4 ms·

Well just imagine how poor you would feel with just the median household income of 50k (2011 US Census) or worse and you were the bottom 20% making <=25k.

ars_technician 13y ago
People with the median income don't live in silicon valley. 50k goes further in the midwest than 100k in SF.
- Crito 13y ago
  Median household income in SF in 2011 was $72,947. That is a good deal more than 50k, but far less than 100k. Now imagine the household isn't one 20-something person, but two adults, closer to middle-aged, with a kid or two. 2.3 people per household in 2011 in SF. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html
  - ars_technician 13y ago
    >Median household income in SF in 2011 was $72,947. You just proved my point.
- FreakLegion 13y ago
  I lived in SF on 30k in 2010-2011. It's entirely doable. (Although the fact that it's doable is no excuse for the miserable salary I was paid. I worked in publishing, which everyone with a literature degree wants to break into, and thus, the entry-level pay is notoriously bad.)
blisterpeanuts 13y ago
Well just imagine how poor you would feel with just the median household income of 50k (2011 US Census) or worse and you were the bottom 20% making <=25k. What's your point? Sounds like you're basically saying, I'm lucky to be making this much. Of course, I know that. Yes, I'm extremely fortunate, compared to someone making $25K or less. I'm also lucky compared to a paraplegic or a quadriplegic person, or someone dying of cancer. So what? My point is, $100K doesn't go as far as one would think, when supporting a family and living in a big city on the East Coast. It barely meets expenses, and designating this level of income as "wealthy" or "rich" is a ridiculously dated notion.
- ForHackernews 13y ago
  > It barely meets expenses Then cut your expenses; don't live beyond your means. Isn't that the advice that's always being given to poor people? $100k puts you in the top quintile of the US population. It's definitely wealthy.
  - blisterpeanuts 13y ago
    It definitely is not wealthy. When you're a little older, and raising a family, you'll learn that $100K is just the average amount that reasonably affluent households are earning, typically based on two incomes, and it doesn't go very far. Sure, it's better than trying to raise 3 children on one $20K income with an absentee deadbeat dad not in the picture, but that's really comparing apples and oranges. We're talking about the definition of "rich" and "wealthy" here, which is really a different thing from affluent-versus-working-poor. If 90% of American households were earning $100K, that would be fantastic. But it's not the same thing as being rich.
    - ForHackernews 13y ago
      > It definitely is not wealthy. > reasonably affluent households > it's not the same thing as being rich. Now you're just playing with semantics. "Wealthy", "affluent", and "rich" are all synonyms with subtly different connotations. Statistically, if your family is making $100k/year, you have access to more money than the vast majority of American families. > but that's really comparing apples and oranges Yes, exactly! It's comparing wealthy people to not-wealthy people. I get that the money doesn't buy as much as you might hope it would; it doesn't feel "rich" because you imagine "rich" to include luxurious vacations and a huge house or what-have-you. And it doesn't seem "rich" because you measure yourself against even-wealthier people in your social and professional orbit--and you discount not-rich families as "oranges" that are not comparable to your own "apples". But in terms of raw numbers--not feelings--you're pretty well-off.

ars_technician 13y ago

People with the median income don't live in silicon valley. 50k goes further in the midwest than 100k in SF.

Crito 13y ago
Median household income in SF in 2011 was $72,947. That is a good deal more than 50k, but far less than 100k. Now imagine the household isn't one 20-something person, but two adults, closer to middle-aged, with a kid or two. 2.3 people per household in 2011 in SF. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html
- ars_technician 13y ago
  >Median household income in SF in 2011 was $72,947. You just proved my point.
FreakLegion 13y ago
I lived in SF on 30k in 2010-2011. It's entirely doable. (Although the fact that it's doable is no excuse for the miserable salary I was paid. I worked in publishing, which everyone with a literature degree wants to break into, and thus, the entry-level pay is notoriously bad.)

blisterpeanuts 13y ago

Well just imagine how poor you would feel with just the median household income of 50k (2011 US Census) or worse and you were the bottom 20% making <=25k. What's your point? Sounds like you're basically saying, I'm lucky to be making this much. Of course, I know that. Yes, I'm extremely fortunate, compared to someone making $25K or less. I'm also lucky compared to a paraplegic or a quadriplegic person, or someone dying of cancer. So what? My point is, $100K doesn't go as far as one would think, when supporting a family and living in a big city on the East Coast. It barely meets expenses, and designating this level of income as "wealthy" or "rich" is a ridiculously dated notion.

ForHackernews 13y ago
> It barely meets expenses Then cut your expenses; don't live beyond your means. Isn't that the advice that's always being given to poor people? $100k puts you in the top quintile of the US population. It's definitely wealthy.
- blisterpeanuts 13y ago
  It definitely is not wealthy. When you're a little older, and raising a family, you'll learn that $100K is just the average amount that reasonably affluent households are earning, typically based on two incomes, and it doesn't go very far. Sure, it's better than trying to raise 3 children on one $20K income with an absentee deadbeat dad not in the picture, but that's really comparing apples and oranges. We're talking about the definition of "rich" and "wealthy" here, which is really a different thing from affluent-versus-working-poor. If 90% of American households were earning $100K, that would be fantastic. But it's not the same thing as being rich.
  - ForHackernews 13y ago
    > It definitely is not wealthy. > reasonably affluent households > it's not the same thing as being rich. Now you're just playing with semantics. "Wealthy", "affluent", and "rich" are all synonyms with subtly different connotations. Statistically, if your family is making $100k/year, you have access to more money than the vast majority of American families. > but that's really comparing apples and oranges Yes, exactly! It's comparing wealthy people to not-wealthy people. I get that the money doesn't buy as much as you might hope it would; it doesn't feel "rich" because you imagine "rich" to include luxurious vacations and a huge house or what-have-you. And it doesn't seem "rich" because you measure yourself against even-wealthier people in your social and professional orbit--and you discount not-rich families as "oranges" that are not comparable to your own "apples". But in terms of raw numbers--not feelings--you're pretty well-off.