Again, the study says it takes $70,000 just to afford a modest apartment in the state of California.
Regardless, I grew up poor and in a neighborhood considered the ghetto just until a few years ago.
I know many in my community who would consider 70k a lot of money, let alone 100k. That's all I'm saying.
Regardless? Regardless? That's the whole damn point being made. When it comes to affordability and quality of life $100k, as this data shows, is not rich in many areas and, given the population of those areas, not rich for many people. That's not saying for all people, so anecdotes about your neighborhood aren't contradictory.
Again, the study says it takes $70,000 just to afford a modest apartment in the state of California.
The point I was making was 100k is considered rich to many of us. Those complaining about 100k not being "rich" is a bit insulting to some us when we'd dream of even making half of that.
Doesn't mean people don't deserve to make more money, or that affordable housing is a big issue. My community is getting gentrified and people are being displaced. I can see how this is a problem and needs to be taken care of.
A modest apartment? It says a 2 bedroom home. Unless there's another modest apartment thing I'm missing, that's not modest. That's definitely more than a singular person needs.
Exactly. Many here refuse to consider that factor though and assume because it's a lot in rural Arkansas it's a lot everywhere with no exceptions.
It's not rich if you need $70k just to afford an apartment! That's not some personal affront to you or anyone not living in that place.
It's literally the title of the website used to browse the data being cited.
I would be low income in California? 😂
Im sure there will be a profit incentive for Apple here, not sure what it is though, but there is always something.
Oh shit I completely missed that. I literally read every part of that graph except the title lmao.
Still, in no way do I consider a 2 bedroom home for a singular person as modest.
Poetic that a thread about fighting homelessness has turned into a six figures support group.
Again, the study says it takes $70,000 just to afford a modest apartment in the state of California.
Don't forget taxes, SSI, etc.A 3500 a month building is about 42,000 a year, leaving someone making 70k left with around 30k. Thats a better setup than most states around the US
A 3500 a month building is about 42,000 a year, leaving someone making 70k left with around 30k. Thats a better setup than most states around the US
hooray, corporatocracy
the outer worlds future, here we come
and who the fuck cares about the 70-100k????
how bout those who makes less trying to get by? that's who i care about.
lmfao what an asinine comparison. what the fuck is wrong with youGlobally 30k is rich to billions and their poor don't have refrigerators. Check your privillage because if you are on resetera you are nowhere close to the bottom of this totem pole.
It's not a competition for pity, it's acknowledging that wealth is relative.
Even the one bedroom number is $55,000 a year. I can't imagine many would argue that $15k difference separates rich from not-rich.
I mean $15k isn't an inconsequential amount. And comparing $55k to $100k salary is a much better picture of how much further a $100k salary can get you.
I'm really curious as to how they settled on a 2 bedroom as a "modest apartment"
Yeah it is. I live in the East Bay and could easily afford a very nice place on 100k a year.What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about SF.
No, it isn't.
It's the difference between $70k and $55k. Clearly if housing costs $70k on average in a state then making $100k in that state can't really be considered rich. Similarly if we reduce housing to $55k that's only a reduction of $15k. Suggesting that pushes someone from middle class to rich doesn't seem very reasonable. Making less than 2x what you're paying just to have a roof isn't really living the high life.
lmfao what an asinine comparison. what the fuck is wrong with you
hear that, working poor? you have it good! don't complain!
you definitely post on gaf 100000000%
Where are you getting 70k on average? The average rent for San Francisco, aka one of the most expensive cities in California is only about 3,700 a month, aka 44,400.
Right. If he pays no taxes. Not to mention everything else costs more, too.A 3500 a month building is about 42,000 a year, leaving someone making 70k left with around 30k. Thats a better setup than most states around the US
It's the difference between $70k and $55k. Clearly if housing costs $70k on average in a state then making $100k in that state can't really be considered rich. Similarly if we reduce housing to $55k that's only a reduction of $15k. Suggesting that pushes someone from middle class to rich doesn't seem very reasonable. Making less than 2x what you're paying just to have a roof isn't really living the high life.
better than nothing. i don't see facebook or google giving a shit about housing issues in the valley.
I'm really curious as to how they settled on a 2 bedroom as a "modest apartment"
lmfao
I live in alabama. If I made 50k - 60k I'd definitely consider myself well off. You gotta understand people look at their own situations when someone says 100k isn't rich. Imagine you're someone barely getting by making 30k a year and someone literally making 3 times your salary complains that they aren't well off.Just to further drive home the point about cost of living differences:
The data shows that in California, a 1 bedroom apartment on average requires an hourly wage of $27.34, or roughly $55,000 a year. In Alabama, the same apartment will require an hourly wage of $12.36 an hour, or roughly $25,000 a year.
With those numbers if we consider a salary of $100,000 a year "rich" in California we would have to consider a salary of $45,000 a year "rich" in Alabama.
What's an example of a modest apartment?Again, the study says it takes $70,000 just to afford a modest apartment in the state of California.
The idea that the solution is that more money needs to be thrown at the problem is like a right-wing caricature of liberals.What if, these corporations sitting on trillions were taxed so that we didn't have to rely on piecemeal, occasional PR motivated hand outs from corporations? You know, so we could fund social services and infrastructure.