[taylodl]

The reason commonly given for living in the Bay Area is all the jobs available but you're pointing out that's not actually the case because if you want to live well in the Bay Area then you have few employment options. Is that the reality?

[bradlys]

> Is that the reality?

Certainly is for me. The $170k/yr startup salary I get is certainly not enough to afford jack shit around here. Even an extra $50k/yr wouldn't do anything to alter my lifestyle. I couldn't get any kind of home around here with that and I'd still be very uncomfortable renting a home on that income - as it'd be more than a third of my take home pay (lose your job? You better have a very large emergency buffer - unemployment won't even pay a third of your monthly rent).

The engineers I know who stay around here are A) wealthy (bought home long before average price was past $1m or inherited one), B) rent, dual engineer income, and enjoy the renter lifestyle, C) Work at FAANG and/or have a spouse who does and make big fucking $$$$ D) Going to move away, no plans to stay permanently.

There are no young people (<35) moving here, working for no-name companies, and buying homes after saving for a down payment after a few years. Almost all young people I know who do such things have A) had a startup IPO or B) work at FAANG.

Certainly can't make it here on a single startup salary - not even in the faintest. I'm proof of that.

The reason people move here is because there's a chance (insert dumb and dumber reference) to strike rich. There's also way more jobs here than anywhere else in the country and that's why I moved here. I couldn't get a job anywhere else but I somehow managed to get one here four times in a row now.

[skrtskrt]

I know plenty of people doing just fine in SF on much less than that 170k.

Yes, they rent. But "buying homes after saving for a down payment after a few years" is not a reality in any major metro area at the moment, unless you're fine with small, old, and far out in the suburbs.

[bradlys]

> Yes, they rent. But "buying homes after saving for a down payment after a few years" is not a reality in any major metro area at the moment, unless you're fine with small, old, and far out in the suburbs.

Isn't true for people I know in other major cities that are working professionals. Most peers I have in their 30's are buying homes in other major cities - if they are engineers or have a spouse who is an engineer.

I'm not talking about people who work retail. I'm talking specifically about engineers. Engineers in most major cities in the US can afford to buy a home if they have a spouse who works some kind of okay job. This just isn't true in the bay area.

[skrtskrt]

I see - so you're saying that for someone:

* in their 30s - so, say 10 years of engineer-but-not-FAANG salary

* with a spouse who also has a white collar job & about 10 years of savings

they would not have $200k to put down 20% towards a $1M place? Not that putting down 20% is even common anymore, average is ~9%.

I guess I could believe it given how little housing there is in SF - but wow.

[bradlys]

Depends on the people. $180k + $80k is only $260k. It's enough to get a house at $1m but you'll be somewhat house poor. You have to assume they haven't been saving at $180+$80k that entire time unless you're assuming they're late 30's.

9% down isn't common for Bay Area btw. 30-45% of all homes are bought with cash (higher value the property - higher the all cash offer %). Do you think those numbers are like that in other parts of the country? Do you think you can get by with <10% down for a jumbo loan? The people I know who bought here have either paid all cash or had to put down even more than 20%.

We haven't even discussed what a $1m home gets you here. I wouldn't buy a $1m home here. You will not get a nice home or neighborhood. Minimum $1.5m to break into the decent neighborhoods. Want something resembling what the rest of the professional middle class has? At least $2m+.