Hacker News Reader

Comment by rsj_hn | Hacker News Reader

150K is not anywhere close to the poverty line. In fact median household income in San Francisco is 112K.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanfranciscocitycalifornia

Honestly this comes off pretty elitist. "Well, George, if you're not earning 400K then you're dreadfully poor!"

The low-income threshold in sf for a family of four is about $120,000. And $150,000 is not far off from that. And even more important, the extraordinary rents in sf more than outpace the higher incomes:

For example, a fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the San Francisco area is considered to be $3,121 (£2,340) per month - nearly twice the 2008 figure of $1,592 (£1,190). In Cincinnati, Ohio, the figure is $845 (£632). This difference (270%) is much larger than the difference in median family incomes (50%).

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44725026

Median household income is going to consider a lot of single people; the parent post said "supporting a family".

The income thresholds for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development[1] (HUD) seem to be the best location-adjusted standards for poverty (the federal poverty thresholds[2] are the same for all mainland states). HUD's 2021 numbers for households of 3-5 people in San Francisco:

    |                 | 3 PERSON | 4 PERSON | 5 PERSON |
    |-----------------+----------+----------+----------|
    | EXTR LOW INCOME |   49,350 |   54,800 |   59,200 |
    | VERY LOW INCOME |   82,250 |   91,350 |   98,700 |
    | LOW-INCOME      |  131,750 |  146,350 |  158,100 |

So, supporting a spouse and 1 kid in SF, 150k is just 14% above "low income". But just eyeballing the federal poverty thresholds to the HUD numbers for other locations, it looks to me like the "extra low income" number is the one most comparable to the poverty threshold; in that case, you are correct, 150K is not anywhere close to the poverty line.

[1]: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il21/Section8-Inc...

[2]: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-ser...

-- lukeshu (some guy who has never even been to California)

I worked for a company located in SF not long ago, I don’t think most people appreciate just how absurd the cost of living there actually is.

The people I worked with lived in fairly small apartments, shared with up to eight co-tenets. It was all they could reasonably afford, and they were well payed tech employees.

I bought a new house in the Central Valley for the same pay.

I lived in SF also, and know exactly how much it costs to live there. I also know that because the cost of living is high, many people commute into San Francisco to work, living where it's cheaper.

But even in SF, 112K is sufficient for 50% of households, and the median household does not live in a small apartment with eight cotenants. That's also absurd.

Those households moved in prior to prices going crazy, and have arrangements like mortgages, prop 13, and rent control such that they're still paying outdated prices.

These people have home equity and/or legal privileges (prop 13, rent control) that reduce their housing costs by thousands of dollars per month relative to what a new migrant would face. Although their incomes could be modest, their assets are significant.

"median" might not the best measure to use in cases such as this. I'm not from SF, so I won't try to take a side, but I do know that with the wealth gaps in this country, median is highly unlikely to accurately tell the story of employees working in the public sector.

The federal poverty line != living wage in a specific area.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com