There's no way that's adequate to, ten years from now, have enough to afford a nice home anywhere in the Bay Area, unless there's some unprecedented adjustment in affordibility vs compensation. My opinion is based on having a high ranking job at (usually) the most valuable company in the world, and having been in California over a decade.

Well by afford I mean can afford a 30-year mortgage on a $1.2m home. Assuming this imaginary person spends his decade or so in the $130-200k range (solid career advancement, probably overly optimistic) and shells between $10-$30k a year into savings, that would be maybe 15% down.

My opinion is based on having absolutely no experience in home buying while making the greatest attempt possible to be optimistic about my future in the Bay Area.

Yeah, that math is not going to work, even closely.

$200K a year works out at around $11K/month after tax.

15% on a $1.2M home is $180K - even by your estimations that's 6-18 years savings.

So a $1.02M loan over 30 years... 1.1% property tax, 0.5% PMI, 4% interest...

You're looking at a $6,000 mortgage payment (www.mortgagecalculator.org).

Yes, frugal living says you could manage that at 200K.

Your mortgage originator is not even remotely, no matter how convincing you are, going to underwrite a loan with a mortgage payment of 55% of your after tax income.

At 130K, no. That's 85% of your paycheck going to mortgage.

> Your mortgage originator is not even remotely, no matter how convincing you are, going to underwrite a loan with a mortgage payment of 55% of your after tax income.

Not in 2016 at least.

Sorry, but a $1.2m house, including mortgage, taxes, insurance and the general cost of owning a home is not affordable to someone making 200k/yr, much less the $180,000 down payment you are suggesting. That isn't to say it is impossible, but the house would own you.