4 ms·

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

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.
        kafkaesq 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. 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).
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

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.
      - kafkaesq 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. 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).

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.