3 ms·

The median household income in California is $92k. The top 1% is $844k. $400k is definitely pretty rich, but it's interesting how many wealthy Americans resolut

by foldr 3y ago

The median household income in California is $92k. The top 1% is $844k. $400k is definitely pretty rich, but it's interesting how many wealthy Americans resolutely deny that they fall into this category.

aurareturn 3y ago
Not in Silicon Valley. It should be geolocation specific. $400k really isn't that much here. Again, you can't buy an average house here with that salary. $400k after taxes is around $260k or around $21k/month. If you buy a median house in Cupertino or just about anywhere in Silicon Valley, the mortgage + property taxes is around $20,000/month. You have $1k left over. Hence, $400k is not rich here.
- foldr 3y ago
  Sure, but in the context of a discussion of swing states, it seems relevant to consider California as a whole. Median income in Silicon Valley is still a lot lower than 400k, in any case.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    Applying a blanket all number to tax is a mistake. Yes, it's already like this and it's a mistake. Let's not make it even worse.
    - foldr 3y ago
      It's a mistake from the point of view of the small minority of people who'd pay more taxes – no surprises there.
      - aurareturn 3y ago
        Sure, I’m arguing that the minority needs to be moved up a few more pecs. Try $4 million instead of $400k. $400k is not enough to buy a house in Cupertino, not enough to start a family, not enough to enjoy an upper middle class lifestyle. But go ahead. Apply a blanket all rate to everyone. Yes, I understand that $400k is a lot for many parts of the world/country.
        foldr 3y ago
        You seem completely disconnected from the reality of what people are earning. Even if you look just at the Bay Area, the median income is 'only' $120k. The people who are primarily suffering from the high cost of living in this area aren't software engineers on $400k. It's a shame if these people can't buy their dream houses in their dream locations, but why should that be a priority for California's 22 million voters?
- ragequittah 3y ago
  In a decade of that income one could own a house (or 3) in a different town or state, fly in once a week to live in a typical apartment rental someone making 50k-70k might rent, and still have money left over for a boat or whatever else. Absurd to say someone isn't objectively rich making $400k.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    Again, it’s not absurd. It’s hard to fathom but it’s true. The math doesn’t lie. Cost of living is outrageous here. $400k is not rich. Try 40 million instead.
    - ragequittah 3y ago
      But I just outlined how to be more rich than almost anyone in the country, in both real estate and disposable income available to you, with 40 seconds of thought. Maybe you can't own a 2.9 million dollar home on 400k, but you could own multiple of the homes most of us are looking for without blinking. Able to be a landlord at any point and charge rent to pay off a mortgage on a 400k home for you. Do that 3 or 4 times and you have your 2.9 million. Maybe even spend many people's annual salary to have someone take care of those properties as rentals for a few years amd/or renovate them, because that barely puts in a dent in the pocketbook. 400k is far more freedom than most people could ever dream of.
      - aurareturn 3y ago
        Cool, and how do you think this person got a $400k salary job? It's because the cost of living here is so high that companies have to pay extremely high salaries. How are you going to get a $400k salary job in Detroit Michigan?
        ThunderSizzle 3y ago
        Regardless, 400k is high income. You are just choosing to spend it all on housing. You may not be rich, but 400k is definitely high income. Hell, 100k is high income.
- fragmede 3y ago
  Regnart Elementary school in Cupertino is in danger of being closed down because not enough young families with kids are moving to Cupertino because it's too damned expensive. So using it as a realistic ruler for all of Silicon Valley seems disingenuous when people in Silicon Valley can't even live there! Might as well have chosen Atherton or Woodside for all the relevance they have. $400k is a lot, even in California. It would be nice to have more, and not have to make any sort of sacrifices at all on living location or anything at all. Get the big house, the nice car; all that. But people raise families on less than that in California. They just don't get to have the BMW and own that McMansion, and have to be picky about when to Doordash.

by foldr 3y ago

aurareturn 3y ago

Not in Silicon Valley. It should be geolocation specific. $400k really isn't that much here. Again, you can't buy an average house here with that salary. $400k after taxes is around $260k or around $21k/month. If you buy a median house in Cupertino or just about anywhere in Silicon Valley, the mortgage + property taxes is around $20,000/month. You have $1k left over. Hence, $400k is not rich here.

foldr 3y ago
Sure, but in the context of a discussion of swing states, it seems relevant to consider California as a whole. Median income in Silicon Valley is still a lot lower than 400k, in any case.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  Applying a blanket all number to tax is a mistake. Yes, it's already like this and it's a mistake. Let's not make it even worse.
  - foldr 3y ago
    It's a mistake from the point of view of the small minority of people who'd pay more taxes – no surprises there.
    - aurareturn 3y ago
      Sure, I’m arguing that the minority needs to be moved up a few more pecs. Try $4 million instead of $400k. $400k is not enough to buy a house in Cupertino, not enough to start a family, not enough to enjoy an upper middle class lifestyle. But go ahead. Apply a blanket all rate to everyone. Yes, I understand that $400k is a lot for many parts of the world/country.
      - foldr 3y ago
        You seem completely disconnected from the reality of what people are earning. Even if you look just at the Bay Area, the median income is 'only' $120k. The people who are primarily suffering from the high cost of living in this area aren't software engineers on $400k. It's a shame if these people can't buy their dream houses in their dream locations, but why should that be a priority for California's 22 million voters?
ragequittah 3y ago
In a decade of that income one could own a house (or 3) in a different town or state, fly in once a week to live in a typical apartment rental someone making 50k-70k might rent, and still have money left over for a boat or whatever else. Absurd to say someone isn't objectively rich making $400k.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  Again, it’s not absurd. It’s hard to fathom but it’s true. The math doesn’t lie. Cost of living is outrageous here. $400k is not rich. Try 40 million instead.
  - ragequittah 3y ago
    But I just outlined how to be more rich than almost anyone in the country, in both real estate and disposable income available to you, with 40 seconds of thought. Maybe you can't own a 2.9 million dollar home on 400k, but you could own multiple of the homes most of us are looking for without blinking. Able to be a landlord at any point and charge rent to pay off a mortgage on a 400k home for you. Do that 3 or 4 times and you have your 2.9 million. Maybe even spend many people's annual salary to have someone take care of those properties as rentals for a few years amd/or renovate them, because that barely puts in a dent in the pocketbook. 400k is far more freedom than most people could ever dream of.
    - aurareturn 3y ago
      Cool, and how do you think this person got a $400k salary job? It's because the cost of living here is so high that companies have to pay extremely high salaries. How are you going to get a $400k salary job in Detroit Michigan?
      - ThunderSizzle 3y ago
        Regardless, 400k is high income. You are just choosing to spend it all on housing. You may not be rich, but 400k is definitely high income. Hell, 100k is high income.
fragmede 3y ago
Regnart Elementary school in Cupertino is in danger of being closed down because not enough young families with kids are moving to Cupertino because it's too damned expensive. So using it as a realistic ruler for all of Silicon Valley seems disingenuous when people in Silicon Valley can't even live there! Might as well have chosen Atherton or Woodside for all the relevance they have. $400k is a lot, even in California. It would be nice to have more, and not have to make any sort of sacrifices at all on living location or anything at all. Get the big house, the nice car; all that. But people raise families on less than that in California. They just don't get to have the BMW and own that McMansion, and have to be picky about when to Doordash.