San Francisco is insanely expensive, and despite SF having a minimum wage that's $3 higher than the federal minimum, minimum wage isn't meant to pay for a two bedroom apartment in any major city. It never has been, and unfortunately can't ever be.
Studio apartments, roommates, spouse, living outside the city limits, living in a smaller apartment, aid (for single/low income parents), etc -- there's a lot of options, and it's disingenuous to frame it like this.
Even if we did raise minimum wage to $30 (and for the record, I'm for raising minimum wage to keep pace with inflation.. just not to $30), what does that solve? Techies will just get a raise, too (why be a programmer when you can make the same at a dead end job?), and we'll be back where we started.
there's a lot of options, and it's disingenuous to frame it like this.
I do not think it's a disingenuous way to frame the challenge facing people who live in the area. Two-bedroom apartments should not be the privilege of those in a certain stratum of society and above. They should be something that is within reach of nearly everyone. Nor should housing in the San Jose area become the domain of a privileged minority.
They are available. However, much like how your average Googler can't afford a two bedroom apartment on 5th Avenue in NYC, most people can't afford a two bedroom apartment in the city of San Francisco.
You unfortunately have to find a balance between location and luxury.
5th Avenue in NYC is a lot smaller than San Francisco, though. There are also a great number of apartments within commutable distances of 5th Ave. I have never been to SF, but my knowledge of American culture leads me to believe that there must be a Walmart somewhere in SF.
There are actually no Walmarts in San Francisco. However that doesn't answer the root of your question; there are similar jobs (target, dishwashers, supermarkets, etc). Most would live in the east bay, sunset or South Bay -- about 25 minutes east, west or south of SF, respectively.
As to your first point, 5th Ave is smaller, but also more expensive. SF is bigger, but relatively cheaper. It's a sliding scale; both driven by scarcity of land compared to desirability.
Wow, I didn't know that. Being from Europe and having only visited the US once (East Coast), I had the impression they were everywhere.
New York has a working mass transit system, though. For poor people this makes the world of a difference. I remember that, when I lived in Madrid a few years back, I was impressed by how fast you could go _everywhere_ in that city with the subway alone. A cross-town morning commute in that 3Mil Juggernaut took about as long as the cross-town car-commute in a less developed 130K city I had lived in before.
Walmart has some office space in San Bruno (engineers). I think the nearest Walmart is about 17.5 miles from SF (specifically, 101 meeting 80) in the outskirts of Oakland.
And actually there are more affordable rooms in commuting distance (BART or car) than it appears from popular opinion online.
Yes and a Target too. And the rent at the apartment towers next to it are $4000+. So, being next to a Walmart even isn't exactly a means of 'living cheaply'
Well said. I often get downvotes on comments that go against the "more women in tech" feminist agenda. You just have to ignore the hive mind and give your honest opinion, no matter what the votes.
Hear, hear! I propose we keep raising minimum wage until everyone's living conditions are comfortably above average!
Edit: In retrospect, I made a critical error; I can't tell if the downvoters understood I was loosely referencing Lake Wobegon, or if they thought I was just dumb
I pay $1750 for a 1br in San Mateo, and I feel like I have a great deal, rent is insane out here. let me frame it like this my mortgage, including taxes and insurance for a 4br house near the beach in Florida is $600/mo.
I had a stable job that paid enough to live a decent lifestyle that I could have worked at for who knows? 20 or 30 years, there were employees that had worked there for 50 - 60 years. When faced with the prospect of living the same life doing the same thing for the rest of my days, I woke up and set out to live with a purpose. I'm 29, my dad died at 49, keeping that in mind lights a fire under my ass every day.
It's equidistant from SF and Palo Alto, with rent way cheaper than both. The downtown area is well developed with lots of restaurants. San Mateo also has good transport links with easy freeway access to the 101, 92 and 280, and most of the caltrains stop here.
Old Town Sushi FTW, seriously though San Mateo is a great location I'm right next to downtown, Half Moon Bay is only 15min away. I need to stop, I don't want the secret to get out and my rent to go up. :P
why be a programmer when you can make the same at a dead end job?
But all I ever read around here on gushing webpages are smugsters talking about how they can't believe they get paid for doing it and how they're doing what they love. :)
Actually San Francisco is building up; they will have thousands of new apartments coming out in the next 5-10 years. There's a ton of high rise development going on in SOMA[0] (the business/metropolitan area) along with less commercial areas like hayes valley.
The problem is that those units will probably still be ridiculously expensive. The best solution is fixing public transportation between SF and the cheaper suburbs to the south. Right now commuting to San Francisco is a nightmare just because getting in out of the city by car is a huge bottleneck. Also, the train only goes about half a mile into the most southern part of the city.. [1]
Those units will still be ridiculously expensive only because there aren't enough of those units. Because SF has been building practically nothing compared to the amount of wealth that's flowed into SF, for years. The Bay Area's vastly disproportionate economic productivity should have implied a Beijing-like growth spurt. It should have sucked skilled immigrants out of middle America, depopulating those places by some fraction, because this is where the jobs are.
Construction expenses aren't a major part of the equation here, zoning permission and transportation are balanced against a demand that is the highest in the country. Rent, and for that matter land prices, are expressions of those factors.
1. The population of reasonably close southern suburbs (let's say the entire San Mateo County) is actually less than that of San Francisco proper by ~100k people.
2. Caltrain is linked to Muni metro at 4th/King as well as many bus lines. It isn't that hard to get in.
3. Bart goes straight into downtown and offers stations closer than Caltrain for at least a third of San Mateo County's people.
4. The southern and western parts of San Francisco are just as cheap, if not cheaper, than San Mateo county's average. (indeed if you check padmapper, you can see that there is more "cheap housing" available in SF than in San Mateo County.
5. The density of much of San Francisco, especially the outer Western and Southern areas remains low. (somewhere between San Mateo County suburban cities and Brooklyn)
"2. Caltrain is linked to Muni metro at 4th/King as well as many bus lines. It isn't that hard to get in"
I've never heard anyone defend Bay Area public transportation before. I'd say the amount of busses going from SF to silicon valley/the peninsula are evidence that going in and out of san francisco is NOT easy. I've lived in both the peninsula and SF for years and the consensus is that you're better off living in SF if you work in SF and living in the peninsula if you work in the peninsula (unless you work for a company that busses their employees). I myself drive from SF to the Peninsula. I don't recommend it. Public transportation is not an option for most people purely because of the lack of geographical coverage they offer. For instance, I can't use caltrain or bart because I don't live downtown and it takes 40-50 minutes to get to the train by bus. The fact that caltrain is situated at the most southern point of the city doesn't make it any better when a 2-3 mile muni metro line goes along the most western point of the city where few people live.
Walked through Mission Bay near the new UCSF campus, and I saw this in action. Tons of pristine highrises coming up, with upper-mid range retail and dining out options accompanying them.
But as you said, all these units look like they will be in the $2.5k+ range for a 1br, if not more.
The collective delusion on this problem is not only that the rent is expensive, its that the housing you get is of low quality. For all the "High salaries" in tech, it's insane to see people in their 30's sharing apartments like if it were a college dorm.
My mother will every so often remark to me how people seem to think rich people should be kept from unfairly buying things with their money. It's all right for them to have money as long as it's never used for any purpose, I guess.
In Cupertino I have seen the minimum wage which is actually $8/hour for the part time job like a cacher in the store. The the rent average is $2,000 for one bedroom apartment there. It's totally unfair to low income people. They sacrifice the time to stay with their family and have to work even weekend for bills.
That's not really going to fix it, I don't think. Quite a lot of people go to the Valley because they want to live, in the Valley. Until the days of Remote Coffeeshop'ing and Remote Dive Bar'ing, it's still going to be a highly desirable place to live with rents to match.
Right, and like Manhattan and Hawaii, there are more than enough people with lots of money interested in that kind of lifestyle, to jack the prices up like crazy.
It's ironic to hear the ones who just made that same lifestyle decision complaining about the high prices. If you just moved to SF for the city life in spite of the rents when you could have worked in Texas, you're kind of part of the problem.
(And then everybody else fusses about how it isn't fair they can't afford a flat on Wall Street or a 2br house on the beach in Kauai)
I grew up in SV, and there definitely is a generational divide though. Most of us (including my parents) moved to SV at some point in our lives, the only difference being whether this was in the 1970's or the 2010's.
The price of a house in SV has quadrupled (or more) in the last 25 years. Wages have increased,but not nearly as much. Newcomers have it disproportionately harder than the longtimers here.
Look up the 1989 earthquake. You'll see lots of photos of stick framed Victorians that failed. The highrises (which are designed to withstand earthquakes) are still here.
I've never thought of Tokyo as a tall city. The city-scape is generally max 6 story buildings. The tallest building in Tokyo is shorter than the tallest in San Francisco!
Tokyo achieves more density than San Francisco because the average street width is about 14 feet. San Francisco's is about 90 feet. That creates a lot more buildable land per block and less traffic.
The average building height is also about 3 stories instead of just over two in SF. The majority of housing is single family houses and owner occupied. And Toyko has much, much less parking.
The result is a comfortable, walkable city at double the density of SF without high-rises and with less traffic.
The key difference is that SF is planned, laid out, regulated, permitted, and platted very badly and Tokyo is planned well.
Also, the peninsula cities are required by law to sprawl at low density, constricting SF's ability to spread medium-density growth that would keep housing affordable. Any upzoning, even around transit stops, is blocked and housing supply remains severely limited.
The ones in SOMA and the new UCSF campus are all built on land reclaimed from the bay. In other words, rubble. When an earthquake hits, they are within a liquifaction zone. This is a zone that during earthquakes, behaves a little like a liquid.
The buildings they are putting up there, however, have foundations drilled down so deep, they are well in to the bedrock below. They aren't going to come down.
I don't know how I feel about being on the street if that happens, though.
Two bedrooms does not imply two residents, and certainly not "at least two." Perhaps the title could be improved (by stating "to afford a two-bedroom apartment").
One cool thing about putting it in $/hour like this is that we can easily say what two people would have to make to afford the same apartment. They would each need to make about $16/hour. It's feasible, but there are a lot of careers that don't pay that or that would cut it close.
The only reason to live in San Francisco on minimum wage is if you want to break into some line of work that only exist in SF and pays minimum wage for entry level position with significant increase expected in near future. In this case you can live 2 person per room and consider it extension of college experience. Really nothing bad about it and minimum wage can pay for it.
Otherwise you are insane to continue living in one of the most expensive cities on minimum wage. Complaining about it is like complaining that minimum wage does not pay for black caviar.
That's true to a degree. That said, I think its fair to recognize that there are factors other than economic opportunity that prevent people from moving e.g. family in the area, networking, school etc. We also need to acknowledge that there will always be a need for a certain number of low-wage jobs and those people have to be somewhere accessible. Finally, there is a reasonable argument for cultural diversity and continuity. For all of those reasons, it does behoove us to think about what can be done to improve the housing situation.
It does seem like the market is responding though. Anecdotally, I'm seeing lots of new development in San Jose and they're all high-rise style buildings that should add significantly to the overall housing supply.
What's your plan when all the minimum wage workers leave SF, because nobody in their right mind should live there for minimum wage? Who will clean your office building's bathrooms? Who will wash dishes at the restaurants? Seems to get those workers back...you'll have to pay more?
Rent seekers are sucking every last spendable dollar out of people. This situation is the same in almost every large IT hub. I wonder what stops companies from allowing distributed working environments and just bypass these guys altogether. I'd rather pay for a couple of days hotel charges for face2face time than pay these extortionate rents.
monthly_wage_to_break_even_by_article = $37.62 * work_hours_per_day * weekdays_per_week * weeks_per_month = $37.62 * 9 * 5 * (52 / 12) = $7335.9. Let assume the tax is 35% of wage. monthly_rent_by_article = $7335.9 * (1 - 35%) = $4768.335
Wow... that is prohibiting. So you have to earn $7335.9 * 12 / 2 = $88030.8 / 2 = $44015.4 a year to break even if you are sharing a 2br apartment... Are rent price in some less urban area of SF much cheaper (say 20 minutes drive from Pacific Heights)?
Could a solution to rising rent price be some brave enough founders migrating tech startups to a new growing area, say rtp? Just like what Eventbrite did when hot startups were all in valley but Eventbrtie chose SF at then.
It's a fairly precise "rule of thumb", on the theory that you work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. Parent comment inflates the salary by assuming 45 hours a week 52 weeks a year.
The number for “fair market rent” in each market is provided by the US Dept of Housing and Urban Development, and:
> Out of Reach is consistent with federal housing policy in the assumption that no more than 30% of a household’s gross income should be consumed by gross housing costs. Spending more than 30% of income on housing is considered “unaffordable.”
London's affordability problems seem primarily due to rich people from non-UK buying property there (due to stability and ~zero property tax, tiny fixed council tax) to park assets, potentially of dubious origin. They often are left vacant.
That's fairly distinct from SF's problem (lots of people wanting to live there, but artificially constrained supply, both construction limits and rent control)
Aryuably so but the equivalent of entire San Francisco has moved/is moving into London in a decade. It's a very rapidly growing city.
While I'm sure a ridiculous proportion of the v high wealth areas are laying vacant, in areas like Hackney (which are the fastest growing) I very much doubt that is the case. These flats don't make up much of the London housing stock, %age wise.
honestly if you cant afford it, get the fuck on the bart and live farther out. coming from a city with no subway, everyone here should be thankful for the bart and how far it reaches.
its a tiny 7x7 grid, this isn't some shelter, you pay to stay. take it as motivation to make more money
> 2014, the NLIHC pegged the average two-bedroom rent in Santa Clara County at $1,649
$1,649 / 4 = $413/wk
$413 / 40 = $10.30/hr of your income going to rent.
So they're saying you need to make $31.71, which means they're saying you spend $20/hr of your income on things other than rent. Absurd does not cover it.
Obviously I'm not accounting for tax, but I'm also not counting that a two bedroom apartment means two people paying rent. If you only have one person, then rent a one bedroom apartment. It's 2014, not 1964.
Tax is pretty important--even at the 15% bracket it's still $3000 a year, not including FICA withholding or state (or for the Bay Area, local) taxes which are easily another $1-2000 more. For someone making $100k a year, that's not much. For someone making $20,000 a year (rounded up) it's a big bite and it definitely changes the affordability calculation.
"For someone making $100k a year, that's not much. For someone making $20,000 a year (rounded up) it's a big bite and it definitely changes the affordability calculation."
Taxes don't work like that of course. The $100k a year person is paying a higher percentage than the low income person. That $20k earner you mention will probably have a very low nominal tax rate after calculating down to their AGI.
tax knocks $31.71/hour to roughly $23/hour in CA, and the majority of people we're discussing don't make nearly $70k/year (31.715240 = 65,956)
if you make, say, $20/hour you'll struggle to afford $1k/mo rent plus a reliable car.
20 * 52 * 40 = $41,600/year gross
that gets you 2,856.56 / month (no ca tax yet) [1]
2,856.56 * 12 = $34,278/year
you pay 1,360.28 + 8% of anything over $39,384 [2], so
1,360.28 + 0.08 * (41600 - 39384) = 1537
so (34278 - 1537)/12 = $2,728/mo
You really oughtn't pay more than 1/3 of your income for housing, but since that gets you nothing around here, not even in epa, you're looking at maybe being able to afford $1100/mo in rent. $2200 gets you a pretty basic 2 bed/2 bath in a safe neighborhood in the peninsula (source: I manage an apartment building). Knock off $450 for a dirt cheap car (car + insurance + a bit of savings for maintenance + gas).
So $2728 less rent less transportation and you're down to roughly $1178. And our hypothetical employee hasn't eaten, saved money, gone on a date, paid a medical bill, purchased clothes or glasses, or even gotten internet access or a phone.
So yeah, pretty much just scraping by. I'd be pretty impressed if someone had $500 left after the above list.
Studio apartments, roommates, spouse, living outside the city limits, living in a smaller apartment, aid (for single/low income parents), etc -- there's a lot of options, and it's disingenuous to frame it like this.
Even if we did raise minimum wage to $30 (and for the record, I'm for raising minimum wage to keep pace with inflation.. just not to $30), what does that solve? Techies will just get a raise, too (why be a programmer when you can make the same at a dead end job?), and we'll be back where we started.