Instructions to my son on how to buy a house in the SF Bay Area (Santa Clara: for rent, landlord)

[MountainHi]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Definitely. One of the top ranked universities in the country. (And probably not likely that many students who are accepted there would be living at home and commuting.)

UC Berkeley requests letters of recommendation from applicants — and sparks a debate - LA Times

//www.city-data.com/forum/colle...-berkeley.html

If that's true, why are other posters using Berkeley as a benchmark to prove to the OP that college is unaffordable without debt? Can you see how it's a false argument, because a) few can get in, and b) most of those who get in get non-loan financial aid? These arguments are being made for no reason other than to tear down the OP's very sensible post, and they're so flimsy, anyone can see through them.

[MountainHi]

Originally Posted by WithDisp

The advise is plenty -practical-, but it's omitting the minimum income one needs to have to make such feasible.

Take for instance a buddy of mine. Went to a so so state school, lower than average grades. Got a BA in a social work related field. Lives in San Mateo. The 40-55K income just doesn't cut it. Given their work field, there really isn't going to be a huge increase in pay.

Scrimping and saving may at one point lead to subpar home ownership.
My advice has been to leave. He has friends here. A lot of them get by with substantial support from parents.

The OP covered that. If your buddy married another social worker, they'd be making 80-110K. If they live with a parent, they'll be saving most of that, annually. The OP wasn't talking about renting; a key part of his plan is that there are two wage earners living together rent-free, while saving for a downpayment. You can criticize his plan for assuming that living with parents is not an available option for some people, or that finding someone to marry in the mid-20's isn't that easy, but sticking with the conditions he outlined in his post, it's hard to knock.

I also think that the OP's plan works best for people who are able to go through to an MA in school. They'll be earning more when they get out. At least your buddy got a job in his field with a sociology degree; that's better than most sociology grads are able to do. But it's too bad he's struggling and may have to leave the area. Is he in his own place, or is he in a shared place? He could save for the future if he rented a room in a shared household for awhile, and maybe took some classes to build up his resume.

[TR95]

Just laughing so much that certain ones can't comprehend basic math. It's a wonder why some might be having such a problem living here or anywhere for that matter. I'm sure this will be deleted. Oh well. Funny.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

One of the top ranked universities in the country. (And probably not likely that many students who are accepted there would be living at home and commuting.)

Originally Posted by MountainHi

If that's true, why are other posters using Berkeley as a benchmark to prove to the OP that college is unaffordable without debt? Can you see how it's a false argument, because....

"Typically, 95 percent or more of incoming freshmen at Berkeley choose to live on campus."
University of California--Berkeley | UC Berkeley | Best College | US News

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by MountainHi

He was only talking about 12 hrs/week! Most students work at least 20 hrs./week, capiche? You're clearly aware of that yourself, as you say the norm is 20-33 hours. So re-do the math, and you'll see that he has a point. Now tell us you're not wasting our time here with pointless arguing. Why do people keep giving the OP a hard time?

I'm not giving anyone a hard time, I just don't buy into these bootstrap prescriptions on steroids that in no way take into account the realities of life, most young people have expenses outside of saving for college and even if they are diligent it would be impossible to achieve the level of savings suggested in this thread. Most people over 18 would need some money to pay their own expenses even if they were lucky enough to live with family and not have to pay rent, and a fair number would not enjoy the luxury of mom's basement and are required to be fully self supporting.

In those cases, a student trying to save $120 a week would have $195 a week left to live on "IF" they worked 40 hours, THAT is why I mentioned 40 hours. A student trying to save $120 a week while working 20 hours would have $47.23 left, that's not enough for bus fare and would barely cover a prepaid cell phone account.

I'm done with this thread, I don't really care to quibble about numbers. Tuition is out of reach for many people without taking out student loans no matter how frugal or diligent they are about saving and like it or not, that is a reality.

[MountainHi]

Originally Posted by TR95

Just laughing so much that certain ones can't comprehend basic math. It's a wonder why some might be having such a problem living here or anywhere for that matter. I'm sure this will be deleted. Oh well. Funny.

I'm not seeing it as a math issue. I see a pattern of bringing specious arguments to bear, that overlook the OP's scenario and conditions.


"But my buddy lives alone on a beginning social-worker salary. He's facing the fact he may have to leave the area." --OK, but that's not relevant to the OP's thesis that it takes two to make his plan work.


"A couple on city workers' salaries can't make it after paying Oakland rents". --Right, because the OP states that to make the plan work, you have to be living rent-free.


"It's impossible for Berkeley grads, because of all the loan debt." --Except for the 50% of Berkeley grads who got a full ride financial aid package for 4 years, and another 25% who got a partial ride with no loans. Not to mention the students who financed their own CC education before transferring in to Berkeley or Davis or wherever, and people who went elsewhere, where the costs are much lower.


"The math doesn't add up for someone working 12 hours a week! You didn't factor in taxes and other payroll deductions!" -- What students only work 12 hrs/week?


All of this is grasping at straws to knock the OP. Very few people here have raised valid points against the plan. A few have, but the ones kicking and fussing the hardest aren't even on-topic half the time, with their criticisms.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I'm not giving anyone a hard time, I just don't buy into these bootstrap prescriptions on steroids that in no way take into account the realities of life, most young people have expenses outside of saving for college and even if they are diligent it would be impossible to achieve the level of savings suggested in this thread. Most people over 18 would need some money to pay their own expenses even if they were lucky enough to live with family and not have to pay rent, and a fair number would not enjoy the luxury of mom's basement and are required to be fully self supporting.

In those cases, a student trying to save $120 a week would have $195 a week left to live on "IF" they worked 40 hours, THAT is why I mentioned 40 hours. A student trying to save $120 a week while working 20 hours would have $47.23 left, that's not enough for bus fare and would barely cover a prepaid cell phone account.

I'm done with this thread, I don't really care to quibble about numbers. Tuition is out of reach for many people without taking out student loans no matter how frugal or diligent they are about saving and like it or not, that is a reality.

Scholarships... Military Education Benefits and Employer Tuition Assistance.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I just don't buy into these bootstrap prescriptions on steroids that in no way take into account the realities of life, most young people have expenses outside of saving for college and even if they are diligent it would be impossible to achieve the level of savings suggested in this thread. Most people over 18 would need some money to pay their own expenses even if they were lucky enough to live with family and not have to pay rent, and a fair number would not enjoy the luxury of mom's basement and are required to be fully self supporting.

And one cannot ignore the costs of living at home while attending college: the student still needs to eat, pay for his/her cell phone, lap top, entertainment, laundry....whether mom and dad foot the bill or h/she does, it still costs.

Tuition is out of reach for many people without taking out student loans no matter how frugal or diligent they are about saving and like it or not, that is a reality.

Agreed. It would be interesting to note how many people on this thread have actually paid college tuition anywhere in CA in the past five years (not 2 decades ago, not 10 years ago, and not before the 2008 recession).

[WithDisp]

Originally Posted by MountainHi

The OP covered that. If your buddy married another social worker, they'd be making 80-110K. If they live with a parent, they'll be saving most of that, annually. The OP wasn't talking about renting; a key part of his plan is that there are two wage earners living together rent-free, while saving for a downpayment. You can criticize his plan for assuming that living with parents is not an available option for some people, or that finding someone to marry in the mid-20's isn't that easy, but sticking with the conditions he outlined in his post, it's hard to knock.

I also think that the OP's plan works best for people who are able to go through to an MA in school. They'll be earning more when they get out. At least your buddy got a job in his field with a sociology degree; that's better than most sociology grads are able to do. But it's too bad he's struggling and may have to leave the area. Is he in his own place, or is he in a shared place? He could save for the future if he rented a room in a shared household for awhile, and maybe took some classes to build up his resume.

So the requirement presented here is two college grads, getting married, with no existing debt, and having the ability to live at home until they are late 20s or early 30s to buy.

It sounds quite like the situation presented, but still is alienating to more than half the population.


My parents lived in a somewhat equally unfordable suburb. Neither had a college degree.
What has changed -so much- (or hasn't) in the last 30 years that much of the country is in a dire housing crisis.

I'm actually aware of some of the answers to that question (gov't policy + property investment as a major portfolio component). However, there's other components of the boomer era I can't really say I understand.

It's naive to say it 'can' be done, people just aren't working hard enough. We all probably do know that it CAN be done, though there are "sky is falling I only make 200K people around'. The problem is your average person can't do it. Which means 50% of the people who are BELOW average can't either.

[WithDisp]

Originally Posted by WithDisp

This is totally true in CA. CA has some of the best public schools in the world, and at very affordable prices.

If you compare to those on the East Coast, where nearly all the best schools are private. The bar for entry at a successful degree is much higher.

I've received some comments (private) on this one, and to clarify I am talking about Post-Secondary education. The public K-12 system in CA in general is middle ground for the country at best.