8 ms·

I know this is anecdotal, but whenever I hear these stories, I'm curious about the details. A quick search leads me to believe that head chef pay in Seattle typ

by gknapp 4y ago

I know this is anecdotal, but whenever I hear these stories, I'm curious about the details. A quick search leads me to believe that head chef pay in Seattle typically ranges from about 90k-110k per year. Finding apartments off Broadway in Cap Hill, I can see that studios, though relatively expensive, range around $1.5-2k a month. An income tax calculator estimates about a 22% total tax bracket and a monthly adjusted income of just over 6k. To me, that means that this person is falling right around 33% of their income devoted towards housing, which seems typical. What am I missing?

Robotbeat 4y ago
“House poor” was typically having to pay at least 25% of your take-home income on housing.
- gambiting 4y ago
  Sure but obviously that number needs some common sense, right. To make a clearly ridiculous example - if you were making 100k a month and paying 25k for rent you wouldn't be poor in any possible meaning of that word. If you bring home 6k a month after taxes, and after rent you're left with 4.5k, I'd also argue that's not "barely making ends meet". That leaves a very comfortable breathing room that is unimaginable luxury for most of the world.
  - nottathrowaway3 4y ago
    >If you bring home 6k a month after taxes, and after rent you're left with 4.5k, I'd also argue that's not "barely making ends meet". That leaves a very comfortable breathing room that is unimaginable luxury for most of the world. Another aspect of this issue is that, when you take out a typical mortgage, you take a 4-5x leveraged long position on real estate. Rent for a nice 1br in Seattle area is $2K, but the hidden aspect is the landlord is holding the RE risk on your behalf. Even if mortgage was $1K/mo, I would rather rent (which I do) to avoid this risk in volatile, tech-dependent area like Seattle.
    - pertymcpert 4y ago
      That's true about the risk, however before the recent spike in rates, that leverage was ultra-cheap.
      - nottathrowaway3 4y ago
        >however leverage was ultra-cheap In nominal dollars yes... but the downside risk was the true cost. Get in at a low rate and comfortably afford it, then you're doing great despite maybe being underwater for now. But default while underwater and lose whatever you put down plus the difference in price. TINFA but, exposure to real estate is generally/historically a good hedge to keep pace with wage inflation. I disagree with OP; getting in before rate hikes wasn't necessarily a mistake. But mortgages work the same way that ESPPs and RSU grants work, banks/companies/governments hedge downside risk by convincing a whole bunch of people to be long on a stock (or real estate).
  - llbeansandrice 4y ago
    Now add on: - All forms of insurance - saving for retirement - Rising food costs - Any Healthcare expenses - Car costs - Child care - Subscriptions (phone, internet) - Utilities All in Seattle
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - gambiting 4y ago
      If you can't fit all of that in four and a half thousand dollars then I don't know what to tell you. I'll repeat myself - someone who has 4.5k left after paying rent is not struggling to make ends meet by any definition of the word, in Seattle or elsewhere.
      - pertymcpert 4y ago
        Ummm childcare is like 2k a month.
        gambiting 4y ago
        Ok, that leaves another 2.5k to use. Once again, that's not struggling to make ends meet.
        AstralStorm 4y ago
        That's assuming you do not want to save anything, or a medical emergency does not wipe you out. Or a car crash. Or any other utterly forseeable common event. This is called precariousness, not comfort.
        gambiting 4y ago
        Again, nothing to do with struggling to make ends meet. By going further with your argument you aren't fully comfortable until you can cover any possible event that might happen, since a dire enough event will exhaust any possible amount of savings you could have unless you're a billionaire. Medical emergencies and car crashes are covered by insurance for nearly everyone, if you make that much money I would think you have appropriate policies in place.
  - whateveracct 4y ago
    $90k salary and $2k rent was my situation when I moved to Seattle many years ago. It definitely was comfortable. My wife was able to also get comparable work and that money wasn't at all needed to help make ends meet, so it went right into student loans and those got paid right quick. I moved from the Midwest and people warned me about the CoL etc. But you just gross more even if the apartment etc is a bigger percent. And cash is king especially if you have debt or just like buying nice things or both.
- judge2020 4y ago
  "was"? When? Federal DTI maximum for mortgages is 45% with a good credit score and/or cash reserves. For apartment complexes, they typically won't lease, or will require a bigger deposit, if your gross monthly income isn't 3x the rent (which typically means it's 40%+ of your net income). If 25% 'was' house poor, then at least 90% of today's mortgage-holding and rent-paying Americans are house poor.
  - t-writescode 4y ago
    Yes. Correct.
judge2020 4y ago
It also matters where and how far you are from things. Walkability is a big draw, so if you're within a mile of a major district with tons of food, entertainment, and culture, chances are any well-kept apartment building will raise their prices to account for that (and account for you not having a monthly car payment or auto insurance payment), and if this chef is within a few blocks of their work, it's not hard to believe their rent could be over 3,000 a month or 50%+ of their income (although, typically, management companies want to see your gross income be 3x or more of the rent).
- RHSeeger 4y ago
  > if you're within a mile of a major district with tons of food, entertainment, and culture If you're within a mile of _that_, it seems reasonable to define the housing in that area as "prime" and expect it to cost a lot more than further away. The fact that rents for that housing has a cost that is prohibitive for the vast majority of people doesn't seem odd to me.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    This is why I'm replying to a comment stating "I'm curious about the details". Without someone explaining their debts or where they live, we're guessing and arguing about what could drive someone to live in a 400 sqft studio where they make 3x the rent but still live paycheck to paycheck. You pay to live in that area. Even if we vastly increase the supply, these areas will always have an order of magnitude more demand than some apartment complex outside the city's beltway because living in these complexes allows you to drop your car dependency.
t-writescode 4y ago
* They're a head-chef, that seems like a high-ranking position. * That used to feed and house a whole family, easily. * They can now **only afford a studio**
- varispeed 4y ago
  I used to know a chef who worked at michelin star restaurant and he had to move to a flat share because he found himself not being able to afford much after paying rent in London. That sent him to a severe depression and later on an unsuccessful suicide attempt that rendered him unable to work and he became homeless.
- vjk800 4y ago
  I have absolutely no knowledge of how well chefs in Seattle are paid, but I've heard from elsewhere that operating a high-end restaurant is far from a money machine. Head chef, unlike senior software developer or something, is a job that doesn't scale much. A rock star chef in a posh neighbourhood is only so much more productive than a mediocre chef in cheaper neighbourhood so, economically speaking, the salaries are not expected to scale all that much.
- newsclues 4y ago
  Parents generation: * father worked in a factory, mom stayed at home * owned a house, 4 kids * 2 cars, annual vacation The family life of a single factory worker after the war.
lukeschlather 4y ago
In a well-functioning city, a head chef should be able to comfortably afford to rent a 2-3 bedroom apartment within walking distance of their restaurant. They should not be spending 1/3rd of their income and only getting a studio out of it.
- ericmay 4y ago
  You can, just move out of Capitol Hill in Seattle which is one of the most desirable areas in one of the most desirable cities located in one of the most desirable geographies in the wealthiest country on earth. This place looks nice! https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2742-Lincoln-St-NE-Minneapolis-MN-55418/1803735_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2742-Lincoln-St-NE-Minnea...
  - sbarre 4y ago
    And where would that chef work then? Should they simply give up on their own ambitions and career goals?
    - ericmay 4y ago
      I've only ever been to the airport, but I imagine there are great restaurants and innovative career-oriented chefs in Minneapolis too.
      - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
        You're essentially saying Seattle is too expensive for chefs to live in, which means it's too expensive for nice restaurants, which means it's too expensive to function. Now extend your own logic to teachers, service workers, etc.
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        The Free Market(tm) has decided we don't need teachers, obviously
Analemma_ 4y ago
> A quick search leads me to believe that head chef pay in Seattle typically ranges from about 90k-110k per year. This doesn't sound right to me. Maybe it's true for the very fancy quasi-Michelin places like Canlis or Shiro's, but for a nice-but-average gastropub in Cap Hill it's probably much less.
- MrMan 4y ago
  if its Coastal Kitchen I could see and would hope the chef is making a grownup amount of money
JohnFen 4y ago
> I can see that studios, though relatively expensive, range around $1.5-2k a month. Is that all? That's crazy cheap by the standards of my area. Where I live (a smallish city in western US), the cheapest housing you can find, in the least desirable part of town, starts at $1200/mo.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  And its crazy expensive by the standards of my area where you can find a nice 2bed with laundry in the unit for under 1k
isodev 4y ago
I think 33% is very high. Also converting the value to % erases the fact that this is still a very high price for what you get in return. Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate the economics around housing - maybe betting against human lives doesn’t feel right. Also, with overpopulation and climate changes, access to housing and the need for relocation will drastically change the landscape of what one needs to do to put a proper roof over their head.
- nottathrowaway3 4y ago
  >maybe betting against human lives doesn’t feel right This is an inappropriate emotional appeal. Real estate is dependent upon the price/value of labor. It's betting for/against labor prices. Labor is not your life. You are more than your job.
  - zo1 4y ago
    Warning, uncomfortable honesty ahead. I'd be betting against labor. With all the automation going on, and the "Huge" technological advancements I foresee probably < 20 years away, I don't see why I should do otherwise. I also don't see violent revolutions being a possibility with all the societal level monitoring and controls all countries are putting in place, so I'm betting on pure "capital" and "the means of production". The more I have of it, the more likely I'll be part of the upper strata of society when whatever dystopian tech hell hole we end up getting. Of course, I won't step on others, and I'll help where my conscience requires me. But at the end of the day (or the end of the world) I am here to provide a safe future for my children, and perhaps secondary, my culture's children... but definitely not to save the world. The world is beyond saving at this point.
    - nottathrowaway3 4y ago
      >The more I have of it [capital], the more likely I'll be part of the upper strata of society when whatever dystopian tech hell hole we end up getting. Why do you conclude that money will keep you safe? Easy to hyperinflate currency, freeze bank accounts, seize gold, etc. Typically in a "violent revolution" you mentioned, power lies in the military.
rootsudo 4y ago
I would argue that the salary of 110k/yr isn't accurate. That is still entry - mid level tech in Seattle. Granted it has changed recently to be 125-135k, but I do find it hard that a head chef in Seattle would make 110k. 65-85K I can. Capitol Hill (no one calls it Cap Hill.) is pricy, though $2,000 should find a studio easily, and no car is needed, it's a close knit enough neighborhood.

by gknapp 4y ago

Robotbeat 4y ago

“House poor” was typically having to pay at least 25% of your take-home income on housing.

gambiting 4y ago
Sure but obviously that number needs some common sense, right. To make a clearly ridiculous example - if you were making 100k a month and paying 25k for rent you wouldn't be poor in any possible meaning of that word. If you bring home 6k a month after taxes, and after rent you're left with 4.5k, I'd also argue that's not "barely making ends meet". That leaves a very comfortable breathing room that is unimaginable luxury for most of the world.
- nottathrowaway3 4y ago
  >If you bring home 6k a month after taxes, and after rent you're left with 4.5k, I'd also argue that's not "barely making ends meet". That leaves a very comfortable breathing room that is unimaginable luxury for most of the world. Another aspect of this issue is that, when you take out a typical mortgage, you take a 4-5x leveraged long position on real estate. Rent for a nice 1br in Seattle area is $2K, but the hidden aspect is the landlord is holding the RE risk on your behalf. Even if mortgage was $1K/mo, I would rather rent (which I do) to avoid this risk in volatile, tech-dependent area like Seattle.
  - pertymcpert 4y ago
    That's true about the risk, however before the recent spike in rates, that leverage was ultra-cheap.
    - nottathrowaway3 4y ago
      >however leverage was ultra-cheap In nominal dollars yes... but the downside risk was the true cost. Get in at a low rate and comfortably afford it, then you're doing great despite maybe being underwater for now. But default while underwater and lose whatever you put down plus the difference in price. TINFA but, exposure to real estate is generally/historically a good hedge to keep pace with wage inflation. I disagree with OP; getting in before rate hikes wasn't necessarily a mistake. But mortgages work the same way that ESPPs and RSU grants work, banks/companies/governments hedge downside risk by convincing a whole bunch of people to be long on a stock (or real estate).
- llbeansandrice 4y ago
  Now add on: - All forms of insurance - saving for retirement - Rising food costs - Any Healthcare expenses - Car costs - Child care - Subscriptions (phone, internet) - Utilities All in Seattle
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - gambiting 4y ago
    If you can't fit all of that in four and a half thousand dollars then I don't know what to tell you. I'll repeat myself - someone who has 4.5k left after paying rent is not struggling to make ends meet by any definition of the word, in Seattle or elsewhere.
    - pertymcpert 4y ago
      Ummm childcare is like 2k a month.
      - gambiting 4y ago
        Ok, that leaves another 2.5k to use. Once again, that's not struggling to make ends meet.
        AstralStorm 4y ago
        That's assuming you do not want to save anything, or a medical emergency does not wipe you out. Or a car crash. Or any other utterly forseeable common event. This is called precariousness, not comfort.
        gambiting 4y ago
        Again, nothing to do with struggling to make ends meet. By going further with your argument you aren't fully comfortable until you can cover any possible event that might happen, since a dire enough event will exhaust any possible amount of savings you could have unless you're a billionaire. Medical emergencies and car crashes are covered by insurance for nearly everyone, if you make that much money I would think you have appropriate policies in place.
- whateveracct 4y ago
  $90k salary and $2k rent was my situation when I moved to Seattle many years ago. It definitely was comfortable. My wife was able to also get comparable work and that money wasn't at all needed to help make ends meet, so it went right into student loans and those got paid right quick. I moved from the Midwest and people warned me about the CoL etc. But you just gross more even if the apartment etc is a bigger percent. And cash is king especially if you have debt or just like buying nice things or both.
judge2020 4y ago
"was"? When? Federal DTI maximum for mortgages is 45% with a good credit score and/or cash reserves. For apartment complexes, they typically won't lease, or will require a bigger deposit, if your gross monthly income isn't 3x the rent (which typically means it's 40%+ of your net income). If 25% 'was' house poor, then at least 90% of today's mortgage-holding and rent-paying Americans are house poor.
- t-writescode 4y ago
  Yes. Correct.

judge2020 4y ago

It also matters where and how far you are from things. Walkability is a big draw, so if you're within a mile of a major district with tons of food, entertainment, and culture, chances are any well-kept apartment building will raise their prices to account for that (and account for you not having a monthly car payment or auto insurance payment), and if this chef is within a few blocks of their work, it's not hard to believe their rent could be over 3,000 a month or 50%+ of their income (although, typically, management companies want to see your gross income be 3x or more of the rent).

RHSeeger 4y ago
> if you're within a mile of a major district with tons of food, entertainment, and culture If you're within a mile of _that_, it seems reasonable to define the housing in that area as "prime" and expect it to cost a lot more than further away. The fact that rents for that housing has a cost that is prohibitive for the vast majority of people doesn't seem odd to me.
- judge2020 4y ago
  This is why I'm replying to a comment stating "I'm curious about the details". Without someone explaining their debts or where they live, we're guessing and arguing about what could drive someone to live in a 400 sqft studio where they make 3x the rent but still live paycheck to paycheck. You pay to live in that area. Even if we vastly increase the supply, these areas will always have an order of magnitude more demand than some apartment complex outside the city's beltway because living in these complexes allows you to drop your car dependency.

t-writescode 4y ago

* They're a head-chef, that seems like a high-ranking position. * That used to feed and house a whole family, easily. * They can now **only afford a studio**

varispeed 4y ago
I used to know a chef who worked at michelin star restaurant and he had to move to a flat share because he found himself not being able to afford much after paying rent in London. That sent him to a severe depression and later on an unsuccessful suicide attempt that rendered him unable to work and he became homeless.
vjk800 4y ago
I have absolutely no knowledge of how well chefs in Seattle are paid, but I've heard from elsewhere that operating a high-end restaurant is far from a money machine. Head chef, unlike senior software developer or something, is a job that doesn't scale much. A rock star chef in a posh neighbourhood is only so much more productive than a mediocre chef in cheaper neighbourhood so, economically speaking, the salaries are not expected to scale all that much.
newsclues 4y ago
Parents generation: * father worked in a factory, mom stayed at home * owned a house, 4 kids * 2 cars, annual vacation The family life of a single factory worker after the war.

lukeschlather 4y ago

In a well-functioning city, a head chef should be able to comfortably afford to rent a 2-3 bedroom apartment within walking distance of their restaurant. They should not be spending 1/3rd of their income and only getting a studio out of it.

ericmay 4y ago
You can, just move out of Capitol Hill in Seattle which is one of the most desirable areas in one of the most desirable cities located in one of the most desirable geographies in the wealthiest country on earth. This place looks nice! https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2742-Lincoln-St-NE-Minneapolis-MN-55418/1803735_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2742-Lincoln-St-NE-Minnea...
- sbarre 4y ago
  And where would that chef work then? Should they simply give up on their own ambitions and career goals?
  - ericmay 4y ago
    I've only ever been to the airport, but I imagine there are great restaurants and innovative career-oriented chefs in Minneapolis too.
    - OnlineGladiator 4y ago
      You're essentially saying Seattle is too expensive for chefs to live in, which means it's too expensive for nice restaurants, which means it's too expensive to function. Now extend your own logic to teachers, service workers, etc.
      - kevviiinn 4y ago
        The Free Market(tm) has decided we don't need teachers, obviously

Analemma_ 4y ago

> A quick search leads me to believe that head chef pay in Seattle typically ranges from about 90k-110k per year. This doesn't sound right to me. Maybe it's true for the very fancy quasi-Michelin places like Canlis or Shiro's, but for a nice-but-average gastropub in Cap Hill it's probably much less.

MrMan 4y ago
if its Coastal Kitchen I could see and would hope the chef is making a grownup amount of money

JohnFen 4y ago

> I can see that studios, though relatively expensive, range around $1.5-2k a month. Is that all? That's crazy cheap by the standards of my area. Where I live (a smallish city in western US), the cheapest housing you can find, in the least desirable part of town, starts at $1200/mo.

kevviiinn 4y ago
And its crazy expensive by the standards of my area where you can find a nice 2bed with laundry in the unit for under 1k

isodev 4y ago

I think 33% is very high. Also converting the value to % erases the fact that this is still a very high price for what you get in return. Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate the economics around housing - maybe betting against human lives doesn’t feel right. Also, with overpopulation and climate changes, access to housing and the need for relocation will drastically change the landscape of what one needs to do to put a proper roof over their head.

nottathrowaway3 4y ago
>maybe betting against human lives doesn’t feel right This is an inappropriate emotional appeal. Real estate is dependent upon the price/value of labor. It's betting for/against labor prices. Labor is not your life. You are more than your job.
- zo1 4y ago
  Warning, uncomfortable honesty ahead. I'd be betting against labor. With all the automation going on, and the "Huge" technological advancements I foresee probably < 20 years away, I don't see why I should do otherwise. I also don't see violent revolutions being a possibility with all the societal level monitoring and controls all countries are putting in place, so I'm betting on pure "capital" and "the means of production". The more I have of it, the more likely I'll be part of the upper strata of society when whatever dystopian tech hell hole we end up getting. Of course, I won't step on others, and I'll help where my conscience requires me. But at the end of the day (or the end of the world) I am here to provide a safe future for my children, and perhaps secondary, my culture's children... but definitely not to save the world. The world is beyond saving at this point.
  - nottathrowaway3 4y ago
    >The more I have of it [capital], the more likely I'll be part of the upper strata of society when whatever dystopian tech hell hole we end up getting. Why do you conclude that money will keep you safe? Easy to hyperinflate currency, freeze bank accounts, seize gold, etc. Typically in a "violent revolution" you mentioned, power lies in the military.

rootsudo 4y ago

I would argue that the salary of 110k/yr isn't accurate. That is still entry - mid level tech in Seattle. Granted it has changed recently to be 125-135k, but I do find it hard that a head chef in Seattle would make 110k. 65-85K I can. Capitol Hill (no one calls it Cap Hill.) is pricy, though $2,000 should find a studio easily, and no car is needed, it's a close knit enough neighborhood.