I get that some of us are poor students living off of almost nothing, but try to listen when people talk about their own personal situation. People struggle with different things and we should try to learn from them instead of dismissing them.
Aphextron, I actually kinda get where you're coming from. Things like housing are appreciating so fast that you can be forced to rent, then pushed out of a neighbourhood that you helped gentrify because the rent is going up way faster than your ability to pay. The rent controls don't work because landlords can get around them, rarely get caught, and relationships can end without warning.
> The basic necessities of life have risen to perfectly match your income
No, the basic quality of life has risen to perfectly match your income. Houses are more expensive compared to decades ago, but they have nice things like indoor plumbing, electricity, and fire retardant walls; all of which would have been a luxury if you go back long enough. Medical costs have ballooned, but so has the quality of care, life expectancy, and medical technology; so many incurable diseases of generations ago are now easily cured, e.g. Hepatitis C.
There is an argument to be made that we should be able to afford all these things for less, that the price has risen above the rate of its utility, that we have reached the point of diminishing returns for basic necessities, and I agree with that to some extent.
There is also another argument (a libertarian one) that says government has illegalized poverty by raising the floor on the quality of goods and services. For example, if you want to build a 1920-style home (with asbestos-laced walls, without plumbing and electricity, without smoke or CO detectors, etc.) at 1920-level prices, you cannot legally do that due to regulations. The minimum quality set by government regulations have made everything more expensive and one should not be forced to abide by these quality rules if they want to break them knowingly and of free will. There was an story about a (Mexican?) car which was priced at 5000$ new. But it would not pass safety regulations in the US. In that country, you would have a choice to buy a safe car and pay the higher price for it, buy an unsafe car and pay a much lower price, or don't buy a car. In the US, you lose one of these choices and you are more severely affected if you are poor. I see the point in this argument, but I don't agree with it. I like raising minimum standards to match the level the society can afford as it gets more prosperous.
But in either case, let's not pretend we are paying more for getting the same or lower utility. We are living longer and better lives compared to generations past. If we are going to debate about prices across generations, we should also take quality and utility into account. Otherwise the comparison would be meaningless.
I appreciate all your writing, but statistics show lifespans in the U.S. are declining and housing is out of reach for increasing populations. On a mass society level that means something is very wrong and has been for some time. (Lots of folks like to also blame drug use but those have been around for ages.)
I think you’re missing the big picture.
“No, the basic quality of life has risen to perfectly match your income.”
What? That sounds ideological.
Living in Canada, my perspective is a bit different. We have not observed the drop in life expectancy that the US has. But then again, let's keep things in perspective. Even after the drops, life expectancy in the US is higher than even early 2000s, let alone 60s or 70s:
https://data.oecd.org/chart/5ccg
>> “No, the basic quality of life has risen to perfectly match your income.”
> What? That sounds ideological.
Not ideological. Maybe my phrasing was ambiguous, but that sentence was supposed to be a summary of what I expanded on for the rest of my comment.
I also really think that two forces have simultaneously make the west worse. First, we try to educate everyone in the same subjects until they're almost adults. It's dumb. The level of skill you can get working with wood or computers from the age of 5 just pales in comparison with what you can pickup at 18. There should be a baseline, absolutely, but there should also be a measurable amount of tailored specialization from a young age. The second thing that is making the west worse is an absolutism on thinking about rights around property. Car-centric cultures are so stupid and inefficient. Everyone builds their own pool. Everyone builds their own gym. Nobody is happy because we're all separated from each other.
Bay area
~$5,000 net monthly
$2500 Rent/PGE
$1000 Car/Insurance/Gas/Parking/Phone/Internet
$500 Food/Clothing
$500 IRA
That leaves ~$500 monthly discretionary income, which I usually try to save as much as possible but inevitably gets eaten up by all the stupid little things in life that cost too much nowadays. I can't even imagine supporting a family on this income and it is far higher than most people will ever see.
I'm certainly not saying that my choices are the "right" ones, but I am saying that if you make saving for the future a high priority it's possible to do at your income level, even in the Bay Area.
PS One day you will realize that things you once thought important are actually unimportant. If you keep saving for that day, you will be in fine shape. There is no need for angst, today. If I might make a recommendation - run some numbers as to where you will be if you decrease your expenses, increase your income, save more, etc. Do all that, forecasting for a set period of time, and do not pay any financial advisors or ask anyone else. Just use your own efforts to investigate. If you do that, I believe you will make the best decision for what to do.
But, on your point - you did the math wrong. He has $12,000 discretionary income not $6,000. He likely already paid his last month's rent of $2,500, and he already mentioned savings. So, it makes no sense for you to infer that it will take him a year to move if he loses his job.
Also, do you have a 401k contribution coming out as well? I assume the $500 IRA is a Roth IRA?
By that same argument I could make $200K, sock $5000 per month away in savings and say "I only have $500 in discretionary funds each month! I'm barely making it!"
I tend to agree with you. In your position, you need to really want to live in SV for it to be worth it; you're paying a huge premium for the benefit of paying that huge premium.
I live in one of the 25 most affluent counties in the US and just bought a brand new build 5 bedroom 3.5 bath house 2900 square feet for a little over 320K.
This was my first thought as well when looking at the new Republican tax brackets. They're throwing peanuts at the poor in the form of a minuscule tax break, while simultaneously cutting off their ability to ever actually build wealth by raising the middle rates.
As it turns out, getting taxed on revenue is far more punishing.
I was making 90k in the Boston area within the past few years.
On that salary I was able to support two adults, pay back student loans faster than needed, max out my 401k (company match up to $10k or something like that) and build saving at a rate of about $1k/mo, go out to dinner every 3wk or so and have enough to direct meaningful amounts into my hobbies and other discretionary spending.
That said, if you try to live like you're wealthy (shopping at whole foods, $2k+ rent, going out to drink, take uber everywhere, expensive cable, phone and internet, etc, etc) and generally hemorrhage money I can see how one could live little better than paycheck to paycheck on 90k in the Boston area.
Metro Boston/Cambridge is pretty expensive these days as are some especially tony suburbs but you can get out toward reasonable property/rents relatively quickly. And, with the exception of newer outposts of companies from SV and elsewhere, a lot of existing tech is outside the city anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_locations_b...
I'm not saying 90K is a lot, but it is complete hyperbole to say it isn't sufficient to live in the Bay. 90K is right up there with the highest median household incomes.