5 ms·

Yep, you see it a lot in San Francisco (I've noticed it creeps into my mind a lot more frequently than I'd like to admit). The thing is, it's like the boiling

Yep, you see it a lot in San Francisco (I've noticed it creeps into my mind a lot more frequently than I'd like to admit). The thing is, it's like the boiling a frog in water analogy. You get desensitized to it. I tend to work with salespeople, so there's a tendency to get flashier things than a lot of my programming friends, but it manifests in things like always having the latest iPhone (or it's Android equivalent), travelling internationally a couple times a year, going for brunch whenever you feel like it, being able to save a good $10-15k yearly without really trying. Maybe hitting Tahoe a few times in the winter. Going to Soulcycle or Equinox to work out during the week. But you still can't buy a house in San Francisco. So you don't feel rich, but compared to the average American you're taking home a multiple of what they're making. It shocked me to find out the average household income is about $60k annually. We all live in a bubble. San Francisco is a bubble. Dayton Ohio is a bubble as well. And when you live in a city with a ton of rich people (and a sizeable population probably in the bottom 10%) it gets pretty easy to forget about the other 80% who live somewhere in the middle of it all, in Concord, or Pleasanton or whatever they call it in the East Bay.

taurath 8y ago
It’s relative on how you define wealth really - ability to provide stability in the form of a mortgage, or amount of money you make. I feel like in SF or any big expensive city owning a home is not something for the middle or upper middle class - there’s a point that no matter how many brunches or vacations you can take, you can’t trade them for a house except in an area where you’ll be basically going down in economic and social class (live out in Tracy or something, have a 2 hour one way commute, far fewer vacations etc). The trade off for that “stability” isn’t one that a lot of people currently renting think is a good deal. IMO the best way to do it is keep on renting while putting as much money in investments and retirement funds as one can, with the idea of retiring somewhere else, or only buying if you get a windfall. But I’m terms of lifestyle, those in that 9.9% have a far richer one than the rest, but they don’t have the long term security of owning their own home.
- jacob019 8y ago
  Owning a home is overrated, it owns you.
  - hndamien 8y ago
    Depends how big the home is.
    - LyndsySimon 8y ago
      Relative to your income. My home was about $120k. It’s easily affordable on a tech industry salary. The median household income in my county is under $30k...
      - hndamien 8y ago
        Ahh, so you mean the debt owns you, not the house per se.
        LyndsySimon 8y ago
        Is this just a general comment about mortgages? As it stands, my mortgage is significantly less than most people's as a proportion of my income.
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        I'm not jacob019, who originally made the comment, but as I understand it, the point was not the debt. The point was the maintenance. When the basement floods, it's my problem, not the landlords. When the attic fan fails (I was surprised that attics had fans), it's my problem. When the driveway concrete starts to buckle, it's my problem. In that sense, the house owns you, not the other way around.
        jacob019 8y ago
        this.
sjg007 8y ago
Homes in Pleasanton are expensive... not sure what you are on about..
closeparen 8y ago
>Yep, you see it a lot in San Francisco The median household income across San Francisco and San Mateo counties is $115k. People who make close to that are entirely justified in calling themselves middle class. Spending half your take-home on a crappy $2500 apartment doesn't make you rich just because the apartment is in SF.
geebee 8y ago
"But you still can't buy a house in San Francisco." Are you in a dual income family, and have you considered buying areas like the Excelsior, Ingleside heights (excluding Ingleside terrace), Oceanview/Merced Heights, Outer Mission, Portola, Silver Terrace, or other such neighborhoods? I don't mean to dismiss your question, these are still expensive neighborhoods, probably between 800k-1.2mil for something decent. This is tough for two incomes, as the dual income thing means you're also stuck with high childcare costs, which will probably be ~25k per kid in San Francisco (I'm talking about the kind that allows you to go to work from 8am-6pm - and even then you will have to recuse yourself from meetings to be at daycare by 6pm, officially surrendering your membership in the young people are just smarter and can focus on what's important club in Silicon Valley companies[1). I do think this is in reach of the group you just described, though. 250k+ family income isn't unusual for two tech workers or other professionals in SF (a programmer and dental hygienist pair, for example, should exceed this). [1] https://venturebeat.com/2007/03/26/start-up-advice-for-entrepreneurs-from-y-combinator-startup-school/ https://venturebeat.com/2007/03/26/start-up-advice-for-entre...
- seem_2211 8y ago
  I agree 100%. I meant to sum up the prevailing attitude on housing out here.

taurath 8y ago

It’s relative on how you define wealth really - ability to provide stability in the form of a mortgage, or amount of money you make. I feel like in SF or any big expensive city owning a home is not something for the middle or upper middle class - there’s a point that no matter how many brunches or vacations you can take, you can’t trade them for a house except in an area where you’ll be basically going down in economic and social class (live out in Tracy or something, have a 2 hour one way commute, far fewer vacations etc). The trade off for that “stability” isn’t one that a lot of people currently renting think is a good deal. IMO the best way to do it is keep on renting while putting as much money in investments and retirement funds as one can, with the idea of retiring somewhere else, or only buying if you get a windfall. But I’m terms of lifestyle, those in that 9.9% have a far richer one than the rest, but they don’t have the long term security of owning their own home.

jacob019 8y ago
Owning a home is overrated, it owns you.
- hndamien 8y ago
  Depends how big the home is.
  - LyndsySimon 8y ago
    Relative to your income. My home was about $120k. It’s easily affordable on a tech industry salary. The median household income in my county is under $30k...
    - hndamien 8y ago
      Ahh, so you mean the debt owns you, not the house per se.
      - LyndsySimon 8y ago
        Is this just a general comment about mortgages? As it stands, my mortgage is significantly less than most people's as a proportion of my income.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        I'm not jacob019, who originally made the comment, but as I understand it, the point was not the debt. The point was the maintenance. When the basement floods, it's my problem, not the landlords. When the attic fan fails (I was surprised that attics had fans), it's my problem. When the driveway concrete starts to buckle, it's my problem. In that sense, the house owns you, not the other way around.
        jacob019 8y ago
        this.

sjg007 8y ago

Homes in Pleasanton are expensive... not sure what you are on about..

closeparen 8y ago

>Yep, you see it a lot in San Francisco The median household income across San Francisco and San Mateo counties is $115k. People who make close to that are entirely justified in calling themselves middle class. Spending half your take-home on a crappy $2500 apartment doesn't make you rich just because the apartment is in SF.

geebee 8y ago

"But you still can't buy a house in San Francisco." Are you in a dual income family, and have you considered buying areas like the Excelsior, Ingleside heights (excluding Ingleside terrace), Oceanview/Merced Heights, Outer Mission, Portola, Silver Terrace, or other such neighborhoods? I don't mean to dismiss your question, these are still expensive neighborhoods, probably between 800k-1.2mil for something decent. This is tough for two incomes, as the dual income thing means you're also stuck with high childcare costs, which will probably be ~25k per kid in San Francisco (I'm talking about the kind that allows you to go to work from 8am-6pm - and even then you will have to recuse yourself from meetings to be at daycare by 6pm, officially surrendering your membership in the young people are just smarter and can focus on what's important club in Silicon Valley companies[1). I do think this is in reach of the group you just described, though. 250k+ family income isn't unusual for two tech workers or other professionals in SF (a programmer and dental hygienist pair, for example, should exceed this). [1] https://venturebeat.com/2007/03/26/start-up-advice-for-entrepreneurs-from-y-combinator-startup-school/ https://venturebeat.com/2007/03/26/start-up-advice-for-entre...

seem_2211 8y ago
I agree 100%. I meant to sum up the prevailing attitude on housing out here.