Is $85,000/year for a single guy enough to live off of in Sunnyvale? (San Diego: lease, insurance)

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

This is what people outside of the Bay Area do not understand. The entire Bay Area is not centered on "The Hamlet", the wealth and culture are distributed nicely across the entire area. The cities that surround SF, especially cities in the South Bay, are self-sufficient economic/cultural clusters by themselves. And because of that, the South Bay is just as desirable to live/work as The Hamlet, especially when it comes to raising families.

By "the hamlet" are you referring to SF?
I know for the most part that portion of the bay area is self sufficient, but its the old question of where do people who make $50,000 a year in those cities, live? Ive got 3 job offers coming in, one is in Mountain View, but the housing is so far out of sight that its near impossible.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by slo1318

By "the hamlet" are you referring to SF?
I know for the most part that portion of the bay area is self sufficient, but its the old question of where do people who make $50,000 a year in those cities, live? Ive got 3 job offers coming in, one is in Mountain View, but the housing is so far out of sight that its near impossible.

People making 50K either live in studios, or with family or roommates.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by slo1318

The bay area is tough, there is no reason renting a 3 bedroom home should cost $3-5,000 a month. If you are not in tech or other high paying field you can not afford it. I understand in the City a little more because of supply and demand issues, but in south bay it shouldnt be like that.

SJ is the same because:

--Just like SF, it is mostly built up (although not at the same level of density).
--Just like the rest of Coastal California, NIMBY-ism is encoded into both state and local laws and regulations, making new development difficult and more expensive. This limits housing supply, so rents and home prices skyrocket.

I agree it sucks and it's unfair. But that doesn't change the reality, unfortunately.

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

SJ is the same because:

--Just like SF, it is mostly built up (although not at the same level of density).
--Just like the rest of Coastal California, NIMBY-ism is encoded into both state and local laws and regulations, making new development difficult and more expensive. This limits housing supply, so rents and home prices skyrocket.

I agree it sucks and it's unfair. But that doesn't change the reality, unfortunately.

It does, Ive looked up and down the coast from San Diego on up and the worst Ive seen is South Bay for rents (not including SF).

Now, I mentioned that 50k number, but we all know there are plenty of people who dont make near that.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

In 2013 I was living in a one bedroom apartment with two other guys (SJSU business majors), our total rent was $966.

That is EXTREMELY cheap and unusual, so it must have been a rent-controlled lease takeover or something.

lol...just use Craigslist, that's what everybody else does.

There are at least 14 of them in downtown for $1000 or less at this moment:

SF bay area apts/housing for rent classifieds - craigslist

Uh yeah, I know about Craigslist. LOL (I'm actually a reference librarian, so probably know more resources than your average bear)

You obviously didn't look very carefully at those listings, or you would have noticed they consist of the following... studios around 250sf, trailers, room/house shares, low-income units (which have LONG waitlists even if you qualify, which the OP & I would not), and senior living. The OP isn't a senior, and doesn't seem to want a roommate or shoebox - so I stand by what I said, and challenge you to find a SINGLE-occupancy 1br over 400sf, that isn't restricted to seniors or low-income families for under $1000. Go ahead, I dare you.

P.S. While this doesn't apply to the OP, as a dog owner myself, NONE of these would even allow me to live there... I selected "dogs allowed" from your link, and it promptly eliminated every single one.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

I think most could...especially people who are working the standard hours, 9 am to 5 pm. When I blow by the bumper to bumper traffic on 87 at 55 mph on light rail, well, they're going roughly the same route I am, so I assume they could be on the train, too.

But do you know their origin and destination? Maybe they're on 85 through Cupertino at 8am, but they could have left from Scotts Valley or Gilroy - and might be headed somewhere like Atherton, Half Moon Bay, etc. Trust me, my commute is NOT doable via public transit!

So it is, in fact, possible for you to do it that way, just maybe not the best choice. 18 miles is far away though.

Yes, it is technically possible... if I want to spend FIVE hours commuting 36 miles, and transfer two times in each direction. No thanks, I do have a life! My pooch wouldn't be too happy about that either, lol.

And 18 miles is nothin', compared to some of the commutes I've done over the years. I briefly commuted about 95 miles each way from SF to Hollister, then 40 miles each way to Hollister after moving south. Prior to that, I actually drove from San Francisco to Napa for a temporary full-time job. Yes, NAPA! Thankfully they gave me my choice of schedule (we were open up to 12 hours/day and 7 days/week), so I picked 12-9pm to avoid the traffic... even without traffic, it was a good two hours roundtrip @ 80-90mph for the majority.

The extremely odd hours are killing you in terms of using transit.

Not necessarily, since they are still within the realm of train & bus schedules. It does eliminate my option of ride-sharing or carpooling, though, since I doubt there is anyone who shares my schedule and location/s. It's okay, I actually like driving - especially since I got a "new" (2002) BMW recently.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

I know it's heresy to say so, but a lot of people should give away their pets. Better yet, they should consider not getting them in the first place if they expect to be renters, especially in expensive areas. Pets are way more expensive than people realize.

People like that (who do what you're suggesting) are the reason we have millions of dogs & cats being euthanized every year... yes, let's just THROW it away like an old pair of clothing when things get tough.

I do agree you shouldn't GET a pet if you're not in the position, but once you have them it's a LIFETIME responsibility. Barring things like major illness, deployment, imprisonment, or homelessness, a pet owner should take their responsibility seriously and make it work however possible. I've turned down great apartments for less great ones, also paid more than I would have otherwise, because my animals are my FAMILY. Even the thought of giving one away, particularly the dog, makes me upset enough to cry. So no, people should not "give away" their animals just to make renting easier. Really now.

And it's not impossible, if you aren't a snob or super picky about the place... there are always a few pet-friendly complexes around, as I've been a renter for over 20 years without ever having to ditch a pet for a place. It's called compromising, and taking your commitment seriously. When I used to volunteer at a shelter, you know how many surrenders we got with the "I'm moving" excuse? Always had to bite my tongue on those, seeing as I've moved probably 15-20 times with a dog and/or cats. So it's a bad excuse, IMO, usually to cover for their laziness and inability to commit long-term.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by 80skeys

no, what he said is true. $85k doesn't get you far around here, certainly not a luxurious or even "upper middle class" lifestyle. Your household needs to be making $250k+ for that.

People on this thread have been mentioning rental prices, but one thing to know is that most (all?) apartment complexes here require proof of rental insurance. Also utility bills are somewhat higher than what you would pay in other states, your internet connection is going to be about $50/month, you can expect your "new tenant rate" to last for a year, then they will increase it by $100-$200, .... so the $1800 rate someone mentioned for a 1 Bdrm is actually going to be more when you factor these other things in.'

Believe me living in this area eats in your wallet.

I've NEVER been asked for proof of rental insurance, so where did you hear that? Maybe I have just gotten lucky! But yes, everything around here IS more expensive - for a reason, as there aren't many places more awesome to live in the US. At least in my opinion, and obviously the opinions of millions of others.

You can reduce the other costs with a little tap-dancing and research, however, which I've learned to do over the years. For example, you can sign up for new internet and/or cable providers every 2-3 years for "intro rates" (or just threaten to leave your current company, and they'll drop it fast). You can also get discounted PG&E if you earn less than a certain amount, and with our mild weather, those bills shouldn't be very high anyway. Even with my snake collection sucking up a fair amount of energy, the PG&E bills for my 710sf apartment average $40-50/mo year-round. You don't have to live like a miser, necessarily, but should learn to be crafty and DO YOUR RESEARCH. I can't stress that last part enough, given my profession and how I've helped so many patrons with that.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

I vote to have neither pets nor kids in SV unless you earn a fabulous income (which 85K isn't).

And for some of us, having pets and/or kids is more important than having tons of money left over... kids, I can see the need for long-term decent income (future tuitions etc), but pets are generally as expensive as you allow them to be. I've never earned a "fabulous income," and still manage to feed & downright spoil my pets. I don't buy them unnecessary luxuries like crystal collars, but give them good quality foods, regular vet checkups, and so forth. Besides, the things they need and want most don't cost anything - your love, attention, and for dogs, regular exercise/stimulation. I can even say my dog saved me in return, as walking/exercising with him for the last 8 years helped me to get healthy. Before I adopted him, I weighed almost 250lbs!

The biggest expense of a pet isn't the food & toys. It's the extra rent you pay, plus pet deposits, etc. The cheaper places often don't accept pets and those more expensive places also tend to jack up the rent mercilessly.

That is true, but for someone who can't imagine life without a pet (or kids), the sacrifices are worth it... that's why I got angry at your "give them away" suggestion, because only a person who never really loved or bonded with their pets could do such a thing. At least, in terms of the moving challenges being their excuse.

Then you have the issue of when pets get sick. A friend of mine had a cat that had colon cancer. The operation cost $2K and the cat still died shortly thereafter.

They have pet health insurance, CareCredit (like a credit card for veterinary emergencies), and payment plans. My personal situation is different, as I do have access to emergency funds most people don't, but there is always a way if you're determined. Anyway, sorry to the OP for getting off topic!

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

People making 50K either live in studios, or with family or roommates.

I earned less than $50K for quite a while, and (for a few of those years) was living alone in a 1br... made less than that last year, in fact. I'm set to make around $60K this year, and feel like I have money to burn now. Guess your perspective changes after living on so little for so long?

You seem to have a rather inflated idea of what it costs to live comfortably, so I'm guessing your non-rent/mortgage expenses are higher than average - or what you're assuming them to be, if your situation doesn't apply here. What do you think is needed AFTER rent/mortgage & taxes to get by here? Just curious.