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

[felinius]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Well, whatever, it's not like you can't afford that at $85k! I couldn't because I make less than $1800 a month, but at $85k that's easily paid!

Or move in with roommates, the going rate for a room is like $500 a month and up.

Come on, people, stop whining!

It's not a flat $1800. It does add up and can be more than 30% of someone's rent, then include commute if it's not included at their work ... it can add up very quickly.

And all of that is WITHOUT possible student loans and other debt.

So no, it's not whining, it's just the reality of the situation.

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.

Here's the thing: a moderately well-trained pet is much cheaper than having a child. What do you need to get a pet? Bag of food, some toys, basic medicine and vet visit once a year. On top of the fact that having a dog has shown to have health benefits.

[otterprods]

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

I agree. Just the use of the word 'luxurious' put certain images in my mind.

Of course, the word 'luxurious' is pretty subjective, but yeah you'd need to make at least $250k a year for anything close to that in the Bay Area. But $85k is plenty for a good life. When I got my first 'real job' in SJ it paid $35K and I felt RICH at that point. Granted, it was the 90s and I was in my 20's, but I still had penny of money for a nice apt. with a roommate, good food and some travel. It was a good life and totally sustainable even if you double all those numbers. It's all relative, and it's always good to be able to be happy with relatively little if/when you need to.

Originally Posted by felinius

Here's the thing: a moderately well-trained pet is much cheaper than having a child. What do you need to get a pet? Bag of food, some toys, basic medicine and vet visit once a year. On top of the fact that having a dog has shown to have health benefits.

I can't say you're wrong because you aren't. But when people start comparing kids to pets there's not much I can say because obviously I'm talking to someone with no kids who just doesn't see the appeal. That's fine. I felt that way for a long time, but back then 'no pets' and 'no kids' were both equally obvious choices to me. At any rate, if you're looking to live comfortably and simply on relatively little income, then by all means don't have kids OR pets if you're so inclined.

[felinius]

Originally Posted by otterprods

When I got my first 'real job' in SJ it paid $35K and I felt RICH at that point.
I can't say you're wrong because you aren't. But when people start comparing kids to pets there's not much I can say because obviously I'm talking to someone with no kids who just doesn't see the appeal. That's fine. I felt that way for a long time, but back then 'no pets' and 'no kids' were both equally obvious choices to me. At any rate, if you're looking to live comfortably and simply on relatively little income, then by all means don't have kids OR pets if you're so inclined.

Accounting for inflation, that $35k you made is $50k today. And not all folks are meant for roommate living.

RE: Bolded -- don't assume things. I'm a married woman who does have interest in having kids at some point, but the reality is that pets aren't nearly as expensive as having children.

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by felinius

Accounting for inflation, that $35k you made is $50k today. And not all folks are meant for roommate living.

RE: Bolded -- don't assume things. I'm a married woman who does have interest in having kids at some point, but the reality is that pets aren't nearly as expensive as having children.

Kids and pets are not interchangeable. True about the cost, but having a pet doesnt check the box that having a child does.


I just had an interview with a company in Mountain View and looked at housing and rents, it is way out of control. There should be thousands of housing units under construction right now, to balance this...

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by slo1318

Kids and pets are not interchangeable. True about the cost, but having a pet doesnt check the box that having a child does.


I just had an interview with a company in Mountain View and looked at housing and rents, it is way out of control. There should be thousands of housing units under construction right now, to balance this...

This is pretty much the only solution. However, it's also the hardest to implement. Established homeowners are going to fight you tooth and nails to preserve their home values.

[otterprods]

Originally Posted by felinius

Accounting for inflation, that $35k you made is $50k today. And not all folks are meant for roommate living.

Yes and the OP was talking about $85k. And my room-mate was my wife for most of the time. Details. The point is that $85k is plenty livable for someone with simple circumstances.

Originally Posted by felinius

RE: Bolded -- don't assume things. I'm a married woman who does have interest in having kids at some point, but the reality is that pets aren't nearly as expensive as having children.

OK… like I said, you don't HAVE kids, and you don't see the appeal (or whatever word you want to use) right now. So I was right, right?

But you're right I about not assuming. You may feel like I was judging you, or at least making assumptions about your character. I guess on some level I was, but all I really meant is that not having kids and having kids are two different worlds. If you ever take that route you'll understand why they're different than pets.

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

This is pretty much the only solution. However, it's also the hardest to implement. Established homeowners are going to fight you tooth and nails to preserve their home values.

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.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by felinius

It's not a flat $1800. It does add up and can be more than 30% of someone's rent,

You're supposed to spend less than 30% of your income on housing, yes. So if you can't get an apartment in the area you want for 30% of $85k (which after taxes is like 55k or something), then live with roommates. It's very common to have roommates in a big city.

So no, it's not whining, it's just the reality of the situation.

How come I can live in silicon valley at minimum wage and others can't do it at 85k? Lack of fiscal conservatism?

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by felinius

Here's the thing: a moderately well-trained pet is much cheaper than having a child. What do you need to get a pet? Bag of food, some toys, basic medicine and vet visit once a year. On top of the fact that having a dog has shown to have health benefits.

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

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.

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.

[bobby_guz_man]

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.

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.