lol wut ? if you work in a typical SF startup, you can do precisely none of these things. Like, literally zero.
lol wut ? if you work in a typical SF startup, you can do precisely none of these things. Like, literally zero.
If you have one of those incomes at the higher end, you can do these things in the bay area. If you have more than one then that stuff is not hard at all.
Berkeley has pleasant single family homes in a great school district around the $1MM mark. You can absolutely do that on $200k/year. IMO you should for sure be able to reach the mark where this is comfortable financially by the time you're around 30.
2 years ago people with standard financing didnt have a chance in hell of buying a house in the Bay
After paying for CA taxes, fed taxes, kids' schools, rent, car expenses, 401k contributions, I really don't know how you would come up with the savings necessary for the huge down payment required for a house there.
Just last week, a friend of mine got outbid on a ~1.5M house in the East Bay Area because another buyer came in and offered a down payment of $700k (!!), whereas my friend just had a more traditional 20%.
Good luck getting to those savings on a 150k startup salary and mostly worthless options.
In my experience, and I certainly respect yours, people just need to stop working for startups and go to big corporations, period.
And I speak as someone who had a low 7 figure liquidation event from a startup, and I'm still so against startups, because that liquidation event still didn't match the compensation I could have gotten as FAANG all along.
Also, many folks in the Bay Area just go all cash, and that's obviously much better for the seller since it means very fast closing.
But this if off topic, because a person on a 150k startup salary in the Bay Area won't be able to participate in any of these discussions.
Also, financing can fall thru for silly reasons (eg the bank found some crazy lien from the 1940s) and want it cleared before they offer financing.
LUL dude, I hear this shit being parroted ad-nauseum. The amount of FAANG people that hit this level or more is like, 5-10%. Take a look at the top 5-10% of non-FAANG companies and you'll see those employees are also hitting this mark. There's nothing special about FAANG. I understand lots of FAANG employees parrot this around to make themselves feel better about their life choices.
When I interviewed a couple years ago, I made sure to interview at FAANG (specifically Facebook, Google, Netflix) and I also interviewed at half dozen big public companies in the same couple months (among which Oracle, Salesforce, Cisco, Juniper, Palo Alto Networks). I didn't interview at any private company (Uber, AirBnB, ...), since I was coming out of the startup world and I wanted liquid compensation.
The FAANG offers that came back were all significantly higher than the other ones, and the constant was certainly me (a software engineer with 7 years of experience at the time and a BS + MS in Computer Engineering).
All the FAANG offers (luckily I got an offer from all the 3 I interviewed at) were at a total liquid compensation of $~400-450k/y (annualized cash + RSU), and I'm certainly not in the top 10% of their tech workforce, not even remotely close, I come in as a generalist with some ops experience who spent a couple months studying algorithms and data structures. I don't even have an active GitHub profile.
All the other non-FAANG tech companies (I got an offer from 4) were at a total liquid compensation of $~220k/y (annualized cash + RSU).
The only other companies who matched the FAANG offers were a couple of hedge funds on the East Coast, but I didn't want to relocate and I wanted to keep working for a tech company.
In the end, I joined Google.
So, I'm just reporting my own personal experience based on the data I directly experienced (I have PDFs of all the offers :-)). Feel free to ask any follow up question, I love educating software engineers on their real market value, since I think many sell themselves too short in this thriving market.
I agree that this math does _not_ work as well if you're moving to San Francisco and already have a family but no preexisting savings, so don't do that.
It's also true that if you rely on financing you will get outbid on some houses. But I know plenty of people who've successfully bought using financing.
BART is looking to eliminate all its parking, so this strategy won't work much longer. (They claim that the parking program doesn't bring in much revenue, but also refuse to charge a market-clearing price!)
Maybe the houses away from BART will get a little more affordable and those willing to walk 45 minutes or so will get a break. Or it'll end up like Sunnyvale where most of the "Caltrain" parking is actually provided by the City.
(~2.5 hours / day) x (~20 work days / month) x (8 months) = ~400 hours
Here's an example: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Berkeley/2333-Sacramento-St-94702/...
BART is a 20 minute walk, five minute bike ride (and with the weather and topography cycling is a great option).
Let's say you make $200k/year and manage to put together a $300k down payment and get a $700k mortgage at 3.8%. Here is the breakdown of your annual spending (using 2018 numbers):
$18,500 to 401K
$35,930 in federal income tax
$10,593 in FICA (Social security and medicare)
$13,724 in California income tax
Take home after tax + retirement savings: $121,253 Also, remember that the rules have changed and only $10,000 in state, local, and property tax is deductible against federal income.
Remaining payments:
$39,140 in mortgage payments
$10,500 in property tax
$1,000 in homeowners insurance
$10,000 in car ownership costs (gas, maintenance, insurance, financing or depreciation)
$4,000 in utilities (gas, electricity, water, trash, internet)
$1,000 for phone
That leaves you with $55,613 of "real" annual take home, or $4,634 per month, without counting the cost of food, entertainment, other debt servicing, etc. Certainly not poverty wages, and many people get by with far less, but you'll also spend 2+ hours per day commuting and have a significant fraction of your net worth tied up in a house in an earthquake-prone area.
I drive around 40,000km (~25,000 miles) and that's around a 2 hour round trip commute.
Berkeley -> San Mateo is 35 miles one way (17,500 per year)
Berkeley -> San Francisco is 15 miles one way - 7500 per year (at an average speed of 20 mph)
If you can use BART or CalTrain to get to work then you can get those numbers way down, but it's not an option for everyone.
But either way... doesn't this prove my point? This does not sound like a difficult way to live, _and_ it factors in luxuries (I for one definitely do not spend $10k/year on car ownership).
1 hour on/waiting for BART + ~40 minutes walking between your house and BART + ~20 minutes walking between BART and your job gets pretty close to 2 hours.
Car cost is indeed high, but if you have a kid you'll probably need one and then you have to factor in the cost of childcare... $2k/month?
I realize that single parent households do exist, but we're not covering every case here.
You don't need to spend $10k/year to have a car. This is pretty trivially provable because there are lots of people who own cars who clearly wouldn't be able to do so if that were the case.
I've worked at companies that at least called themselves startups for my entire career, and I own a house in San Bruno, my wife and I each have paid-for cars, we can put our kids through school, and we put away savings.