Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmorici | Hacker News Reader

I totally disagree. Housing is such an over riding cost that no amount of things you can buy on Amazon will save you. The housing prices are rising so fast in SF that it makes estimates like this one LOW. you would be unlikely to save any money at all living in SF on 150k but Kansas has such a wide variety of hosing options that range form super cheap to substantially affordable that you could easily save as much or more that if you were living in SF on double the salary.

Edit: for the record I don't live in and have never been to Kansas City.

View on HN

> you would be unlikely to save any money at all living in SF on 150k

This statement is farcical. You do realize that the median wage in SF is less than $100k. How do you think those people are living?

Have you actually lived in SF or NYC? You're totally out of touch with the actual costs.

Yes, housing is expensive. But you can still easily get a solid apartment for $3k/m. Add in another $2k/m for food (high!) and that's still only $60k a year. You're still left with $10k more than the KC developer even started with.

Unlike you, I'm actually using real numbers and the reality on the ground. I made $150k/year in NYC and managed to save almost $100k/year.

You must be young, and have no dependents. Also taxes alone on 150k must be close to 1 third of your income so based on that alone I'd be skeptical of someone who claimed they could save 100k per year on 150k salary in NYC.

$250K Per Year Salary Could Qualify For Subsidized Housing Under New Palo Alto Proposal http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/22/250k-per-year-sa...

> Yes, housing is expensive. But you can still easily get a solid apartment for $3k/m.

Oh great thanks

> But you can still easily get a solid apartment for $3k/m.

What does the same apartment cost elsewhere though? Cost of living calculations are not for calculating how little you can possibly spend in a given location, they are for comparing the same standard of living in various places.

It sounds like you are willing to sacrifice your standard of living to make more money, which is fine, but not comparable to the parent's calculations.

> How do you think those people are living?

Most of them are grandfathered in via rent control. Some immigrant groups give preferential treatment to people coming from the old country, but if you are on HN, you can't access those networks, and you might be too fussy anyway.

If you're single and make $150k/year in SFO, you only have $110k post-tax income or so; a bit higher if you are putting money into a 401k. There's no way you can be saving $100k/year at that income level.

Is this pre-tax $150k? I'm also in NYC, but taxes alone are almost 50% of my salary. Plus ~$3k a month on an apartment, you can't really save much on $150k.

> Unlike you, I'm actually using real numbers and the reality on the ground. I made $150k/year in NYC and managed to save almost $100k/year.

Who does your taxes? Your take-home in NYC on a $150k/year salary is going to be like $90k. Spend $5k/month on food and rent, and you're saving like $20-30k/year.

I have a good CPA and am very aggressive with putting all my savings into tax-advantaged accounts. Admittedly my actual income ends up being more than $150k/yr thanks to capital gains and some freelance work. Looking back on the years where I was just a straight salary worker (earning $150k/yr) my annual savings were closer to $60k.

> I made $150k/year in NYC and managed to save almost $100k/year.

Your income after taxes in NYC would be about $100K (assuming Single filing status, no dependents, etc). That's without paying for literally anything, including rent, utilities, food, transportation, entertainment, internet, insurance, etc. Can you clarify how you managed to save so much?

Housing is generally an investment, so what I'm dumping in my mortgage, I don't have to dump in retirement funds (assuming im planning on selling the place and moving out when I no longer care about big cities). So I literally don't mind dumping a million+ in my condo.

Second, even that million+ condo only cost me a third of my salary, including property tax and HoA after tax breaks and shit. Literally everything else is essentially fixed cost (eg: while labor for renovations is a bit more expensive, the bulk of the cost is in the materials, which are shipped from out of state in most cases). Cars aren't any more expensive, etc.

So when you're borderline, big cities (I'm on the east coast, but same applies) are totally not worth it. You'd be living paycheck to paycheck. But once you reach a threshold, it's just better.

Now there's remote work that messes up with all that math, obviously.

A single property does not make a good substitute for a retirement fund. There's a reason why retirement funds allow you to invest in a diverse set of bonds with different rates of risk and across different industries. Putting all of your eggs in one basket is a stupidly risky move.

depends on the location of your property, a nice condo in NYC is better than most of the retirement funds.

It's not my only egg. My only point is, spending a large amount of money on a home is not necessarily just a net expense, and is actually very frequently (in those cities, SF, Seattle, NYC, Cambridge/Boston, etc) a "profit", even after interests on the loan.

Even if my property was to lose 50% of its value tomorrow, its still better than renting, or getting an expensive car, or whatever. And in the best case, it will have a hell of a return.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com