Hacker News Reader

Comment by slap_shot | Hacker News Reader

> the three of us live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and Steve and I each have three kids; we knew that the dollar figure that would allow us to live without financial distress – which we put at $175,000 a year

Putting aside the fact that is terrible way to determine the rate of pay for anyone, let alone every single person in a company - how on earth did they come up with such a lower number for such a high cost of living area?

View on HN

Yeah... $190k sounds a lot except in any HCOL area (SF, NY, LA, Seattle, heck even Portland has skyrocketed) it's going to feel very tight with three kids.

190 isn't enough for LA? I was thinking of moving there while making ~120k. Granted I have no kids or anything but I thought 120k could make it in LA?

Plenty of people do. $190k's just this ridiculous "from first principles" logic game on how much money you need to "survive" there, but it really means "not panic over money or going hungry and bank a little in an emergency fund and a retirement account" level of living, and not "If I eat ramen for a week I can afford the concert ticket" level of subsistence.

But is 120k at least somewhat comfortable for a single person? These different levels you described really hit different as you age. Yeah I could be ramen level but if the option is to not be ramen level at 120k elsewhere then moving to LA is not worth it but if there is a minimum level of comfort then other things make it worth making the move.

LA and the surrounding area isn't cheap to live in. It really all depends on what you do with your money and how lavishly you want to live but I'd say $120k is actually quite reasonable if you're able to live reasonably. Given the choice of $120k in LA or $120k elsewhere, I'm not going to lie, the $120k is going to go further elsewhere (except for, like, SF or New York), but then you're not in LA.

I also don't mean to impugn ramen either, as LA's got some really really good ramen restaurants. It all comes down to if you want to or not. LA's got a lot to offer but it's not for everybody.

I make 150k in LA, with 3 kids, and am the primary income earner. It kinda depends on where you live, LA is a big place with a hugely varying cost of living. I live in the suburbs and it's enough. If I lived in Venice I couldn't afford rent.

How about Echo Park. I wanna be around people somewhat near my age range to help stave off(but not eliminate) my crippling depression.

If you're single you can probably find a place you could afford to live in.

I'm curious how they make this work in sf unless they own a home or bought a long while back.

they're all industry vets... its not a "college dropouts in an apartment" startup.

You can rent many middle class homes (4b/2b 1.7k sqft) within a 30 min. commute of their office for $3.5k - $4.5k a month. That salary after tax is $10.5k per month. That's without a partner/spouse working.

>I'm curious how they make this work in sf unless they own a home or bought a long while back.

Comment shows how warped our expectations really are. It's still a 90th percentile household income in the SFBA: https://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/income

It’s so, so fascinating how distorted some folks’ views on money are on HN. There’s also a guy who pops in threads like this and insists that $250k in the Bay Area is “basically poverty.” It only becomes difficult to live on if you insist on private schooling, full-time daycare, BMW-level cars with private parking, etc.

I don't think 250k in the bay area is poverty. But anything under 200k, if you have kids - while not being a struggle - is definitely in "1 vacation per year, never eat out, and watch your budget like a hawk" territory.

They're all doing fine. I would assume all three of them have an 8-figure net worth given how long they have been in the industry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com