Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by whimsicalism 209 days ago
Agreed, this was an example of a similar phenomenon as to why you can’t trust self-id economic situation surveys. FWIW, we see similar effects in food security surveys with six-figure households being classified as food insecure.
1 comments
hexator 209 days ago
I can definitely see a situation where a renting single-earner six-figure household in a place like SF may require assistance. It's all about the relative cost of living and financial situation, you can't really make ground pronouncements like this without ignoring the data.
link
whimsicalism 209 days ago
> may require assistance

Yes, depending on their family size.

But that is very different from ‘food insecure’ after receiving federal/state benefits and I do not believe that is a thing that really happens.

link
andsoitis 209 days ago
> a situation where a renting single-earner six-figure household in a place like SF may require assistance.

You think someone in SF earning six figures should be considered poor?

link
fragmede 209 days ago
It made the news a few years back:

> Single-person households making under $105,000 a year are classified as “low income” in three Bay Area counties by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development.

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/under-100k-low-income-s...

link
andsoitis 209 days ago
Ok I’ll answer. They are not poor.
link
fragmede 209 days ago
Are you saying that based on the semantics of "poor" vs "may require assistance" vs "low income", or...? My comment has a link that's backed up by a government website.

If we look at $105k in San Francisco, minus federal, state, and local taxes, you're looking at roughly $6,400/month take home pay. If you make a budget out of that, you get $3,000 for rent, $800 for groceries, $250 for transit, $250 for medical, $150 for Internet, $600 for entertainment, $900 to retirement, and then finally $400 towards an emergency fund. If you do not have all those things in your monthly, you are poor. Now, there are certainly people who have less than that, and we could argue the semantics of being destitute, vs simply poor as colloquially defined terms, but the brackets that California’s Department of Housing and Community Development has are: acutely low, extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income.

We can use https://saul.pw/mag/wealth/ and say that even with a $105k/yr salary in SF, you're sitting at ↑3 or ↑4 or so, instead of using the emotionally loaded term poor if it would contribute to having a more thoughtful and substantive discussion.

link
andsoitis 209 days ago
Do you think someone earning 100,000 and who chooses to live in SF should be considered poor?
link