Hacker News Reader

Comment by kafkaesq | Hacker News Reader

A $120k median salary definitely isn't "middle class."

And there's been nothing like an influx of medical workers that would any way be comparable to the tech influx since the start of the century.

EDIT: Also, medical workers, though larger as a force head-count wise, appear to have decidedly lower median salaries ($67k) than to tech workers. Based on some quick searches, my guesstimate above appears to have been a bit off, but not by much -- and only when we include the non-engineering component of "tech" workers (i.e. marketing and regular admin types).

In any case there definitely appears to be a significant gap between the two industries, in terms of median salary.

View on HN

> A $120k median salary definitely isn't "middle class."

In the San Francisco Bay Area, it is.

The median household income for SF residents is $78,378. [1]

However, to purchase a home at the median price ($682,410), a family must make $115,510. [2]

One article suggests the ceiling for middle class in the Bay Area is $170k. [3]

It appears your focus is nationwide, and not regional.

[1] http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/map/PST045214/06075

[2] http://blog.sfgate.com/pender/2014/02/18/how-much-income-do-...

[3] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/03/19/394057221/how-m...

Edit: added [3]

There's a very obvious logical flaw in your argument.

Sorry -- I don't have time to flesh it out for you. But just look more closely. I'm sure you'll see it.

What in the world? You're not buying a $682K house on a $115K salary. Not a chance. That's like 6x your salary. Isn't the rule of thumb no more than 3x? Assuming 20% down, what lender in their right mind is going to lend you 4.5x+ your salary to buy a house?

Thatsthepoint.jpg

You can do much less than 20% down; you can get away with 5% down (with mortgage insurance).

In my experience, lenders will actually lend you past what is a good idea for you. It's possible to purchase the house on that income....if you spend all your money on it and nothing else.

You're looking at it wrong.

Lower/middle/upper-class isn't just based on the relative distribution of income 10 miles radius of where you live. Some areas have different proportions of lower, middle, and upper class.

People in high-cost areas are quick to scale everything against the cost of living, but forget that cost-of-living is a economic signal of very high value for living there.

It's not that middle class is $170k. It's that the Bay area has a larger proportion of middle and upper class than other areas.

"A $120k median salary definitely isn't "middle class.""

No, but it's close.

A middle-class family could live in San Francisco on 150-180k if they're frugal and don't insist on living in a nice neighborhood or having good transit access.

No, but it's close.

Median individual income in the Bay Area is around $50k.

So you're saying $120k is "close to" $50k?

A middle-class family could live in San Francisco on 150-180k

Median family income is around $78k.

Are you sure, then, that you don't see anything wrong with the logic in the argument you're making?

50k is now middle class?

At this point Poe's law is ringing. You must be trolling.

"The Census Bureau estimated [nationwide] real median household income at $53,657 for 2014 and $54,462 in 2013."

-- an easily findable source.

EDIT: Yes, of course there's been a gap between (current) median income in the Bay Area and the national median. But it's a round-off error compared to the more basic confusion in this thread between household and personal incomes. And even less significant compared to the brokenness of defining "middle class" as "able to afford median real estate prices in the current market."

I think what's been pointed out to you (maybe you've misunderstood) is that it's not really possible to use the national median income to determine 'class' in any real sense. It's too greatly affected by cost of living, household size, and numerous other factors.

It would obviously be difficult to describe someone with an income of $120,000 as 'upper class' – especially in the Bay area, where the cost of living is so high. That kind of leaves 'middle class' as the realistic descriptive.

I think what's been pointed out to you (maybe you've misunderstood) is that it's not really possible to use the national median income to determine 'class' in any real sense.

No -- everything that's been "pointed out" in this sub-thread thus far seems to conflate household with individual income figures. Which is of course a non-starter, basic logic-wise. So that's where about 80% of the noise in this thread seems to come from.

The other 20% comes from a hidden circularity: In that people are now basically saying that "median incomes in a city that has become affordable only to the upper-middle, and higher classes in very recent years, are uh, you know, middle class for that city." Which you can buy into, if you want. But it completely circumnavigates the question of whether things haven't drastically changed in the city in the past 20 years -- when it actually was much more of middle class city than it is now.

But then again, if one has no recollection of the former SF at all -- like, fairly stated, your average tech worker filing into the city, these days -- then I suppose that kind reasoning might make a lot of sense.

(Parenthetically: I'll acknowledge that there's some jitter between "median income" and "middle class," even restricted to a particular geographic area. But compared to the disconnect that started this whole sub-thread -- someone basically saying that tech worker salaries are "middle class"; and other people using personal and household income figures interchangably -- it's fairly negligible).

No -- everything that's been "pointed out" in this sub-thread thus far seems to conflate household with individual income figures.

That's really irrelevant. Let's assume that a household with two tech workers has a household income of $250,000, or $125,000 each, to avoid any of this 'noise'.

This figure is still below that which is required to buy the media property in San Francisco! (http://www.businessinsider.com/san-franciscos-epic-housing-c...) The median house price in SF is in excess of $1.3M!

I find it difficult to agree that a household who cannot afford to buy a house can realistically be considered 'upper class'. Upper-middle, maybe. That's not a 'hidden circularity' – the price increase in housing has reduced the affordability of the area, meaning that people do not fall into the same economic class that they might were they to live elsewhere. How else does one define economic class, if not in terms of the affordability of their environment?

I absolutely believe that SF has changed dramatically since it became the foremost global tech hub. I don't doubt that large tech salaries have played a part in that. But it doesn't magically make people who receive those salaries 'upper class'.

That's really irrelevant.

It amounts to a 50% noise factor, across the board. Which means arguments based on this fudge factor basically don't make any sense, in my view.

But if you want to to a different route and consider this disconnect "irrelevant", hey, that's fine.

As to the "circularity" part of what you're saying:

If one defines the "middle-upper" distinction in terms of affordability within the current SF real estate bubble then your argument would be a lot more sensible.

But I don't buy that definition; I don't think it's tenable; and I don't think it jibes would how most people (who aren't disgruntled SF tech workers) would define that distinction. I think it's fundamentally flawed, in other words (and quite obviously so).

Again though, that's just me -- and basically everyone I've come in contact with in regard to the whole inequality / affordability debate since long before it became the huge, glaring thing that it is now. You can of course define it however you like.

You're missing the point that middle class is a subjective measure. You're arguing that its median income. They're arguing its based on affordability markers.

You're missing the point that middle class is a subjective measure.

It's a bit fuzzy. But not that fuzzy.

They're arguing its based on affordability markers.

That's not my reading of what "they" are saying (aside from the fact which posters here, aside from the one a few up from here, that you're referring to is more than a bit unclear).

But more to they point -- they're welcome to "argue" that point if they like. But if they do, it doesn't seem to have much to do with the commonly accepted notion of "middle class":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class

For which "median income" might not be an exact equivalent -- but is good enough, to a first-order approximation.

"Median affordability in the most expensive large-scale real estate market in the U.S.", in comparison -- just doesn't make very much sense.

Median income is not necessarily middle class.

I doubt there's been a sudden influx of med related workers. I suspect the Bay Area's universities, pharmaceutical, and biotech companies have created a slow influx over time. Like tech, a long slow one. Because a large chunk of "tech" is medical related.

It's worth excluding the lab techs, genetic counselors, admins, etc., from the medical field if you're going to exclude the non-engineers from the tech field. It makes for a more apples to apples comparison.

What percent of Bay Area "tech" is medical-related?

I couldn't give a percentage, but there are a lot of biotech companies in the peninsula, especially in South San Francisco, and Kaiser Permanente is one of the largest employers in the area. UCSF and Stanford Medical Center are also major employers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com