I'm good on that, thanks.
By the rule of thirds, that's $60K/yr meaning $180K+/yr salary is necessary. This is for suburban living in a remodeled 70's ranch home, not in an urban area.
How much do those cost in the Bay Area?
That’s for someone fresh out of a top school who hasn’t even negotiated at all. There are many new grads in the bay area that recieve this kind of comp.
Assuming 40% tax bracket, a 30k salary difference gives you 1500/month extra after taxes that you can spend on your apartment. If you consider a couple with in demand tech skills they may be significantly better off financially moving to SF, where they are likely to both find very competitive salaries. In many other areas they may have to contend with one person getting into his best career path and the other choosing from limited options to be nearby.
I am not advocating SF living, e.g. this is not my kettle of fish simply due to the quality of life choices, but from a purely financial viewpoint it is not that hopeless (yet?).
That's not a very good assumption. $130k is on the low end for anyone with enough experience to be looking at a home purchase.
I don't know why an absolute value is ever considered "insane." If salaries support it, it's not insane.
Even with the high housing prices (caused mostly by regressive zoning policies), senior engineers at a big tech company or late-stage startups should be able to afford a home.
The per-capita GDP variation between large American cities is larger than that, and there's no good reason to expect housing to cost the same in very different cities.
Some cities having housing cost at least 50% more (or double) the national average seems like something that would be the case in pretty much any country in any period of history.
I will be spending less than $2k total a month. West coast is crazy.
Bankrate calculator says it’s $700k more expensive for the same house in SF.