
In Bay Area, six-figure salaries are “low income” - jseliger
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/22/in-costly-bay-area-even-six-figure-salaries-are-considered-low-income/
======
archeantus
Wow, this resonates with me. In 2013 my wife and I were living in the Bay Area
and had just welcomed our third child into the family. I was making 105k/yr at
Apple (which seemed like a ton at the time!) but I felt like I was saving very
little of that.

I was approached on LinkedIn to take a job with matching pay but that was
fully remote. I could live anywhere I wanted in the entire country. I jumped
at the chance and felt like I became rich overnight! I miss working at Apple,
and would definitely jump at the chance to work remotely for them, but I don't
think I could ever afford to move back to California.

~~~
ransom1538
Did the exact same thing this year. Moved to Oviedo, FL from SF:

1) no state income tax,

2) public schools in my neighborhood are equivalent to a private school in sf
[i]

4) weather is great 8 months out of year,

5) beaches you can swim in,

6) rent is ~1/4 of what it was in SF,

7) cuban food,

8) as a resident, kids have year round disney passes

[i] [http://school-
ratings.com/Florida/schools/Carillon_Elementar...](http://school-
ratings.com/Florida/schools/Carillon_Elementary_School.html)

WARNING: The tech job market is pretty much non-existent. "more challenging"
is an understatement. I would be prepared to answer 'can you lift 50 lbs' in
your 'tech' interview. I am a remote dev.

~~~
sideband
I also moved from the the Bay Area to Oviedo, FL not long ago (fun fact about
our little town: Brian Acton, co-founder of WhatsApp, grew up here). I agree
with everything on your list, and I'll add one more item:

9) Greater thought diversity and tolerance for opposing viewpoints.

When I lived in the Bay Area it seemed that too many people I interacted with
were of similar backgrounds: very educated, high income and similar political
and social values. While I loved my years there, at times I felt like I was in
a cultural bubble insulated from the real world. Worse, I saw people
professionally shunned for expressing opinions that fell outside the
mainstream. People here in the Orlando area are all types and they seem to
love to discuss their differences and even try to learn from them. I can't
begin to imagine someone suffering professionally only for their opinions
here. It's very refreshing.

I have not lived in enough places to guess if this is a Florida vs California
thing, or an Orlando area vs Bay Area thing, or a Bay Area vs everywhere else
thing, but I think it's certainly a positive difference.

~~~
enraged_camel
With all due respect, I don't really buy that narrative.

People often mistake critical thinking skills with close-mindedness. Just
because someone uses thought and reason to reject an idea doesn't mean they
are close-minded. Not all ideas deserve acceptance. I'm as open-minded as it
gets, but if you tell me that vaccines cause autism then you will go down
several notches in my book. (Ironically, there are many anti-vax people in the
Bay Area!)

I don't know about Oviedo specifically (maybe it's a liberal haven in the
middle of a conservative sea, like Austin TX), but I've known several
Floridans from the more conservative parts of the state, and they were either
naive and gullible as hell, or _actually_ close-minded. I don't say that to
stereotype the entire state, but it's worth remembering that conservatism is
about the preservation of the status quo, and by definition it's not nearly as
accepting of new (and valid) ideas and perspectives as liberalism is. That's
not meant to be a value judgment, but rather a descriptive statement.

~~~
stmfreak
That sort of "critical thinking" arrogance is what keeps people from sharing
their different opinions and perspectives from your pompous ass.

~~~
tunesmith
Not sure why critical thinking is in quotes - critical thinking is a real
thing. It's connecting conclusions with premises that lead to those
conclusions, so that if someone else started with those premises, they'd also
arrive at the same conclusions. It's not a different opinion or perspective,
and it's not pompous - it's by definition something that _can_ be shared
across all opinions and perspectives.

~~~
Veelox
> if someone else started with those premises, they'd also arrive at the same
> conclusions

I like your definition of critical thinking, it also allows me to highlight
why I agree with sideband. In the bay area there tends to be less acceptance
for differing premises.

I am a conservative Christian and certain premises I bring to the conversation
automatically make me "hateful" or "bigoted". While I have seen this most
prominently in the religious/moral realm I see it in politics as well.

In the bay area there is a right set of premises and a wrong set. If you start
with the wrong set it is acceptable to wholly reject the conclusions without
engaging critically with why the premises are wrong.

~~~
tunesmith
Yes, I'm far from a conservative Christian but I appreciate that while some
premises are fact, other premises are simply "values" ("should/ought"
statements) that can vary from person to person. People can reason accurately
towards different conclusions from those values. People should be able to
debate/disagree respectfully about differing values, assuming there's a basic
level of humanity in those values.

Of course, people can reason incorrectly, too. I think there's a set of people
that disagree with the values, but there's another set of people that object
to conclusions that appear inconsistent when compared to the premises/values
they purportedly rest upon.

~~~
Veelox
> assuming there's a basic level of humanity in those values

I am not saying that you are this way, but I have had interactions that lead
me to believe that reasoning allows some to wholly reject values I hold dear
as "intolerant" without consideration, all in the name of tolerance. It comes
across as comical in a tragic way.

On the flip side, I have had interactions where I was able have a disagreement
and work backward to the differing values which we were able to agree to
disagree on.

~~~
tunesmith
There are some deeply held values worldwide that are deeply offensive to
others, that's for sure. For instance, there are those who earnestly believe
that some class of humans is naturally inferior to others, or more genetically
suited to servitude, etc.

The question of how or whether to limit some kinds of speech... I honestly
think this is one of the great philosophical struggles of this generation. I
am not sure why it has come up again when it seemed largely settled in the
past. On the liberal side, you see people like Howard Dean and Elizabeth
Warren disagree on it, which is a weird experience.

I think the question is, is there some set of underlying values where we can
appropriately justify excluding someone entirely?

If the answer is yes, then how do you draw the line, and how do you protect
against arbitrary lines being drawn against you in return? If the answer is
no, then there's a whole host of other questions, like how do you deal with
trolls?

I remember there was a great deal of consternation about Bill Nye debating Ken
Ham, for instance. So many voices thought it was inappropriate. I thought the
debate was a good thing.

On the other hand, I have a hard time accepting that trolling is protected
speech. Heartfelt offensive speech I'm fine with, but trolling feels like a
close cousin of fighting words, with intent only to destroy. On the other
hand, I'm not sure how to tell the difference between trolling and heartfelt
ignorance.

------
ShakataGaNai
For a family of 4. That's the critical bit left out of the article title. 104k
is low income for a family of 4, in some areas.

Which makes sense when it's hard to find somewhere to live alone, in SF, even
at 100k. Finding a place big enough for a family of 4 plus all the costs
related to 4 humans? Not surprising in the least.

~~~
cbhl
Once upon a time, a family of four had the same number of working adults as a
family of one.

~~~
lisper
Once upon a time a family of four would live in a 1200 square foot house and
own one car and one television, would rarely travel, rarely go out to eat.
That kind of life style can still be sustained even in the Bay area on
$100k/yr.

~~~
throwa38282
Once upon a time, the woman stayed at home and didn't need a second car.

Televisions were prohibitively priced as to make one even a stretch.

And, travel was prohibitively priced so that only the ultra-rich could afford
planes. When cars hit the scene en masse, it brought rise to car trips.

So, I guess you're saying people aren't living within their means? But they
weren't necessarily then either... And boy, I sure miss all of the great stuff
from the 50s.

~~~
douche
> Televisions were prohibitively priced as to make one even a stretch.

It's just astounding how cheap televisions have become. A 32" flatscreen is
like $150, and weighs ten pounds.

~~~
itomato
Whereas content is $100/month when it used to be $0.

~~~
throwa38282
Broadcast TV is still free. Movies always cost a fair amount of money.

An internet connection with youtube is $30 which is WAY more variety than
"back then".

~~~
itomato
Mmm. Yeah, I get loads of value from Univision and Home Shopping Channels like
HSN, QVC and the others.

Can't forget Qubo and Me.tv. Good times, for sure.

~~~
throwa38282
CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, PBS

Also, I'm suspecting you're not a Spanish speaker, so I guess it's okay to
discount a channel that over 10% of the US has utility for.

Cable TV is a relatively recent invention, has quickly declining subscription
rates, and has always been billed as premium.

------
kevinburke
A lot of the unaffordability is due to the high price of housing in the area.
Here are some concrete steps you can take to help lower the price of housing:

\- The Brisbane City Council is deciding whether to build 4400 units of
housing on 600 acres south of San Francisco, about the same number of units SF
built _in total_ last year. The Brisbane Planning Commission recommended
building an office park instead. Contact them and ask them to build the
housing version of the project.

\- The Mountain View City Council is deciding whether to build 2000 units or
8000 units of housing next to Google. They are leaning toward the low end -
2000 units would be tough to support a grocery store or frequent transit.
Contact them (or show up to their board meeting - tonight!) and ask them to
build the high-housing version of the plan.

\- The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering a plan to require 28%
of all new developments to be below market rate. When you consider the unit
costs to build in SF, that would make it _extremely_ difficult to justify new
housing starts here. Please contact your Supervisor and ask them to oppose the
Peskin/Kim Prop C plan.

\- Call your CA State Assemblymember and ask them to oppose AB 915 (makes it
harder to build affordable units)

\- Call your CA State Assemblymember and ask them to support AB 71 (higher
property taxes on second homes, money goes to affordable housing)

\- Call your CA State Senator and ask them to support SB 167, which would put
teeth in the state's Housing Accountability Act. (for more on this see
carlaef.org)

\- Call your CA State Senator and ask them to support SB 35 (would remove the
ability of local government to block projects that meet certain criteria -
near transit, have a high % of affordable units, use union construction labor)

\- Email your VC's and C-level executives and tell them how hard it is to find
housing in the area. Tell them about your awful commutes and the difficulty of
finding good school districts for your kids. Ask them to get more involved
politically in pro-housing causes. Ron Conway is a good example here.

NIMBY's are really well organized and things don't change unless we do
something about them. All of these changes listed above will go a long way to
support the development of housing in the Bay Area, which should help lower
prices, and help keep families here and teachers in our neighborhoods.

[https://kev.inburke.com/kevin/sf-housing-
politics/](https://kev.inburke.com/kevin/sf-housing-politics/)

~~~
1024core
If I had the money, I'd just put a ballot measure on the ballot to raise the
height ceiling for new buildings built within 2 blocks of a MUNI line to
100ft, no approval required. Also: legalize the unpermitted "in law" units.

~~~
kevinburke
There is a proposal to do this! It's called HOME SF. Going in front of the SF
Land Use Committee on May 8; I will be there.
[https://sfbay.ca/2017/02/15/home-sf-plan-revisits-
affordable...](https://sfbay.ca/2017/02/15/home-sf-plan-revisits-affordable-
housing-bonuses/)

Naturally, the SF Sierra Club and some tenants rights groups are trying to
block it. It's not a sure thing at all. Please contact your Supervisor about
it. [http://thebaycitybeacon.com/32740/282282/a/the-sierra-
club-f...](http://thebaycitybeacon.com/32740/282282/a/the-sierra-club-fights-
to-savea-parking-garage)

------
120bits
I moved out of California 5 years ago and I think I won't consider back moving
back at all. I enjoy my 1K/month 2 bedroom-2 bath apartment. 15 mins commute
to work and a decent pay to manage my monthly expenses. I dont get paid in 6
figures, but close and I still leave a pretty decent life. I have a friend who
works for vmware and gets paid in 6 figures, and still complains about how
hard is to manage and do budgeting.

Most of the friends are in bay area in tech industry, tells me that tech scene
here is amazing and I miss out on the cool dev meetups. I agree, but I think I
got used to my life style now. Good work-life balance is hard to achieve.

~~~
froindt
What city/area did you move to? That sounds like midwest level affordability.

~~~
120bits
Salt Lake City, Utah.

------
mr_tristan
And this is why tech jobs are going to continue to lead the charge to being
mostly remote workers. Major tech hubs are crazy expensive, and the jobs are
pretty amenable to remote work.

At some point, there's going to be another inflection point where a lot of
people making comfortable upper middle-class incomes move out to, well,
anywhere. Basically, someone's going to do the math, and recognize that remote
workers are just as productive, and are a little cheaper then having a bunch
of 20-somethings in the office physically. And the incentive for anyone who
wants to have kids to work remote is just going to be really, really high.

We may also see more software engineers sticking around as engineers instead
of becoming managers as well. Because the incentive to grow your income via
management may be relieved.

~~~
majani
I think it's investors holding up the movement at this point. I usually see
most tech guys are mentally prepared for this shift, but finance guys are
strongly opposed.

~~~
davidjnelson
Any thoughts on why?

~~~
sdflkd
"Tech people" usually don't think outside of the context of producing code.

------
geggam
Single income, Alameda county ( Fremont ), family of 4

No car payment, No credit card debt,

130k will let you live and eat with a bit of room to go do things once a
month.

If you have a car payment and or credit cards kiss that once a month thing
goodbye

150k will let you have a car and do things

Source : I left that area recently

~~~
ryanSrich
Honest question. I just looked at Redfin and the average house costs around
$1.2mm. How would anyone making $130k with 4 dependents buy a house? You seem
to fit that criteria so I'll ask you. How on earth did you afford that?
Because based on my simple math there just isn't enough money for it to be
possible.

~~~
grumblestumble
My wife and I work full time, combined income is just below $400k. With a
mortgage on a 3 bedroom in Oakland, daycare and after-school care costs,
student loans, et al, we have never been more broke in our lives. I was living
large when I was making $75k and not living in the Bay Area... now, it's beans
and rice most nights, and hoping the early 2000's honda doesn't break down on
the way to school.

~~~
refurb
Wait a second. You and your wife pulled in ~$30K per month pre-tax, so I'll be
generous and say $15K per month after tax. Any you have never been more broke?
Even with kids I'd be hard pressed to call that broke unless you had
ridiculous student loans. And in that case, you're screwed where ever you
live.

~~~
gdix
That's what I was thinking too. If your mortgage on your 3br in Oakland is
$1MM, your payment is $4,728/mo (interest portion is tax deductible but let's
ignore that). Let's say your place is $1.5MM, that's another $1500 in property
tax (also tax deductible but again, let's ignore). If you're bringing home
$15K/mo, then you're still left with ~9K per month. That's a lot of rice and
beans.

------
rogy
Interestingly similar discussion going around in the UK at the moment after a
UK MP came out saying that '£70,000' salary makes you 'rich'.

70k as a single income won't get you a flat in London in any reasonable time
and you'll most certainly be renting forever on that kind if money in London.
Even if its triple the average UK wage.

Location means everything.

~~~
ig1
Only if you want to live in central London. You can still easily get a house
on that income in London suburbs. For example you can get a 3-bed in Orpington
(20 minutes by train to London Bridge) for around £400k which should be
comfortably affordable to someone on 70k.

~~~
chrisseaton
> around £400k which should be comfortably affordable to someone on 70k

The mortgage on that will be using up around half of your income. That's
insane.

~~~
ig1
Assuming a 60k deposit (so 340k mortage), you could get a 2 year fixed
mortgage at 1.53% so your repayments will be £1,178.31.

£70k post-tax is around £48k so £4k/month so the mortgage will take around 30%
of your take-home pay which is a fairly standard ratio.

~~~
FireBeyond
Where are you renting near London (so you can work that same job) that you can
both pay that AND save 60K?

Considering that looking at similar 3 bedrooms to those suggested for purchase
gives rates of around £1350 / month. Even putting aside another 1/3 of your
income (high) still leaves you looking at 5+ years to save a deposit.

~~~
ig1
£70k = 48k post-tax

60k/(48k*1/3) = 3.75 years

And that's assuming you start from zero savings.

------
xaa
I must say that as someone who does NOT live in a crazy high-rent state or
town, I am not well pleased by the idea of my federal tax dollars going to
people who choose to live there but can't make ends meet, and this even though
I'm generally pro-spending on social welfare.

You may say, "but the poor can't afford to move!". Well, if that's the case,
the government should subsidize their move instead. It would be way cheaper
and would incidentally drive real estate prices closer to the national median.

I'm not trying to cast any blame on people in this situation, as they are
likely there through no fault of their own, but this can hardly be the most
efficient way to solve the problem.

I feel like economics is screaming a message to people in the Bay Area: "There
are too many people here! There's tons of land in the U.S.!", but no one is
listening, just casting blame on the techies, gentrification, land policy, or
whatever.

~~~
closeparen
My federal income taxes (which treat me as though I am rich, because income
taxes are not cost-of-living adjusted) buy:

\- The diplomatic, covert, and military apparatus which dominates the world to
the extent necessary to secure the flow of cheap oil for your car.

\- The interstate highways you drive on.

\- The stability of the mortgage-lending ecosystem (via bailouts), and FHA
subsidies that privilege suburban single family homes over urban condos.

\- Welfare so that unemployed people can stay in dead-end towns, instead of
moving to where they are needed.

If these costs were instead embedded in the home prices and rents of the low-
density regions they enable, those places wouldn't be cheap anymore.

I don't think we need to force everyone in to urban skyscrapers, but I do
think the federal government ought to prop up urbanization at the expense of
people in cheap areas at _least_ as much as it props up sprawl at the expense
of high COL city dwellers.

~~~
xaa
> income taxes are not cost-of-living adjusted

Well, this is another issue. It's incoherent, honestly, that someone can be
considered both rich and poor from the federal perspective. But in the end, a
COL adjustment on income tax would be equivalent to the type of subsidy in
question.

\- The diplomatic, covert, and military apparatus which dominates the world to
the extent necessary to secure the flow of cheap oil for your car.

lel. If that was ever true, which I doubt, it isn't any more. If there was
ever a point that our military paid for itself (even on the margin) in terms
of cheaper oil, I'll eat my hat.

> Welfare so that unemployed people can stay in dead-end towns, instead of
> moving to where they are needed.

This is really the core of it. If people are really needed, economically and
relatively to elsewhere, in supercities, then supercities will pay enough for
them to live there. Ergo, you are overstating how much they are needed. This
is exactly analogous to employers claiming there is a "shortage" of
programmers, but they aren't willing to raise wages.

Besides, am I to believe that there are no unemployed people on welfare in
cities? I don't know what the relative rate is. I do agree people should be
incentivized to move where they are needed. We may have different views on
where that is, exactly. Any kind of welfare distorts economic "need" signals,
which is a big downside of it.

Imagining welfare or wealth transfers didn't exist, I'd say that the place
where people are most "needed" is a place where benefits of living - COL is
highest. I have no data on where that might be, but I doubt SV ranks high on
the list unless you are a programmer. By that metric I would imagine that
there would be a dynamic equilibrium between urbanization and countryside, as
there is now.

In some ways, SV programmers defending subsidies for service workers in SV
sounds like "please subsidize my $10 latte and Whole Foods bill".

> the low-density regions they enable

This is pretty creative. If cities had to grow their own food and extract
their own natural resources, I think they'd have quite a problem, yes? It may
be fair to say cities & countryside are codependent, but the idea that cities
are one-sidedly enabling everyone else is not credible.

It is quite likely that there is a net transfer of wealth from cities to the
countryside. The reason I would argue this is "fair" is because people in the
cities are also the primary beneficiaries of GDP growth.

BTW, I don't live in the country, I live in a medium-sized city. I am limiting
my criticisms to cities that have so poorly planned expansion, or are so
crowded, that the COL is sky-high, and they want a bailout from everyone else.

~~~
closeparen
>If there was ever a point that our military paid for itself (even on the
margin) in terms of cheaper oil

Of course it doesn't pay for itself. Cities with their GDP growth pay for it
(financially), and exurbs with their cheap sprawling subdivisions and giant
SUVs benefit from it.

People are most needed where they would create the most value, regardless of
cost of living.

Let's say your programming labor would be worth $120k/year ($40k in taxes) in
San Francisco, but you're stuck making $50k/year ($10k in taxes) in
Indianapolis because San Francisco would still be a net less for you.

Your _not_ being in San Francisco costs the government $30k/year. Any subsidy
below $30k/year that gets you to that more productive job is profitable for
the taxpayer.

Now imagine someone who costs taxpayers $20k/year in Appalachia, but could
generate $30k/year ($5k in taxes) as a barista at the Googleplex. It's still
worth any price below $25k to get her to Mountain View.

Of course, these subsidies might just arm you (and the barista) to displace
other, also productive Bay Area residents, resulting in no net change. There
would also have to be a zoning policy intervention to create new units.

I do agree that high and low density regions are codependent, and subsidies
are appropriate in both directions. I simply argue that subsidies to get
people to high-productivity cities are much less costly (they can even be
profitable!) than subsidies to help people stay in low-productivity
situations.

~~~
xaa
> exurbs with their cheap sprawling subdivisions and giant SUVs benefit from
> it

I guess I'm with you to the extent this means they "recoup a larger proportion
of their losses on these pointless endeavors".

> Your not being in San Francisco costs the government $30k/year. Any subsidy
> below $30k/year that gets you to that more productive job is profitable for
> the taxpayer.

With this I agree, although it seems at odds with what I think you were saying
earlier, that tax should be COL-adjusted. If this were the case, it would no
longer be true.

> People are most needed where they would create the most value, regardless of
> cost of living.

Nope! True, this would be best from the government's perspective. From the
individual's perspective, it is most rational to live where they have the
biggest surplus of wages over costs. Doesn't do you much good to make $1M if
it's $1.5M for a crappy apartment and basic food.

Unless you are separating the concept of "people are needed most at X" from
the concept of "it is most economically rational to live at X".

> imagine someone who costs taxpayers $20k/year in Appalachia, but could
> generate $30k/year ($5k in taxes) as a barista at the Googleplex

OK, yes, but this sets up a mostly false dichotomy between "employed in SV
(etc)" or "unemployed in Appalachia". There are a lot of places in the US that
are less dysfunctional than either one of those two places.

> I simply argue that subsidies to get people to high-productivity cities are
> much less costly (they can even be profitable!) than subsidies to help
> people stay in low-productivity situations.

It just seems self-contradictory. You say that people in SV pay more tax than
people not in SV. That's right. But then you say people in SV should be
subsidized, which removes the logical basis you're using to argue they should
be there in the first place.

It is helpful to remember that subsidizing someone's COL in a low-cost area is
by definition going to cost less than someone in a high-cost area. In short,
if we HAVE to subsidize people a lot, then we should subsidize them to live in
Appalachia, not SV. But if only a little (i.e., they still pay tax in net),
then it could make economic sense to subsidize people in SV. Ironically, by
this logic, it makes more sense to subsidize the $90K person in SV than the
$30K person.

------
anon374939
After two years in San Francisco, I had to move back to my small(er) home town
city because I ultimately realized there's little to no future for me in a
city like San Francisco, despite making 250k/yr. I'd have to make at minimum
$1M per year for a similar lifestyle (and even then, the stress of living in
the bay area will reduce years from your lifespan... what's each year of your
life worth to you?).

~~~
tastythrowaway
what were you doing/where were you working that you were pulling in 250k?

~~~
xxpor
Is 250k considered unusual in the bay area for a BigCo for someone for someone
3-5 years out of college? If that's the case, choosing to living in SF is even
crazier than I thought.

~~~
ac29
Yes, that's unusual. Think half that for someone only a few years out of
college. And that's for software dev at a large company. The vast majority of
employed people in the Bay Area do not make six figures (source: I've lived
here for several decades).

------
bardworx
I don't know much about SF salaries, but in NYC, 100K is really middle class.
With enrage rent at 2k/mo, salaries have to be high in order to keep up with
cost of living.

Everyone makes a huge deal about the number but shouldn't it be more of a
ratio? Like the cost of living to base salary? That should be a better
statistic to judge quality of life.

~~~
cm2012
The median annual family income (for a whole family including all earners) is
50k. 100k for a family is in the top 20% of NYC.

~~~
emodendroket
Well to really answer the question we have to define what we mean by "middle-
class," which is often deliberately left so nebulous that it covers
practically everyone besides the homeless and the stratospherically wealthy.

~~~
eigenvalue
You also have to define "NYC"; this includes outer boroughs like the Bronx
where incomes and rents are MUCH lower. If you restrict yourself to Manhattan
or a couple outlying areas in Brooklyn/Queens that are considered desirable,
the numbers change quite dramatically.

~~~
bardworx
I used NYC as the 5 boroughs. I also used working class neighborhood rent as
comparison instead of manahattan, which would be a bit more

------
coltalk
I hear this sort of thing a lot and I have trouble reconciling it with my
experiences. I live in SF and my total expenses (rent, food, entertainment,
etc.) were ~$15,000 in 2016. I don't feel like I live a life of great
deprivation.

I get that the article is talking about a family of four, but even if we
assume there are no economies of scale, my costs would work out to $60,000 for
a family of four.

I also get that I have some privileges: healthy enough to bike rather than
drive/take transit, minimal medical expenses, no student loans. But I am
surely not the only person in this position.

What's happening here? What are the other major expenses that people have?

(I understand this comment probably comes off as obnoxious, but I'm genuinely
trying to understand. This incongruity makes it harder for me to
understand/sympathize with others on this issue and I'd like to regain that
ability.)

~~~
closeparen
You're indicating that you rent for less than $1250/mo. A studio is out of the
question at that rate; even a room in a shared apartment would be unlikely.
People I know paying that little money for housing are an entire BART line
away from the city (Richmond, Pittsburg, etc), have several roommates or a
working spouse, and need cars.

What do you pay for housing, what kind of housing is it, and is a lease like
yours available to newcomers who don't have your grandfathered status or
connections?

~~~
coltalk
$915/month for SRO. No special connections or status.

~~~
closeparen
Ah. SROs seem to have a reputation for extremely poor physical condition,
predatory management, a high concentration of unstable and dangerous people
with untreated mental illnesses as neighbors, and locations in rough
neighborhoods like the Tenderloin.

There seems to be a consensus that enduring long commutes, or just moving
away, are preferable to living in those kinds of conditions. I've never heard
of someone considering an SRO unless they had been previously homeless or
institutionalized.

Even the starving artists seem to prefer sharing apartments (or using former
warehouse/factory space as apartments) in the less glamorous parts of the East
Bay.

I'd _love_ to to live in a clean, safe, quiet, well-maintained SRO close to
work at that price.

------
chrisseaton
It's a low income if you are supporting a family of four and only one person
is working. It doesn't mean the salary is in the low income bracket for a
single tech worker on six figures.

------
leesalminen
Here in Boulder CO, the cutoff for "affordable" housing subsidies is ~80k for
a family of four. 104k in the Bay Area seems about right.

~~~
davidw
Boulder managed to copy a lot of the good stuff about Silicon Valley - but
also seems to have copied the brutal, rampant NIMBYism

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-
growth-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-
sentiment-reflected-in-zoning-laws-thwarts-equality.html?_r=0)

Great place, and I understand not wanting sprawl, but... build up and in?

~~~
sigstoat
it's probably worse, in a sense. you can't build up in boulder because there
are height restrictions on buildings.

~~~
leesalminen
Color me a NIMBYist, but I _love_ the height restriction. It gives me amazing
views from my little apartment.

Edit to add: An image from my balcony [0].

[0] [https://storage.googleapis.com/lee-salminen-
fileshare/IMG_24...](https://storage.googleapis.com/lee-salminen-
fileshare/IMG_2450.JPG)

~~~
sigstoat
hmm, i can tell exactly what building you're in.

and it makes you one of the new people who've crowded in and made my grocery
store obnoxiously busy. :(

~~~
leesalminen
Heh. I hate what's happened to the King Soopers up in Gunbarrel. Been here
since 2012, which predates the new apartment complexes. Not exactly "new" but
I will concede you deserve to have a more NIMBYish attitude than I.

------
hourislate
Why would a young professional person want to live anywhere where earning 100k
+ is not enough when they could live in quite a few other states and earn a
100k + enjoying a cost of living that is 1/3 of what it is in SF or NYC?

My wife and I both make well into the 6 figures working at boring corporations
enjoying a lifestyle where we would have to earn the equivalent of 7 figures
in the Bay Area or NYC.

There are a lot of great boring corporations that pay extremely well. They
don't provide couches or hammocks and you have to drink regular coffee and
sure you have to sit in a cube (no open spaces) but it sure beats having to
scrape by on 100k + a year.

~~~
istorical
Probably because young people don't know about those positions or how to find
them.

~~~
matmo
Yep, that's my situation. Been in the valley for a few years now since
graduating. The work experience is good for now, but you quickly realize that
affording a house here is mostly impossible unless you're on top of the bell
curve or you have high combined incomes.

I want a garage, a driveway, a dog, the ability to really customize my living
space, etc, but I don't think its going to happen here. I'd like to magically
move somewhere else but its a somewhat intimidating process.

------
enknamel
I feel this pain everyday. Getting a house in the bay (because 3-4br apts are
super rare) in a decent school district is right around a million dollars.
That's a $5k/mo mortgage (not to mention every new development has some insane
HOA fee). No way to afford that on a 100k salary. Even at a 200k salary that's
pretty uncomfortable.

------
wakkaflokka
I make just over six figures in the southeast, and I definitely have a blessed
and comfortable lifestyle (no kids, no debt). I can imagine the equation
changes drastically once kids/family are involved. I've visited San Francisco,
Los Angeles, and Seattle, and LOVE the cities. But according to CNN's cost of
living calculator, I'd have to make a base salary of almost $190k to have a
similar lifestyle in San Fran and Seattle. That seems borderline absurd!

~~~
billmalarky
Even at $190k it wouldn't be completely comparable. Higher taxes eat up a lot
of the additional income, and even then things like car ownership and house
ownership that are taken for granted in most of the US carry huge costs in
places like SF/NYC. To have a comparably sized home you would probably need
5-10 million in NYC for the home alone, as an example.

------
cletus
Cue the standard responses about lack of development, rampant NIMBYism, Prop
13 and rent control.

There's really nothing to add at this point.

All of this is also why I really prefer living in NYC, which actually has the
infrastructure for this sort of thing (meaning if you're a lower to middle
income earner in the tri-state area you're not totally hosed like you are in
the Bay Area).

~~~
make3
what are your options then? legit curious

~~~
cbhl
Live on the other side of a subway or commuter train line. New Jersey,
Brooklyn, Queens, that sort of thing.

~~~
chadlavi
> Brooklyn

Hahahahahahahaha, good one. Maybe you're in some alternate dimension Brooklyn,
but the one I live in is full on crazygonuts expensive.

~~~
glup
I know Greenpoint / Williamsburg / Dumbo / Brooklyn Heights / etc. are but
what about Bushwick or other parts further inland?

~~~
billmalarky
Bushwick is expensive now. It's not even safe (for the price) yet but it sure
it expensive.

------
hackermailman
One of my remote coworkers moved to rural Georgia and bought 6 acres of land
with an 8 bedroom house on it for the same price a parking space would cost in
my city.

------
alkonaut
Where do all the SV teachers, garbage truck drivers, police etc live? How long
is the commute for a single person working at a grocery store checkout in SV?

~~~
Element_
I believe the average wage for jobs like nurses and firefighters is over 100k
in California... some firefighters can pull in 400k with overtime [1].

[1] [http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/03/02/firefighters-
ear...](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/03/02/firefighters-earning-up-
to-400k-in-san-ramon-draw-criticism/)

------
taternuts
I pay $2,500 a month in rent. I also get paid more by my employer to cover
exactly that. I have plenty of money to live the way I want to live and still
save money. If everyone is claiming just 2k in rent, how are they not making a
living on 120k+ a year?

~~~
kevinburke
The simplest explanation is that the expenses for a family of four aren't 4x
the expenses of a single man.

------
grandalf
Why doesn't someone just buy up most of Detroit and create a massive campus
with affordable Victorian homes everywhere.

~~~
kevinburke
No one wants to live in Detroit. Uber couldn't even convince its workforce to
commute to Oakland; they backed out of a deal to move their office there a
month ago.

~~~
grandalf
Oakland is great except for the poverty and side-effects of poverty. An influx
of capital and ownership drives away poverty and makes it a non-issue.

~~~
kevinburke
I don't really get what you are trying to say here.

------
joshmarinacci
Hopefully this will encourage more Bay Area companies to allow full remote
working. I moved to Oregon a decade ago and I love it, but remote work options
are limited.

------
uiri
For those who are interested in looking at the raw data:
[https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2017/select_Geo...](https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2017/select_Geography.odn)

The figures that the article cites are for a family of four. The thresholds
for individuals are noticeably lower.

------
arthur_trudeau
Note that this is "low income" for the purposes of eligibility for HUD
programs. Through the Obama administration, those programs have had the goal
of dispersing black and hispanic families into white (and usually high income)
areas, particularly suburbs, rather than providing "affordable housing" per se
in poorer / cheaper areas.

------
davidw
BTW, for those interested in trying to fix things in the Bay Area:

* [http://www.sfyimby.org/](http://www.sfyimby.org/)

* [https://techforhousing.org/](https://techforhousing.org/)

------
SoCool
I have been in bay area for the last 4 years. I moved to bay area for better
opportunity. As an Indian, I find bay area more conducive. I moved from deep
south (Alabama). Our combined family income is around 350K and with that we
were able to afford a very good home in east bay in good school district. I
think, the perspective needs to change. If you come to bay area, you are
coming here for opportunity in the tech world and it's not going to be easy
here. There are many talented people here and to make it here, you have to
compete and compete hard.

~~~
haskellandchill
Congrats on winning.

------
1_2__3
I've been in the bay area for a few decades. I've gone from my salary paying
for my family to have a nice rental house in Cupertino to renting rooms from
friends so we have a place to live. And I make double what I did back then.
It's fucking awful.

------
scotty79
Rent always roughly costs as much as median person has left after feeding
himself.

------
BadassFractal
Let's set aside cost of living in the Bay for a second. Here's a completely
taboo subject. At what point do we hold people accountable for their
reproductive choices? You want to have 2, 4, 6 children in the most expensive
slice of land in the US?

Great, but please bear in mind that choice comes with real financial
consequences to your lifestyle and you should not expect the state to bail you
out of it.

~~~
wehadfun
I have mixed feelings about this. People say that state shouldn't have to pay
for your kids, but the state can send your kids to war. If the state sends
your kids to war and they get killed who reimburses the parent for $100K they
invested in the kid?

~~~
kevinmannix
Can the state _currently_ send your kids to war? By this, I mean forcefully
via a draft. I was under the impression that it's a no for now and for the
foreseeable future.

~~~
ef4
Yes, they can. Every male between 18 and 25 is still required to register for
the draft. The database is sitting there ready to go. The president just has
to declare an emergency and convince congress to approve activation of the
selective service system.

In practice, will they? Probably not. But weirder things have happened.

~~~
kevinmannix
That's true, my comment was probably short-sighted. I received federal loans,
so my name is in that database. Like you said, crazier things have happened.

------
pascalxus
Section 8 is destroying our housing market. All these subsidies just encourage
people to stay in CA/Bay area and push up the cost of housing for everyone
else to unsustainable levels.

Of course the solution is to have a massive increase in the supply of housing.
That will never happen. The next best option is to have mass exodus of people
leaving the bay area.

~~~
kevinburke
> Section 8 is destroying our housing market.

That's flagrantly false, and a dog whistle. If anything, the existence of
Section 8 should encourage more housing supply, since there's more money for
rent.

NIMBY's have an unusually large say in the approval process here, and we've
been underbuilding for decades. NIMBY's are very well organized and they have
huge incentives to invest tons of money in their homes due to Prop 13, and to
block new housing development so existing property values keep going up. CEQA
gives NIMBY's and environmental groups wide latitude to file lawsuits to block
projects they don't like, and they succeed in about half the lawsuits they
file. Cities prioritize office building over residential due to Prop 13.

~~~
pascalxus
Everything you said is true, except one thing. You assume that the supply can
increase if there's more money for rent. But, that's not entirely true. As you
said, NIMBYs are blocking developments at every turn. The supply is not being
allowed to increase. And by hamstringing developers with affordability
requirements, that's going to decrease supply even further.

------
dmode
Six figures is a bit misleading. I make close to 300k, which is also six
figures and have a family. Don't really feel poor. I have a 4000 sqft home and
take plenty of vacations

~~~
stupidhn
> _I have a 4000 sqft home and take plenty of vacations_

Let them eat cake!

