Hacker News Reader

I think you misunderstand that several workers out here rent because they can amass capital with their jobs in a more liquid format than buying a house. A house is a middle class investment opportunity, several people out here are making enough to focus more on flexibility and liquidity.

I've had prolonged discussions about this elsewhere on HN, but I think if you're considering a house (or an apartment) to be an "investment opportunity", you've missed the point entirely.

It's a home first and foremost, and a monetary asset second.

If your model is 'grind your 20s-40s away living in a box and then move out' then I implore you to read my comment again.

I have a 1400 sqft apartment in Pacific Heights. It's hardly as bad as everyone wants to make it out to be. It's actually, by far, the nicest place I've ever lived. I think you really misunderstand the high quality of life can be in SF because of all the blogspam. Its hard at times, but it has significant rewards.

Quite possibly.

I often wonder if London looks worse externally than it actually is (you can afford a house or apartment here if you have a professional job, it's just probably going to involve commuting and not be in a prestigious area).

Of course, if you're something actually socially useful like a teacher or fireman, you're buggerino'd.

I use the term 'house' out of laziness. It's more a commentary on the fact that a 30 year old renting is just incompatible with a decent life in the UK (outside of some secure older council tenancies) whether you live on the ground floor or the fifth floor.

You'll probably have to move every year or two - it's not yours to decorate - the furniture might not be yours - it's not a home, it's a longer-term hotel.

That might be different elsewhere.

I mean, if I wasn't here, I'd be in Belgravia or Mayfair. London is an amazing place and now about 10% cheaper than SF. It has 2 out of the 5 FAANG companies, but the tech scene is still not in the top 5 IMO compared to NYC, SF, SEA, Singapore and Tokyo. I'd love for that to change...

If a house is a home, I'd rather be homeless. I personally view a house as more of a shackle than a benefit. I enjoy moving every 2-5 years. I value novelty over routine. My first 12 years of life were in the same home, but other than that I've been moving around regularly.

I am in my late 20s currently, and I'm open to a change in perspective. Maybe there's value in consistency that I will appreciate more at some point. But being told that I won't count as a senior professional until I care about buying property irks me.

Not my claim at all.

My claim is that a senior professional (in _any_ field - not just a senior developer) doesn't care about the cost of rent.

It includes your scenario - of course you should be able to rent and move about if you want to.

If the cost of the rent is heavy on your mind, your position is not that of a senior professional.

The title has become meaningless because it's effectively become an entry-level job.

(Externally it looks like in SF, real entry-level jobs result in, well, homelessness or living in a van or something).

I don't see why any of that would have to change. You sell your home at the same time you buy the new one, and what you get from the sell goes towards the cost of the new home.

Money-wise, you're no longer throwing it away on rent, but paying down a mortgage that eventually is paid off entirely.

On top of that, you're also no longer racing against the end of the rent contract, and can wait a bit - or move earlier - to find a new place you really like.

The turning point for me was, here in Chicago, when I was renting and my dad sent me some properties with the costs laid out: These places were significantly nicer, and the mortgage cost per month was ~60% what I was paying in rent.

Basically, because it's much easier (in time and money) to switch leases than it is to go through the hassle of buying and selling a house. There are some markets where owning is cheaper, and some markets where renting is cheaper.

I'm also in Chicago and have done a similar analysis. But I'd argue there are two main reasons for the per-month costs for owning are cheaper than for renting:

- Illinois is broke and is going to increase real estate taxes every year for the foreseeable future. So while you can also sell to escape the tax bill, the value will just drop to compensate. - There are many fixed costs to buying a place that aren't reflected in the monthly bills. Such as closing costs on both the purchase and sale (including chicago's lovely transfer stamp tax, realtor commissions, etc).

Also keep in mind how many high-rise condo buildings are going up right now. This can only be bad for prices of "old" condos around the city.

If you aren’t looking at a home as an investment opportunity, there’s no reason to look at a home. Why would you shackle yourself to something that you can’t easily get out of, takes time and money to maintain, can go away in an instant, and takes years to get any equity. If it’s not appreciating past what you pay in maintenance or what you might be paying in rent, why would you willingly waste your money? If you are going for the “American dream” of the 1950s, there’s no reason why you can’t have a stay at home wife, a boy and a girl, and a car in the garage while renting the home.

>A senior professional (in any field) cares about building a secure life, buying property, raising a family, saving for retirement.

You're not going to afford to buy real-estate in San Francisco on a salary. Full stop. You don't buy multi-million-dollar houses when the company might go pear-shaped and leave you without a paycheck, even if your paycheck is in the six figures.

Exactly.

There are many homes for sale in SF for about a million dollars when I look. Isn’t that completely reasonable on a tech salary of a quarter of a million or so?

>Isn’t that completely reasonable on a tech salary of a quarter of a million or so?

Isn't that double what was discussed in the article?

Not when people are coming in 10-15% over ask full cash. You cannot compete with that using a mortgage.

> It's fundamentally _odd_ to me that people are looking at rental costs.

I think it was good that he focused on rent instead of for-sale price. The sale price includes other factors (property taxes, interest rates, expectation of rent increases) that do not affect the cost of living, and many authors get confused when they complain about rising prices while ignoring rents; see https://www.idiosyncraticwhisk.com/2017/10/housing-part-264-... for further explanation

> It's fundamentally _odd_ to me that people are looking at rental costs.

The median housing price in SF is $1.6M. There is no choice but to rent, or perhaps suffer an absolutely terrible commute.

(And since someone inevitably quips that the entire Bay Area makes $300k+: the $125k in the article is a bit low; the median tech salary is ~$135k. Some lucky souls pulling down massive stock benefits at a FAANG might be making enough total, but those of us not at a FAANG are not so lucky.)

Interesting perspective. From your profile it seems you live in London and maybe born there. The social life in the states (especially cities) is vastly different than European cultures.

It would be helpful to us who are accustomed to American social life to learn about what you perceive your social life tied into your work life to be like.

I was born in a medium sized town in the North of England.

There are a whole bunch of people in London doing the flat-share-can't-afford-anything-rent-it-all lifestyle too.

> It seems to be built around the idea that you spend your youth grinding in a rented flat, with rental furniture, using rental cars, buying every meal outside, so that in your 40's you might be able to move out and live a decent life with some modicum of security.

Not everyone wants to live in a tacky huge McMansion that they can fill up with trinkets and garbage they don't use. See? I can make snarky judgemental comments about your lifestyle choices too.

But seriously, not all "competent, rested (???), mature, well-rounded" individuals think living in an rental apartment in a vibrant, walkable neighborhood is the rank indignity you seem to believe it is. They're perfectly happy living in small spaces and spending their money on travel, hobbies, food, and saving for retirement instead.

> A senior professional (in any field) cares about building a secure life, buying property, raising a family, saving for retirement.

Sure, the capitalist-economy middle class is defined by having substantial property investments as well as labor income, but there's no reason that has to be in one's primary residence. There are pros and cons of tying up capital in an owner-occupied residence.