This is a bullshit story for sure. Anyone who lives in Seattle knows this is simply not true. If you move south to Kent or Tacoma you will find a lot of places with a decent rent.
Same if you start moving north to Shoreline and above.
Those places are not far from Seattle. If you live in a freaking RV in downtown that's definitely your choice.
I don't make 250k, my wife's income included, and we own a home just north of Seattle. I bus it in and she drives to her job in Ballard. That must be some new hipster trend, 'cause that ain't forced =[
If it isn't some hipster trend, they should hit up some Seattle companies...
not to be crass, but in the past week I've had a few recruiters from there write me about interesting (and probably better paying compared to here) job opportunities that I've had to turn down because I'm 1) not very interested in moving to the US right now, and 2) somewhat rooted here in Toronto at the moment.
Unrelated to the last bit, but related to my experience: sounds like just hipster stuff to me. That, or maybe a quiet protest of sorts— or both. If they're happy, and functional, and it's not a problem to people, then I'm not sure it's worth much worry.
Just a little further north in Vancouver... now that's a homeless problem. (East Hastings area, for the unaware)
Agreed. There is a huge difference in having bought just three or four years ago versus now. The median price in the city has skyrocketed to $777k and on the Eastside it's just short of $1 million. Even in Shoreline, I don't see anything for under $400k on Redfin. "Just north of Seattle" used to mean Shoreline or Lake Forest Park. These days, it's the Alderwood side of Lynnwood and almost up to Paine Field.
(Also, there's a pretty big gap in salary of "we don't make $250k and we own." It's possible to buy a $600k house on under $200k/year and $600k will still buy you something even in Bellevue.)
We bought about two years ago and live in Wallingford. It's starting to get crazy but there are still reasonable places to be had, especially as you get into summer. Seems to work out, and we're very happy with the area.
No offense, but there's only so specific I'm going to get about my income with a bunch of people on ycombinator.... Hackernews if you prefer. I'm not throwing the specifics around the internet, at all =)
I think it's also a mistake to think that someone living in an RV is homeless: a) Is an RV any less a home than a mobile home in a trailer park? b) More people are opting for a nomadic lifestyle that combines the advantage of working anywhere with the ability to "see the world".
I also think that finding a dead-end street full of RVs near down-town Seattle might mean there's not a convenient Wal-Mart parking lot or a campground close enough to the center of the action. With the huge increase in campground prices, I'd probably be looking for safe, free parking if I was RVing full-time.
When I started college, I commuted from Bothell to UW, it was totally doable if not very nice. But back then, I could rent a room for $215/month two blocks north of UW and tuition was only $800/quarter. Kind of stupid to do that given living in Seattle was much more reasonable.
Tacoma at least has a commuter train these days, though I guess that would add to your commute costs. I have a relative who reverse commutes from West Seattle to Tacoma and it’s decent enough (because traffic goes the other way).
Tukwila or SeaTac should have decent rents and are accessible to downtown by light rail.
I looked at that as an option here (Toronto) to escape ridiculous rents and the price of a berth is absolutely astronomical. The boats themselves sell in excess of $700K, which while cheaper than a house, a house doesn't have $3000/mo. plus in berthing fees.
Charles Mudede is the Stranger's equivalent of an internet troll. As soon as I saw the title I knew he wrote this. No one in the region takes him seriously as a journalistic force.
Sweeping generalizations? Check
One sided / shallow presentation of complex societal issues? Check
Half baked rant out the changing nature of the city? Check
The middle class in Seattle doesn't live in an RV in Seattle. They live in Auburn, Burien, Renton, Lynnwood, and Everett. Same is true for any other large city, no? How many middle class people live in downtown Boston, or San Jose?
I've heard a lot lately about people who avoid many expenses, including rent, in order to save a lot from decent jobs and retire early. If the author of this blog post had talked to them, maybe conclusions could have been drawn.
Yeah, it seems likely the author is just in that majority class of people who cannot conceive of any living arrangement outside the conventional stick-and-mortar dwelling bound to property or rent. That is, after all, what the ``American Dream'' of the past 100 years-or-so was built upon.
The Stranger is a notorious left-wing tabloid that loves to pick fights with the rest of the city, especially its more centrist rival, the Seattle Times. Stranger articles are consistently slanted with a pessimistic view of anything that doesn't help make life luxuriously comfortable for the 5% who choose to lead alternative lifestyles.
In a lot of ways I envy these people; there's a lot of hardship they face with the lack of permanent address, and I can't imagine that RV living is incredibly pleasant nor cheap compared to more conventional housing, but they're also untethered in ways that make living "normally" seem like the crazy proposition. Job stability is basically out the window in the modern economy, so why tether yourself to a lease? With the gig economy, RV living allows you, at least theoretically, to follow the jobs in a way most only dream of. In rising housing prices, it's stable rent by comparison. Being able to take your whole home with you on vacation is another huge plus.
Sorry you are getting downvoted into oblivion. From the descriptions in this article it does sound like a solidly middle-class couple who are _choosing_ to live this lifestyle. Money is not tight if they are Lyft'ing to the grocery store etc. There are a lot of people who just assume if you are in a boat or RV you are destitute or mentally ill. If this describes you, check your assumptions. Maybe they are just not bought into the 'work yourself to death to buy/rent a house as big as you can afford and then fill it with junk you dont want or need'
I and my wife lived in our RV in silicon valley (thanks San Jose elks lodge) for a period of time. We chose a lifestyle where I would do consulting for six months a year in SV and then travel for 6 months. After several years of renting, furnishing, establishing utilities in a place only to unwind that all a few months later, we thought just getting an RV and staying in it was a better solution. So for several years we'd spend six months in the RV in San Jose, and then the other six months doing things like road tripping through Alaska, hanging out in Key West, sailing the Mexican riviera etc.
There's definitely some downsides to living in a small space, with a low level of stability - but in that phase of our life the trade-off to be able to travel for months at a time was well worth it.
When you're healthy (physical, mental, what have you), there's no dependents to worry about, no worries about personal safety at night, and a reasonable ability to walk into an average retail store and pick up a job ... that's one thing. Unfortunately a great deal of homeless folks don't fit into that very narrow criteria (much narrower than I expect most folks to realize), and so it's a metaphorical nightmare of a gun-in-the-head to take. Sometimes literally.
In a lot of ways I envy these people; there's a lot of hardship they face with the lack of permanent address, and I can't imagine that RV living is incredibly pleasant nor cheap compared to more conventional house, but they're also untethered in ways that make living "normally" seem like the crazy proposition.
When it’s a choice you get to make, not when it’s your only choice. Don’t you have a shred of empathy? Envy them... Jesus Christ this site!
Freedom from dignity or the respect of your peers, of stability, of the ability to start or raise a family, and freedom from much of the dating pool. As a bonus you get to wonder when what little you have might vanish and you’re “free” from that too, and “free” to live on the streets.
I joke that the way to afford rent in LA is to live in your car. I grew up there and last visit I had one friend who sleeps in his van when he sublets his apartment and another who was looking to buy a van to live rent free for a while. It's amazing that we haven't started building upward yet.
A van parked at the Berkeley Marina is looking like a pretty good option in the bay area. I could sublet my Piedmont place and spend the few thousand on some sweet van digs.
I worked with someone that was living on an boat he had purchased (for not much) in Marina del Rey. He would commute by motorcycle (much cheaper than a car) and was probably making a minimum of $50k-60k. Seems like a smart way to save money if you can make the space sacrifice.
Homelessness is middle class in Rio and Cape Town and Johannesburg. What that means is that hundreds of thousands of people in those cities live in informal settlements in houses built on dirt out of trash and scrap.
So my impression is that Seattle often jumps the gun regulating things away--banning things that actually increase quality of life/spending power. We all know that those without discretionary income are the first to feel drops in spending power (due to regulation, etc.).
I'm also reminded of a great chapter in "Downtown: Its Rise and Fall" which talks about the special interests behind and the consequences of tenement reform, consequences which were largely negative if you were poor. I can't help wondering if similar forces have led to Seattle's present-day predicaments.
what does it matter whether seattle is hostile to jitneys? (a word whose definition I just learned). I see lots of private small buses around seattle. buses for google, tmobile, i think facebook, and many unsigned buses.
She's jumping to conclusions. Lots of people enjoy living in camper vans and RVs. It's a fun, cheap, and adventurous way to live. I know people who own a house in a ski town, and they'll take off for weeks at a time living out of their camper van.
TBH there's a good chance they make more money than the author.
There's a massive, massive, huge difference between voluntarily taking an extended trip in your 'camper van' (which is probably a $50k+ Mercedes or similar if the owners "own a house in a ski town") and having to live in a shitty, broken down RV as a home.
I live in the area, and I actually have calculated how much an upper middle class existence would cost for a family of 3. $90k or so. Upper middle class mortgage from 2012, taxes, one midrange car loan, medical insurance, utilities, food, other insurance, one decent vacation a year. Pretty good lifestyle, all in all. As a family of 3 you don’t even have to work that hard to earn this amount in Seattle area. So I have a fairly limited amount of compassion towards the dwellers of tent cities etc.
A mortgage on a $90k income would responsibly top out under $300k, and that's after putting down 20%. Average house in Seattle today runs just about $800k. It was closer to $400k in 2012.
Unless you come back and specify that you meant Kent or Renton, $90k unquestionably and unarguably would not provide an upper middle class lifestyle in Seattle. Not in 2012, and definitely not today.
Wait, seriously? Can you provide the data? I think you have a seriously huge hole in your model if you're basing your housing costs on a mortgage on a 2012 priced house. Try nearly doubling that part.
This means a basic average lifestyle in Seattle now only takes 150% of the average wage in the state, or about 120% of the average income in Seattle, the city.
Meanwhile lots of people complain about getting forced out ... I'd say those complaints are probably justified.
Also keep in mind that "average wage" is among those who work. Since the participation rate in the US is about 60% ... the remaining 40% doesn't even usually have average wage.
Interesting. Would you mind posting some of your calculations/data here? I live in NYC myself -- probably a bit more expensive than Seattle -- but even as a single, young, healthy person, $90k wouldn't feel very comfortable here. I make a lot more than that because I work in tech, but I'm still concerned about retirement plans (is $18k/year in my 401k really enough? What if market returns start to stagnate?). I'm really curious where you got your numbers from though, because on 90k salary, your (twice-monthly) paycheck should end up around $2800, before subtracting things like social security/etc. So you probably take home a little less than $5k/month at the end of it all.
Of note in your calculations:
- upper middle class mortgage from 2012. According to zillow [1], median home price in 2012 was $353k. Today it's $800k, over twice that -- 2012 was the worst year in a long time for Seattle housing. Probably 2k/month, right? At 90k, that's going to be about 50% of your salary after tax -- not abysmal, but certainly not close to the 1/3 rule I've always been told. Then again, it's owning rather than renting, so maybe it's justifiable. Biggest problem I see here is that there aren't that many folks who managed to buy their house at the best possible time to do so, and anybody who's moved to Seattle since 2012 is going to pay closer to $4k/month for that same home.
--one midrange car loan: I don't think just one car would be very comfortable for a family of three living in the suburbs of Seattle. Again, doable -- maybe only one parent works, and the child is young, so you could carpool to school/one job/other job, but it sounds like a lot of commuting for whoever has to drop off the others. In Seattle traffic, that could easily end up being 2 hours of driving just to get to and from work, every morning and every evening. Doesn't leave much room for flexibility though. According to Experian Automotive, the average American monthly car payment is $500 [2].
-medical insurance: assuming this isn't provided by your employer, I could easily see this eating the rest of your income after tax. I pray that anybody in this situation has insurance through work. Apparently the average American family is spending between $10k-$20k on insurance, including deductibles [3], so... $1k-$2k/month.
So if nobody gets sick in this family, you've still got $1k/month for food and luxuries like eating out, going to concerts, or activities outside of work.
-one decent vacation a year: I never vacationed growing up (family was relatively poor), but I'd guess that for a family of three any real vacation is going to end up in the thousands (my guess would be around $3-5k, though I have little idea). So maybe if you just spend $400-500/month on food, you could put away whatever's left (maybe $500, tops?) to take a vacation every year.
So I suppose $90k is livable, based on what I see here. But it doesn't sound great, and doesn't leave much room for things like serious medical issues, buffer room if you get fired, or even the ability to pay for something like a summer program for your kid. And what about gifts for birthdays, or if your car breaks down, or you get robbed, etc. etc.? Sounds like you're working hard every day but never getting ahead.
Oh, and now that I remember... what about saving for retirement, and saving for college (because you're making $90k, so the government isn't going to give your kid much financial assistance)? Well, I guess we'll just work forever, and the kid will take on $50k of debt to go to a cheaper state school. And then when she graduates and tries to live on $90k in Seattle, we'll have to take into account even worse housing prices AND her student loan payments...
That’s not “salary before tax”, that’s $90k _net_, as in, living off the savings or $90k in post tax income. But it also has fairly generous budgets for groceries ($2k/mo) and one $7k vacation a year, and real estate taxes as of 2018, with house value more than doubled.
I calculated this just to see whether I have to work. Turns out I don’t, but I work anyway.
Oh my gosh I'm terribly sorry, I totally misinterpreted what you meant. 90k post-tax before saving for college/retirement sounds, sadly, very right for Seattle today-- since your model uses 2012 housing prices, I'm not sure I even want to think about what it would be using 2018 housing prices.
However, the exercise of calculating those numbers out was still very interesting -- particularly the fact that I pay close to 2x the taxes of a Seattle-ite as a New Yorker. Holy cow, state and local taxes take a huge chunk out of my pay. I really wonder what NYS/NYC do with those taxes... but perhaps more importantly, how does Seattle get by without state/local taxes? Who pays for public transit subsidies? I guess it must come from property taxes? Boy I wish NYC charged more property taxes, especially since metropolis properties are largely owned by the very, very rich and even with a respectable tech salary I'll likely never own property in the city ever.
Keep voting for tax-and-spend politicians, and sky is the limit in terms of taxes. There are always creative ways to piss money away.
But to emphasize once again, this is upper middle class, with very little compromise. Not everyone has to live like this. Not everyone has to pay $10k/yr in property taxes or spend $2k/mo on food, or budget $1500/mo in health insurance/out of pocket costs. We factored in inviting people over, etc. Basically little to no change in lifestyle.
I think the implication of 1 car loan is that the purchases will be staggered, so you're only in debt for one car at a time.
It's definitely possible for a family to spend $3-5k on a vacation, but it's also possible to spent waaaayyyy less than that (mostly by not flying somewhere)
That certainly makes more sense. But I suppose we then need to factor in maintenance/inspection costs (probably at least a couple thousand a year) + gas costs if we want to be really thorough :)
> but even as a single, young, healthy person, $90k wouldn't feel very comfortable here.
WTF???? Where the hell does your money go? I felt _very_ comfortable when I was making $75k and living in lower Manhattan walking distance from my job near wall street, in a market rate apartment I easily found. And I participated in the culture of going out all the time, and built up modest 401k savings.
Really, where on earth does your money go?
I hate hearing bullshit like this because at the same time, so much evil that goes on does so because people "gotta make a living" ... Well, no, wasting so much money is a choice, not a need. And if you don't control it it will expand to consume any amount of income.
I used to know sales guys who made 7 figures but still fretted about money and did desperate shady shit at work to make more money, and treated it no different than a starving man stealing a loaf of bread for his family. Disgusting. Radix malorum est cupiditas, my friends.
Were you saving for retirement at the time? I'm pretty conservative with spending, but when you consider you should be putting away at least 18k/year (presumably via 401k, + employer match) if you ever expect to retire, and in manhattan you'll probably be spending at least 1500k/month for rent, plus you've got to pay for food and transportation...
$90k/year in NYC pre-tax -> ~$60k/year in NYC post-tax. State and local taxes hit hard when they're a combined 10%ish.
Out of that $60k, you'll probably be spending at least $20k on rent alone. Factor in utilities and you're getting closer to $22k total for the year. So we're already down to $38k tops.
Food is going to cost you at least $200/month if you've got a decent diet, your work doesn't provide food for you, etc. In Manhattan I'd be impressed if you could get that low, because stuff tends to be a lot more expensive here, but it's probably possible if you're frugal. So after food you're hitting $35k left over.
Transportation: most of us don't work in LES, the nexus of cheap housing in Manhattan below 90th. Most people work in FiDi or Midtown, and rent is expensive there, so either you're spending a lot more on housing, splitting a bedroom with someone to hit the $1500/month price point, or commuting in from an outer borough. Regardless if you're living in the city you probably use the subway sometimes... so let's take $130/month out for an unlimited subway pass. If you commute both ways 5 days a week you're basically even on pay-per vs. unlimited, and hopefully you leave your apartment on weekends, so it's probably worth it. So you're now at $33k left over.
Now let's take that $18k/year out for retirement, since the USA will let you starve on the street if you hit 65 without savings and Social Security is not a replacement for retirement savings. Now we're at $15k after the fact. So you've got $15k a year to:
1) save for a down payment on a house/apartment down the line (unless you want to be a renter for life)
2) big-ticket non-regular expenses, like buying furniture, clothes, traveling
3) maintain a 6-month safety buffer in a relatively liquid form (so... 30k to cover rent/food if you lose your job?)
4) medical expenses
5) saving for children, college, pets, a car, etc. down the line
6) luxuries like going out to eat, getting a drink/coffee with friends, or a gym membership
If your rent is closer to $2k/month (if, for instance, you want to live alone in a decent apartment) you'll have $9k left over for this. God forbid you have to dump $400/month on student loans, which is easy to rack up even if you went to a state school.
Yeah I guess it's possible, though it looks to me like your budget is going to be pretty tight the minute you start saving responsibly for retirement. I've got more wiggle room because my job pays more than $90k, but I definitely have a fear of a huge medical expense or getting fired from my job.
Anyway, I'm curious if you have a different perspective on this. Do you think things like going to the dentist/eye doctor/yearly physicals are luxuries? $75k sounds brutal in lower Manhattan, but maybe I'm not seeing something. Was this in the 90s/early 2000s or something?
Also, I completely agree that if you're making good money you still need to have morals. But please don't conflate my point of "NYC is expensive" with "bullshit" just because I try to be financially responsible. I think you might have a good argument here but there's no need to resort to insulting words and ad hominem attacks.
Oh I'm aware -- I just mean that I think, bare minimum, a person could get by on around $200/month worth of food. Buy the cheapest ground meat possible, beans, and the cheapest vegetables available and just eat chili all the time and you can stretch that pretty far. Add rice into the mix and you've almost got some variety!
I was trying to be conservative here because food costs vary so much from person to person. I have a lot of friends who eat out probably at least once per day on average, and friends who never eat out. Friends who buy the nicest cuts of meat and friends who try to keep things as cheap as possible. I'd guess it varies a lot more than rent.
Agree entirely, on a bean oat potato egg and vegetable diet, you'll be healthy, eating fairly tasty, and spend maybe $100 / month. (Not sure how you got $200, my experience was different?
Food costs can be much higher if you choose to indulge in luxury, but those are all choices. You don't need to eat out or eat any meat at all. I sure enjoy it, but needs first, wants second.
The original topic was how much money you need, not want
I think you can still cut that budget in half. ( What are you cooking that takes up the most cost? Meat maybe?) I spend too much on food these days because I can and am lazy but when I was on top of it we spent $200 a month to feed TWO people with healthy tasty food. On that budget obviously it's just groceries and produce, no takeout or beverages or meat
Also, i found nyc and manhattan to not be much more expensive for groceries than central arkansas or NJ, my other adult reference points, contrary to popular belief
Let me start by apologizing for an insulting tone. Your reply was so thoughtful and constructive I was chagrined, so thanks. It's not about you, I'm just angry about a society that tries hard to trick people into thinking a happy life is much more expensive than it really is.
That said most of your assumptions about my budget are wrong which explains why we disagreed to begin with:
1. Yes I was saving for retirement, like $6k, but half was an employer 401k match so it did not come from my budget. It's tight but enough. I won't have to live near an expensive business district when I'm retired, obviously. Where do you get your 18k figure from BTW? Also, 100pct of any raises after that went into savings, but my point was it was easy to live comfortably before then... Also, why not factor Social Security? It's estimated to be 79% funded so yiu could just subtract 21%. I am slightly more conservative and assume I'll only get he standard SSI payment (the bsre minimum you get if you did not work at all) whixh was about $700 a few years ago
2. It took modest effort to find a market rate $1700 1.5br I shared with my SO at the time, for $850 of rent. If you don't believe it was relatively easy to find i can go into more detail. Thr apart was fine. It only lacked meaningless luxuries like the latest most stylish bathroom tiles or track lighting or whatever inane things they're cominguo with today to part renters from their hard earned money
3. I did not say i worked in LES. You assumed. I worked in the fidi, by battery park. 45 min walk, 15 min bike ride, 20min subway.
4. Anyone who doesn't use the subway roundtrip 6 days a week is wasting money if they get the monthly pass. I like to call it the worst deal in NYC. I walked or biked most of the time, so I spent little on subway commuting. (Ironically, I occasionally took a taxi, and still spent less than if I had a subway pass)
5. Furniture, clothes... Uh these are cheap to the point of irrelevance if you buy secondhand, but very expensive if you're a sucker....
6. Not much travel. I strategically chose to live in a city in which I would not feel much urge to travel because I can find travel experiences just a borough or less away... Or a bit further out, other parts of the Northeast cheaply accessible by train or rented car. The Northeast is very diverse terrain, with climate varying from DC to Vermont, mountains, beaches, towns, villages, cities, a real swell place. I think that was wise, given how much people spend on vacations when they go distant places which, since they can only afford a brief time, they then barely get a chance to learn about more superficially than one could through wikipedia :(
7. Yeah I paid about $400 a month in loans.
8. Cars and pets and kids are luxuries. I couldn't afford them then but I was very happy. Further raises though, could go towards saving for such luxuries (and eventually did in the case of a car)
9. This was 3 years ago. It's still possible today. The trick is i was spending much less on many things than you thought.
Sorry again for the insulting tone!, it's not about you, but to the many people who will never make that much income and would give an arm for it, it's insulting to pretend it's an inadequate income. Its only inadequate if you choose to make it inadequate.
Like Manhattan, Seattle and San Francisco are extremely expensive for housing because the cities are surrounded by water. Hence, they have no place to expand the housing supply. Austin sits in the middle of a prairie, so there is plenty of room to grow, keeping prices reasonable.
Agree! Here's a better data point, where the Seattle mayor says as much (while announcing $100 million investment in affordable housing because there is so little).
“Too many long-time residents are getting locked out and pushed out of Seattle,” Durkan said in a statement.
That's why it's not the best idea to use subsidies to lure one of the largest tech companies in the world to your town. Available housing declines, it takes far too long in the feedback cycle for new housing to be built, and you've made the city marginally worse for anyone who isn't a tech worker.
> That's why it's not the best idea to use subsidies to lure one of the largest tech companies in the world to your town. Available housing declines, it takes far too long in the feedback cycle for new housing to be built, and you've made the city marginally worse for anyone who isn't a tech worker.
On the other hand, your city gets a ton more wealthy and existing homeowners essentially win the lottery.
That's also a poor argument for turning away businesses. The problem appears to be not allowing more housing sooner, not that you're helping provide tens of thousands of new jobs. Plus, there's tons of affordable housing a very short drive from Seattle. You should really do more/better research.
In seattle there are tons of people living in vans. at the grocery store near my house on the east side, i see rvs in the parking lot of the grocery. they go somewhere in the night. in seattle, south of the stadiums there are rvs on side streets, just like this story. even in kirkland there was an rv on the street with a suspicious looking bucket behind it. I think living in your rv is more common than you might expect.
Yes, a lot of people live in vans or on the streets. The issue is saying that's the new middle class. That's the part that's not at all true. Most people living in a sketchy RV by the stadium are not 9-5 office workers who are priced out of the city.
Good point, I guess the article says basically because they were clean, acted nicely, paid their bill and got groceries via lyft/uber and got out into an rv, they were middle class. Middle class should not conflate with reasonable human being who functions in society should it? That is incredible classist, anti blue color and anti poor people. You could be living on welfare and behave that way of course.
Now that you raised my awareness, I think the article conflates 'middle class' with normal behavior in a developed country, and that feels offensive to me, because it seems to suggest that some poor people are not like that.
