3 ms·

Well, there must be also a given number of "middle class" people, that are not top notch programmers, nor "entry level" or "retail". If we take these as valid

by jaclaz 7y ago

Well, there must be also a given number of "middle class" people, that are not top notch programmers, nor "entry level" or "retail". If we take these as valid data: https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/occupationalemploymentandwages_sanfrancisco.htm https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/occupationalem... And set an arbitrary threshold at 45 US$/hour, the amount of people exceeding that are 31.1%, if we set it at 50 US$/hour they are 19.4%. If we draw another line, those that get less than 25 US$/hour are 42.1% and those that get more than 25 but less than 45 are 26.6%. So, even if we assume that 40% of people commutes for long distances (and BTW technically are not SF residents), since only between 20% and 30% of San Francisco workers can actually afford it, it still leaves us with 30%-40% of people that must be in a really tight spot.

bluGill 7y ago
I'm not an expert in California, but if I understand prop 13 correctly it is possible some of those are people who have lived in SF for many years at the same address - their house is paid off and taxes are minimal so they can afford to live on much less. If your house only costs $400/month to live in ($100 insurance, $100 taxes, $200 other utilities) minimum wage still leaves plenty left over, and presumably if you bought a house 30 years ago you were worth more than minimum wage...
- jaclaz 7y ago
  Maybe that would account for a part (I am also not at all an expert in California, so it is just speculation), but those cannot reasonably account for 40% of workers. I mean, if you live in SF and have a yearly income of "only" 50-60,000 US$ working some 2000 hours at 25-30 $/hour, and you live in a house that you can rent for roughly the same amount or that you can sell for (say) a million, what actually keeps you there? Maybe you can find somewhere else a similar job, paid in the 15-20 $/hour range, you lose 20,000 on the job but get an additional 40,000 from the rent or from interests on the capital.

by jaclaz 7y ago

bluGill 7y ago

I'm not an expert in California, but if I understand prop 13 correctly it is possible some of those are people who have lived in SF for many years at the same address - their house is paid off and taxes are minimal so they can afford to live on much less. If your house only costs $400/month to live in ($100 insurance, $100 taxes, $200 other utilities) minimum wage still leaves plenty left over, and presumably if you bought a house 30 years ago you were worth more than minimum wage...

jaclaz 7y ago
Maybe that would account for a part (I am also not at all an expert in California, so it is just speculation), but those cannot reasonably account for 40% of workers. I mean, if you live in SF and have a yearly income of "only" 50-60,000 US$ working some 2000 hours at 25-30 $/hour, and you live in a house that you can rent for roughly the same amount or that you can sell for (say) a million, what actually keeps you there? Maybe you can find somewhere else a similar job, paid in the 15-20 $/hour range, you lose 20,000 on the job but get an additional 40,000 from the rent or from interests on the capital.