[timtadh]

I think the point is: his salary while not high by SF was high in nearly any other location in the US. In any other location, he and his family could live how they wanted. In any other location, have a $40,000 car instead of a $10,000 or less car is a perfectly reasonable. In any other location, eating out more than once a month would be perfectly reasonable. Having a expensive hobby racing cars is reasonable, just not in SF.

The point of the article wasn't that I am poor you should feel sad for me. The point was: look the Bay Area is so expensive that it is impossible to afford unless you are making an extremely high salary. A good salary isn't enough, a high salary isn't enough, it has to be extreme otherwise you will need to make life style sacrifices to live in the Bay Area.

[tw04]

Just to be clear - racing cars is EXPENSIVE if you're even remotely serious. You're talking about blowing easily $2,000 per weekend of racing, and that's if you're operating on a budget and already own the car.

[PacketPaul]

So basically he sold his stock options to buy a 40k car.

[hapless]

Spending 40% of your annual income on a car while supporting an entire family on that income is grossly irresponsible, regardless of the geography.

[atombath]

I guess I'll respond everywhere you tried to make this point. A $40k car will likely come with a 5yr loan that's cheaper than student loans. That'd actually be $8k/yr+interest... which is not 40% of your salary. Find something else to judge the guy for.

[hapless]

Even if it's 0% interest across 5 years, it's still forty thousand dollars. Whether you pay it all at once, or in dribs and drabs each month, you are paying more than you can reasonably afford.

(To say nothing of the prudence in financing a depreciating asset)

[brockers]

no kidding... $40,000 is a nice'ish car?

[colmvp]

Well yeah. That rings true for a lot of popular cities... is that really edifying? Fundamentally before moving to a new city, you can calculate your salary minus expenses and see how much you have to sacrifice to make it viable to save money. It was practically the first thing I did when looking for an apartment in NYC after taking a new job.

Especially with major cities, having a single income family is only viable if one person earns a lot and/or the couple has no intention of buying a property and settling down.

[bbctol]

But part of the reason he was paid so much was because he lived in the Bay Area; Facebook wouldn't pay nearly as high salaries if they were based in the Midwest. In "any other location," he still might not have been able to afford hobby racing, and it's weird to act entitled on the one hand and not acknowledge the other, as if the salary is deserved solely based on the work he's done, and the cost of living is a completely separate punishment.

[joesmo]

He says he's just slightly north of $100k (six figures) which I assume somewhere around $125. I'm certain he can get a similar salary in many parts of the country if he's a good SRE, at the very least: Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Dallas, Austin, DC, NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, San Diego, LA (those are the markets I'm familiar with from my job searches). Other cities might be slightly lower, but still right around $100k. Compared to the difference in cost of living (a few hundred percent now), it's essentially the same salary as the bay area most anywhere else without the expenses.

[bbctol]

Well, then he should take those jobs and move there. Of course, he might also consider living in the Bay itself to be a benefit, which has also been priced into the model: the cost of receiving that benefit is just... the cost of living in the Bay.