food workers on minimum wage survive there then?
You do understand that an individual worker in USA earns nowhere close to $100k right? So $100k would be luxury and even more so in LCOL area. Many luxury lifestyles do not need to high spending. There are many hacks.
The biggest cost is rent/mortgage. So you can do rent/house hacking and your biggest expense is cut in half which gives you more buyer power.
So I guess I was just imagining making over $100K. BTW - you are not saving anywhere close to 50% expense of housing by renting.
You can live with a roommate and split costs. How do the fast food workers on minimum wage survive there then?
Read the quote in my post it says as much, That is not really living though - that is just surviving. But if you are married or have a kid, sharing is really not much of an option either.
Again, living in SF on $50K or even $100K is really not living well by any means. Most other costs are also very high. But most making only $50K would not live in San Francisco - they would be commuting. Living in Oakland that is just across the bay, is about half the cost of SF.
Also have you never been to SF? Not much in the way of fast food there. San Francisco is very dense as the second most dense city in the US and very small at only 47 sq mi. Surrounded by water on 3 sides, it takes less than 3 hours to walk across the farthest points in the city.
Makes no sense - with a family, I am not "splitting" rent with anybody - that is not saving by renting by any definition. Also rent in my area is more like $5000/mo than $1000 - $1000 wouldn't get you a studio in the worst area anyway.
Read the quote in my post it says as much, That is not really living though - that is just surviving. But if you are married or have a kid, sharing is really not much of an option either.
Again, living in SF on $50K or even $100K is really not living well by any means. Most other costs are also very high. But most making only $50K would not live in San Francisco - they would be commuting. Living in Oakland that is just across the bay, is about half the cost of SF.
Also have you never been to SF? Not much in the way of fast food there. San Francisco is very dense as the second most dense city in the US and very small at only 47 sq mi. Surrounded by water on 3 sides, it takes less than 3 hours to walk across the farthest points in the city.
BTW - I lived in that area for about 20 years.
Many people who are high earners use roommates to save money so they can retire early by freeing up cash flow to invest.
Makes no sense - with a family, I am not "splitting" rent with anybody - that is not saving by renting by any definition. Also rent in my area is more like $5000/mo than $1000.
I am talking about a single person. Ok so that’s 2,500 on split. In a desired area here you can get a nice 1 bed for $1k and salary is high too depending on what you do.
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.
