[hexator]

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.

[whimsicalism]

> 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.

[andsoitis]

> 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?

[fragmede]

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...

[andsoitis]

Ok I’ll answer. They are not poor.

[fragmede]

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.

[andsoitis]

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

[array_key_first]

> who chooses to live in SF

This one throwaway is basically holding up your entire argument. This is just an assumption, and one you won't be able to substantiate.

[fragmede]

What word do you want to use? The word poor has a lot of emotional baggage. What does it mean to you for someone to be considered poor?

[em-bee]

don't they choose to live in SF because that's where they got the job? if they would move they would lose the job, because you generally can't take your job with you. (remote work being the exception)

if life in a place is expensive, and jobs in the same area do not pay enough to cover those expenses, then a person with that job in that area is poor.