That is really mind blowing to me. I just looked at the local rental website for my small town and the first 2 bedroom duplex I looked at had a nice yard and looked good on the inside and was only $900/month. That is in Canadian dollars too I may add. That $4550 would be about $6000 Canadian and you would have people begging you to move in if you agreed to pay them a portion of that.The highest rental I see on the site right now is about $1800Cad.
SF is just another world to me, whenever I read about salaries or rent, it might as well be on Mars. We just bought our first home(3 bed, double drive, large garden) in a large UK city and the mortgage is £580/month(~$750 for you Americans). And it's not like we're poorly paid either, we both drive brand new cars, go on holidays twice a year etc etc. And then you get SF residents being paid well into 6 figures and unable to have a decent standard of living. It's just crazy to me.
>And then you get SF residents being paid well into 6 figures and unable to have a decent standard of living. It's just crazy to me.
To be more accurate, it is only a subset of SF residents (in the IT space) that get that kind of pay, I often wonder how is the life of those that do not belong to that elite and that do not make that kind of 6 figures money.
And set an arbitrary threshold at 45 US$/hour, the amount of people exceeding that are 31.1%, if we set it at 50 US$/hour they are 19.4%.
If we draw another line, those that get less than 25 US$/hour are 42.1% and those that get more than 25 but less than 45 are 26.6%.
So, even if we assume that 40% of people commutes for long distances (and BTW technically are not SF residents), since only between 20% and 30% of San Francisco workers can actually afford it, it still leaves us with 30%-40% of people that must be in a really tight spot.
I'm not an expert in California, but if I understand prop 13 correctly it is possible some of those are people who have lived in SF for many years at the same address - their house is paid off and taxes are minimal so they can afford to live on much less. If your house only costs $400/month to live in ($100 insurance, $100 taxes, $200 other utilities) minimum wage still leaves plenty left over, and presumably if you bought a house 30 years ago you were worth more than minimum wage...
Maybe that would account for a part (I am also not at all an expert in California, so it is just speculation), but those cannot reasonably account for 40% of workers.
I mean, if you live in SF and have a yearly income of "only" 50-60,000 US$ working some 2000 hours at 25-30 $/hour, and you live in a house that you can rent for roughly the same amount or that you can sell for (say) a million, what actually keeps you there?
Maybe you can find somewhere else a similar job, paid in the 15-20 $/hour range, you lose 20,000 on the job but get an additional 40,000 from the rent or from interests on the capital.
It's all about the area. I have friends who moved to Chandler AZ and rented an entire single floor house with 2 car garage, 2br and in ground pool for $800 month. That was 5-6 years ago but way more affordable than the 1600+ in NYC for a 2br apartment.
I am Canadian. I live on the West Coast. Vancouver has lots of high expense rentals but move out from there and any of the small communities there are plenty of low cost nice rentals.
