I've generally loved this site. Wondering what other distributions could be made so visual, where people near the top complain about the people just above them.
Does the website reference net or gross monthly income?
Edit:
So the numbers are not a direct exchange rate to USD.
Q: How were dollar values assigned to households?
A: The households’ door numbers represent the consumption values (US dollars) that each adult in the household has per month. This figure comes from a combination of the household’s self-reported consumption and income levels. We then checked the official cost of living data in each country to adjust the values for purchasing power parity (PPP) and converted the value into US dollars. Read more about how we assigned the Dollar Street values here.
You're not going to save up for a $1-2M house very fast on $7000/month, when you also have to live off that $7K, pay rent, pay medical bills, and save up for retirement expenses.
I promise you not. Houses here cost $2M+ for something livable and $1M for something with mold and other safety issues.
When half that $50K gets taxed, half of what's remaining has to be saved up for retirement in a place that deeply discriminates against age, you don't have much left to save up for buying a $2M house.
Nah it's the reality here. I'd say minimum income to safely own housing here is $100K-150K/month. OR cash already saved for the home, in which case income doesn't matter.
Yes, lots of households make that much, especially people at e.g. Nvidia with unvested appreciated RSUs.
Yes, the US economy is that badly fucked.
And the people on mortages were brainwashed into buying something they can't afford, and in for a foreclosure disaster when the economy corrects.
You can't make many national judgements based on the economics of the Bay Area. It's much more sane in nearly every other area (with some other outliers, such as New York City).
You have it backwards. Housing is astronomically expensive in San Francisco precisely because there are so many people with high incomes bidding against each other.
When you have a highly inelastic supply (constrained by zoning laws, density limits, and geographical boundaries), prices rise to the maximum margin of what the highest-income buyers are capable of paying.
Regarding taxes: Since taxes apply to all local high-earners equally, it doesn't change their relative purchasing power against one another in the local housing market. If taxes were suddenly halved, that extra liquidity would be priced into the next bidding war, driving home prices even higher.
I've generally loved this site. Wondering what other distributions could be made so visual, where people near the top complain about the people just above them.
It's interesting that $14000/month is "rich" on this website, and some people earning $100/month actually own houses.
Meanwhile people making $50000/month in San Francisco can't afford a house because half of it is taxed away and housing is astronomically expensive.
If your net pay is $7000 per month you absolutely can afford to own a house, you're just being fussy about the house you want.
Does the website reference net or gross monthly income?
Edit:
So the numbers are not a direct exchange rate to USD.
Q: How were dollar values assigned to households? A: The households’ door numbers represent the consumption values (US dollars) that each adult in the household has per month. This figure comes from a combination of the household’s self-reported consumption and income levels. We then checked the official cost of living data in each country to adjust the values for purchasing power parity (PPP) and converted the value into US dollars. Read more about how we assigned the Dollar Street values here.
You're not going to save up for a $1-2M house very fast on $7000/month, when you also have to live off that $7K, pay rent, pay medical bills, and save up for retirement expenses.
I promise you that someone in SF making $50k/month can comfortably afford a very nice house.
I promise you not. Houses here cost $2M+ for something livable and $1M for something with mold and other safety issues.
When half that $50K gets taxed, half of what's remaining has to be saved up for retirement in a place that deeply discriminates against age, you don't have much left to save up for buying a $2M house.
Ok, I made my other comment before seeing this but I find it very difficult to believe you can't find something reasonable for far less.
Nah it's the reality here. I'd say minimum income to safely own housing here is $100K-150K/month. OR cash already saved for the home, in which case income doesn't matter.
Yes, lots of households make that much, especially people at e.g. Nvidia with unvested appreciated RSUs.
Yes, the US economy is that badly fucked.
And the people on mortages were brainwashed into buying something they can't afford, and in for a foreclosure disaster when the economy corrects.
You can't make many national judgements based on the economics of the Bay Area. It's much more sane in nearly every other area (with some other outliers, such as New York City).
You have it backwards. Housing is astronomically expensive in San Francisco precisely because there are so many people with high incomes bidding against each other.
When you have a highly inelastic supply (constrained by zoning laws, density limits, and geographical boundaries), prices rise to the maximum margin of what the highest-income buyers are capable of paying.
Regarding taxes: Since taxes apply to all local high-earners equally, it doesn't change their relative purchasing power against one another in the local housing market. If taxes were suddenly halved, that extra liquidity would be priced into the next bidding war, driving home prices even higher.