Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by tempsy | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

tempsy

I don't even know given the cost of living in the Bay Area if $300K is even really "high" anymore.

If you max out 401k and IRA this is $275k, which is $168K take home or $14k a month.

1-bedroom in SF + Utilities: $4000

Car: $500

Parking: $200

Groceries: $500

Healthcare (copays/premium contribution): $200

Entertainment (incl drinks, streaming services, going out to eat): $500

Phone: $100

Misc. transit: $200

Debt payments (Student loans): $400

Left over: $7400

If you want a child or buy a home...

A 2-bedroom condo will take $1.5M or $300K for a down payment. Then you have to add insurance + HOA. A 1.2M mortgage + insurance + HOA will be close to $8K/month.

Full-time childcare costs $2K/month (+ need to save for college, then all the costs with raising a child).

View on HN

Spending $14k/month is luxury living even in the Bay Area.

1. Your housing numbers are "luxury" prices. (those are generally numbers you see in say SOMA).

2. Having a car in SF in such premium neighborhoods is a further luxury item.

3. Homes are also way overpriced here compared to rent, but that's another story.

Your childcare numbers are actually more on the average side, but again, $300k for a single earner (with stay at home spouse) is obviously way better than $300k combined -- meaning you either:

A) shouldn't count childcare.

B) it's another luxury item.

Now don't get me wrong - if you are earning $300k a year as a one-earner family, you'll probability still be feeling money woes, but that's more of a testament to the standard of living in your social group being so high (who sends their kids to public schools?? weird!!) than any absolute metric.

I think you have to factor in tech jobs are not as stable as people think. Performance review cycles regularly involve getting let go for a non-insignificant number of people. And people do not stay at companies for very long relatively speaking, either voluntarily or not.

Also hard to imagine that the bull run will last forever. A recession will hit the tech industry hard.

Top tech companies are very stable in terms of employment. It is notoriously hard to get fired at the likes of Google and even if you draw the short straw, you often have 6-12 months of notice. People generally leave because they get job offers for more money or a combination of same money + shorter commute or more interesting work or change of scenery. Finally, the last recession was a doozy and still hit tech no harder than any other industry. Most of the same tech giants you’re talking about didn’t even have layoffs. I would call that as stable as it comes.

Please read up on the performance review system at most tech companies because what you're saying simply isn't true.

I am quite familiar with the performance review process at top tech companies given that I work at one. The difficulty in getting fired (especially without advanced notice) is often laughed about. The only thing harder than getting into these companies is getting fired from them.

Maybe at Google. It just isn't true for (at very least) Netflix, Uber, Microsoft, and Amazon.

Netflix, Amazon, and Uber, no, but Microsoft is a hard yes. It was the first tech giant to popularize the whole "rest and vest" cliche and still does. Facebook and Apple vary by org but it's still quite possible if that's what interests you. Then drop down a tier and it's very easy -- the likes of Oracle, IBM, eBay, PayPal, Adobe, etc. push very few out because barely anyone wants to come in.

So I named 4 well known tech companies, and you admitted 3 of them do regularly layoff workers during performance review cycles, and yet continue to argue that it isn't true that companies lay off employees on a regular basis...?

Ok...

I admitted that it's not laughably hard to get fired but it's still pretty hard if you show any semblance of effort. Naming three (of the most cut throat) exceptions out of thousands of companies is not an argument.

I named 2 out of the 5 companies that are a part of FAANG. The other is considered a big tech employer now.

The top of market salaries come from these large, competitive companies. It is more unusual to be making that much and "resting and vesting" than not.

If you have more left over than the median household income sees in a month, while living in the most expensive city in the nation, I think that's more than liveable.

And you're still not able to save more than $114k a year! :)

I didn't add personal travel costs, misc shopping, gym membership.

Again, if you bought an average house then your left over goes to maybe $3K/month (without account for less regular costs above).

You’re using some pretty aggressive housing numbers but conveniently omitting the part where you’re dumping most of that money into the equity of your million+ dollar home so that if and when you want to quit the rat race, you still have massive assets to take with you.

Real estate prices in places like SF or LA have plateaued a bit for a few years now, so yes while you're increasing your equity in your home it's not clear anymore where housing prices are headed at this point.

Even if your home value doesn't increase whatsoever, you are still progressing dumping a higher and higher percentage of your monthly housing-related payments into the equity (payments are interest-heavy early on, shifting to principal-heavy later on). In 15-30 years, you have a paid off house that's worth what you bought it for which can be millions. Or you can leave in a handful of years and take the 100,000s of equity with you that will buy you house in cash in most of the country. Either way, you're hardly worse off.

In the first few years you're converting a small percentage of that $8K payment into equity...most of it goes to interest, insurance, HOA, property taxes, etc.

With the SALT restrictions you can't write off more than $10K in state taxes now either, which means basically $0 off your property taxes since that your income tax alone in CA will be more than that.

Living in the most expensive city in the nation, with a house, with 3k/month completely un-budgeted for still seems like a high amount...

It's hard to say what is high or low anymore.

Personally most "wage workers" aren't in a great state in the US. Is it "normal" for workers to be able to barely save anything while getting into six figure student debt for a college degree? I would say no.

But saving $30k-$40k a year isn't going to cut it if you want a child or save for a downpayment.

A downpayment in the most exepensive place to live in the nation, but of course, given the massive income inequality in america!

I'm super confused here.

EDIT: How is 30-40k/year not enough for a child unless the child is special needs with bad healthcare?

> don't even know given the cost of living in the Bay Area if $300K is even really "high" anymore.

> If you max out 401k and IRA this is $275k, which is $168K take home or $14k a month.

> Left over: $7400

That sounds like a lot to me? I think the vast majority of the US would absolutely be ecstatic if they could save 7400 a month on top of maxing their 401k.

Just maxing my 401k (with employer match) I'll already have enough for my own retirement. Most people aren't able to do even that though =/

If you wanted to buy a place then your left over is probably closer to $3400/month.

I haven't added less regular expenses like personal travel costs (maybe another $400/mo on average), misc shopping/clothing ($100), and gym membership ($80).

To my sibling point above, an $80/month gym is a really damn nice gym. Even a 24 hour fitness super sport is only $52.

I agree that if you want to live on the high end, $300k might not be sufficiently high end. But it's still high by any reasonable metric.

also factor in tech jobs aren't super stable (or as stable as people think they are)

layoffs happen frequently, the average tenure at any one company is only a few years, and ageism is rampant.

this is hardly a "company for life" role or industry for most.

Average tenure is heavily skewed by massive head count growth. When you add 20,000 employees in one year (Google, 2019) + replace the churn from the population of 100,000 people hopping companies for more compensation, it will drive your average tenure number way down. This is a commonly referenced but completely invalid argument. Very few people are pushed out at the large, stable tech companies.

Your "left over" is more than most people's salaries. Even in SF it's above the individual median and not far below household. And you are maxing out a 401k and IRA while doing it, which most people are not.

I can't believe this shit.

Seriously.

"I am saving (eventually) millions for retirement, while having thousands of dollars left over each month even after accounting for all my 'entertainment' expenses etc. Is this even a living wage?"

factor in tech jobs aren't super stable (or as stable as people think they are)

layoffs happen frequently, the average tenure at any one company is only a few years, and ageism is rampant.

annual performance reviews regularly involve getting let go for a non-insignificant number of people.

this is hardly a "company for life" role or industry for most.

==factor in tech jobs aren't super stable (or as stable as people think they are)==

Which industry's jobs are "super stable"?

==layoffs happen frequently, the average tenure at any one company is only a few years, and ageism is rampant.==

Are average tenures low because tech companies fire people or because people are leaving for even better jobs? (my anecdotal experience says the latter is more true)

==annual performance reviews regularly involve getting let go for a non-insignificant number of people.==

Again, which industry does this not exist? Have you ever met someone who works in retail?

==this is hardly a "company for life" role or industry for most.==

Do these still exist?

Even with the outlandish, made up costs and taxes you're proposing (healthcare premiums and even co-pays with FSA are pre-tax, don't need a car in SF, why are tech workers with free meals spending $1k/mo on food?)...that's still a > 50% savings rate. You'd be ready to retire in 16 years. Even sooner if you took your savings to a lower-cost place.

And that's why founding a new company in the Bay area is a ridiculous waste. It's basically funnelling venture capital and giving it to landlords. People should be investing elsewhere these days.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com