• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

6 figures considered low income for family of 4 in some Bay Area counties [ABC7]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zoe

Member
It doesn't say in the story unless I missed it, but the calculation here appears to just be 80% of the median income for the area. So really this means that the median income in the area is very high, it doesn't necessarily mean anything as far as what people making this amount can afford.

It's less than 80% of the median due to a YOY cap.

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html

Select the SF metro and you can see a break down of the calculations.

Edit: if you look at previous years, while other years have also been capped, this appears to be the worst so far
 
I bought a house in 2008 that's value has only gone up 10k over the past decade, but didn't lose any value in the crash. I'm not sure if I should be happy or sad.

The crash was pretty much end of 07 to very early 08 so chances are you bought after prices had already fallen significantly. If not totally at market bottom you were close to it.

Six figures is considered rich? Isn't it all relative based on location and career?

Like my mom's a guidance counselor in a Bronx public middle school and she makes six figures. Barely, and because she's been in the system for 30 years, but still.

100K isn't rich but it's usually on the upper end of middle class.

Even for your guidance counselor with that many years in the public school system she's going to retire with a VERY hefty pension, likely equivalent to a couple million sitting in a 401K.

This is absolutely not normal for middle class, yearly income or not.
 
Six figures is considered rich? Isn't it all relative based on location and career?

Like my mom's a guidance counselor in a Bronx public middle school and she makes six figures. Barely, and because she's been in the system for 30 years, but still.

In addition to healthcare, pension and three months vacation? That sounds pretty sweet, plus when she retires she can move to a state with a lower cost of living.
 
I bought a house in 2008 that's value has only gone up 10k over the past decade, but didn't lose any value in the crash. I'm not sure if I should be happy or sad.

It'll catch up soon. Likewise, I bought my house in 2009, and it double-dipped down in value around 2011 or 2012 (home values were even lower in my area in 2012 than they were even in the immediate aftermath of the housing crisis in 2008/2009), but has boomed to be estimated about 30% more than what I refinanced for in 2011. I'm more towards central Mass, which follows the market about 6-12 months behind Boston-metro area like the other poster. But just in the last year it's really climbed. Properties around me are going for $10-$20k more than asking, and in Boston-metro area it's even higher/faster.

Not sure where you live, but it'll probably climb significantly over the next year.
 
Every time we have one of these threads, I always ask what about the service people. How long can they afford to stay in the area or even commute?

Yeah, no kidding. I haven't been to SF in years, but I assume there are still restaurants and such. I further assume the employees of these businesses are not making 6 figures. So what about them?
 

dionysus

Yaldog
I disagree that there is a bubble. Housing prices are correlated to tech salaries. I am seeing this happening real time in Seattle. I want to live closer to the city but basically cannot because there has been a tech boom in the last couple of years and flooded the market with people who have high salaries.

Similarly here, people are saying it's a bubble and it's going to crash. I don't think that it is the case. If salaries become unsustainable, salaries will stop growing at the same rate, and housing prices will similarly slow down. It's not just going to crash one day. This is a completely different situation than 2008 where a lot of people were getting sold loans they couldn't afford.

SF is too disarable for people all of sudden to leave and the market crashes as a result.


This is a completely different discussion of whether this is good or not. I definitely thinks it's shitty that people with non tech jobs cannot live in the city.

Housing prices are even more correlated to interest rates. It is the primary correlation! All that would need to happen to crater housing prices in most metropolitan areas is interest rates to go to historical norms.
 

grumble

Member
Yes, this housing market is obviously sustainable, the housing bubble could never burst again!

This is less a bubble and more a function of abysmal city planning caused in part by NIMBYs. The Bay Area is famous for them. If you added a half million family mid rises into the city, this issue would be solved.
 

Timbuktu

Member
Yeah, no kidding. I haven't been to SF in years, but I assume there are still restaurants and such. I further assume the employees of these businesses are not making 6 figures. So what about them?

Do the likes of teachers and nurses get subsidies in SF?
 

Gallbaro

Banned
Schattenjäger;234662589 said:
Surprised telecommuting has not had a positive effect on the market
You'd think with the tech industry you could live anywhere in the world and be a valuable asset to a company

I do not know if you have ever worked in software development. But telecommuting without at least a weekly everyone is planting their ass at a desk in a office is also known at shit's not getting done.
 
Don't think folks really understand what low income really is in America till they have lived in a red state. Full time (most companies will give you 35-40 hours then only 30 one week a month and call it part time) min wage job in Florida is about 15k a year and they don't provide health insurance most of the time. Most of the time you won't qualify for food stamps or medicaid either unless you have multiple kids or if you do its very little. Min wage increase to even $12 much less than $15 in FL would be a massive QOL increase for a lot of people.
 
Low income in the Bay Area is actually East Oakland, where 60 teenagers will flash rob a train. I really don't like this trend of people wringing their hands about the poor middle class in the Bay Area. There are actual fucking poor people there. Parts of Oakland look like bombed out Baghdad. We should be rubbing silicon valley's face in the third world hellhole they live next to.
Amen.
 
We're at about 70k with my income now here in Belmont. It's a struggle I'm not going to lie, but we're just two people. Couldn't imagine trying to support a family with that around here.
 

Gallbaro

Banned
Don't think folks really understand what low income really is in America till they have lived in a red state. Full time (most companies will give you 35-40 hours then only 30 one week a month and call it part time) min wage job in Florida is about 15k a year and they don't provide health insurance most of the time. Most of the time you won't qualify for food stamps or medicaid either unless you have multiple kids or if you do its very little. Min wage increase to even $12 much less than $15 in FL would be a massive QOL increase for a lot of people.

I have lived disowned and homeless, with my adopted son, in a red state. I would say it was easier than living in NYC when I made 70k a year. (WAY past that now, but still rent.)
 

Fuzzery

Member
This is less a bubble and more a function of abysmal city planning caused in part by NIMBYs. The Bay Area is famous for them. If you added a half million family mid rises into the city, this issue would be solved.
Everyone always complains about this but is there anything to be done about it? How about drafting a simple prop to vote or something
 

Toki767

Member
You would think with the amount of profits and cash businesses like Apple/Google/Facebook are sitting on, they could incentivize their employees to live closer to their headquarters or build housing around them and offer free rides to the city or something.
 
You would think with the amount of profits and cash businesses like Apple/Google/Facebook are sitting on, they could incentivize their employees to live closer to their headquarters or build housing around them and offer free rides to the city or something.

They do all of these things, but in the end a lot of people simply have an intersection of "do not spend time commuting, no matter how I commute' and 'want to live in an area with wealthy people for the good schools'. This drives up real estate costs and that is reflected in an area's total COL.
 

Fuzzery

Member
It's been up for vote for the last few years and always gets shot down. This is why people always point to NIMBY-ism.

Really? Any links to this stuff? Seems to me it's pure business greed, how is there such a big lobby for keeping it that way? Why are blue states so bad about this stuff
 

Christhor

Member
Thought this was for one person and was pretty surprised, but barely making six figures for two adults? Yeah, sounds like low income to me.
 

Gallbaro

Banned
You would think with the amount of profits and cash businesses like Apple/Google/Facebook are sitting on, they could incentivize their employees to live closer to their headquarters or build housing around them and offer free rides to the city or something.

How? The Bay Area is amazingly fucking racist in their housing policies. They literally cannot build housing anywhere near their selected suburban office parks. Basically the voters in these areas do not want additional housing supply, because they do not want the value of their homes to go down.

Really? Any links to this stuff? Seems to me it's pure business greed, how is there such a big lobby for keeping it that way? Why are blue states so bad about this stuff

Economically driven racism. Let the darkies in and it ruins the "character" of the neighborhood. Any development needs to be "contextually" appropriate. But we can't let "those" people in our schools.

etc...

Executive Summary

California's Home Prices and Rents Higher Than Just About Anywhere Else. Housing in California has long been more expensive than most of the rest of the country. Beginning in about 1970, however, the gap between California's home prices and those in the rest country started to widen. Between 1970 and 1980, California home prices went from 30 percent above U.S. levels to more than 80 percent higher. This trend has continued. Today, an average California home costs $440,000, about two–and–a–half times the average national home price ($180,000). Also, California's average monthly rent is about $1,240, 50 percent higher than the rest of the country ($840 per month).

Building Less Housing Than People Demand Drives High Housing Costs. California is a desirable place to live. Yet not enough housing exists in the state's major coastal communities to accommodate all of the households that want to live there. In these areas, community resistance to housing, environmental policies, lack of fiscal incentives for local governments to approve housing, and limited land constrains new housing construction. A shortage of housing along California's coast means households wishing to live there compete for limited housing. This competition bids up home prices and rents. Some people who find California's coast unaffordable turn instead to California's inland communities, causing prices there to rise as well. In addition to a shortage of housing, high land and construction costs also play some role in high housing prices.

High Housing Costs Problematic for Households and the State's Economy. Amid high housing costs, many households make serious trade–offs to afford living here. Households with low incomes, in particular, spend much more of their income on housing. High home prices here also push homeownership out of reach for many. Faced with expensive housing options, workers in California's coastal communities commute 10 percent further each day than commuters elsewhere, largely because limited housing options exist near major job centers. Californians are also four times more likely to live in crowded housing. And, finally, the state's high housing costs make California a less attractive place to call home, making it more difficult for companies to hire and retain qualified employees, likely preventing the state's economy from meeting its full potential.

Recognize Targeted Role of Affordable Housing Programs. In recent decades, the state has approached the problem of housing affordability for low–income Californians and those with unmet housing needs primarily by subsidizing the construction of affordable housing through bond funds, tax credits, and other resources. Because these programs have historically accounted for only a small share of all new housing built each year, they alone could not meet the housing needs we identify in this report. For this reason, we advise the Legislature to consider how targeted programs that assist those with limited access to market rate housing could supplement broader changes that facilitate more private housing construction.

More Private Housing Construction in Coastal Urban Areas. We advise the Legislature to change policies to facilitate significantly more private home and apartment building in California's coastal urban areas. Though the exact number of new housing units California needs to build is uncertain, the general magnitude is enormous. On top of the 100,000 to 140,000 housing units California is expected to build each year, the state probably would have to build as many as 100,000 additional units annually—almost exclusively in its coastal communities—to seriously mitigate its problems with housing affordability. Facilitating additional housing of this magnitude will be extremely difficult. It could place strains on the state's infrastructure and natural resources and alter the prized character of California's coastal communities. It also would require the state to make changes to a broad range of policies that affect housing supply directly or indirectly—including policies that have been fundamental tenets of California government for many years.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.aspx
http://www.santamonicanext.org/2015...using-to-fight-skyrocketing-rents-state-says/
 
You would think with the amount of profits and cash businesses like Apple/Google/Facebook are sitting on, they could incentivize their employees to live closer to their headquarters or build housing around them and offer free rides to the city or something.

Google is in Mountain View. Mountain View is super expensive. Apple is in Cupertino and in Sunnyvale. Cupertino is super expensive and Sunnyvale is not far behind it and quite expensive. Plenty of people live closer to their headquarters and it's expensive as hell to do so too.
 

TyrantII

Member
Yes, this housing market is obviously sustainable, the housing bubble could never burst again!

It's a venture capital bubble, not a housing one. Housing is only rising because nothing can get built in the bay area compared to the demand to live there.
 

Nafai1123

Banned
Good thing the Bay Area is composed of many more cities than just those listed.

I can't help but think that when people think of the Bay Area, they think it's entirely composed of rich neighborhoods and software developers. The reality is there are plenty of low-income areas in the Bay, and there are plenty of places you can live without making six figures.
 

n0razi

Member
Wow I know people who live like kings in texas with that sort of salary... 4/5 BR house, weekend car and daily car.... monthly vacations, etc
 

bachikarn

Member
Housing prices are even more correlated to interest rates. It is the primary correlation! All that would need to happen to crater housing prices in most metropolitan areas is interest rates to go to historical norms.

Interest rates have been about the same for the last 3-4 years but housing prices have increased 10-20% every year in Seattle

The increased is due to low inventory and crazy competition. Prices are going well over listing prices. If interest rates go up, I imagine the market will slow down. But saying it will crash is just unfounded pessimism.
 

Gallbaro

Banned
Google is in Mountain View. Mountain View is super expensive. Apple is in Cupertino and in Sunnyvale. Cupertino is super expensive and Sunnyvale is not far behind it and quite expensive. Plenty of people live closer to their headquarters and it's expensive as hell to do so too.

The only reason they are super expensive is because they have racist housing policies limiting supply of new housing... In fact they are probably still enforcing housing regs going back to city council meetings where nigger was explicitly stated.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Yes, this housing market is obviously sustainable, the housing bubble could never burst again!

SF home values really didn't suffer during the last housing crisis. They "recovered" from basically a short plateau.

Source: I owned a house in SF from hella years ago. Wish I had kept it. Oh well.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
The only reason they are super expensive is because they have racist housing policies limiting supply of new housing... In fact they are probably still enforcing housing regs going back to city council meetings where nigger was explicitly stated.

There are tons of ancient housing policies with racist origins, and in some cases race-affecting current implementations (East Palo Alto, Daly City, etc etc) but the bolded isn't even remotely true as stated.

The real issue there is a) Competition from wealthy consumers and b) It's a peninsula with highly limited land and housing stock - and San Francisco is the tip of a long string of adjacent suburbs and cities that is contiguous all the way to San Jose (and beyond)
 
The only reason they are super expensive is because they have racist housing policies limiting supply of new housing... In fact they are probably still enforcing housing regs going back to city council meetings where nigger was explicitly stated.

Limited building of houses is not the only reason. They expensive because of a number of factors including location relative to Apple, Google, etc, schools, limited space etc.

Just for others to have the perspective, these are the median house prices in those areas.

Sunnyvale (Apple, Google) - $1.32 million
Cupertino (Apple) - $1.7 million
Mountain View (Google) - $1.35 million
Menlo Park (Facebook) - $2.1 million
 

tokkun

Member
You would think with the amount of profits and cash businesses like Apple/Google/Facebook are sitting on, they could incentivize their employees to live closer to their headquarters or build housing around them and offer free rides to the city or something.

Mountain View, Cupertino, Palo Alto, etc. are not really that much cheaper than SF. Actually the reason a lot of people live in SF is because they feel like if they are going to have to pay out the nose for housing anywhere close to work, they might as well get the cultural benefits of the city out of it.

There are already built-in incentives for seeking a transfer to a satellite office - namely that the pay difference is not huge, but the cost-of-living difference is. However it doesn't seem to tempt that many people.

SF home values really didn't suffer during the last housing crisis. They "recovered" from basically a short plateau.

Source: I owned a house in SF from hella years ago. Wish I had kept it. Oh well.

Tech was booming during that period, though. The 2008 crash was not that long after the introduction of the iPhone. However real estate development in SF slowed like everywhere else as credit was hard to come by and real estate developers were overleveraged or wary about starting new projects. The result was an increase in demand without an increase in supply, so naturally prices eventually went up.

A bursting of the Bay Area housing bubble would be more likely if there were a tech industry crash without a corresponding freeze in lending / development.
 
My wife and I are looking to get a condo somewhere in the South Bay, maybe around Santa Clara or Sunnyvale.

It's about 500k-600k for a 700sqft condo. Most of these have 400-550 dollars a month in HOA fees too.

It's insane. Getting on the property ladder is ridiculous, but I know I have it better than most. I will be able, eventually, but it sucks knowing that people who grew up in this area are being priced out of it. A lot of times foreign investors, namely Chinese money, are buying houses with 100% cash offers. Houses don't stay on the market long. It makes your head spin.
 

TyrantII

Member
Housing prices are even more correlated to interest rates. It is the primary correlation! All that would need to happen to crater housing prices in most metropolitan areas is interest rates to go to historical norms.

LOL, no.

If you meant rural areas, I'd agree. But the flight is in rural areas to cities driving these prices. Rates would slow process, but it would be rural areas devistated, not metro areas.
 
This is ridiculous to me and I have no clue how a city can call itself a bastion of liberalism/progress when it is completely inaccessible to so many people.
 
Good thing the Bay Area is composed of many more cities than just those listed.

I can't help but think that when people think of the Bay Area, they think it's entirely composed of rich neighborhoods and software developers. The reality is there are plenty of low-income areas in the Bay, and there are plenty of places you can live without making six figures.
Like where? Even Antioch and Pittsburg are charging close to 2k per month for a 1 bedroom apt and they want you to prove 2-3x monthly income. So where are you thinking? Shit doesn't even get much cheaper out in Fairfield/Vacaville.
 
Really? Any links to this stuff? Seems to me it's pure business greed, how is there such a big lobby for keeping it that way? Why are blue states so bad about this stuff

It's purely NIMBY-ism. People don't want the aesthetics of their neighborhoods to change and don't want their house prices to drop. There is land to be used and built on all over the peninsula, but it keeps getting rejected. San Francisco has building height restrictions too which means you can't build as dense as you'd like.

I don't have any links readily available, but from having friends out there I know they have been props on votes. Here's a quick one I found: http://sf.curbed.com/2016/11/9/13574220/election-2016-housing-propositions
 
J2JEXU6.png

h5Qq2yl.png


by comparison:

Los Angeles
e8VR5A7.png


https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2017/select_Geography.odn
 
Yeah, this. Everyone agrees that we need more housing, and that it should be somewhere else.

Everyone? Are we talking SF here or Bay Area?

I live in a middle class suburb in East Bay and the consensus is we need less affordable housing and if should definitely be built somewhere else
 

Nafai1123

Banned
Like where? Even Antioch and Pittsburg are charging close to 2k per month for a 1 bedroom apt and they want you to prove 2-3x monthly income. So where are you thinking? Shit doesn't even get much cheaper out in Fairfield/Vacaville.

Fairfield/Vacaville are definitely cheaper. Just saw a 2bdrm in Fairfield for $1500/month. Same with Vallejo, Richmond, Sonoma County, etc. Are they cheap? No. Are they as expensive as the most expensive areas of the Bay? Hell no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom