Your second listing has an estimated sale value of nearly $1.7m. Your third is nearly $2mil. Have you ever tried to get a loan for that much at that income with a traditional 20% down? (Assuming you have 350-400k laying around) You will not get approved for a loan on that at $250k/yr. Your monthly cost on that first home is $8,375 after tax (tax is around 1.2-1.6% in CA) + insurance. That's past the maximum 36% of gross monthly income. https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/mortgages/how-much-can-i-... Try the calculator. In general, going past 4x yearly income is not going to get approved by a bank. Theoretically, you might find some lender who'd do it but I haven't seen many. Most people buying here are buying homes with cash or really large down payments.
The fact you're even mentioning negotiations on buying homes in the bay area tells me you have no idea how the market here works. There are bidding wars - there aren't negotiations.
At this point - it's obvious that you're completely out of touch. You think spending 50%+ of your take home pay on rent is sustainable and that you can somehow retire with that expense. Maybe lay off the tidepods?
>Your first listing is an apartment. Shouldn't have to explain why that's not a house.
It's not an apartment, it's a condo, which is a form of housing.
>Your second listing has an estimated sale value of nearly $1.7m.
At $1.7m sale price you're still close to the 30% rule and still have more than 5k/mo discretionary spend, which again, is more than most americans make monthly, period, even before paying for a house. The fact that you think this would make you "poor" is absurd and quite frankly, insulting. I'm sure my friend who owns that house in Sunset and has a boat and goes on nice vacations all the time will be bummed to hear that he's apparently "poor". I'll also let my Nob Hill friend know, too. Tell me, do you think commenting on their pic from the St Regis Bora Bora is a good way to break the news to them that they are actually poor?
All of this is also completely ignoring the fact that this is talking about someone making $250k/yr (which is near the beginning of their career for a FAANG engineer) paying for this house by themselves, when in reality the expectation in the entire rest of the world is that you shouldn't be expecting to buy a home like this until your 30s or 40s. There's a reason "starter homes" are a thing, and these listed homes are not that. You have incredibly warped expectations if you think that the target market for these 3br, 3bath homes are 25 year old single people. If you were an engineer in your 30s, you're looking at an income more like 300-400k at a FAANG, and if your spouse also has an income, these houses are trivially affordable.
Again, the median family income in SF is less than $100k, and they seem to be doing fine. For you to sit here and try to argue that "$300k isn't enough" is ludicrous and reeks of ultra privilege. You need a reality check.
> You're not even close to being "poor in the end with it"
> The fact that you think this would make you "poor" is absurd and quite frankly, insulting
"House poor" is a distinct term that describes a home purchase where home expenses (not just mortgage) drain cash flow in a way that prevents hitting other goals - hence this point:
> You shouldn't be spending close to 50% of your take home on RENT. You will never be able to retire and live the same lifestyle.
A very different notion than "poor" alone. Also, you'd have to put at least closer 25-30% down on that home without absolutely perfect credit; jumbo loans have been tightening awhile.
> Again, the median family income in SF is less than $100k, and they seem to be doing fine.
What do you mean by doing fine, exactly? Not to nitpick, but I was under the impression most people buying in SF are not native to the city.
The general guidance is that 30% of your gross income should be spent on rent. After taxes, that equates to ~40-50% of your take home goes to rent. That's normal for everyone, not just in SF. It is not a "fucked ratio of expenses" at all, and in any case, "thousands" left over after rent is still an extravagant amount of discretionary income.
>I don't know how your friend affords a high rise on $140k/yr - maybe you should ask what their rent is and if they're sharing it with someone.
I'm not going to dox my friend but I just looked up their building and there are 1br apartments for $3-3.3k/mo, and it is a very nice building/apartment. 3k/mo is easily doable on $140k/yr.
>You can't buy a house now with $250k/yr in inner sunset. Go to Zillow and find me a nice house you can afford on $250k/yr and won't be house poor in the end with. Do it - prove me wrong.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1345-16th-Ave-APT-7-San-F...
Literally the first result. Gorgeous 2 bedroom, and at 250k you'd have ~7-8k each month left over after mortgage. 7-8k per month is more money than most people in SF make period, even before paying for their homes. You're not even close to being "poor in the end with it". Also well below the "thirty percent rule" with this condo.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1485-11th-Ave-San-Francis...
Second result. 3 bedrooms, central air, all the amenities. At 250k/yr. At the list price (assuming you can't negotiate lower) with a house note of 5-6k/mo, you are still within the "thirty percent rule" without even stretching your income, and you're still looking at ~6k+ in discretionary spending after paying the house note.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/717-Kirkham-St-San-Franci...
3 bed, 3 bath condo. All the amenities. At 250k/yr, this condo would put you at slightly above the thirty percent rule which isn't wise depending on how much you want to be able to save for retirement, but still doable without worrying about money, and certainly still not even close to worrying about being "poor".
And these are three that I picked off of Zillow in literally 10 minutes without any further research. With any actual effort and talking to an agent, the prices and options would likely be even better.