Hacker News Reader

Comment by ben_jones | Hacker News Reader

One size fits all rules don't apply here. If you're pulling six figures in the bay area you could easily be spending 50% of your take home on rent. Another 20% on other necessities.

Toss in an individual with college debt, or medical issues, or financial family obligations, and you might not even have the option of accruing any wealth at all.

View on HN

>If you're pulling six figures in the bay area you could easily be spending 50% of your take home on rent.

You also put up with a longer commute, less house, or a less nice neighborhood and keep your rent under 30% of take home pay.

Edit: Per [0] if you make $100k you end up with $5752 a month in take home pay. At 30% that would give us $1725.60 a month for rent. Checking craigslist [1] there are 55 places available for less than that if you are willing to rent just a room.

[0] https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-paycheck-calculator#... [1] https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/pen/roo?nh=81&max_price=...

That's easy, if you're single. But "renting just a room" isn't really an option for couples, or families.

That said, if you're moving to the Bay Area for a job, you need to take into account that six figures here is not the same as six figures anywhere else.

When my wife and I first moved out here, we rented a master bath/master bed starting in January, we hard our son in July, and moved out in January. So it is an option, just not one a lot of people want to take. Then again, my wife and I want to be retired in <15 years so we are making decisions others would not.

It's one thing to do it for 6 months with a newborn that can't leave their crib (although even that's challenging). It's another to do it with one or two kids that have learned to walk.

How did the roomates handle the newborn? Or was the noise dampened/not an issue?

They were okay with it. One was a heavy sleeper the others were far enough away that it was dampened.

Agreed. But there also a bit of personal responsibility if you have two kids and cannot afford to house them.

Eh.. sort of. I lot of people argue you shouldn't spend more than a 3rd of your income on home. You argue that it's %50 in the Bay Area.. but I don't think that invalidates the 3rd rule - that's simply a bad area/job.

If I make $300k in a place where it costs $280k to live, I'm basically poor. It doesn't invalidate the 3rd rule, or this 50/30/20 thing - if anything, I'd argue it validates it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com