Key insights
- A single Californian is questioning the adequacy of a $10,000 emergency fund, given the high cost of living and unique employment situation. The post highlights the challenges of affording basic necessities like rent, utilities, and groceries, especially in tourist areas. This reflects broader concerns about inflation and housing affordability, potentially impacting consumer spending and economic growth, but the direct market impact is minimal.
I'm a single Californian. I try to keep enough in the cash portion of my accounts to afford a full 90 day survival move to one of our less expensive cities, and I'm wondering if $10K is still adequate. Think Bakersfield, Modesto, Manteca, etc. as if you had to start over with 90 days of expenses plus apartment deposit, as if you had lost your job, car, and home and needed a fresh start for a single individual. Without dealing with renting rooms from home owners who aren't real landlords or having a room mate.
For anyone outside of CA, you can scrape the very bottom and find slightly cheaper for rent if you absolutely had to, but $1100 for a studio is pretty low.
APARTENT= $5,300 ($2k per additional month)
$1100 deposit
$3300 rent
$450 electric
$450 phone/internet
MISC ESSENTIALS = $2,700 ($900/additional month)
600 Dog
1800 groceries
300 Public Transportation
This leaves $2k for a bed and other starter items. Context: I'm a national park worker out in Yosemite. My current rent/utilities are subsidized as part of my employment contract on federal lands. Local groceries cost 40% more than the rest of the state since we're a tourist trap, and it's very expensive to leave to town to go do anything since I'm so far from urban life without a car. So my actual cost of living is very warped compared to the average person and I need to make sure my emergency fund is a realistic number since many park workers lose their homes with no state renter's law protections (federal lands, federal enclave) if they also lose their jobs.