Salary to "Live Comfortably" (San Jose, Palo Alto: renter, HOA, mortgage)

[Chuck5000]

Awesome post by HockeyMac, those definitions are very helpful - the thing is it's very very very hard for people psychologically to step DOWN from where they are, and/or from the level at which they grew up.

There's interesting psych research on this, showing that it's intensely painful for people to lose status much more so than it is happiness-inducing for them to gain status.

Hence, the relevance of comments about needing 180, 200, 250k+ to have a middle-class life plus savings approaching what one may have had in other states.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by Chuck5000

Awesome post by HockeyMac, those definitions are very helpful - the thing is it's very very very hard for people psychologically to step DOWN from where they are, and/or from the level at which they grew up.

There's interesting psych research on this, showing that it's intensely painful for people to lose status much more so than it is happiness-inducing for them to gain status.

Hence, the relevance of comments about needing 180, 200, 250k+ to have a middle-class life plus savings approaching what one may have had in other states.

I totally get that. I just think they're different questions (to me).

One question is: "what salary do I need to live like I did previously in some other metro?" vs. "what salary do I need to live 'comfortably'?".

I guess stepping down in status may make someone uncomfortable...and I suppose I see that (and I do think this is harder on people who are older/have families).

But I think if there's one thing that I've really gained from living in the Bay Area it's that it's taught me that I don't really need all of these things that I thought I needed (or that society has told me I needed). I don't need all of these things around my apt/house...I don't need a giant house...I just don't care about most status symbols.

I've really come to enjoy many things outside of the home more. A great example: I can bike/hike/run 365 days here. I could maybe do that half the days of the year in previous places that I lived - and I definitely had to drive hours to get to anything interesting scenery wise (vs. 20-30 min here).

Where do QOL improvements like that fit into this discussion? I think too much of the focus of these discussions is about having stuff and affording a house...do we really need all of that to "live comfortably"?

Then again, I totally admit I probably don't think like most people in this world.

[mossly]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

I've really come to enjoy many things outside of the home more. A great example: I can bike/hike/run 365 days here. I could maybe do that half the days of the year in previous places that I lived - and I definitely had to drive hours to get to anything interesting scenery wise (vs. 20-30 min here).

Yup. We lived in a great house on the East Coast before we moved here. It was 2,200 square feet - not some mega-mansion luxury palace, but a really nice and comfortable size for our family of four. Making the transition to a 1,200 square foot house when we moved to the Bay Area was disappointing in some ways. And I won't lie, I do still have some OH MY GOD THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ROOM IN THIS HOUSE moments. My husband and I alone could live in the tiniest of places, but once you bring kids into the mix they need clothes and shoes and raincoats and some toys, and it's nice to have room for all that crap.

But that all said, the weather here makes it so that our backyard is an extension of our living space, really. And going for a walk is always an option. A mountain hike is 15 minutes away. This has a tangible positive impact on our quality of life. In the end, I'd rather a smaller house and better weather than a bigger house and less outdoor time.

[Chuck5000]

Problem is, spending north of $1m for a 1200 square foot teardown is a very different story. It's not just house size, it's condition, and access to quality schools. When I said "status" I meant overall economic status - not status symbols.

I personally don't care for big houses, so house size alone is not my beef with overall affordability. It's the mix of factors.

[Lanienguyen]

Originally Posted by Chuck5000

Problem is, spending north of $1m for a 1200 square foot teardown is a very different story. It's not just house size, it's condition, and access to quality schools. When I said "status" I meant overall economic status - not status symbols.

I personally don't care for big houses, so house size alone is not my beef with overall affordability. It's the mix of factors.

Well, that is part of the game, supply vs demand. People have the option not to buy 1M+ for small house. But mostly they like to.. due to many reasons. They can buy in Tracy or Stockton and commute to work. $500k can buy a big house. Buying a house is a biggest investment. So like most other, I would buy a house in the good location to protect my investment.

[NewbieHere]

But why do people want to buy a house, renting is better. The problem with the Bay Area is that you don't guarantee your job will be there, in the boom time it's great, but when you are laid off, both spouses( like in my case) and many others, you can just walk away.

[mossly]

Originally Posted by NewbieHere

But why do people want to buy a house, renting is better. The problem with the Bay Area is that you don't guarantee your job will be there, in the boom time it's great, but when you are laid off, both spouses( like in my case) and many others, you can just walk away.

Even with renting, you downsize when you move here. So you're still going to have to cope with a smaller house, maybe not as nice of a neighborhood, compromises with regard to school districts, etc. And these are all going to bring about the same emotions as they do in people who buy.

Renting means you're not tied to the place for life, but you still have feelings about it while you live there. Well, I do, anyway!

[SageCats]

Originally Posted by cbone4

My boyfriend and I moved to south san jose from Atlanta about 8 months ago, and so far we are regretting the decision.

He currently makes $95k base and I make $70k. Our rent is about $2300/month. Its tough saving money with rent and everything costing so much…

Just curious, how much do you think you need to make to live “comfortably” here? (I.e. Being able to save money while still having a social life)

We make just a bit more than you and pay $2400 / month. We are really, really ,really regretting the decision to move to this place. I feel your pain.

Also, look at net salary, not gross salary. How much are you bringing home after taxes? Keep in mind CA has the highest taxes of anywhere. In our bracket, it's nearly 10%. We're not making much more than we made in AZ where we had to pay less than 1/2 in taxes and made 50% less. Our housing was much lower there, too. Most people don't tell you this or know this. They assume because gross pay is much higher, that you're making the big bucks. Big Scam, indeed. That's the Bay Area Scamafornia for you. I can't wait to leave.

[NewbieHere]

Originally Posted by mossly

Even with renting, you downsize when you move here. So you're still going to have to cope with a smaller house, maybe not as nice of a neighborhood, compromises with regard to school districts, etc. And these are all going to bring about the same emotions as they do in people who buy.

Renting means you're not tied to the place for life, but you still have feelings about it while you live there. Well, I do, anyway!

I know people who live very well when they rent. 5br, 3br , large yard, in a good school district with a pool.
Not in SF, but else in the Bay Area but within commute distance to FANG companies. The reason they are renting is because one of the income is not stable, so the risk is that they could lose the job and lose the house, and that means the down payment.

[mossly]

Originally Posted by NewbieHere

I know people who live very well when they rent. 5br, 3br , large yard, in a good school district with a pool.
Not in SF, but else in the Bay Area but within commute distance to FANG companies. The reason they are renting is because one of the income is not stable, so the risk is that they could lose the job and lose the house, and that means the down payment.

Of course it's possible to rent well in the Bay Area. But it costs significantly more than renting well in almost any other part of the country. Therefore, renters feel some of the same pressures as owners when they move here - pay more money or have fewer bedrooms, or worse schools. You can't get away from that dilemma and the associated emotions just by renting.

You're not wrong that there are advantages to renting - I rent as well - but being able to maintain the same level of house/neighborhood when you move here from somewhere else is not one of them. Some people care about that more than others but it's still part of the conversation regardless of renting vs. buying.