Re:Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for s...
by Bahamut on Saturday February 23, 2019 @08:02PM
(#19236438)
What the heck would you be spending $ on to be living with a non-significant other roommate necessarily at $300k?
This is extraordinary hyperbole that pretty much ignores what it’s really like in the Bay Area - many people making $100k or even less don’t even live with roommates here if they don’t want to. I make over $300k myself and the only reason I have a roommate is because she’s one of my best friends and I am helping her out while she’s early in her career.
There’s no need to put down another place just due to whatever biases, especially if there are few facts behind it. It’s ok to like where you’re at without going to extraordinary lengths to stretch it to everyone.
Re:Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for s...
by closeparen on Monday February 25, 2019 @12:11AM
(#19243163)
Saving up $100k/year towards ownership is just treading water; prices will easily rise that much on their own. This leaves another ~$70k/year to play with in your $300k salary. The marginal cost of living alone vs. with roommates is not insignificant in that context. So yes, if you are making $300k/year and serious about buying, it would be hard to justify renting an entire apartment.
Absolutely agree that you can afford to live alone if you do not particularly care about buying.
300k is living with a roommate level IMO unless you’re just looking to buy a 1 bedroom and not have kids.