It costs 20,000 a year to cover the expenses of being employed?

Well, you are talking about San Francisco. Go to Los Angeles and it gets worse.

Plenty of people in the bay area "get by" making less than that. Far less than that. So if you make 60k you are default homeless?

Bear in mind that salaries in the SF area are higher than in some other areas.
And that SF has become a rich area.
It's sort of like giving a salary requirement for living in manhattan in that it is more expensive than surrounding areas....
Renting or owning in San Fran is super expensive. A few miles outside of san fran is far cheaper.

Well, extra car, extra subway pass (costs $76/month in NYC), one more person's worth of dry cleaning, cost of takeout because the parents can't cook, babysitter, extra gas for the extra car, etc. etc. etc.

I'd say that goes to over $20k. I'm surprised that it's so little. Because someone who works as a professional probably spends like $80/month on dry cleaning alone, and then factor in the cost of a second car, more clothes (work clothes are expensive!), hiring a babysitter at $10/hour+cost of whatever food they eat, etc etc it adds up.

Sounds right on, except for the variable of rent. If you love the tenderloin, rent can still be less. (and your prescription drug prices are a bit lower too, due to excess local supply.)
On the other hand, SF Gate needs to put down the pipe - "individually purchased health insurance" IS a necessity, because, contrary to their assertion that "many families are covered at least partly through work", the SF reality is that MANY/MOST lower/middle-paying jobs don't have much/anything in the way of employee coverage, much less dependant coverage.

I guess I am the only one so far that thinks these numbers are too low? My GF and I (no kids) just finished looking for apartments in SF and we are spending nearly double on what they think is 'average for a family of four'. I guess were some places that four people can live for about $1300 but I think that is WAY long gone. We looked and looked in all price ranges close to ours and we were lucky to get what we did considering that others that were submitting applications had yearly incomes that were at time double what we make.

Yup. It's that much. Not including parking tickets (which are well neigh inevitable and SF meter maids* are more carnivorous than a herd of cats grazing a field of catnip - but MUCH less cute).

BUYING a house when your family under 100K/year? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Ha. Boy, that's funny.

That said, the burritos on Mission Street are delicious, and a steal. So the gods give and take away.

* Yeah, I know. But I hate them THAT much that I'm not using the correct phrase.

@causticitty:

Except that the study found that cost in all the major categories except transportation were higher in the Bay Area than anywhere else in the state, including the LA area. They may talk about the salaries being high, but that's not anything that touches me and and the people that I know. $77,000 is a pipe dream to us.

Oakland here, across the bay from San Francisco. I'll tell you the $77,000 doesn't include buying a home. And four people on that amount means really being frugal. Fuel for home heating, gasoline and housing (both buying and renting) are all really high and the "higher" salaries don't really make up for it.

However, we don't really have a winter. Rainy for a few weeks, yes, but it almost never hits freezing. And I hear Los Angeles is cheaper, but I'm not sure; but I know that gasoline is way higher here.

Albany here, which is the first town north of Berkeley. 2 of us exist on one grad student stipend plus some occasional income for the other... around $30 - $32k total, I'd guess. Rent is about 1/2 of our monthly budget. Things are tight, but it can be done. I get health insurance from school, we have to pay for his. The only way we're able to survive is we're in subsidized, university owned housing which includes all utilities, internet, and cable tv in the rent.

I guess I must just have a very low opinion of what "getting by" is. I've always thought of "getting by" as "I can afford my rent, food and maybe I can get a new pair of shoes if I only eat noodles and tuna for a month". Insurance (health and otherwise) has always seemed more of a luxury than a necessity to me. Granted, I'm single, young and healthy, so what do I know...

I paid 1550 for a prime location, Dolores Park 1-br apartment in San Fran. Food was also very affordable. I live in NY now and pay 2750 for an alcove studio in a nice building. SF is dirt cheap---I don't know why people think it's crazy expensive. NY is repulsively pricey.

San Francisco proper is frighteningly expensive.

The $1300/month assumption for rent is reasonable if a little high (if you are poor, you can probably do cheaper).

The big bogosity is the $1200/month for child care assumption.

And that is also for "Modest Middle Class" lifestyle, not minimum.

Kids are also a huge cost.

I make $20/hr and can barely afford myself.

Let's see, the husband and I pull in about $110k between the two of us. Do I feel rich? Um, no. We purchased a condo about 30 miles north of SF in Marin County a couple of years ago (fixed rate thank heaven!). Some would say that means we're rich but it doesn't usually feel like it. I have health care coverage through my job, he does not. We have no children. I fear the day I have to start paying for childcare. In the big picture we are wealthy beyond our wildest dreams. We have our health, a warm home, a loving family, and can go out to eat and take vacations now and again. Most of the world sees our life as The American Dream. So I guess I do feel rich after all.

@B: Daycare, Hombre.

I'm actually shocked it's that little. If we had another kid, we'd need that much to get by here, and I know SF is more expensive.

@jaredgood1: Insurance is hardly a luxury, especially when it comes to health care. Yes, if you're young and healthy, you probably don't need it... right up until you do.

I offer my own experiences with dental care. Didn't have insurance, didn't think I needed it, right up until part of one tooth broke off. I managed to get some of the work covered, but all told the root canal, oral surgery & crown set me back over $1,500.

If I had insurance at the time and leading up to the event in question:
a.) I would gotten regular check-ups fro a $20 insurance co-pay, versus the $150 list-cost with a $300 deposit per visit.
b.) the total cost to me would have been around $1,200 less.

Insurance is a funny thing: when you don't need it, it's a waste. When you do need it, it's a huge bargain. When you factor in preventative care (dental cleanings) and special needs (young children get sick more than adults, and often require perscriptions) the difference is huge.

I know the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data', but do some research for yourself: look at how much a doctor's visit or a dental cleaning will cost you without insurance (assuming you can even get seen!) versus with insurance.

I'm using health insurance here, because many states require that drivers have car insurance, and similarly many mortgage companies require both mortage insurance and home insurance.

@jaredgood1: I agree- "getting by" doesn't include luxuries (Blockbuster, Papa John's and a new toy every stroll through Target) in my mind.

Isn't the poverty line like a family that only has one television now?

@mikala: Some good friends of mine found themselves in straits very similar to yours. They are a childless professional couple, a lawyer and a tenured university professor. They lived in San Francisco proper for a couple of years and found it outlandishly expensive. They bailed for Alameda, which was better but found that they could still never afford to buy a home there.

Ultimately, they gave up on CA altogether and moved to Anchorage, AK; where they are able to afford a nice townhouse and stock a chest freezer with Kenai River salmon they caught themselves. Sounds nice.

This is definitely a problem in my book.

San Francisco is still too DAMN AFFORDABLE.

When will we become a world class city like London, Moscow, and Manhattan (not the other 4 boroughs)?

The suburbs of San Francisco have done their part to be relatively unaffordable. Look at Mountain View!

[www.burbed.com]

$600k, 842 sqft, a few walls missing. See? Mountain View is doing it's part. You won't find unaffordability like this in the suburbs of New York or Chicago or Washington DC.

Come on San Francisco - let's raise the bar. Let's all do our part to make it even more exclusive and more expensive.

After all - more expensive = more desirable = more special. And who doesn't want to live in a place that's special?

>>@zaky: "SF is dirt cheap---I don't know why people think it's crazy expensive. NY is repulsively pricey."

There's one difference though: NY is NY. San Francisco is not.

Last time I checked, folks living in SF weren't competing for housing with people like a crown prince of Saudi Arabia, etc etc etc. Nor is SF nearly as interesting as NY.

@rodeobob: Oh, I totally understand where you are coming from. However, if a person can afford non-job supplied insurance (as the article states), I don't think that they are just "getting by" (especially if it's a family of four).

@CoffeeCup: One can easily find a serviceable 27" TV at a thrift store for $50 or less. Hell, cruise the Craigslist or FreeCycle postings and you would be doing someone a favor by picking one up for free.

So, what's your point?

I bet these "poor" people could get by much better if they sold their Escalades and drove 1991 Cavaliers, and got rid of cable TV, broadband internet, and cooked their own meals instead of going to Ruth Criss every night. I only make $42,000 a year and get by just fine. Move out of the city about 30 miles and itll be MUCh cheaper. Also, dont have kids you cant afford and you wont have to both work and pay for daycare

I'm thinking that Baja is looking better all the time.

@JiminyChristmas: Took us all of 18 months to bail on DC Metro for Peoria, where our mortgage payment on a house with a big yard is about 1/4 of what our rent on an apartment was. Every lawyer in town cuts out at 5 p.m. on Friday to go to their kids' T-ball games. And "Your Honor, I have to go to my daughter's dance recital that day" is a totally legitimate reason for a court conflict.

(On the downside, student loans don't know they're supposed to adjust for cost-of-living changes in salary. :P)

I find it hard to believe as a SF resident, that one could find a one bedroom apartment for under $1600, never mind enough space for a family of four. A typical 2 bedroom goes for around $2000-$2400, and 3 bedroom would be at least $3000.

@zaky: That must have been a few years ago.

I just moved to SF and getting a one bedroom apartment in anywhere near a desirable district will set me back AT LEAST $2000 a month. More inexpensive (read: not so safe) areas will cost around $1500 a month.

SF IS kind of expensive, and bear in mind I've lived in Hong Kong and London for a considerable amount of time.

I completely believe that a family of four needs $77'000 to get by, and that's with quite a few sacrifices.

@coffecup: the poverty line as of a couple of years ago was 21,600+change for family of four. It's based on multiple of price of month's worth of food at ghetto grocery store. NO relation to real world of 2007. I would be hard up to make it in SF on 77k a year w/out kids.

That's barely comfortable here in Sacto -- It manages to be a)more than the median family income but b)barely enough to buy the median priced home. Time for a revolution of the proletariat against the exploitive capitalist oligarchy. Or at least the developers, Realtors, and their lackies in the government...

It's the housing costs that kill ya. I moved here making $60k and that felt pretty tight for one person.

I'm in the SF area with a house hold of 5, One working (me) and making just over 40k a year and it is really tough to get buy. I often describe my situation as working poor. its Just enough to pay bills, sometimes its not enough. This allow zero fun time because i can't afford it. if i could make 50,383 like this news piece says i would be well off and maybe enjoying life again.

Oh, and yes, SF is expensive. But worth every damn penny. :)

I wouldn't say this is out of line at all. Someone making 77k/yr is going to take home about $2250k every 2 weeks, assuming their employer covers insurance, which they almost never do. Typical employee cost for health insurance for their family is $100-$200 per pay period (assuming 24 pay periods per year), that's $2400-$4800/yr. And you MUST have health insurance - a friends daughter just had an appendectomy and she didn't have insurance. The bill - $80K.

$1300 for a 2bdrm in SF is on the low end.

So let's look at the numbers:

$4500/mo
- $1300 rent
- $300 insurance (split the difference)
- $150 utilities (average per/mo over the course of the year. assuming they have no internet/cable)
- $150 transportation (to/from work, etc - and assuming they don't own a car)
- $200 misc expenses (clothes, incidentals, etc)
- $500 food (this is way low-ball, like they're buying in bulk)
= $2600

Now let's get into childcare. $900/mo per child is about the lowest decent care price I can find, so that's $1800/mo for childcare. That, plus the above $2600 equals $4400/mo - that leaves $200 for wiggle room. Not a whole lot. They'll 'get by', but there's nothing in here for anything but the bare essentials - no car, no internet/cable, minimal food/clothing (they're shopping at goodwill for sure) and not much left over for any kind of savings. That insurance plan is probably going to have a deductible of at least $250, as well as co-pays and percentages, so they'll still be hoping no one gets sick...

I don't know how scientific City-Data.com is...I would imagine that if it was accurate, the $77k wouldn't be far fetched, especially if the median income for a family is $57,496.

BF and I make nearly 100K jointly, live in a 2 BR apt in a so-so hood, and still find it difficult to find much fun money. Kcrusher - where in the heck did you find a 2 BR in SF for $1300?! Impossible.

My family lives in SF but I had to move to Sacramento (two-hour drive east) cuz it's SOOOOOOOOOOOO much cheaper. Unbelievable what I got for $650 a month rent. Car port. POOL. Huge one bedroom. But, it's Sacramento.

I think it's really easy to be poor in New York. Food is relatively cheap and you don't need a car. Subway costs the same whether you're coming from Jamaica or Upper East Side.

My wife and I live in the Washington DC 'burbs, and we make around $80,000 / yr.

We have 2 cars, we own a townhome, and we have a 16 month old son.

We have cable (basic non-digital), and broadband, but not much else that would be "luxurious".

I wish we only had 1 car, but hers will be paid off in February.

When I was growing up, people didnt make $80,000, and if they did, they were "rich". We make that much, and can barely barely afford to live.

We do not eat out, I cook our meals, I drive a company car, etc.

One bad thing happens, and we are screwed!

Gotta get away from this area!

Maybe we should move to SF...

@jaredgood1:

Jaredgood, once you have kids, I think health insurance stops being a luxury, and becomes a necessity.

I think you'd have to be very frugal for a family of 4 to live on $77K in San Francisco.

I just dont see how people live in places like SF or NYC. My wife and I are both paramedics and live on the Gulf Coast. We make about 80k a year and feel pretty loaded.

Rent on a 1500sf 3bed 2bath house is only 800 a month and everything else is pretty cheap. Heck only about 1/3 of our income is needed for bills.I couldnt get by in a big city on pur pay.

I'm looking for a 2 bedroom place now and in the past few months rent in even gang and crime areas (hayes valley, lower haight, mission) has climbed to 2100-2500 a month and that's the lowest end. There's nothing reasonable in this town. Most of gentrified Brooklyn is cheaper.

The article is pretty accurate. I support a family of 4 on $52k and we just squeeze by. Having bought a home in Berkeley 10 years ago is the only way it's been possible. We decided it was more cost effective (and better for the kids) for my wife to stay home and care for the kids, cook meals, etc (a much harder job than the one I commute to the City everyday for, I might add). The biggest killer is the monthly health insurance payment of $1100. True, I could move somewhere less expensive but I'd make significently less and have to forgo time with family and friends. Not worth it in my mind.

As another SF resident, let me add my "WTF?!" to the idea of a family of four renting a place for $1300. Yeah effing right. I'm paying $1025 for a studio on the edge of the Tenderloin (one of the slummiest parts of the city). When I was looking for apartments, the majority of studios were between $900 and $1100. My friend is looking to move here and needs a one-bedroom because he works from home, and even out in the sticks of the Sunset and Excelsior, those are at least $1300.

By the way, Mark 2000 - you think Hayes Valley is a "gang and crime area"? Umm...been there lately? Gangs of frou-frou boutique owners, maybe... :P

You need 6 figures to get by if in coastal California if you have kids. Period. End of story. And you need to NET 6 figures.

I've lived in the East Bay (Concord), and we had to go north to Solano County (rural area east of Napa, between SF and Sacramento on the 80) in order to buy a house. We had to get out of Concord because there was no rent control and rents were going up each year. We searched high and low, because we really wanted to live closer to the Bay, but it was impossible, renting or buying. These numbers sound really low to me. The only way I can see anybody getting by on &77K/year in SF without government assistance would be by living in some very scary neighborhoods. And even then, I would imagine you'd need WIC or foodstamps or something.

Berkeley for me, a 4 bed with 3 bath at 1800 sq and 4300 sq; a bit under Summit Res. No kids, two income young couple, more or less... 74k and the living is not bad but not as good as many might think.

With so much money in the area from various tech it is hard to keep up with the Jones. And I can see if one had a kid, not that I would have one as I am a kid at heart myself, the Jones would be a nightly topic at the dinner table.

Every now and then I think of how it would be to live in a lower cost part of CA. With my line of work I imagine I could transfer... But not sure if I would want to, for as I said live here is not bad...

No friggen way! It would cost more than $77,000 a year to raise a family in SF. I live in a small two bedroom apartment in San Francisco in a crappy part of town and pay $1750. And it's considered a deal!

Plus, you'd have to send your kids to our terrible public schools (which I've worked in). Plus, do you intend to clothe yourself and your children? Eat anything other than Ramen and McDonald's? No, no, no way.

And, yes, the salaries can be higher in SF than other places. However, you need to have a Master's degree or some other specialized training in order to be making $20 an hour. $10 an hour is common for most service industry jobs.