I know the cost of living at least in SF, and it is my contention that most entry level engineers should be able to save six months expenses per year trivially. Of course, if you eat out every night and blow all your money on booze, partying, and the most upscale apartment you can find, it would be harder. But a person who is making any real effort would not find it difficult.
>But a person who is making any real effort would not find it difficult.
As long as they don't have a family or want to build equity in a home. The justifications for the costs in this thread are so myopic that it's baffling.
I guess if you plan on remaining an entry-level engineer for your whole life, it would indeed be difficult to afford a home in SF. (This bit about family and house is known as "shifting the goal-post," btw. We're talking about the ability of a single engineer to save six months' living expenses.)
Assuming a promotion is known as "shifting the goal-post" too. You are essentially saying you are correct as long as you make more money than the original amount specified.
Okay, you said it's trivial for an entry-level engineer to save six months living expenses. That's $12k for housing and ~$4k for food and transportation. That's the majority of the leftover money after rent, taxes, transportation, and food for a year without any savings. I'm not sure you are correctly using the term 'trivial'.
No offense, but I'm strongly inclined to believe that you are not making it by on 80k a year in SF, and if you made that little money at one point, it was not for an extended enough period of time for you to properly understand what it afforded you. Your estimates seem to be nothing more than back of the napkin calculations missing major components like half of the taxes. Your numbers fit to someone making 100k+.
Edit: Also, you didn't even address the direct counter-point to your argument that the savings is "trivial".
It does not offend me that you assume I make more money than I'm arguing over, and you are not wrong. I also lived in a $500/mo room in an apartment with two others when I made that much money, so I was saving like a boss. Travel was actually a larger expense than housing.
As far as addressing counterpoints, I've grown tired of quibbling. I think that you can live comfortably spending 66% of your income net of taxes per year without any undue effort if you make $80k a year in SF. I think anyone who looks into it would find the same to be true. That's my last word in this conversation.
>As far as addressing counterpoints, I've grown tired of quibbling. I think that you can live comfortably spending 66% of your income net of taxes per year without any undue effort if you make $80k a year in SF. I think anyone who looks into it would find the same to be true. That's my last word in this conversation.
That's fine. As long as you can admit that you are just arm-chairing it and haven't actually had to live under those restrictions.
