5 ms·

People don't want the truth, they wan't someone to blame. Rich 20-something white males from out of town are a very convenient and easy target. Brogrammers rui

People don't want the truth, they wan't someone to blame. Rich 20-something white males from out of town are a very convenient and easy target. Brogrammers ruining this city.

kafkaesq 11y ago
Oh, the "bros" (and less sardonically, the tech crowd in general -- independent of age, ethnicity and gender) themselves aren't to blame. They are but passive agents. However, the influx of their paychecks is quite obviously a factor. Attempts to deny this fact are just that... denial.
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  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.
  - kafkaesq 11y ago
    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.
    - browseatwork 11y ago
      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.
      - Tempest1981 11y ago
        What percent of Bay Area "tech" is medical-related?
        twblalock 11y ago
        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.
    - WildUtah 11y ago
      "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.
      - kafkaesq 11y ago
        No, but it's close. Median individual income in the Bay Area is around $50k. So you're saying $120k is "close to" $50k? A middle-class family could live in San Francisco on 150-180k Median family income is around $78k. Are you sure, then, that you don't see anything wrong with the logic in the argument you're making?
        mmanfrin 11y ago
        50k is now middle class? At this point Poe's law is ringing. You must be trolling.
        kafkaesq 11y ago
        "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."
        matthewmacleod 11y ago
        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.
    - linkregister 11y ago
      > A $120k median salary definitely isn't "middle class." In the San Francisco Bay Area, it is. The median household income for SF residents is $78,378. [1] However, to purchase a home at the median price ($682,410), a family must make $115,510. [2] One article suggests the ceiling for middle class in the Bay Area is $170k. [3] It appears your focus is nationwide, and not regional. [1] http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/map/PST045214/06075 http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/map/PST045214/06075 [2] http://blog.sfgate.com/pender/2014/02/18/how-much-income-do-you-need-to-buy-a-home-in-the-bay-area/ http://blog.sfgate.com/pender/2014/02/18/how-much-income-do-... [3] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/03/19/394057221/how-much-or-little-the-middle-class-makes-in-30-u-s-cities http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/03/19/394057221/how-m... Edit: added [3]
      - kafkaesq 11y ago
        There's a very obvious logical flaw in your argument. Sorry -- I don't have time to flesh it out for you. But just look more closely. I'm sure you'll see it.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - ryandrake 11y ago
        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?
        dredmorbius 11y ago
        Thatsthepoint.jpg
        paulddraper 11y ago
        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.
  - browseatwork 11y ago
    There is widespread, often reasonable disagreement about what middle class means, either in terms of salary or total assets. Or cultural practice. It's true, people do under-acknowledge other industries - law, finance, medicine. http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Tech-isn-t-biggest-S-F-industry-health-care-is-5899525.php http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Tech-isn-t-biggest-S-... Average SF health-related salary in 2014 - 67k. "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.
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    tech worker's middle-class wages 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] [0] - http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/09/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/09/are-you-in-t... [1] - http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/student-loans/average-salary-in-san-francisco/ http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/student-loans/average-s...
    - browseatwork 11y ago
      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. https://medium.com/@taliajane/an-open-letter-to-my-ceo-fb73df021e7a https://medium.com/@taliajane/an-open-letter-to-my-ceo-fb73d... 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."
    - mmanfrin 11y ago
      If you're single and making more than $72k per year, you're in the upper class This is dead wrong. SF Median household income is 77k, average is 104k. Earning 72k does not put you in the upper class, not in the slightest.
      - kafkaesq 11y ago
        This is dead wrong. "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.

People don't want the truth, they wan't someone to blame. Rich 20-something white males from out of town are a very convenient and easy target. Brogrammers ruining this city.

kafkaesq 11y ago

Oh, the "bros" (and less sardonically, the tech crowd in general -- independent of age, ethnicity and gender) themselves aren't to blame. They are but passive agents. However, the influx of their paychecks is quite obviously a factor. Attempts to deny this fact are just that... denial.

mmanfrin 11y ago
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.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  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.
  - browseatwork 11y ago
    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.
    - Tempest1981 11y ago
      What percent of Bay Area "tech" is medical-related?
      - twblalock 11y ago
        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.
  - WildUtah 11y ago
    "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.
    - kafkaesq 11y ago
      No, but it's close. Median individual income in the Bay Area is around $50k. So you're saying $120k is "close to" $50k? A middle-class family could live in San Francisco on 150-180k Median family income is around $78k. Are you sure, then, that you don't see anything wrong with the logic in the argument you're making?
      - mmanfrin 11y ago
        50k is now middle class? At this point Poe's law is ringing. You must be trolling.
        kafkaesq 11y ago
        "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."
        matthewmacleod 11y ago
        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.
  - linkregister 11y ago
    > A $120k median salary definitely isn't "middle class." In the San Francisco Bay Area, it is. The median household income for SF residents is $78,378. [1] However, to purchase a home at the median price ($682,410), a family must make $115,510. [2] One article suggests the ceiling for middle class in the Bay Area is $170k. [3] It appears your focus is nationwide, and not regional. [1] http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/map/PST045214/06075 http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/map/PST045214/06075 [2] http://blog.sfgate.com/pender/2014/02/18/how-much-income-do-you-need-to-buy-a-home-in-the-bay-area/ http://blog.sfgate.com/pender/2014/02/18/how-much-income-do-... [3] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/03/19/394057221/how-much-or-little-the-middle-class-makes-in-30-u-s-cities http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/03/19/394057221/how-m... Edit: added [3]
    - kafkaesq 11y ago
      There's a very obvious logical flaw in your argument. Sorry -- I don't have time to flesh it out for you. But just look more closely. I'm sure you'll see it.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - ryandrake 11y ago
      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?
      - dredmorbius 11y ago
        Thatsthepoint.jpg
      - paulddraper 11y ago
        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.
- browseatwork 11y ago
  There is widespread, often reasonable disagreement about what middle class means, either in terms of salary or total assets. Or cultural practice. It's true, people do under-acknowledge other industries - law, finance, medicine. http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Tech-isn-t-biggest-S-F-industry-health-care-is-5899525.php http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Tech-isn-t-biggest-S-... Average SF health-related salary in 2014 - 67k. "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.
- dsp1234 11y ago
  tech worker's middle-class wages 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] [0] - http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/09/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/09/are-you-in-t... [1] - http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/student-loans/average-salary-in-san-francisco/ http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/student-loans/average-s...
  - browseatwork 11y ago
    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. https://medium.com/@taliajane/an-open-letter-to-my-ceo-fb73df021e7a https://medium.com/@taliajane/an-open-letter-to-my-ceo-fb73d... 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."
  - mmanfrin 11y ago
    If you're single and making more than $72k per year, you're in the upper class This is dead wrong. SF Median household income is 77k, average is 104k. Earning 72k does not put you in the upper class, not in the slightest.
    - kafkaesq 11y ago
      This is dead wrong. "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.