Hacker News Reader

Comment by gearoidoc | Hacker News Reader

"Only" 90k.

"Only" counts for something when you have to pay half of it to live in a reasonable location. That 90k in SF is around 50k in Hampton-Roads VA. That 90k in Oakland is around 60k.

Do people not commute from Oakland? Is the BART ride too long? Or are rents in Oakland just as high? I've only visited the Bay Area a few times, so please feel free to correct me on this one.

1. More and more people are commuting from there.

2. To some, yes, because BART is getting crowded so many end up standing in a wall to wall claustrophobic space.

3. They are climbing higher, especially since Uber is moving to there, and they're only the vanguard. It's also been discussed as a cheaper alternative to SF for at least two or three years now.

Oakland is almost just as bad.

I managed to make do with 50K a year, but I lived in San Jose and didn't have the expenses of car ownership.

Living in SJ required a 20 minute walk to CalTrain and then a 45 minute ride to the city by CalTrain (if I caught the express) and then another 15 minute walk to work.

BART from Oakland only goes along Market, which is only walking distance from about half of SOMA (where most of the tech people work). That whole area can be pretty rough, especially after dark. Personally I'd rather walk to 4th & King and commute via Caltrain, but the peninsula is more expensive and Caltrain only has one stop in downtown SF vs 4 for BART (Embarcadero, Montgomery, Powell, Civic Center).

What the hell does "reasonable location" even mean?

It means you aren't spending 4 hours a day commuting. The comments all around you describe the situation in SF and the surrounding area.

Are there no places available in the lower end range with 1 hour commutes? I know there is a shortage of low priced apartments, but they have to exist.

Don't worry, 75% will go to the cost of the privilege of living in the bay area.

90k is essentially broke in SF.

You're insane

In SF, a nice two bedroom apartment runs about $6k/mo. It is insane, not GP.

The median 2 bedroom apartment in SF is currently about $4600/month. This means that even with a roommate to split the bills with, at a salary of $90k you're looking at spending nearly 50% of your take home just on rent. Add in utilities, food, transportation, etc and $90k pretty rapidly stops looking so great.

You could easily live in a 3-bedroom and pay $1700 a month in rent. You'll only have $3000 a month to pay for food and transportation - oh my god, the privation, how is anyone supposed to make it?

"in SF" in a pretty important qualifier. On top of a 28% federal tax rate you're paying 12% state income tax. San Francisco has a 1.5% income tax as well. So on $90k/yr you're down to about $4500 a month take home but that's excluding any payroll taxes outside of income. Several hundred dollars there. You're already in "spend half my check on rent" territory.

Even though 90k is ~3x the average personal income for the US, when you're living in one of the most expensive cities in the country, you can absolutely be broke on that.

SF does not have an income tax. It does have a 1.5% payroll tax that is paid by employers, but that is already factored into your your gross pay (IOW, if a company offers you 90k the pay the $1,350 in taxes and you never deal with it).

You can argue it effectively pushes down the size of the offers people get, but you don't have to worry about it when you calculate your net take home.

My cursory google search was a little too cursory, then :)

28% marginal tax rate. Maybe 19% effective. State tax is 10%, not 12%.

You are right, (marginal) state tax on $90k is "only" 9.3% and that's on about 40% of the income.

My point was that on $90k in SF proper, if you want a "nice" place, even a 1BR or studio you're going to be spending a huge percentage of your income on rent and basic necessities.

Absolutely. Just bought a house on the Peninsula a year ago. I feel ya.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com