3 ms·

There is something very important missing - the SPM poverty measure is relative poverty, not absolute. All this means is that CA has many rich people.

HarryHirsch 10y ago
And all the the pretty money you earn as a software engineer in SF is sufficient only for a kommunalka: http://venturebeat.com/2017/03/10/tech-workers-live-40-to-a-house-in-high-rent-san-francisco/ http://venturebeat.com/2017/03/10/tech-workers-live-40-to-a-... We had one in town when I was a student. The thing had a name. It was called Schweinebunker.
- Epenthesis 10y ago
  So, living in places like that and paying that much is definitely not normal. For 1900 $/mo, you can get a bedroom in a really nice 2 or 3BR place in the desirable neighborhoods or a studio/1BR in the undesirable neighborhoods (sunset/richmond). I don't understand why the people in that article are living like that (Poor credit? Desperation to find a place fast? Ignorance of the existence of Craigslist?), but they're very, very far from being representative of SF real estate.
  - jon-wood 10y ago
    I think you making that an example of a great deal just shows how skewed the SF housing market is. I'm in the south of the UK, just within commuting distance of London, and for $800/mth less than that rent a 3 bedroom house with a garden in a well connected area, and that's a bit expensive for the area because its well located. The housing market in London is just as ridiculous at the moment and I'm so glad to have got out.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  That could be true, but the poverty rate doesn't really tell anything about it. A purchasing power metric (that includes cost of housing) would indicate that.
jlmorton 10y ago
It's not an entirely relative measure. My understanding is that it: a) Includes income transfers, like SNAP, housing assistance, EITC, etc. b) Is based on the affordability of a bundle of food, clothing, shelter, and utilities consumed at the 33rd percentile. In other words, after including most government anti-poverty transfers, is the person able to afford food, clothing, shelter and utilities equivalent to that consumed by the 33rd income percentile. It is relative, but it's not strictly relative, because it's based on a small basket of necessities.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  According to the report, a lot of what triggers this is the massive need for housing assistance.

HarryHirsch 10y ago

And all the the pretty money you earn as a software engineer in SF is sufficient only for a kommunalka: http://venturebeat.com/2017/03/10/tech-workers-live-40-to-a-house-in-high-rent-san-francisco/ http://venturebeat.com/2017/03/10/tech-workers-live-40-to-a-... We had one in town when I was a student. The thing had a name. It was called Schweinebunker.

Epenthesis 10y ago
So, living in places like that and paying that much is definitely not normal. For 1900 $/mo, you can get a bedroom in a really nice 2 or 3BR place in the desirable neighborhoods or a studio/1BR in the undesirable neighborhoods (sunset/richmond). I don't understand why the people in that article are living like that (Poor credit? Desperation to find a place fast? Ignorance of the existence of Craigslist?), but they're very, very far from being representative of SF real estate.
- jon-wood 10y ago
  I think you making that an example of a great deal just shows how skewed the SF housing market is. I'm in the south of the UK, just within commuting distance of London, and for $800/mth less than that rent a 3 bedroom house with a garden in a well connected area, and that's a bit expensive for the area because its well located. The housing market in London is just as ridiculous at the moment and I'm so glad to have got out.
ptaipale 10y ago
That could be true, but the poverty rate doesn't really tell anything about it. A purchasing power metric (that includes cost of housing) would indicate that.

jlmorton 10y ago

It's not an entirely relative measure. My understanding is that it: a) Includes income transfers, like SNAP, housing assistance, EITC, etc. b) Is based on the affordability of a bundle of food, clothing, shelter, and utilities consumed at the 33rd percentile. In other words, after including most government anti-poverty transfers, is the person able to afford food, clothing, shelter and utilities equivalent to that consumed by the 33rd income percentile. It is relative, but it's not strictly relative, because it's based on a small basket of necessities.

KirinDave 10y ago
According to the report, a lot of what triggers this is the massive need for housing assistance.