$31.71: The hourly pay it now takes to afford Silicon Valley rent

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/03/26/31-71-the-hourly-pay-it-now-takes-to-afford.html

by citizenkeys • 12 years ago

60 83 12 years ago

For a two bedroom apartment. Which implies at least two residents.

jacobolus2• 12 years ago

And at minimum wage, as the article points out, that’s 4 full-time jobs, so such employees had better get used to bunk beds. :(

ntietz• 12 years ago

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.

smm2000• 12 years ago

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.

ars• 12 years ago

Which implies at least two residents.

Like parents and children? It doesn't imply 2 working people.

gkoberger3• 12 years ago

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.

kenrikm3• 12 years ago

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.

phamilton• 12 years ago

Curious.. why don't you live in Florida then? What are the reasons, tangible and intangible for living in San Mateo instead?

allochthon2• 12 years ago

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.

gkoberger3• 12 years ago

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.

sliverstorm6• 12 years ago

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

toomuchtodo3• 12 years ago

Not sure why you're getting downvoted, its totally doable if not for crazy-backwards zoning/building regulations.

Either buildings can go up, or prices. They're not making any more land.

EliRivers• 12 years ago

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. :)

jw2013• 12 years ago

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.

mattdeboard• 12 years ago

Pro tip. You can ballpark hourly wage to an annual income by multiplying by 2,000 (or doubling then multiplying by 1000).

So $37.62/hr works out roughly to about 75k/year, pre-tax. Not exact, just a rule of thumb. Works out to within a few % usually.

thaumasiotes2• 12 years ago

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.

fasteddie31003• 12 years ago

Two words. "Build Up". San Francisco needs high rise apartments.

manojlds• 12 years ago

Not when it is in a high risk zone with respect to earthquakes.

nickonline2• 12 years ago

Like... say, Tokyo?

rtpg3• 12 years ago

Tokyo's been doing it for a while

bluthru• 12 years ago

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.

WalterSear• 12 years ago

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.

bdcravens2• 12 years ago

Two words. "Remote workers".

sliverstorm6• 12 years ago

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.

spike021• 12 years ago

Not really sure how that would help matters though. High rises, especially the modern ones, tend to count as a higher form of living.

nickonline2• 12 years ago

What's FMR?

"Housing wage for two bedroom FMR"

Also what does this all mean? What percentage of their income is this representing to afford this house?

The article was surprisingly short of this information even though it was 4 pages long.

dmoy• 12 years ago

In this context it is probably referring to Fair Market Rent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_market_rent

jacobolus2• 12 years ago

The linked PDF has a detailed explanation of their definitions in the appendix at the back: http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR2014.pdf

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.”

sliverstorm6• 12 years ago

Which, in this tax bracket, corresponds to roughly 40% of net income

capkutay2• 12 years ago

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]

0: http://vimeo.com/70447799

1: https://www.google.com/maps/search/san+francisco+cal+train/@...

paulbaumgart• 12 years ago

FWIW, more supply, even of expensive units, will drive down prices so long as they get occupied.

usaar3332• 12 years ago

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)

capkutay2• 12 years ago

"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.

hkmurakami2• 12 years ago

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.

mapt• 12 years ago

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.

It is ridiculous that the national economic engine of our times for the last generation looks like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+san+francisco

D9u2• 12 years ago

Hawaii resident here...

In 1996 I was making $27.95 per hour.

I'm not going to say what I earn now, but it's not that great.

goombastic• 12 years ago

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.

It's time to re-evaluate our work style.

toomuchtodo3• 12 years ago

I wonder what stops companies from allowing distributed working environments and just bypass these guys altogether.

Poor management.

yetanotherphd2• 12 years ago

Nerds were cute when they started getting big paychecks. Now they are using their money to buy things that other people want. That's not fair!

thaumasiotes2• 12 years ago

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.

64mb• 12 years ago

Silicon Valley seems cheap compared to London

rdl2• 12 years ago

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)

martinald• 12 years ago

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.

klipt2• 12 years ago

rich people from non-UK buying property there

I.e. property speculators. There's plenty of speculation in the Bay Area too.

artificially constrained supply

Thanks to lobbying from people who benefit from constrained supply ... e.g. NIMBYists and speculators.

grecy2• 12 years ago

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.

gamblor956• 12 years ago

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.

grecy2• 12 years ago

So let's say tax is 35% -

$413 / 40 = $10.30/hr + 35% = $14/hr of your pre-tax income going to rent.

That's still an absurd amount of money being spent elsewhere if you're earning $31/hr (pre-tax) or approx $20/hr post 35% tax.

encoderer• 12 years ago

"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.

x0x0• 12 years ago

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.

[1] http://www.calculator.net/take-home-pay-calculator.html?cann...

[2] https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2013_california_tax_rates_and_e...

mmasashi• 12 years ago

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.

conanbatt• 12 years ago

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.

hydralist• 12 years ago

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

aaron695• 12 years ago

Two bed rooms for one person down town in a major city else it's an outrage.

WTF is wrong with western society.

Most of the world lives multiple people to a room.

emeidi• 12 years ago

I find the article lacking the most important piece of information: Is this calculation based on a 4, 20, 40 or 60 hour work week?

$31.71: The hourly pay it now takes to afford Silicon Valley rent

Related Stories