3 ms·

> 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] H

> 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.
paulddraper 11y ago
You're looking at it wrong. 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.

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.

paulddraper 11y ago

You're looking at it wrong. 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.