[gknapp]

I know this is anecdotal, but whenever I hear these stories, I'm curious about the details. A quick search leads me to believe that head chef pay in Seattle typically ranges from about 90k-110k per year. Finding apartments off Broadway in Cap Hill, I can see that studios, though relatively expensive, range around $1.5-2k a month.

An income tax calculator estimates about a 22% total tax bracket and a monthly adjusted income of just over 6k. To me, that means that this person is falling right around 33% of their income devoted towards housing, which seems typical. What am I missing?

[lukeschlather]

In a well-functioning city, a head chef should be able to comfortably afford to rent a 2-3 bedroom apartment within walking distance of their restaurant. They should not be spending 1/3rd of their income and only getting a studio out of it.

[ericmay]

You can, just move out of Capitol Hill in Seattle which is one of the most desirable areas in one of the most desirable cities located in one of the most desirable geographies in the wealthiest country on earth.

This place looks nice! https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2742-Lincoln-St-NE-Minnea...

[whymauri]

There are many cities in the world where a head chef can live in the desirable neighborhood within a desirable city while working at their desirable restaurant. For example, the owners of a local wine bar where I live in Bogota are able to operate a wine bar below their apartment with relaxed zoning laws. Just not possible in the U.S.

Not just high-end restaurant jobs. The local owner of the ferreteria (home repair goods) lives above his store as does a window/glass store owner. And this is in a relatively pricey, high end neighborhood. In other neighborhoods is even more common. My family recently sold a restaurant in Bogota and the new owners are converting the top floor into a home for themselves.

[swatcoder]

I'm not sure if you meant to, since you seemed to be talking framing it around individual choice, but you've just made the case that something is fundamentally damning the economy in cities like Seattle. That's exactly why issues like housing affordability need to be identified and treated at the systemic level.

If people can't satisfyingly live near their work, then they can't work there, and then the work can't be done. If workers has to move to another state to practice their craft, a city needs to proactively recognize and address the problem if they want to avoid a coming blight.

[ericmay]

Well because individual choice and governance choices both exist simultaneously and dynamically.

In this particular case, though, I think the thing that is daming Seattle (and similar locations: Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Denver, Aspen, anywhere remotely desirable) is geography and climate and there isn't much you can do to fix that because you can't create new geography out of thin air. "Ohio is so boring", "I need to be near mountains and fresh air", "I like to surf", "I love to hike" are all things that can't be effectively replicated and so wherever those things exist prices will skyrocket relative to other locations.

Can Seattle literally build more? Yes. Will that solve Seattle's housing affordability problems? No it won't. In the short term interest rates and cost to build mean that most units will be higher end. Certainly won't mean a 2-3br house anyway. In the long-term unless something drastically changes Seattle is just desirable and there will be many more people who want to live there than there will be homes unless we could just snap our fingers and create new housing, nevermind governance issues, it just isn't happening folks.

I do empathize though. Please don't mistake my comments for callousness. But sometimes the truth (as I see it) just needs to be state. If you want to work as a chef and afford a 2br house it just is not happening in Seattle and you should make peace with that.

[Forgeties79]

The people who build, own, and operate the very luxury services (such as culinary destinations) that contribute to an area's reputation as "one of the most desirable areas in one of the most desirable cities located in one of the most desirable geographies in the wealthiest country on earth" should be able to afford living there.

[thepasswordis]

>should

Why?

[mrWiz]

>Why?

Because if they leave then they will no longer contribute to the area's desirable reputation.

[hd95489]

In the free market they will leave and get replaced. Or enough will leave and wages will go up

[pb7]

But they can commute in like many people do, right?

[Forgeties79]

My comment contains the "why" already.

[sbarre]

And where would that chef work then?

Should they simply give up on their own ambitions and career goals?

[ericmay]

I've only ever been to the airport, but I imagine there are great restaurants and innovative career-oriented chefs in Minneapolis too.

[OnlineGladiator]

You're essentially saying Seattle is too expensive for chefs to live in, which means it's too expensive for nice restaurants, which means it's too expensive to function.

Now extend your own logic to teachers, service workers, etc.

[ericmay]

> which means it's too expensive to function

Well it functions up until people such as this head chef say "screw these housing prices" and relocate somewhere else and open their restaurant and have a better life and then whoever is living in Seattle gets crappy or extremely expensive restaurants to account for the high housing prices.

[kevviiinn]

The Free Market(tm) has decided we don't need teachers, obviously

[hd95489]

It’s too expensive for chefs to live in Seattle it really is. People here don’t spend enough money eating out to justify the number on chefs so they can’t afford to live in decent housing

[randomdata]

He’s saying that the people who spend money in Seattle don’t care if the chefs leave. That comes with the freedom to choose what to spend on.

[NDizzle]

Specific to Seattle, once you see what the teachers are teaching kids there you'll see that they soon won't actually need teachers. Nobody that has both a functioning brain and children would put their kids in Seattle schools.

The problem kind of solves itself.

[lukeschlather]

I can afford to live in Seattle because I make more than a head chef. I would like my city to be affordable to head chefs, since I have friends who are. Seattle is a very nice place and I would like it to be easier for my friends to live here and not be forced to move away, since it makes the city worse and I'd rather the city become an even more desirable place in years to come.

[ericmay]

> I'd rather the city become an even more desirable place in years to come.

This is the problem and partially (mostly maybe) why Seattle and other “cool” cities are in the position they are in now. If Seattle was undesirable like, idk, Gary, Indiana then you’d be able to get your friends there and a head chef can buy a house and such. But then it’s Gary. That’s the dichotomy that Seattle and other cities face. Can’t escape it. What you are asking for and wanting just isn’t realistic.

Imagine if I came up to you tomorrow and said I’d like to live with an ocean view in Santa Barbara in a walkable neighborhood with street cars and all my friends and family could afford to live there with a 3br house and the chef makes a lot of money and has this killer restaurant… you know that’s not going to happen. Seattle isn’t any different.

[lukeschlather]

I don't agree. We basically ban people from living in the city with zoning, and even to the extent that the problem isn't zoning we could treat housing more like we treat other public services (electricity) and just make sure that it's available. There's no natural law that things have to be this way, it's a choice that we make and I think it is reasonable to ask it to change.

Nobody bats an eye when we build substations to support the lights in the restaurant, but building homes for the workers is "not realistic."

[ericmay]

I know you don’t agree, but the results speak for themselves. I do agree that things don’t “have to be this way” but where I’d differ is that to solve the problem the vast majority of Americans or Seattle residents would disagree with how to solve that problem. You’d have to do something like tax people at 50-60% or their income to pay for the new housing and it just won’t work. Zoning slows down development sure but so do environmental review processes and such. Also even if new development was instantly approved it takes time to build and developers have to spend so much money on the land that they just build very expensive apartments or condos. But this doesn’t alleviate price pressure because the demand to live in Seattle is too high. The evidence is that like in the OP a chef at a top restaurant is living miserably in a 400sqft apartment just to be in Seattle instead of leaving to alleviate their own dissatisfaction.

I’d also personally avoid framing things as such “build homes for the workers” because it implies a very top-down industrial capitalist or communist viewpoint that I think many are resistant to.

Like water flows through the path of least resistance the easy solution here is people are just going to put up with it or move. If it’s a burden I recommend moving.

If you think there is hope with price pressure relief you only have to look to Manhattan, because that’s the future you are facing in my opinion.

-edit-

For the example I can’t think of any tier-1 city that has gotten less expensive over time (please do not cite Tokyo or Japan) except maybe Chicago and even then I doubt that it has really gotten cheaper versus just not as expensive as fast as peer cities.

[Izikiel43]

Push for relaxing zoning laws, there was a bill in WA legislature this year which would help, I think this one.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1110&Initiativ...

[djmips]

But then you'd have to live in Minneapolis?

[bluGill]

I grew up there. It is a good place to live: education is valued, lots of nice people, many good jobs.

The weather isn't the best in winter, but if you know how to put on a coat it isn't that bad.

[djmips]

Why don't you still live there?

[bluGill]

Got a job elsewhere a couple downturns back.

[jimbokun]

Which is maybe why rent in Seattle is so relatively expensive?

[recursive]

Instead of Seattle? What's the catch?

[mzmzmzm]

The studio is worth it if you're walking to your restaurant 6 or 7 days a week and checking out other neighborhood hot spots. If you're commuting to an office tower a few days and on Zoom or hiking the rest, it's not. And of course if you make it easier or harder to drive to the office (and consequently worse or better to get around on foot) the prices would shift to reflect that, a good example of how the crisis Andre Cooper is writing about hamstrings unrelated things like transportation policy.

[amyamyamy2]

Most people are not willing to move away from all of their family, friends, and career. Software engineers are uniquely privileged in that we can work remotely, many, many other careers cannot do that

[ericmay]

Remote isn't available for all tech employees (software or otherwise) and historically we have advocated that people move to places like the Bay Area to obtain corresponding higher wages (I have to move to California and uproot all of my friends, family, and career ??). YCombinator itself famously required(s) entrepreneurs to uproot their friends, family, and career to move to the Bay Area.

At the end of the day people can make the right mix of economic and sociological choices that they want. But what's not going to happen is everyone in Seattle gets a 2-3 bedroom house and you can make peace with that fact of life or continue to be frustrated.

[jimbokun]

When, and in what city, has that ever been the case?

I haven't been to Seattle, but in major cities space is at a major premium and many dwellings are tiny. This is offset by the amenities living in a prominent city have to offer.

[Forgeties79]

Why does it matter if it’s ever been the case? Is that adequate justification why things shouldn’t be some way?

You're basically saying "it's fine because that's the way it has always been," which I don't think I need to explain is not a particularly compelling argument.

[hahla]

I just pulled up plenty of 2bd rentals on zillow for under $2,500 with a short commute. Am I missing something here? Or does being a head chef mean you should be able to afford rent on top of the restaurant you serve?

[turtlebits]

That sounds more of a problem of low wages than housing affordability. Also, in these times of title inflation, "head chef" could apply to many positions depending on the size of the restaurant.

[t-writescode]

  * They're a head-chef, that seems like a high-ranking position.
  * That used to feed and house a whole family, easily.
  * They can now **only afford a studio**

[vjk800]

I have absolutely no knowledge of how well chefs in Seattle are paid, but I've heard from elsewhere that operating a high-end restaurant is far from a money machine.

Head chef, unlike senior software developer or something, is a job that doesn't scale much. A rock star chef in a posh neighbourhood is only so much more productive than a mediocre chef in cheaper neighbourhood so, economically speaking, the salaries are not expected to scale all that much.

[varispeed]

I used to know a chef who worked at michelin star restaurant and he had to move to a flat share because he found himself not being able to afford much after paying rent in London.

That sent him to a severe depression and later on an unsuccessful suicide attempt that rendered him unable to work and he became homeless.

[newsclues]

Parents generation:

* father worked in a factory, mom stayed at home * owned a house, 4 kids * 2 cars, annual vacation

The family life of a single factory worker after the war.

[Robotbeat]

“House poor” was typically having to pay at least 25% of your take-home income on housing.

[gambiting]

Sure but obviously that number needs some common sense, right. To make a clearly ridiculous example - if you were making 100k a month and paying 25k for rent you wouldn't be poor in any possible meaning of that word.

If you bring home 6k a month after taxes, and after rent you're left with 4.5k, I'd also argue that's not "barely making ends meet". That leaves a very comfortable breathing room that is unimaginable luxury for most of the world.

[whateveracct]

$90k salary and $2k rent was my situation when I moved to Seattle many years ago. It definitely was comfortable.

My wife was able to also get comparable work and that money wasn't at all needed to help make ends meet, so it went right into student loans and those got paid right quick.

I moved from the Midwest and people warned me about the CoL etc. But you just gross more even if the apartment etc is a bigger percent. And cash is king especially if you have debt or just like buying nice things or both.

[llbeansandrice]

Now add on:

- All forms of insurance - saving for retirement - Rising food costs - Any Healthcare expenses - Car costs - Child care - Subscriptions (phone, internet) - Utilities

All in Seattle

[gambiting]

If you can't fit all of that in four and a half thousand dollars then I don't know what to tell you. I'll repeat myself - someone who has 4.5k left after paying rent is not struggling to make ends meet by any definition of the word, in Seattle or elsewhere.

[Forgeties79]

$4500/mo for everything after the roof over your head is not enough.

Living alone? Probably, assuming you have no major debt and are in great health/have no emergencies.

2 of you? Maybe. Definitely not putting anything away for later that’s for sure. Better not have any emergencies.

Kids? No way.

$4500/mo after paying for your home basically leaves little room for error or, frankly, joy in your life. Can't take trips, can't have pets, can't donate to causes, can't go out to eat much or anywhere nice, etc. We aren't supposed to just work/eat/sleep, we need something to look forward to, we need to be able to weather financial emergencies, and we need to be able to save for later.

[gambiting]

>>$4500/mo after paying for your home basically leaves little room for error or, frankly, joy in your life. Can't take trips, can't have pets, can't donate to causes, can't go out to eat much or anywhere nice, etc

None of this is "struggling to make ends meet". I've seen this before though - people make good money, have a place to live, make payments for a nice car, have enough to put food on the table, to pay for their energy bills, to send their kids to school/childcare, and yet they will say they are barely hanging on because they can't save a lot every year or go on holidays.

Like, I really sympathise, but that's not barely making ends meet. 4.5k after rent is enough to live on almost anywhere in the world.

[pertymcpert]

Ummm childcare is like 2k a month.

[sunnynuts]

I live in the Seattle area, please direct me to where I can find child care for 2k a month without a 1 year+ waiting list... please?!?

[gambiting]

Ok, that leaves another 2.5k to use. Once again, that's not struggling to make ends meet.

[hahla]

Most of these costs (saving for retirement, insurance, subscriptions, car) would be consistent across the US and is not unique to Seattle. $100k in a very expensive city is not much by any means, however what's more concerning is the costs you outlined are consistent and rising for even those living in LCOL or making even less than $100k.

[nottathrowaway3]

>If you bring home 6k a month after taxes, and after rent you're left with 4.5k, I'd also argue that's not "barely making ends meet". That leaves a very comfortable breathing room that is unimaginable luxury for most of the world.

Another aspect of this issue is that, when you take out a typical mortgage, you take a 4-5x leveraged long position on real estate. Rent for a nice 1br in Seattle area is $2K, but the hidden aspect is the landlord is holding the RE risk on your behalf.

Even if mortgage was $1K/mo, I would rather rent (which I do) to avoid this risk in volatile, tech-dependent area like Seattle.

[pertymcpert]

That's true about the risk, however before the recent spike in rates, that leverage was ultra-cheap.

[nottathrowaway3]

>however leverage was ultra-cheap

In nominal dollars yes... but the downside risk was the true cost.

Get in at a low rate and comfortably afford it, then you're doing great despite maybe being underwater for now. But default while underwater and lose whatever you put down plus the difference in price.

TINFA but, exposure to real estate is generally/historically a good hedge to keep pace with wage inflation. I disagree with OP; getting in before rate hikes wasn't necessarily a mistake. But mortgages work the same way that ESPPs and RSU grants work, banks/companies/governments hedge downside risk by convincing a whole bunch of people to be long on a stock (or real estate).

[judge2020]

"was"? When?

Federal DTI maximum for mortgages is 45% with a good credit score and/or cash reserves. For apartment complexes, they typically won't lease, or will require a bigger deposit, if your gross monthly income isn't 3x the rent (which typically means it's 40%+ of your net income).

If 25% 'was' house poor, then at least 90% of today's mortgage-holding and rent-paying Americans are house poor.

[t-writescode]

Yes. Correct.

[isodev]

I think 33% is very high. Also converting the value to % erases the fact that this is still a very high price for what you get in return. Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate the economics around housing - maybe betting against human lives doesn’t feel right. Also, with overpopulation and climate changes, access to housing and the need for relocation will drastically change the landscape of what one needs to do to put a proper roof over their head.

[ejb999]

>>I think 33% is very high. Also converting the value to % erases the fact that this is still a very high price for what you get in return.

Guess it depends on how each person defines 'what you get in return'. It seems this chef values living in a particular expensive neighborhood in Seattle, presumably close to where s/he works - and s/he values that. The smallish apartment size is the tradeoff they make.

[nottathrowaway3]

>maybe betting against human lives doesn’t feel right

This is an inappropriate emotional appeal. Real estate is dependent upon the price/value of labor. It's betting for/against labor prices.

Labor is not your life. You are more than your job.

[zo1]

Warning, uncomfortable honesty ahead. I'd be betting against labor. With all the automation going on, and the "Huge" technological advancements I foresee probably < 20 years away, I don't see why I should do otherwise. I also don't see violent revolutions being a possibility with all the societal level monitoring and controls all countries are putting in place, so I'm betting on pure "capital" and "the means of production". The more I have of it, the more likely I'll be part of the upper strata of society when whatever dystopian tech hell hole we end up getting.

Of course, I won't step on others, and I'll help where my conscience requires me. But at the end of the day (or the end of the world) I am here to provide a safe future for my children, and perhaps secondary, my culture's children... but definitely not to save the world. The world is beyond saving at this point.

[nottathrowaway3]

>The more I have of it [capital], the more likely I'll be part of the upper strata of society when whatever dystopian tech hell hole we end up getting.

Why do you conclude that money will keep you safe? Easy to hyperinflate currency, freeze bank accounts, seize gold, etc. Typically in a "violent revolution" you mentioned, power lies in the military.

[AstralStorm]

Capital comes in many form, and money is just one. Probably most problematic in times of strife.

Assets, in particular high value, portable or hard to destroy ones, that are easy to defend, or skills that are very hard to replace without destroying you or their value.

Military is strong mostly due to the assets it has - obedient manpower and destructive hardware. The problem is, however, that using these assets destroys value in the medium term, not creates.

A factory making guns is worth much more than guns themselves. People who know how to operate it, as well. A working mine is worth more than a mountain.

Every conqueror wants submission and instead reaps destruction.

[nottathrowaway3]

>portable defensible assets

Yes if they have inherent value.

>factory ownership

You only own said factory because government says you do and will enforce your ownership. A junta or communist party might not agree you own it anymore.

[int_19h]

> I also don't see violent revolutions being a possibility with all the societal level monitoring and controls all countries are putting in place

In the world you're describing, they're not just possible, they're inevitable.

Consider the implications of automation taken to the extreme. Today, we have capitalists who own the means of production, and workers who use them to produce value. Workers don't get a fair slice of the pie that they make, but they get some of it at least because labor is needed for capital to be useful. The system is unfair overall and popularly perceived as such, but most people aren't pushed far enough that violent revolt would be rational and feasible.

But if means of production that don't require workers to operate them become dominant, and lots of workers become outright economically redundant, it will literally be a question of what do their children eat tomorrow. And, well, there's a lot more labor; whatever societal monitoring and control tech you devise, it won't help you if 90% of the population realize that the only way they won't starve is if they forcibly take what the other 10% has hoarded.

Not only that, but should that happen, the torches-and-pitchforks mob will target the people on the bottom of the upper class first, simply because they are more prominent in day-to-day interactions, live closer, can afford less security, and don't have ready access to escape routes (like a private plane or yacht). For some vivid descriptions of how this works out for the people who can't escape, read about the 1917 Russian revolution.

So unless you're already comfortably upper class - enough so to afford a bunker in New Zealand or similar arrangements - this doesn't sound like a good long-term survival strategy to me. Indeed, I would argue that, among white collar workers, it's precisely the high middle class people that have the most vested interest in "saving the world", in a sense of coming up with a new economic consensus that would prevent the above scenario - we have to, if we want a safe future for our families. And I don't think it is at all impossible for a political alliance of all labor across the board to push this change. Our societies are bad at democracy, generally speaking, but supermajorities still matter.

[chii]

> But if means of production that don't require workers to operate them become dominant

if this happens, then production of the goods become even cheaper than before. Therefore, the availability becomes higher, and therefore, those who are not redundant would become richer, as they can now afford more, or pay less for what they consume, leaving extra for luxuries.

This would generate demand for new goods/services, which become new opportunities for those who have become redundant. And the cycle continues, until one day, every possible piece of work to be done is automated (ala, star trek).

[int_19h]

Why would it become an opportunity, if you can take care of that new demand with more automation (produced using existing automation)? The "redundant" people become permanently redundant in this arrangement.

[JohnFen]

> I can see that studios, though relatively expensive, range around $1.5-2k a month.

Is that all? That's crazy cheap by the standards of my area. Where I live (a smallish city in western US), the cheapest housing you can find, in the least desirable part of town, starts at $1200/mo.

[kevviiinn]

And its crazy expensive by the standards of my area where you can find a nice 2bed with laundry in the unit for under 1k

[rootsudo]

I would argue that the salary of 110k/yr isn't accurate. That is still entry - mid level tech in Seattle. Granted it has changed recently to be 125-135k, but I do find it hard that a head chef in Seattle would make 110k. 65-85K I can.

Capitol Hill (no one calls it Cap Hill.) is pricy, though $2,000 should find a studio easily, and no car is needed, it's a close knit enough neighborhood.

[Analemma_]

> A quick search leads me to believe that head chef pay in Seattle typically ranges from about 90k-110k per year.

This doesn't sound right to me. Maybe it's true for the very fancy quasi-Michelin places like Canlis or Shiro's, but for a nice-but-average gastropub in Cap Hill it's probably much less.

[MrMan]

if its Coastal Kitchen I could see and would hope the chef is making a grownup amount of money

[judge2020]

It also matters where and how far you are from things. Walkability is a big draw, so if you're within a mile of a major district with tons of food, entertainment, and culture, chances are any well-kept apartment building will raise their prices to account for that (and account for you not having a monthly car payment or auto insurance payment), and if this chef is within a few blocks of their work, it's not hard to believe their rent could be over 3,000 a month or 50%+ of their income (although, typically, management companies want to see your gross income be 3x or more of the rent).

[RHSeeger]

> if you're within a mile of a major district with tons of food, entertainment, and culture

If you're within a mile of _that_, it seems reasonable to define the housing in that area as "prime" and expect it to cost a lot more than further away. The fact that rents for that housing has a cost that is prohibitive for the vast majority of people doesn't seem odd to me.

[judge2020]

This is why I'm replying to a comment stating "I'm curious about the details". Without someone explaining their debts or where they live, we're guessing and arguing about what could drive someone to live in a 400 sqft studio where they make 3x the rent but still live paycheck to paycheck. You pay to live in that area. Even if we vastly increase the supply, these areas will always have an order of magnitude more demand than some apartment complex outside the city's beltway because living in these complexes allows you to drop your car dependency.