Is that really true? I saw some one-bedroom apartments there for $3500 -- expensive but even with that, 300K is a decent amoount. According to an online tax calculator, the take home pay is 185,000 or 15.4K per month.

Even if you spend a bit and spend another 3K per month on stuff like food, bills, and some spending money, that's still almost 9K that you can save per month. Sounds VERY lavish to me. So lavish that in 15 years of work you could save up 1.6 million, buy a cheap house somewhere (or already have one from buying it while working there) for $500K and have 1.1 million to live frugally on and just work on side projects for a little extra cash.

The strange thing about this retirement plan is that it assumes you will spend 15 years living somewhere, and then one day just walk away from all the social ties you've made during that period, during the prime of your life. I suppose there are people who could probably do this, but for most folks, this is not going to be a joyful path.

Well, the point was not the plan, but the ludicrous amount of money you still get and could still use to live there if you wish.

The people tagging data are making much less.

Bro. $300k puts them into the top 2% of income in the US. It's expensive but not a struggle by any means.

But not for the Bay Area. As of November 2024, the median price of a home in the Bay Area is around $1,316,500.

On a 3:1 debt to income ratio, I'd put median income for the area for those who can afford to buy a home there is approx $350K (80% financing on median home price).

300k is a lot of money. You can afford to live in SF quite comfortably on that. And save to buy a house and raise kids.

Wildly incorrect. $300k will let you live comfortably in SF, without roommates.

The fact that some people cannot live alone on that salary in SF does not mean most people cannot. I make considerably less than that and I could make it work. I wouldn't, because that would destroy my ability to save anything, but I could do it.