Again, the study says it takes $70,000 just to afford a modest apartment in the state of California.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Apple Pledges $2.5 Billion To Combat California's Housing Crisis
- Thread starter Mcfrank
- Start date
Again, the study says it takes $70,000 just to afford a modest apartment in the state of California.
What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about SF.
No, it isn't.
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.
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.
And typically people making 100k in mass are only able to because they live in cities where those sorts of jobs exist. You could in theory be an entry level software engineer making 100k in rural Alabama by getting the job in San Francisco, convincing them to allow you to work 100% remotely, and not get a salary cut. People making 100k in rural Alabama are company board members, company owners, doctors, etc, and it's not super common.
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.
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.
Google and Facebook both made large monetary pledges for Bay Area housing. It's just corporate competition which pays off because stance on social issues can be a decider for top engineering talent.
hooray, corporatocracy
the outer worlds future, here we come
and who the fuck cares about those making 70-100k???? you're not rich, stop saying that ppl are calling you rich. no one is saying that. ppl are saying you're well off and comfortable. which is true, even in sf/nyc.
how bout those who makes less trying to get by? that's who i care about.
jesus christ, the technocratic bros on this site are the fucking worst.
the outer worlds future, here we come
and who the fuck cares about those making 70-100k???? you're not rich, stop saying that ppl are calling you rich. no one is saying that. ppl are saying you're well off and comfortable. which is true, even in sf/nyc.
how bout those who makes less trying to get by? that's who i care about.
jesus christ, the technocratic bros on this site are the fucking worst.
Last edited:
Have you seen the real estate market in san francisco or the bay area in general?
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 still find it insane that Google was able to buy that massive abandoned air field instead of it going to some high density housing.
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
No, they don't have around 30k. Even with your math it's 28k. But 70k isn't take home pay. There's federal and California taxes. There's food. Renter's insurance, car insurance, car payments, student loan debts because in order to have these kinds of jobs you have to go to colleges and accumulate student loan debt, etc etc.
Globally 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.
User Warned: Antagonizing another user
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%
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"
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.
Yeah it is. I live in the East Bay and could easily afford a very nice place on 100k a year.
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.
I'm not really sure how you interpreted my statement. Do you disagree wealth is relative? To clarify it was a response to this idea that "you make X so you have it good" which is not useful for exactly the reason you probably think.
Right. If he pays no taxes. Not to mention everything else costs more, too.
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.
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.
In theory this person now has an extra $1000+ at the end of each month over someone paying for a 2 bedroom. Obviously that's not exactly true given taxes, but im not going into that mainly because I can't.
Top that extra $1000+ a month with the fact that they already make significantly more than what they're paying to put a roof over their head, then yeah I'd consider that over middle class. At the very least upper middle class.
Living the high life is subjective but at very least I can say that person is most likely living comfortably while still managing to have some money to squirrel away. Which is more than you can say for a lot of people, especially in the Bay Area.
And shit, I didn't even think about the median prices. Those would most likely be the better measure of what's actually available.p
Most countries have San Francisco equivalent rent in their most popular cities, but you'll be lucky to get paid half as much. Your country's medium wages are insane. I roll my eyes when people say they're struggling on 100K, hopefully these homes go to service workers / the homeless (aka the people that need a home the most, and not just an extra garage for their Tesla)
Apple is the last one, though the biggest amount of money.
Are Apple and other gigantic companies finally getting properly taxed too?
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.
The idea that the solution is that more money needs to be thrown at the problem is like a right-wing caricature of liberals.
There's plenty of money being spent here by the government. It's not at all being spent well, and the solution long-term to more affordable housing is actively stymied by laws and lobbying. The corporations aren't actually the bad guys here.
