$350,000/yr need to "Live well" in LA (Los Angeles: rent, mortgages)

[stan4]

Originally Posted by jacktravern

Lets not exaggerate ,The only way you should have been living in Poverty on 100k is if u have six figure school loans, forced yourself to live in Manhattan, and had car note in the 4-500 range, pay child support, and was dating or out drinking 3-4 nights a week.

NYC is the biggest rip off in the country no doubt, but 100k will not put you in poverty in any city in this country

Stop it.
You're ruining his dramatic moment!

[bunnywithers]

I suppose that it depends on living well, but I know plenty of people (including myself) who live well and don't make anywhere near $350,000. So the answer is NO!

[5pyg1a55]

Yes, definitely for an upper-middle life.

As others mentioned, by living "well", the article seems to mean owning a 3 or 4 bed home in one of the good areas in LA city (not the Valley or other greater areas), having 2 kids, spouse, private school, and extras to live comfortably, like vacations, dinners out, and nice furnishings. In that case, YES, you would need $350k or somewhere around there to live a middle to upper-middle-class lifestyle in a desirable area here.

As someone else pointed out, a mortgage loan is generally 3-4x one's income. Decent 3 bedroom homes in a nice LA area (beach city, West LA, Central LA, etc) start at million bucks. 2 bed condos are half million.

Can a childless couple live a middle-class lifestyle here on $100k if they rent a decent 2 bed for $2-$3k/month? Yes, of course. But It still won't be living as well as the article is talking about.

Can anyone find a way to live here (or in NYC) on much less? Of course! But they won't be living "well" in the way the article is trying to describe. It'll be getting by alright.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by 5pyg1a55

Yes, definitely for an upper-middle life.

As others mentioned, by living "well", the article seems to mean owning a 3 or 4 bed home in one of the good areas in LA city (not the Valley or other greater areas), having 2 kids, spouse, private school, and extras to live comfortably, like vacations, dinners out, and nice furnishings. In that case, YES, you would need $350k or somewhere around there to live a middle to upper-middle-class lifestyle in a desirable area here.

As someone else pointed out, a mortgage loan is generally 3-4x one's income. Decent 3 bedroom homes in a nice LA area (beach city, West LA, Central LA, etc) start at million bucks. 2 bed condos are half million.

Can a childless couple live a middle-class lifestyle here on $100k if they rent a decent 2 bed for $2-$3k/month? Yes, of course. But It still won't be living as well as the article is talking about.

Can anyone find a way to live here (or in NYC) on much less? Of course! But they won't be living "well" in the way the article is trying to describe. It'll be getting by alright.

I take it they mean dinners out at expensive places.
In any case a family in L.A. often as not lives in apartments, including upscale families. That was true even when I was growing up.

[Chowhound]

You can live nicely on far far less than that.... 9 million people in So Cal do it....

[Ingenere]

Originally Posted by 5pyg1a55

Yes, definitely for an upper-middle life.

As others mentioned, by living "well", the article seems to mean owning a 3 or 4 bed home in one of the good areas in LA city (not the Valley or other greater areas), having 2 kids, spouse, private school, and extras to live comfortably, like vacations, dinners out, and nice furnishings. In that case, YES, you would need $350k or somewhere around there to live a middle to upper-middle-class lifestyle in a desirable area here.

As someone else pointed out, a mortgage loan is generally 3-4x one's income. Decent 3 bedroom homes in a nice LA area (beach city, West LA, Central LA, etc) start at million bucks. 2 bed condos are half million.

Can a childless couple live a middle-class lifestyle here on $100k if they rent a decent 2 bed for $2-$3k/month? Yes, of course. But It still won't be living as well as the article is talking about.

Can anyone find a way to live here (or in NYC) on much less? Of course! But they won't be living "well" in the way the article is trying to describe. It'll be getting by alright.

Hey man I drive a newer Honda Civic, eat at Chipotle for lunch, and have granite counter tops in my apartment! I don't make anywhere near 350k! You're crazy!

[jacktravern]

Originally Posted by YoungTraveler2011

I was paying 2k/month (half of my salary after taxes) on a 3rd floor walk up building, about 300 sq ft.

no elevator, no doorman. terrible infrastructure - had to call time warner every other day. 0 amenities.

2k on rent + utilities + metro card, and everything else overpriced. go to a sit down restaurant pay 40 / person. 15 dollars for a movie ticket, etc. u get the idea.

EDIT - a "normal" 1 bedroom apt in NYC, meaning, elevator in a building that is not falling apart, u'll be paying AT LEAST 2,800 - 3,000 / month.

As someone else stated, you didn't have to live that way. Plenty of one bedroom apts outside of Manhattan under 2k a month. Also, if 2k is what you were left with after taxes, then you're gross wasn't 100k to begin with.

I make mid 50's and I have a shade over 3k per month left after taxes and retirement get taken out. Im starting to think you made the whole thing up for dramatic purposes.

[5pyg1a55]

Originally Posted by Ingenere

Hey man I drive a newer Honda Civic, eat at Chipotle for lunch, and have granite counter tops in my apartment! I don't make anywhere near 350k! You're crazy!

Do you also own your place (a 1.2 million dollar 3 bed home) , have a wife, 2 kids in private school (20k/yr), 2 car leases, and 2-3 air-fare based vacation per year??

That article is talking about affluent families of 4, not you. And it's not talking about people eating Chipolte either.

The article isn't talking about if a single person, couple or poor family can live in LA on 30 or 50k a year...it's talking about home owning people in affluent neighborhoods.

Did anyone here ever read the article?

[5pyg1a55]

Originally Posted by jacktravern

As someone else stated, you didn't have to live that way. Plenty of one bedroom apts outside of Manhattan under 2k a month. Also, if 2k is what you were left with after taxes, then you're gross wasn't 100k to begin with.

I make mid 50's and I have a shade over 3k per month left after taxes and retirement get taken out. Im starting to think you made the whole thing up for dramatic purposes.

It would be wise to pay 1/4 to 1/3 income on rent. For a person making 100k a year, that means more or less a rent between $2000-$2500/ month... that doesn't get you very much, even for a couple. Forget about kids-- You couldn't find a decent 3 bed place that didn't have decades of deferred maintenance in a nice area for that price. What 4-person family is crammed into an old, 2 bed apartment and is "living well"? lol

[Mr. Zero]

Originally Posted by 5pyg1a55

It would be wise to pay 1/4 to 1/3 income on rent. For a person making 100k a year, that means more or less a rent between $2000-$2500/ month... that doesn't get you very much, even for a couple. Forget about kids-- You couldn't find a decent 3 bed place that didn't have decades of deferred maintenance in a nice area for that price. What 4-person family is crammed into an old, 2 bed apartment and is "living well"? lol

He wasn't talking about living well on $100k. He was addressing another poster's assertion that they were making $100k and living in poverty.