3 ms·

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. Le

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'. This figure is still below that which is required to buy the media property in San Francisco! (http://www.businessinsider.com/san-franciscos-epic-housing-crisis-2015-8?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/san-franciscos-epic-housing-c...) The median house price in SF is in excess of $1.3M! 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'.

kafkaesq 11y ago
That's really irrelevant. 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.

kafkaesq 11y ago

That's really irrelevant. 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.