[joejohnson]

From the quoted LA Times piece: "Unlike in previous booms, the tech industry isn’t creating as many middle-class jobs..."

I don't believe this. There are tons of Software Engineer jobs paying around 80-100k in SF. That salary, in that city, puts you firmly in the middle class.

However, I agree with this piece. The tech companies and the people of San Francisco as a whole need to really change things. A big part of that change probably needs to happen at the local government level where there is so much incompetence and a decent amount of corruption: http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-ci...

SF wants to be a big city, but many of the residents are actively refusing policies that will allow for better services, denser urban areas and other benefits of being a large city. Otherwise, San Francisco will continue to be the largest small town in America, with problems like homelessness and income inequality worse than a city ten times it's size (say, New York City).

[antr]

You make a great point, but would you agree with the following?:

There are tons of Finance jobs paying around 80-100k in NY. That salary, in that city, puts you firmly in the middle class.

Is this now (perceived as) middle class?

[dalke]

"Is this now (perceived as) middle class?"

Umm, yes? It's the upper middle class, or the professional class if you prefer a different way of categorizing members of the middle class.

Now, there are many alternative models of the US class system, some of which would say that a finance job is in the working class - a well-paid worker, but still working class. However, it seems your complaint was based on the salary, not the type of job.

I need a little help to understand your statement. Do you consider a "finance job paying around 80-100k in NY" to be working class? Blue collar? Upper class? Capitalist class? Blue bloods?

[stretchwithme]

Its quite the middle class. Especially if you avail yourself of public transport and live out in Queens half an hour away.

Yes, its a great hardship to have to take the train. But thousands of people do it and have quite a comfortable life at 80 to 100K.

[jcnnghm]

I'd agree with that, with the qualification that $80-100k may actually be a bit low. In the United States overall, the upper quintile of income starts at about $102k [1], so an income between $80 and $100k would place you in the upper-middle class.

However, it's important to keep in mind that the cost of living in San Francisco or New York is much higher than average. Median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,795 [2] in San Francisco, that alone is over $33k a year. The SF cost of living index is 161.3 and the Manhattan cost of living index is 223.9. In other words, $100k in Manhattan is equivalent to about $45k in an average place in the US, firmly in the middle quintile. The Living Wage Project suggests it takes at least $100k to be effectively middle class in New York [3].

It's really not a perception thing, it's reality.

1: US Census 2011 Household Income Table HINC-05

2: http://priceonomics.com/the-san-francisco-rent-explosion/

3: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/cities-high-cost-of...

[rgbrenner]

The numbers from the census are household income. The average household has nearly 2 workers.

[cenhyperion]

Yes. That's definitely middle class. Especially living in an expensive area like San Francisco.

[eli_gottlieb]

For the location, it indeed affords you what everyone thinks of as a middle-class lifestyle.

This is a pretty sad indication of how bad urban development policies have gotten.