[temp129838]

If you have an average tech job and you are single/partnered (w/ dual income) with no kids, you are probably relatively fine as far as affordability goes.

If you have kids or living on a single income for 2 people, then it gets harder because presumably you'll want to find a more permanent living situation than renting a bedroom in a larger home with roommates or a small studio/1 bedroom.

My guess is that the existential crisis/breaking point happens for those in transition periods in their lives, the most notable those in their 20s/30s who have recently gotten married and thinking of having their first kid. At that point, if you haven't been fortunate enough to make enough to afford at least a small 2 bedroom in a good school area for $1.5m-$2m + school + daycare it isn't going to very sustainable to keep living here. Plus, many people want help from their parents to help raise their kids while they continue working, and unless you're in a situation where your parents are already living here that would be difficult to accommodate as well.

[maze-le]

>> If you have kids or living on a single income for 2 people

Does anyone still live with that kind of family-model? '2 people + kids / 2 incomes' is pretty much standard where I live, no one can afford otherwise -- not even the higher-earning income bracket.

[bunderbunder]

It might vary by region. It's fairly standard among my circle of friends. For most of us, doing the math revealed that, with both parents working, child care expenses and the like would eat up all or most of what the lesser-earning parent was bringing home after taxes.

Some of that is about how the tax system works in the US, too - the way that "married filing jointly" works was designed under the assumption that married women are homemakers, and so treating two-income families fairly wasn't a priority.

[temp129838]

Some, but right almost certainly a lot less than in previously generations...

If one partner made enough to support the whole family and you had kids, then I imagine there are some families who would want a full-time parent caring for their kids vs relying on daycare/parents/nanny.

[slfnflctd]

If you aren't making at least $40k a year (with a low-stress job), you will mostly just be treading water covering the cost of daycare, and might as well stay home with the child. Unless you have other reasons to keep working besides cash flow.

[maze-le]

>> If you aren't making at least $40k a year (with a low-stress job), you will mostly just be treading water covering the cost of daycare

Ahh, I see... That's actually a rational argument in favour of it. I sometimes tend to take conditions on this side of the Atlantic for granted -- like 90 € / month [+reduction for lower-income parents] for daycare / Kindergarten.

[souprock]

Absolutely, but not usually in a place like the Bay Area. It is easy and normal all over the USA.

When a 3-bedroom house can be had for $150,000 or less, you can get by on a single unimpressive income. It looks like that income could be just $40,000.

If you are higher earning, then you can go well beyond that. You can get acres of land, a dozen kids (my choice), a McMansion, and so on. This is how it is for my coworkers and I, living along the Florida coast.

[r00fus]

I know people doing this in the Bay Area, but likely a) they have reduced rental/property cost b) they watch their budget like a hawk.