4 ms·

135k is closer to 1% in the US than you’d think.

• sologoub 5y ago
  Not in the Bay Area, this is article from 2020 and even then $384k got you only in the top 10%. $105k was basically median. Source: https://amp.thecalifornian.com/amp/4625295002 https://amp.thecalifornian.com/amp/4625295002 The national percentile doesn’t really matter when your income is not portable, and you can’t just move and take it with you. As another post said, it’s doable on $135k but it’s not easy in the SF Bay Area.
  • xur17 5y ago
    > The national percentile doesn’t really matter when your income is not portable, and you can’t just move and take it with you. With remote work, it's a lot more portable than you might think.
    • sologoub 5y ago
      For some, yes. Unfortunately, this is not as evenly available as one might hope or even as widely as it was used during pandemic.
• closeparen 5y ago
  In any given city the number of homes for sale is a small percentage of the population, and even then most of those homes will trade between incumbent owners. Prospective first time buyers are competing over the number of new housing units & units freed by out-migration, downsizing, and death. People are living longer. Boomers are aging in place. It’s pretty ordinary that would-be buyers outnumber these units more than 99:1. So merely being in the top 1% of prospective buyers is necessary, not sufficient. And since prices have gone up recently, prospective buyers are higher income than the city as a whole.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]