Yeah, the middle class is such a damper on this city. How dare the middle class want to live in the Bay Area.
Also, let's completely ignore that medical wages are higher on average than tech in the city, and that the major redevelopment of China Basin s/Mission Bay/ was spurned by the med sector of the economy; tech worker's middle-class wages are to blame.
A $120k median salary definitely isn't "middle class."
And there's been nothing like an influx of medical workers that would any way be comparable to the tech influx since the start of the century.
EDIT: Also, medical workers, though larger as a force head-count wise, appear to have decidedly lower median salaries ($67k) than to tech workers. Based on some quick searches, my guesstimate above appears to have been a bit off, but not by much -- and only when we include the non-engineering component of "tech" workers (i.e. marketing and regular admin types).
In any case there definitely appears to be a significant gap between the two industries, in terms of median salary.
What in the world? You're not buying a $682K house on a $115K salary. Not a chance. That's like 6x your salary. Isn't the rule of thumb no more than 3x? Assuming 20% down, what lender in their right mind is going to lend you 4.5x+ your salary to buy a house?
You can do much less than 20% down; you can get away with 5% down (with mortgage insurance).
In my experience, lenders will actually lend you past what is a good idea for you. It's possible to purchase the house on that income....if you spend all your money on it and nothing else.
Lower/middle/upper-class isn't just based on the relative distribution of income 10 miles radius of where you live. Some areas have different proportions of lower, middle, and upper class.
People in high-cost areas are quick to scale everything against the cost of living, but forget that cost-of-living is a economic signal of very high value for living there.
It's not that middle class is $170k. It's that the Bay area has a larger proportion of middle and upper class than other areas.
"A $120k median salary definitely isn't "middle class.""
No, but it's close.
A middle-class family could live in San Francisco on 150-180k if they're frugal and don't insist on living in a nice neighborhood or having good transit access.
You're missing the point that middle class is a subjective measure. You're arguing that its median income. They're arguing its based on affordability markers.
You're missing the point that middle class is a subjective measure.
It's a bit fuzzy. But not that fuzzy.
They're arguing its based on affordability markers.
That's not my reading of what "they" are saying (aside from the fact which posters here, aside from the one a few up from here, that you're referring to is more than a bit unclear).
But more to they point -- they're welcome to "argue" that point if they like. But if they do, it doesn't seem to have much to do with the commonly accepted notion of "middle class":
"The Census Bureau estimated [nationwide] real median household income at $53,657 for 2014 and $54,462 in 2013."
-- an easily findable source.
EDIT: Yes, of course there's been a gap between (current) median income in the Bay Area and the national median. But it's a round-off error compared to the more basic confusion in this thread between household and personal incomes. And even less significant compared to the brokenness of defining "middle class" as "able to afford median real estate prices in the current market."
I think what's been pointed out to you (maybe you've misunderstood) is that it's not really possible to use the national median income to determine 'class' in any real sense. It's too greatly affected by cost of living, household size, and numerous other factors.
It would obviously be difficult to describe someone with an income of $120,000 as 'upper class' – especially in the Bay area, where the cost of living is so high. That kind of leaves 'middle class' as the realistic descriptive.
I think what's been pointed out to you (maybe you've misunderstood) is that it's not really possible to use the national median income to determine 'class' in any real sense.
No -- everything that's been "pointed out" in this sub-thread thus far seems to conflate household with individual income figures. Which is of course a non-starter, basic logic-wise. So that's where about 80% of the noise in this thread seems to come from.
The other 20% comes from a hidden circularity: In that people are now basically saying that "median incomes in a city that has become affordable only to the upper-middle, and higher classes in very recent years, are uh, you know, middle class for that city." Which you can buy into, if you want. But it completely circumnavigates the question of whether things haven't drastically changed in the city in the past 20 years -- when it actually was much more of middle class city than it is now.
But then again, if one has no recollection of the former SF at all -- like, fairly stated, your average tech worker filing into the city, these days -- then I suppose that kind reasoning might make a lot of sense.
(Parenthetically: I'll acknowledge that there's some jitter between "median income" and "middle class," even restricted to a particular geographic area. But compared to the disconnect that started this whole sub-thread -- someone basically saying that tech worker salaries are "middle class"; and other people using personal and household income figures interchangably -- it's fairly negligible).
No -- everything that's been "pointed out" in this sub-thread thus far seems to conflate household with individual income figures.
That's really irrelevant. Let's assume that a household with two tech workers has a household income of $250,000, or $125,000 each, to avoid any of this 'noise'.
I find it difficult to agree that a household who cannot afford to buy a house can realistically be considered 'upper class'. Upper-middle, maybe. That's not a 'hidden circularity' – the price increase in housing has reduced the affordability of the area, meaning that people do not fall into the same economic class that they might were they to live elsewhere. How else does one define economic class, if not in terms of the affordability of their environment?
I absolutely believe that SF has changed dramatically since it became the foremost global tech hub. I don't doubt that large tech salaries have played a part in that. But it doesn't magically make people who receive those salaries 'upper class'.
It amounts to a 50% noise factor, across the board. Which means arguments based on this fudge factor basically don't make any sense, in my view.
But if you want to to a different route and consider this disconnect "irrelevant", hey, that's fine.
As to the "circularity" part of what you're saying:
If one defines the "middle-upper" distinction in terms of affordability within the current SF real estate bubble then your argument would be a lot more sensible.
But I don't buy that definition; I don't think it's tenable; and I don't think it jibes would how most people (who aren't disgruntled SF tech workers) would define that distinction. I think it's fundamentally flawed, in other words (and quite obviously so).
Again though, that's just me -- and basically everyone I've come in contact with in regard to the whole inequality / affordability debate since long before it became the huge, glaring thing that it is now. You can of course define it however you like.
I doubt there's been a sudden influx of med related workers. I suspect the Bay Area's universities, pharmaceutical, and biotech companies have created a slow influx over time. Like tech, a long slow one. Because a large chunk of "tech" is medical related.
It's worth excluding the lab techs, genetic counselors, admins, etc., from the medical field if you're going to exclude the non-engineers from the tech field. It makes for a more apples to apples comparison.
I couldn't give a percentage, but there are a lot of biotech companies in the peninsula, especially in South San Francisco, and Kaiser Permanente is one of the largest employers in the area. UCSF and Stanford Medical Center are also major employers.
Tech workers salaries in SF are anything but middle class. If you're single and making more than $72k per year, you're in the upper class.
"The three highest-paying positions in San Francisco, as self-reported by Glassdoor members, are all in tech. The average salary in San Francisco for a data scientist is $127,000 a year; software engineers make $103,000 a year; and database administrators earn $77,000."[0]
It depends on the tech worker. Not all tech workers are in those roles. It'd be interesting to see the distribution of all tech salaries. Entry level marketing, support, qa, and sales are all in tech, too.
I wonder how popular Glassdoor is outside of tech. And there's always the uncertainty about how accurate it is.
The calculator says:
"One limitation of the calculator is that the income range that defines each income tier does not vary across regions or cities within the U.S. If you live in a relatively expensive area, such as New York City, it is possible that the calculator places you in a higher income tier than it might if a cost of living adjustment had been made. Conversely, if you live in an inexpensive part of the country, the calculator may place you in a lower income tier than it otherwise might."
"Upper-middle class" may have been a better description for tech worker incomes, on average. Which I'm sure you know caries a very different cachet, socially and politically, than "middle class"
Basic point being (and more germane to the thread as a whole) "middle class" as a label for tech workers is clearly off base.
72k isn't even 'upper-middle'. You have been backpedalling all over, and in another comment even claimed 50k was the number for 'middle class'. You have no idea what middle class means or you are trolling.
The real upper class laughs at you guys arguing amongst yourselves over what qualifies as "middle class" and "upper middle class" and "upper lower middle class" and "lower middle upper middle class". So silly.
The context of this sub-thread (starting 3 up from here) clearly referred to "salary", a.k.a. personal income. The two categories are, of course, very different. Which explains the great bulk of the noise in this discussion.
You might want to read things more carefully before accusing people of backpedalling and trolling, in other words.
"The industry employs 20 percent of the city’s workers, with nearly 122,000 jobs. The average annual wage across all jobs in the sector — from pharmacists to surgeons to genetic counselors — was $67,410."
When does health stop and tech being? Often it's a fuzzy line.
Also, let's completely ignore that medical wages are higher on average than tech in the city, and that the major redevelopment of China Basin s/Mission Bay/ was spurned by the med sector of the economy; tech worker's middle-class wages are to blame.