Note that some of the entries here are clearly outdated. I've cycled through some "global south" countries that I'm familiar with and what's shown may have been true maybe 15-20 years ago. GDP has 4x since then and at the same salary level the lifestyle is either equivalent or better than the richer countries.
To give context on my other comments, where I live in Scotland, median full time wage is around $55k.
You can live a perfectly comfortable life on that, you don't have to worry about bills or medical expenses, and you can afford to get a mortgage and buy a house (probably costing around $300k or so)
That's why I'm surprised about people from a richer nation saying they can't afford things.
I've generally loved this site. Wondering what other distributions could be made so visual, where people near the top complain about the people just above them.
You have it backwards. Housing is astronomically expensive in San Francisco precisely because there are so many people with high incomes bidding against each other.
When you have a highly inelastic supply (constrained by zoning laws, density limits, and geographical boundaries), prices rise to the maximum margin of what the highest-income buyers are capable of paying.
Regarding taxes: Since taxes apply to all local high-earners equally, it doesn't change their relative purchasing power against one another in the local housing market. If taxes were suddenly halved, that extra liquidity would be priced into the next bidding war, driving home prices even higher.
I promise you not. Houses here cost $2M+ for something livable and $1M for something with mold and other safety issues.
When half that $50K gets taxed, half of what's remaining has to be saved up for retirement in a place that deeply discriminates against age, you don't have much left to save up for buying a $2M house.
> half of what's remaining has to be saved up for retirement in a place that deeply discriminates against age, you don't have much left to save up for buying a $2M house.
Buying a $2M house is saving for retirement. Owning your own home in retirement is a massive financial win. And if you own a home in an expensive market, you can sell it, buy one in a more affordable market, and then the difference is unlocked retirement savings.
Nah it's the reality here. I'd say minimum income to safely own housing here is $100K-150K/month. OR cash already saved for the home, in which case income doesn't matter.
Yes, lots of households make that much, especially people at e.g. Nvidia with unvested appreciated RSUs.
Yes, the US economy is that badly fucked.
And the people on mortages were brainwashed into buying something they can't afford, and in for a foreclosure disaster when the economy corrects.
In every thread about housing people on HN post wildly outlandish claims about expenses that belie their totally out of touch perspectives. If you make 100K a month (the lower bound of what you just wrote). Let's say you put 25K into retirement. You eat out every meal so 4K food/living budget. That leaves 60K (I'll give you 10K slush fund for savings money or as a general keeping-up-with-the-jones' fund).
60K per month will pay a 4.5 million dollar mortgage. 4.5 million will buy you some of the nicest houses in the bay that aren't mansions. See:
You are either insane, or out of touch in a way that makes you insane. Of course, you can get a much cheaper very nice condo and "safely" squirrel away phenomenal amounts of cash savings. Expecting to own a high end house in a dense metro are on its own, is a pretty insane expectation.
> Expecting to own a high end house in a dense metro are on its own, is a pretty insane expectation.
High salaries and an industry boom over the last decade created a sort of whiny arrogance amongst software developers, and particularly those of Silicon Valley. They desperately want to see themselves as the elite.
Of course the elite get their mansion where they want. They are entitled to it.
You can't make many national judgements based on the economics of the Bay Area. It's much more sane in nearly every other area (with some other outliers, such as New York City).
The housing market is highly dependent on the job market so no, it’s not “being fussy”, it’s “I need to live here so I can have a job and income”. Unless you’re suggesting that people should quit their jobs and go get that cheap house in the middle of nowhere?
Does the website reference net or gross monthly income?
Edit:
So the numbers are not a direct exchange rate to USD.
Q: How were dollar values assigned to households?
A: The households’ door numbers represent the consumption values (US dollars) that each adult in the household has per month. This figure comes from a combination of the household’s self-reported consumption and income levels. We then checked the official cost of living data in each country to adjust the values for purchasing power parity (PPP) and converted the value into US dollars. Read more about how we assigned the Dollar Street values here.
You're not going to save up for a $1-2M house very fast on $7000/month, when you also have to live off that $7K, pay rent, pay medical bills, and save up for retirement expenses.
Note that some of the entries here are clearly outdated. I've cycled through some "global south" countries that I'm familiar with and what's shown may have been true maybe 15-20 years ago. GDP has 4x since then and at the same salary level the lifestyle is either equivalent or better than the richer countries.
To give context on my other comments, where I live in Scotland, median full time wage is around $55k.
You can live a perfectly comfortable life on that, you don't have to worry about bills or medical expenses, and you can afford to get a mortgage and buy a house (probably costing around $300k or so)
That's why I'm surprised about people from a richer nation saying they can't afford things.
Click the Families dropdown. There are many other things, including beds, pets, toys and teeth.
Whoa, nice reminder of how filthy rich I and almost everyone I know are.
I've generally loved this site. Wondering what other distributions could be made so visual, where people near the top complain about the people just above them.
It's interesting that $14000/month is "rich" on this website, and some people earning $100/month actually own houses.
Meanwhile people making $50000/month in San Francisco can't afford a house because half of it is taxed away and housing is astronomically expensive.
You have it backwards. Housing is astronomically expensive in San Francisco precisely because there are so many people with high incomes bidding against each other.
When you have a highly inelastic supply (constrained by zoning laws, density limits, and geographical boundaries), prices rise to the maximum margin of what the highest-income buyers are capable of paying.
Regarding taxes: Since taxes apply to all local high-earners equally, it doesn't change their relative purchasing power against one another in the local housing market. If taxes were suddenly halved, that extra liquidity would be priced into the next bidding war, driving home prices even higher.
I promise you that someone in SF making $50k/month can comfortably afford a very nice house.
I promise you not. Houses here cost $2M+ for something livable and $1M for something with mold and other safety issues.
When half that $50K gets taxed, half of what's remaining has to be saved up for retirement in a place that deeply discriminates against age, you don't have much left to save up for buying a $2M house.
> half of what's remaining has to be saved up for retirement in a place that deeply discriminates against age, you don't have much left to save up for buying a $2M house.
Buying a $2M house is saving for retirement. Owning your own home in retirement is a massive financial win. And if you own a home in an expensive market, you can sell it, buy one in a more affordable market, and then the difference is unlocked retirement savings.
I am not even sure if you are being sarcastic.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/80-Prentiss-St-San-Franci...
check this out.
Ok, I made my other comment before seeing this but I find it very difficult to believe you can't find something reasonable for far less.
Nah it's the reality here. I'd say minimum income to safely own housing here is $100K-150K/month. OR cash already saved for the home, in which case income doesn't matter.
Yes, lots of households make that much, especially people at e.g. Nvidia with unvested appreciated RSUs.
Yes, the US economy is that badly fucked.
And the people on mortages were brainwashed into buying something they can't afford, and in for a foreclosure disaster when the economy corrects.
In every thread about housing people on HN post wildly outlandish claims about expenses that belie their totally out of touch perspectives. If you make 100K a month (the lower bound of what you just wrote). Let's say you put 25K into retirement. You eat out every meal so 4K food/living budget. That leaves 60K (I'll give you 10K slush fund for savings money or as a general keeping-up-with-the-jones' fund).
60K per month will pay a 4.5 million dollar mortgage. 4.5 million will buy you some of the nicest houses in the bay that aren't mansions. See:
https://www.realtor.com/news/unique-homes/midcentury-modern-...
You are either insane, or out of touch in a way that makes you insane. Of course, you can get a much cheaper very nice condo and "safely" squirrel away phenomenal amounts of cash savings. Expecting to own a high end house in a dense metro are on its own, is a pretty insane expectation.
> Expecting to own a high end house in a dense metro are on its own, is a pretty insane expectation.
High salaries and an industry boom over the last decade created a sort of whiny arrogance amongst software developers, and particularly those of Silicon Valley. They desperately want to see themselves as the elite.
Of course the elite get their mansion where they want. They are entitled to it.
You can't make many national judgements based on the economics of the Bay Area. It's much more sane in nearly every other area (with some other outliers, such as New York City).
You're shifting the goal posts, but I'll bite... what is 'safely' owning a home, to you?
If your net pay is $7000 per month you absolutely can afford to own a house, you're just being fussy about the house you want.
The housing market is highly dependent on the job market so no, it’s not “being fussy”, it’s “I need to live here so I can have a job and income”. Unless you’re suggesting that people should quit their jobs and go get that cheap house in the middle of nowhere?
Does the website reference net or gross monthly income?
Edit:
So the numbers are not a direct exchange rate to USD.
Q: How were dollar values assigned to households? A: The households’ door numbers represent the consumption values (US dollars) that each adult in the household has per month. This figure comes from a combination of the household’s self-reported consumption and income levels. We then checked the official cost of living data in each country to adjust the values for purchasing power parity (PPP) and converted the value into US dollars. Read more about how we assigned the Dollar Street values here.
If you’re gonna have kids, fussy means: * have decent schools * not covered in lead or asbestos * not next to a highway
+
* in an area not going to get shot or mugged
* structurally earthquake safe so that we don't die
You're not going to save up for a $1-2M house very fast on $7000/month, when you also have to live off that $7K, pay rent, pay medical bills, and save up for retirement expenses.
Globally, $14k/mo is unbelievably, obscenely rich.