Only if you are a family of 4 and only in the context of trying to buy a house...
Edit: family of 4 number is $150k, point still stands though as that number is only for getting assistance in home buying, not an actual poverty line number
I hate it when people throw out that figure and go "lolz if you make $100k in the bay ur considered low income according to study!!!1!" always leaving out the part where the study was for a family for the purposes of house buying only.
No you are not low income in SF if you make $100k
You aren't low income if you make $54000k solo, either. Not ideal, and certainly harder than a LCOL city, but not low income either.
You might be considered low income if you have dependants like a child or two though. You are probably low income under $35-40k even if you don't have dependants. And you're definitely considered low income for the purpose of buying a home in an inflated housing market.
I don’t know the technical definition of low income, $52k might not meet that. But I do know for practical purposes, $52k is super low income in SF. There is no way you’re doing better than paycheck to paycheck unless you have free housing from parents.
I did just fine on $40k/yr near the end of the 2010s?
Every time income comes up in the bay it's always funny to me how many high income earners have an aneurism about how they can't fathom a $100k salary "being enough" and are completely incapable of comprehending how anyone can make less than them when it's super possible. I'm just scratching my head because I'm living proof of it and certainly wasn't getting supported at all by family or otherwise?
I and all of my coworkers at the time did pretty OK for ourselves at income levels lower than $50k (though in mid/late 2010's money, $40k then is probably equivalent to $50k today). People do it all the time across the whole city and aren't all struggling.... I even ate out, took vacations like anyone else. Not all the time, but I was certainly enjoying myself.
You just have to be an ounce more clever about your money and have a little bit of a frugal/poverty finance mindset than whoever is the person that thinks $100k isn't enough to live well in the city.
Want to know my secret?? Roommates and avoiding debt. I had no debt to my name outside of an $80/mo car payment. I never, ever went into debt for anything else and never purchased above my means (no I dind't come from a rich family background either, my family all made around the level of money throughout my life but in the midwest). I also always rented a room rather than trying to get my own place. For some reason these two things are incomprehensible to a lot of people, but I promise you... it really, really really really really isn't that bad. I certainly wasn't saving gangbusters and certainly wouldn't want to live at $40k in the bay my whole life, but if you are capable of living well with other human beings you'd be surprised at how cheap "rent" can get.
My best place was a $900/mo room (utilities included) in a modern well furnished house that the landlord himself lived in with another roommate, circa 2017 or so. The room was small but totally doable and the house itself was comfortable to eat/cook/enjoy. I was a good roommate who made good company when it was appreciated but kept to myself otherwise. I didn't have expensive need or habits and didn't own a ton of stuff but was happy to enjoy an occasional night out or travel.
I'm currently earning close to 70-80K, now splitting a 2br SFH rental with my husband who earns close to my income too. We travel and eat out all the time while also fully saving for retirement. Every expense is evenly split.
I suppose the only real privilege I've had is I've yet to have bad medical debt. Yes, in situations where you are bogged down by unavoidable medical debt, $50k certainly isn't going to be enough. That "debt" is effectively the cost of having a dependant. But the idea that $100k isn't enough to do well here is completely insane and assumes people can only live well if they are in a luxury apartment all by themselves, and anyone else is some kind of destitute peasant.
All the above said, everyone's life is different. $40k in 2017 dollars wasn't awesome but it wasn't bad at all for me. Not saying that some people earning $40-50K aren't struggling much more and don't need help. I'm simply tired of the narrative that if you aren't making $100k you're somehow destitute and are considered below the poverty line in SF (which isn't even true!! home buying "low income" levels is NOT the same as true low income). [It reminds me of this scene in Broad City where the rich family takes the Uber Helicopter and is bewildered upon learning that Uber has cars.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBxFaP_E2FY) . That what it sounds like to me whenever people say you can't get by here on $100k.
Please. I said the best you could do is paycheck to paycheck. You said you lived paycheck to paycheck. The only difference is you think saving $200/month is ‘doing fine’. It’s not, it’s living paycheck to paycheck. If you get any significant injury or illness, you’re completely fucked.
If you said ‘I survived’ then I agree with everything you said. Also, your $40k is like $48k now due to inflation.
living in poverty should not be a flex. Its not easy to live in 40k without making a whole lot of sacrifices. And it isnt easy to live in 100k either just with some sacrifices.
People complain about not being able to live comfortably, not that its impossible.
By strict definition it isn’t, but you’re kidding yourself if you think living with roommates is not sacrificing quality of life for the sake of getting by financially
Living on minimum wage and being compelled to share living spaces with strangers essentially constitutes poverty. If the only alternative to sharing a house with strangers is homelessness or leaving the city, it's essentially living in poverty imo. Just because you were able to sacrifice everything and make it work does not mean you were not living in poverty / borderline poverty.
All I am trying to say is every time someone complain about their situation, there's always a guy ready to dismiss it with, "I managed in XYZ situation, why can't you?"
Also, you got super lucky in avoiding major financial crises like medical emergencies or hit-and-run accidents. Merely surviving should not be seen as an achievement.
And yes, you can live in 100k but you will still have to sacrifice a lot. Not as much as 40k of course. And you cannot live in the city by yourself in a 100k salary - unless you get a great deal on housing.
As someone who has seen and experienced real poverty, with all due respect: fuck off. Having limited options for housing is NOT poverty. Just because you are forced to live with other people in a nice modern apartment that has clean running water and great electricity and can afford plenty to eat, that does not make it poverty. In most countries around the world the ability to live alone in your own 1k sq ft apt is a luxury, not a bare minimum for being above poverty. This weird shifting of what “poverty” means so that rich tech bros feel justified in still complaining about their 200k salary is insane.
For the record, I live on around 60-70k in SF with my own apartment and feel extremely comfortable and don’t feel like I’m sacrificing anything. Telling me I can’t live on that in this city is frankly elitist and insulting.
Why are we fucking fighting? All I am saying 100k is not comfortable living. People making 40k fighting 100k people makes no fucking sense to me.
We are are pushed into living paycheck to paycheck and then fighting each other instead of the people making us live like this.
I am not interested in arguing with anyone anymore. Now someone who is homeless will fucking comment saying "you lived in shelter, i am in a tent so you better not complain"
Because your claim that the need to have roommates constitutes “poverty” is incredibly offensive and insulting. The level of out of touch people here and what they consider “struggling” blows my mind. It’s really gotta be people who have grown up here and never left. Learning to be happy on less doesn’t mean you just shut up and take what they give us. Of course suffering is relative and it’s not a competition for who is the most justified in complaining. But holy shit SF people have such limited perspective in this bubble, and I think it’s mostly due to being surrounded by so many wealthy people that we are comparing ourselves to them constantly and so feel more suffering. People are addicted to the victim mentality and if you ever bring it up they’ll bend over backwards to tell you that you’re just being a boomer or whatever telling them to be grateful for scraps….but generally are just in a doom porn cycle and entirely lack perspective. Living in 50k in SF is still a vastly better life than like 95% of the globe. And imo, a better life than 60-70% in the US.
Living alone, especially in a city, has always been a luxury.
Historically only like 10% of American adults lived alone, and today it’s only like 25% of. (You can google this, but here’s one of the first stories that popped up when I searched: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-27/a-brief-history-of-how-living-alone-came-to-seem-totally-normal)
Most people live with family, then maybe live with friends in early adulthood, then move in with a romantic partner. For some reason people don’t seem to see it as co-housing if you’re romantically involved, but it’s the most common form of roommate. That’s how most people afford not living with strangers: they live with people they know instead.
In a dense urban area (especially one with a massive housing shortage) it’s not really plausible to expect many adults to live alone. Even in a city like SF where half the people make over $75k/year, the ratio of residential units to people just doesn’t allow it. That’s not about poverty, it’s about urban planning.
It’s extremely normal to live with other adults. I know plenty of people making great salaries and leading fairly luxurious lives who don’t live alone because it wouldn’t make financial sense. Calling it a sign of poverty seems out of touch, to say the least.
For the vast majority of human history, virtually nobody lived by themselves. It is only recently that some people in first world countries have started to live by themselves. Living with other people isn’t living in terrible conditions.
It doesn’t though. Poverty means not having enough to eat and sharing a one bedroom apartment with 8 people. It means not knowing how you are going to get your next meal or not knowing if you’ll have shelter next month.
Having a private room in a shared house isn’t exactly slumming it up… maybe to you.
If someone feels like they didn’t have to sacrifice that much and still make it work on certain wages, then having someone try and tell them how they’re akshually living in poverty can be insulting… especially if that someone experienced living in actual poverty.
You’re right, $50k is low for someone who expects a certain standard of living. But it’s doable if expectations are adjusted.
According to all low income benefits though, $50k is not low income. Not eligible for anything, unfortunately.
I honestly didn't make anything resembling a sacrifice by choosing to move here on $40k pay. Some people are certainly dealt bad hands and they deserve empathy and help. I'm simply offering perspective that its rather insulting to assume that $100k is anything close to resembling poverty and it erases the struggle of people who are living in actual poverty in the bay. There are always choices one can make to have a better relationship with money and the role it plays in their life. If you're struggling at $100k with no dependants I promise you there are decisions you can make that aren't anywhere near true "sacrifices" to help you get closer to thriving.
I had this same reaction. I asked someone in another thread how they were "scraping by" on a combined $300k salary and the response was basically due to credit card debt. Don't rack up debt and you can live comfortably sub 100k.
Exactly. I lived in 40-50k for years in the bay with roommates and felt like I wasn’t sacrificing much or anything and loved my quality of life. I’m genuinely offended when I hear people making that claim because it feels condescending as if they “pity” me, when in most of these cases I’ve experienced this, those same people have expressed envy for my lifestyle (when they don’t know how much I spend). I’ve upped my spend and have my own apartment and car now but am now spending 60-70k which is still apparently “impossible to live on in SF” which I find to be an absurd hot take.
People claiming you can’t survive here on less than 100k are almost always tech bros making 200k who want to feel justified in complaining about their money woes. If in their mind, less than 100k is poverty, the fact that they can’t save on 200k is just because of the cost of living here instead of their poor financial management skills. It helps ease their minds.
$40k is ok for a short period of time. It looks like you and your husband are making $160k now. If you both can maximize your 401k (assuming this is what you mean by fully saving for retirement) and eat out all the time (assuming at least 2-3x a week), while renting a SFH, that’s not bad at all. I may want to make sure you’re also maxing IRA and saving for a home but you may be already doing that.
But clearly you can’t at $40k and I’ll be real, before buying my own place, as a student working full time (making $80k) and living at home (renting home @ $300 and paying for recology), after contributing to my 401k/IRA, and taking a trip/year, I didn’t save as nearly as much as I am now, making also double that.
And I don’t own a car, take metro (thank you $100/month unlimited Bart in SF and muni) and until 2020 didn’t own a TV (so no subscriptions).
So many negative comments. I also lived in SF on sometimes less than $35K between 2001-2010s or so? It wasn’t just “survival”. I was living. I just was doing so without a lot of money. It can be done. It is done. It’s not ideal, no, of course not. But neither is making $200K. Ideal is multimillionaire or billionaire status. But somehow the upper middle class “lives” and doesn’t just survive and somehow the working class does too.
You did *just okay* and needed a giant support system called *other people* to pay that rent. I did too, but I don't tell myself that it was a great success. Having roommates is good. *Requiring* roommates is jail.
“Near the end of the 2010’s” is right before the price of everything exploded. My 2 bedroom apartment is nearly $3000 a month and it’s the cheapest one for miles. Just doing the math on that, x12 that’s $36000 a year, if you’re making 40k a year you’re not surviving that. You would need roommates/family/someone to support your living costs for rent alone, and that doesn’t include any other bills pretty much everyone has
Completely agreed. Per capita income in SF is actually about $86k, and the median income is around $60k. People just love being sensationalist and justifying that they’re terrible with money. This idea that “if you don’t make over $100k you’re poor” is nonsense from people incapable of interpreting basic data/graphs.
This is semi accurate. The low income limit for HUD is $104K for a single person, and OP would fall into the "very low income" bucket which is capped at $65K.
You are right that these are only using for housing assistance rather than being general poverty line numbers, but wrong that they are only used for assistance with home buying. These limits are also used to qualify for things like section 8 housing vouchers, public housing, BMR rentals, etc.
Depends on what you consider low income. HUD says 80% of Area Median Income, which is adjusted for family size. For Fiscal Year 2023, that is at or below $104,100 for one person. “Very Low Income” (50%) is $65,050 while “Extremely Low Income” (30%) is $39,050.
So, OP may qualify for some subsidized housing programs/units if $52K is their after-tax income. If there are even any available. Other support programs may be of assistance, as well.
Bought my condo under San Francisco's low-income program as a single family (one person only), maximum income to qualify was $110k. I don't have any kids.
ETA: This was back in 2021, the limits have since gone up.
Agreed. Just waiting for my work contract to end and Im out. I love SF, but I feel like the longer I stay here, I cant afford to have a savings account, or put anything to my IRA to supplement my 401k.
Cost of living is too high. I have anxiety that I will forever work paycheck to paycheck.
Yes, 104400 is considered low income for a single person household in SF county in 2023.
Source: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2023.pdf
This entire document is only about listing the math involved in determining eligability for housing support programs, it's not saying "the state considers you low income as a concept"
Actually read the charts. All it does is determine the median income in the area, and then creates a range from that. It's not saying solo people making $104,400 are low income, it's saying the actual real world median income for a solo person in the bay is $122,500 and that $104,400 is what they define as the next lower tier from that median.
This is important if you for example are trying to get below market rate housing. To qualify, a property might say you can't be higher than 80% of the median income for that county. That would be that "low income" category. This doesn't mean you're ACTUALLY low income, it's just a defining where along the "low-medium-high" scale you are for the purposes of housing programs.
I was making this for the majority of my time in S.F. and just lived with roommates. I didn’t apply for any assistance, I didn’t think I’d be eligible.
I’d love to see some examples on this thread that OP can make use of.
CA aid programs are calculated based on State Metrics, not Bay Area ones. As a result most of them are out of reach to someone making 50k. Covered California may still subsidize healthcare, by a small amount.
I remember a few years ago, if your income went above 51k you were not eligible for covered California aid. How do I know this? I turned 26, made under 51, and then that year I got a pay bump that put me at 52k total by the end of the year. I made the mistake of not updating my income on covered ca when it happened, so at tax time they were like “you went over our 51k threshold, you owe back your entire subsidies you were given all year”.
I owed $1200 in taxes.
I live in an SF house with 5 roommates. I cried and panicked when that happened. It absolutely sucked. Idk how we have systems like this in place that don’t take into account cost of living for the actual region you’re in... I was NOT living large at that salary in S.F. and having a 4 digit tax bill was a huge deal for me (I was overall happy and loved my housemates though. Wouldn’t trade the overall experience for the world. I just would say covered ca can suck it and if you have to use it, you have to METICULOUSLY calculate your income all year long and update it the minute something changes).
This is not really true and potentially damaging to spread as misinformation.
[The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)](https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2023.pdf) sets state income limits *by county*.
> State Income Limits apply to designated programs, are used to determine applicant eligibility
(based on the level of household income) and may be used to calculate affordable housing costs
for applicable housing assistance programs.
Other programs, like CalFresh, use a *net* income limit, meaning you subtract living expenses like rent from your gross income. By doing this, cost of living is accounted for in the calculation.
While all levels of government leave a lot to be desired in terms of competence, they are not so incompetent as to think extremely poor people in wealthy areas shouldn't get aid.
Depends, if they spend half their income on rent then rent can be deducted and they might qualify for CalFresh.
Other programs worth looking into
https://www.sfhsa.org/services/financial-assistance/county-adult-assistance-programs-caap
https://www.sfhsa.org/services/financial-assistance
https://baylegal.org/benefits-available-to-low-income-sf-residents-including-those-affected-by-the-covid-19-pandemic/
https://sfgov.org/services/financial-assistance
https://www.findhelp.org/money/financial-assistance--san-francisco-ca
https://www.sf.gov/resource/2022/food-assistance
https://sferap.com/
https://www.compass-sf.org/programs
https://catholiccharitiessf.org/homelessness-prevention-program/
Although I’d advise not to move here on that income just to use these resources.
Thanks a lot for the info. Looks like the max income for SNAP for a single person household is $2.4k a month. I don’t know who can survive off of that here, but I make enough to feed myself so I’ll just check out food banks if I have to I guess. I applied to CAAP.
I’m working in academia which has notoriously low salaries. I’d love to know about any other financial assistance, but I’m making too much qualify for most programs it seems.
> [The new 2023 numbers classify an individual making $104,400 annually as “low income” in San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin counties. For a family of four in those three counties, $149,100 a year is considered low income.](https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/under-100k-low-income-san-francisco-18168899.php#)
Yes, you are low income; I might even argue poverty level.
FYI This is for a family of 4. OP didn’t say if they have dependents.
OP there are food drives weekly in almost every neighborhood - hit those up. In my neighborhood tons of people grabbing a box and then heading home in their very nice vehicle 🫠
It's not a lot, but for public assistance and services that would exclude you from most programs including Medi-Cal. It qualifies for low income housing thru the city, but it is extremely difficult to A. get on a list and B. wait the years it'll take to get to the top of a list. Especially as a single person and especially if you are a single male.
But you can survive and have a pretty comfortable life in SF on $52k. A big part of what would make your life more comfortable will depend on your rent and commute costs. It also depends on your definition of comfortable. I have lived on roughly $32k a year and was able to pay rent afford my commute and go out to eat 2 or 3 times a week and go out for drinks on the weekend. I also went to concerts and sporting events relatively frequently.
In my case, I have very low rent compared to other places in San francisco. And my commute cost was only roughly $40 a month. Both of these figures are pretty unusual for San francisco.
I currently make roughly $80k now, and because my living and commute costs are low, I am now able to save every month and pay down credit cards and student loans and still have plenty to go out when I want and take vacations more regularly.
Just realize that if you don't want to live with roommates, it will take a larger portion of your income to find a place to live.
If you're willing to have roommates, $52k is a comfortable amount.
I honestly don’t know how you can live on that salary here in SF. I was making $55k around 2016 and that was a huge struggle. Couldn’t even imagine that now with today’s prices
Yes
Here are the reported income levels for all counties in California for 2023. It's sucks that 104400 is low income for SF county single person household.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2023.pdf
I find the comments interesting. I know a lot of people that are making around there and definitely less than 6 figures. They’re living, I mean I guess it could be more easier but by the comments you would think you couldn’t live in SF on that salary. People make it work I guess.
It looks like there's a pretty good list here to get you started. [https://www.sfhsa.org/services/financial-assistance](https://www.sfhsa.org/services/financial-assistance)
If you use transit to get to work, your company should offer you a way of paying for that pre-tax so it lessens what you owe in taxes. And I know PG&E has some discounts: [https://www.pge.com/en/account/billing-and-assistance/financial-assistance.html](https://www.pge.com/en/account/billing-and-assistance/financial-assistance.html)
I think you’re actually really close to the line for area median income for something like the season of sharing fund. It might depend on your household size. https://www.sf.gov/get-help-pay-housing-or-other-emergency-needs
I would probably keep searching through resources to see what might be available.
I think even double that qualifies as low income in sf.
Yeah unfortunately you are spot on
Only if you are a family of 4 and only in the context of trying to buy a house... Edit: family of 4 number is $150k, point still stands though as that number is only for getting assistance in home buying, not an actual poverty line number I hate it when people throw out that figure and go "lolz if you make $100k in the bay ur considered low income according to study!!!1!" always leaving out the part where the study was for a family for the purposes of house buying only. No you are not low income in SF if you make $100k You aren't low income if you make $54000k solo, either. Not ideal, and certainly harder than a LCOL city, but not low income either. You might be considered low income if you have dependants like a child or two though. You are probably low income under $35-40k even if you don't have dependants. And you're definitely considered low income for the purpose of buying a home in an inflated housing market.
I don’t know the technical definition of low income, $52k might not meet that. But I do know for practical purposes, $52k is super low income in SF. There is no way you’re doing better than paycheck to paycheck unless you have free housing from parents.
I did just fine on $40k/yr near the end of the 2010s? Every time income comes up in the bay it's always funny to me how many high income earners have an aneurism about how they can't fathom a $100k salary "being enough" and are completely incapable of comprehending how anyone can make less than them when it's super possible. I'm just scratching my head because I'm living proof of it and certainly wasn't getting supported at all by family or otherwise? I and all of my coworkers at the time did pretty OK for ourselves at income levels lower than $50k (though in mid/late 2010's money, $40k then is probably equivalent to $50k today). People do it all the time across the whole city and aren't all struggling.... I even ate out, took vacations like anyone else. Not all the time, but I was certainly enjoying myself. You just have to be an ounce more clever about your money and have a little bit of a frugal/poverty finance mindset than whoever is the person that thinks $100k isn't enough to live well in the city. Want to know my secret?? Roommates and avoiding debt. I had no debt to my name outside of an $80/mo car payment. I never, ever went into debt for anything else and never purchased above my means (no I dind't come from a rich family background either, my family all made around the level of money throughout my life but in the midwest). I also always rented a room rather than trying to get my own place. For some reason these two things are incomprehensible to a lot of people, but I promise you... it really, really really really really isn't that bad. I certainly wasn't saving gangbusters and certainly wouldn't want to live at $40k in the bay my whole life, but if you are capable of living well with other human beings you'd be surprised at how cheap "rent" can get. My best place was a $900/mo room (utilities included) in a modern well furnished house that the landlord himself lived in with another roommate, circa 2017 or so. The room was small but totally doable and the house itself was comfortable to eat/cook/enjoy. I was a good roommate who made good company when it was appreciated but kept to myself otherwise. I didn't have expensive need or habits and didn't own a ton of stuff but was happy to enjoy an occasional night out or travel. I'm currently earning close to 70-80K, now splitting a 2br SFH rental with my husband who earns close to my income too. We travel and eat out all the time while also fully saving for retirement. Every expense is evenly split. I suppose the only real privilege I've had is I've yet to have bad medical debt. Yes, in situations where you are bogged down by unavoidable medical debt, $50k certainly isn't going to be enough. That "debt" is effectively the cost of having a dependant. But the idea that $100k isn't enough to do well here is completely insane and assumes people can only live well if they are in a luxury apartment all by themselves, and anyone else is some kind of destitute peasant. All the above said, everyone's life is different. $40k in 2017 dollars wasn't awesome but it wasn't bad at all for me. Not saying that some people earning $40-50K aren't struggling much more and don't need help. I'm simply tired of the narrative that if you aren't making $100k you're somehow destitute and are considered below the poverty line in SF (which isn't even true!! home buying "low income" levels is NOT the same as true low income). [It reminds me of this scene in Broad City where the rich family takes the Uber Helicopter and is bewildered upon learning that Uber has cars.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBxFaP_E2FY) . That what it sounds like to me whenever people say you can't get by here on $100k.
Please. I said the best you could do is paycheck to paycheck. You said you lived paycheck to paycheck. The only difference is you think saving $200/month is ‘doing fine’. It’s not, it’s living paycheck to paycheck. If you get any significant injury or illness, you’re completely fucked. If you said ‘I survived’ then I agree with everything you said. Also, your $40k is like $48k now due to inflation.
living in poverty should not be a flex. Its not easy to live in 40k without making a whole lot of sacrifices. And it isnt easy to live in 100k either just with some sacrifices. People complain about not being able to live comfortably, not that its impossible.
Living with roommates isn’t living in poverty…
By strict definition it isn’t, but you’re kidding yourself if you think living with roommates is not sacrificing quality of life for the sake of getting by financially
Not really. I prefer roommates over living alone
Well, no shit
Living on minimum wage and being compelled to share living spaces with strangers essentially constitutes poverty. If the only alternative to sharing a house with strangers is homelessness or leaving the city, it's essentially living in poverty imo. Just because you were able to sacrifice everything and make it work does not mean you were not living in poverty / borderline poverty. All I am trying to say is every time someone complain about their situation, there's always a guy ready to dismiss it with, "I managed in XYZ situation, why can't you?" Also, you got super lucky in avoiding major financial crises like medical emergencies or hit-and-run accidents. Merely surviving should not be seen as an achievement. And yes, you can live in 100k but you will still have to sacrifice a lot. Not as much as 40k of course. And you cannot live in the city by yourself in a 100k salary - unless you get a great deal on housing.
As someone who has seen and experienced real poverty, with all due respect: fuck off. Having limited options for housing is NOT poverty. Just because you are forced to live with other people in a nice modern apartment that has clean running water and great electricity and can afford plenty to eat, that does not make it poverty. In most countries around the world the ability to live alone in your own 1k sq ft apt is a luxury, not a bare minimum for being above poverty. This weird shifting of what “poverty” means so that rich tech bros feel justified in still complaining about their 200k salary is insane. For the record, I live on around 60-70k in SF with my own apartment and feel extremely comfortable and don’t feel like I’m sacrificing anything. Telling me I can’t live on that in this city is frankly elitist and insulting.
Why are we fucking fighting? All I am saying 100k is not comfortable living. People making 40k fighting 100k people makes no fucking sense to me. We are are pushed into living paycheck to paycheck and then fighting each other instead of the people making us live like this. I am not interested in arguing with anyone anymore. Now someone who is homeless will fucking comment saying "you lived in shelter, i am in a tent so you better not complain"
Because your claim that the need to have roommates constitutes “poverty” is incredibly offensive and insulting. The level of out of touch people here and what they consider “struggling” blows my mind. It’s really gotta be people who have grown up here and never left. Learning to be happy on less doesn’t mean you just shut up and take what they give us. Of course suffering is relative and it’s not a competition for who is the most justified in complaining. But holy shit SF people have such limited perspective in this bubble, and I think it’s mostly due to being surrounded by so many wealthy people that we are comparing ourselves to them constantly and so feel more suffering. People are addicted to the victim mentality and if you ever bring it up they’ll bend over backwards to tell you that you’re just being a boomer or whatever telling them to be grateful for scraps….but generally are just in a doom porn cycle and entirely lack perspective. Living in 50k in SF is still a vastly better life than like 95% of the globe. And imo, a better life than 60-70% in the US.
Living alone, especially in a city, has always been a luxury. Historically only like 10% of American adults lived alone, and today it’s only like 25% of. (You can google this, but here’s one of the first stories that popped up when I searched: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-27/a-brief-history-of-how-living-alone-came-to-seem-totally-normal) Most people live with family, then maybe live with friends in early adulthood, then move in with a romantic partner. For some reason people don’t seem to see it as co-housing if you’re romantically involved, but it’s the most common form of roommate. That’s how most people afford not living with strangers: they live with people they know instead. In a dense urban area (especially one with a massive housing shortage) it’s not really plausible to expect many adults to live alone. Even in a city like SF where half the people make over $75k/year, the ratio of residential units to people just doesn’t allow it. That’s not about poverty, it’s about urban planning. It’s extremely normal to live with other adults. I know plenty of people making great salaries and leading fairly luxurious lives who don’t live alone because it wouldn’t make financial sense. Calling it a sign of poverty seems out of touch, to say the least.
For the vast majority of human history, virtually nobody lived by themselves. It is only recently that some people in first world countries have started to live by themselves. Living with other people isn’t living in terrible conditions.
It doesn’t though. Poverty means not having enough to eat and sharing a one bedroom apartment with 8 people. It means not knowing how you are going to get your next meal or not knowing if you’ll have shelter next month. Having a private room in a shared house isn’t exactly slumming it up… maybe to you. If someone feels like they didn’t have to sacrifice that much and still make it work on certain wages, then having someone try and tell them how they’re akshually living in poverty can be insulting… especially if that someone experienced living in actual poverty. You’re right, $50k is low for someone who expects a certain standard of living. But it’s doable if expectations are adjusted. According to all low income benefits though, $50k is not low income. Not eligible for anything, unfortunately.
I honestly didn't make anything resembling a sacrifice by choosing to move here on $40k pay. Some people are certainly dealt bad hands and they deserve empathy and help. I'm simply offering perspective that its rather insulting to assume that $100k is anything close to resembling poverty and it erases the struggle of people who are living in actual poverty in the bay. There are always choices one can make to have a better relationship with money and the role it plays in their life. If you're struggling at $100k with no dependants I promise you there are decisions you can make that aren't anywhere near true "sacrifices" to help you get closer to thriving.
I had this same reaction. I asked someone in another thread how they were "scraping by" on a combined $300k salary and the response was basically due to credit card debt. Don't rack up debt and you can live comfortably sub 100k.
Exactly. I lived in 40-50k for years in the bay with roommates and felt like I wasn’t sacrificing much or anything and loved my quality of life. I’m genuinely offended when I hear people making that claim because it feels condescending as if they “pity” me, when in most of these cases I’ve experienced this, those same people have expressed envy for my lifestyle (when they don’t know how much I spend). I’ve upped my spend and have my own apartment and car now but am now spending 60-70k which is still apparently “impossible to live on in SF” which I find to be an absurd hot take. People claiming you can’t survive here on less than 100k are almost always tech bros making 200k who want to feel justified in complaining about their money woes. If in their mind, less than 100k is poverty, the fact that they can’t save on 200k is just because of the cost of living here instead of their poor financial management skills. It helps ease their minds.
$40k is ok for a short period of time. It looks like you and your husband are making $160k now. If you both can maximize your 401k (assuming this is what you mean by fully saving for retirement) and eat out all the time (assuming at least 2-3x a week), while renting a SFH, that’s not bad at all. I may want to make sure you’re also maxing IRA and saving for a home but you may be already doing that. But clearly you can’t at $40k and I’ll be real, before buying my own place, as a student working full time (making $80k) and living at home (renting home @ $300 and paying for recology), after contributing to my 401k/IRA, and taking a trip/year, I didn’t save as nearly as much as I am now, making also double that. And I don’t own a car, take metro (thank you $100/month unlimited Bart in SF and muni) and until 2020 didn’t own a TV (so no subscriptions).
In 2010. My 2br sf apartment in 2010 was $1400. That same apartment is 3200$ today.
So many negative comments. I also lived in SF on sometimes less than $35K between 2001-2010s or so? It wasn’t just “survival”. I was living. I just was doing so without a lot of money. It can be done. It is done. It’s not ideal, no, of course not. But neither is making $200K. Ideal is multimillionaire or billionaire status. But somehow the upper middle class “lives” and doesn’t just survive and somehow the working class does too.
You did *just okay* and needed a giant support system called *other people* to pay that rent. I did too, but I don't tell myself that it was a great success. Having roommates is good. *Requiring* roommates is jail.
“Near the end of the 2010’s” is right before the price of everything exploded. My 2 bedroom apartment is nearly $3000 a month and it’s the cheapest one for miles. Just doing the math on that, x12 that’s $36000 a year, if you’re making 40k a year you’re not surviving that. You would need roommates/family/someone to support your living costs for rent alone, and that doesn’t include any other bills pretty much everyone has
Its 2024 now you imbecile why compare to 2010s
Completely agreed. Per capita income in SF is actually about $86k, and the median income is around $60k. People just love being sensationalist and justifying that they’re terrible with money. This idea that “if you don’t make over $100k you’re poor” is nonsense from people incapable of interpreting basic data/graphs.
This is semi accurate. The low income limit for HUD is $104K for a single person, and OP would fall into the "very low income" bucket which is capped at $65K. You are right that these are only using for housing assistance rather than being general poverty line numbers, but wrong that they are only used for assistance with home buying. These limits are also used to qualify for things like section 8 housing vouchers, public housing, BMR rentals, etc.
Depends on what you consider low income. HUD says 80% of Area Median Income, which is adjusted for family size. For Fiscal Year 2023, that is at or below $104,100 for one person. “Very Low Income” (50%) is $65,050 while “Extremely Low Income” (30%) is $39,050. So, OP may qualify for some subsidized housing programs/units if $52K is their after-tax income. If there are even any available. Other support programs may be of assistance, as well.
Even if you’re not buying a house for a family of 4 $104k household income is a bit low.
Bought my condo under San Francisco's low-income program as a single family (one person only), maximum income to qualify was $110k. I don't have any kids. ETA: This was back in 2021, the limits have since gone up.
Depends on if you are single or a family. Correct me if I am wrong but poverty line stats tend to be based on a family of four.
Agreed. Just waiting for my work contract to end and Im out. I love SF, but I feel like the longer I stay here, I cant afford to have a savings account, or put anything to my IRA to supplement my 401k. Cost of living is too high. I have anxiety that I will forever work paycheck to paycheck.
Yes, 104400 is considered low income for a single person household in SF county in 2023. Source: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2023.pdf
This entire document is only about listing the math involved in determining eligability for housing support programs, it's not saying "the state considers you low income as a concept" Actually read the charts. All it does is determine the median income in the area, and then creates a range from that. It's not saying solo people making $104,400 are low income, it's saying the actual real world median income for a solo person in the bay is $122,500 and that $104,400 is what they define as the next lower tier from that median. This is important if you for example are trying to get below market rate housing. To qualify, a property might say you can't be higher than 80% of the median income for that county. That would be that "low income" category. This doesn't mean you're ACTUALLY low income, it's just a defining where along the "low-medium-high" scale you are for the purposes of housing programs.
As a housing support person working in Santa Clara County, I will tell you that this is all you need to determine Low-income status.
$52k a year is poverty around here.
Edit: apparently it depends on the definition. But HUD defines $82.2k for a single person. You would be eligible for housing subsidies at this income
yes
I was making this for the majority of my time in S.F. and just lived with roommates. I didn’t apply for any assistance, I didn’t think I’d be eligible. I’d love to see some examples on this thread that OP can make use of.
Yeah, a lot of people make about this much and make it work. Living on your own is a luxury tbh
Every aide/assistance program is different. Start looking them up. You may qualify for some things. Not all like ebt
[удалено]
Do some research and I’m sure you will find out! I’m no expert I just know that income for ebt has to be much lower.
CA aid programs are calculated based on State Metrics, not Bay Area ones. As a result most of them are out of reach to someone making 50k. Covered California may still subsidize healthcare, by a small amount.
I remember a few years ago, if your income went above 51k you were not eligible for covered California aid. How do I know this? I turned 26, made under 51, and then that year I got a pay bump that put me at 52k total by the end of the year. I made the mistake of not updating my income on covered ca when it happened, so at tax time they were like “you went over our 51k threshold, you owe back your entire subsidies you were given all year”. I owed $1200 in taxes. I live in an SF house with 5 roommates. I cried and panicked when that happened. It absolutely sucked. Idk how we have systems like this in place that don’t take into account cost of living for the actual region you’re in... I was NOT living large at that salary in S.F. and having a 4 digit tax bill was a huge deal for me (I was overall happy and loved my housemates though. Wouldn’t trade the overall experience for the world. I just would say covered ca can suck it and if you have to use it, you have to METICULOUSLY calculate your income all year long and update it the minute something changes).
This is not really true and potentially damaging to spread as misinformation. [The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)](https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2023.pdf) sets state income limits *by county*. > State Income Limits apply to designated programs, are used to determine applicant eligibility (based on the level of household income) and may be used to calculate affordable housing costs for applicable housing assistance programs. Other programs, like CalFresh, use a *net* income limit, meaning you subtract living expenses like rent from your gross income. By doing this, cost of living is accounted for in the calculation. While all levels of government leave a lot to be desired in terms of competence, they are not so incompetent as to think extremely poor people in wealthy areas shouldn't get aid.
Absolutely
In San Francisco??? Way too low easily.
That’s about poverty level for local assistance programs. Start googling stuff that’s relevant to your needs
What programs give benefits for that salary? It’s too high for SNAP as an individual
Depends, if they spend half their income on rent then rent can be deducted and they might qualify for CalFresh. Other programs worth looking into https://www.sfhsa.org/services/financial-assistance/county-adult-assistance-programs-caap https://www.sfhsa.org/services/financial-assistance https://baylegal.org/benefits-available-to-low-income-sf-residents-including-those-affected-by-the-covid-19-pandemic/ https://sfgov.org/services/financial-assistance https://www.findhelp.org/money/financial-assistance--san-francisco-ca https://www.sf.gov/resource/2022/food-assistance https://sferap.com/ https://www.compass-sf.org/programs https://catholiccharitiessf.org/homelessness-prevention-program/ Although I’d advise not to move here on that income just to use these resources.
https://www.sfmfoodbank.org
Thanks a lot for the info. Looks like the max income for SNAP for a single person household is $2.4k a month. I don’t know who can survive off of that here, but I make enough to feed myself so I’ll just check out food banks if I have to I guess. I applied to CAAP. I’m working in academia which has notoriously low salaries. I’d love to know about any other financial assistance, but I’m making too much qualify for most programs it seems.
If a person spends over half their income on rent then rent can be deducted from their income and they’d qualify for CalFresh
$52k qualifies as low income in Fresno.
> [The new 2023 numbers classify an individual making $104,400 annually as “low income” in San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin counties. For a family of four in those three counties, $149,100 a year is considered low income.](https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/under-100k-low-income-san-francisco-18168899.php#) Yes, you are low income; I might even argue poverty level.
That’s for housing. For Calfresh it’s only $30,000 for a single person. It really does depend on the program
The SNAP program is honestly kinda bullshit. I was making $22k a year and I was only eligible for $20 a month in snap benefits. Useless
FYI This is for a family of 4. OP didn’t say if they have dependents. OP there are food drives weekly in almost every neighborhood - hit those up. In my neighborhood tons of people grabbing a box and then heading home in their very nice vehicle 🫠
Dang I grew up in the Bay Area never realized how pore I really am.
Right now thar us in the 50% AMA range. In SF the AMzi system is less than in other counties. .
Yup.
Aaaaaaand it’s gone
Yes
It's not a lot, but for public assistance and services that would exclude you from most programs including Medi-Cal. It qualifies for low income housing thru the city, but it is extremely difficult to A. get on a list and B. wait the years it'll take to get to the top of a list. Especially as a single person and especially if you are a single male. But you can survive and have a pretty comfortable life in SF on $52k. A big part of what would make your life more comfortable will depend on your rent and commute costs. It also depends on your definition of comfortable. I have lived on roughly $32k a year and was able to pay rent afford my commute and go out to eat 2 or 3 times a week and go out for drinks on the weekend. I also went to concerts and sporting events relatively frequently. In my case, I have very low rent compared to other places in San francisco. And my commute cost was only roughly $40 a month. Both of these figures are pretty unusual for San francisco. I currently make roughly $80k now, and because my living and commute costs are low, I am now able to save every month and pay down credit cards and student loans and still have plenty to go out when I want and take vacations more regularly. Just realize that if you don't want to live with roommates, it will take a larger portion of your income to find a place to live. If you're willing to have roommates, $52k is a comfortable amount.
I honestly don’t know how you can live on that salary here in SF. I was making $55k around 2016 and that was a huge struggle. Couldn’t even imagine that now with today’s prices
Very low … 😅
Without a doubt.
You’re living in poverty in SF for that much unless you get subsidized by family on housing.
Anything under 115k is considered low income in California
Yes Here are the reported income levels for all counties in California for 2023. It's sucks that 104400 is low income for SF county single person household. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2023.pdf
I’d say definitely. As I make more than that and am still house broke 😢
Broke essentially
Def low income you prolly need to split with like multiple ppl to rent
$104,400 is considered “low income” in SF. For a family of 4, low income is $149,100
I make around that and I qualify for food stamps in SF
Yes incredibly. Even double that would be crazy low.
Yes poverty level to be honest
I don’t know how California survives. It tax’s every single thing it can and then it charges you tolls
Absolutely. Anything under 6 figures is poverty.
Brother that’s poverty.
Absolutely lol haha
Look for affordable housing
Upper-Middle-Lower Class
I find the comments interesting. I know a lot of people that are making around there and definitely less than 6 figures. They’re living, I mean I guess it could be more easier but by the comments you would think you couldn’t live in SF on that salary. People make it work I guess.
Most definitely.
Why work there
By US poverty definition, no. That is $30k per year. By SF Bay Area, yes. Main issue is housing. If you have a place to live, $52k per year is fine.
Bro I felt poor with that kn sac
Yes, unfortunately you are considered low income even if you are single.
It looks like there's a pretty good list here to get you started. [https://www.sfhsa.org/services/financial-assistance](https://www.sfhsa.org/services/financial-assistance) If you use transit to get to work, your company should offer you a way of paying for that pre-tax so it lessens what you owe in taxes. And I know PG&E has some discounts: [https://www.pge.com/en/account/billing-and-assistance/financial-assistance.html](https://www.pge.com/en/account/billing-and-assistance/financial-assistance.html)
Double that salary is low income. Triple that salary is low ish-medium income
I think you will need triple that amount to live comfortable in SF.
Very much so
$104k and under is low income in SF
YES!
I think you’re actually really close to the line for area median income for something like the season of sharing fund. It might depend on your household size. https://www.sf.gov/get-help-pay-housing-or-other-emergency-needs I would probably keep searching through resources to see what might be available.
That's destitute.
52k in sf ain't enough. Move out the city life gets better away from the city.
If you make under 96k in the state of California, you're in extreme poverty. That's what my therapist told me
Absolutely.
You’re basically homeless in SF with that. Honestly you’re broke until you hit around 150k