It's a really really weird space that didn't really exist in 1984. I would say that today's "engineers" below the 80% salary threshold for this space are today's "construction workers" and heavily democratic voters (There are also of course "construction workers" too, of course).
Maybe about 5 years ago I would have said that people making 200k are wealthy. Today I would say that they are a lot of people that have been duped into a lifestyle where they "think" they are wealthy but are not. They spend MOST of their salary on non-essential and non-asset building things. So in a sense they are people that should be rich, but are not. Instead they don't own property (renters) buy lattes, restaurant food (for every meal) and the rest of that income is just going to payments - the tesla, rv/campers/boats, storage facilities for the stuff that doesn't fit in the apartment.
Those people certainly could become winners of the economic system if they stopped paying everyone else - but they identify with wealthy people making 400k but have absolutely no appreciating assets (ok except for their self driving module that Elon duped them into - which it turns out isn't actually "sellable" to the next owner anyway!).
I don't think these people identify with working class - instead they are pushing a narrative for themselves as poor to feel less guilty about that large salary and how poorly it's being pissed away.
That's the closest I can "explain" that from my personal perspective at least.
$200k isn’t enough to buy anything in SF though. Also - I know a lot of people making $200k/yr and they spend relatively little.
Honestly - you sound really out of touch and like you know no one who makes $200k/yr in SF. Where would you put your boat if you even could afford one? Where would you put a camper? Do you think people at 200k in sf are renting houses often? Houses with space for boats and campers?!
Sounds a lot like someone who likes to bitch about avocado toast. I wish people like this didn’t even post on HN - because it’s clear they don’t live in SF and don’t have a clue.
Living in a high cost of living area is voluntary consumption as much as buying a new BMW every year or taking European vacations all the time. If you want to spend your wealth (and yes, 200k/yr is ridiculously high) on living in SF that’s your choice, but that doesn’t make you non wealthy.
You don’t have to live in SF to observe that living in SF is a choice. Many of my law school cohort has household incomes of $300k to $1 million. Many choose to live in MYC or SF or DC and pay nearly $2 million for a house. My wife and I instead chose to buy a sub-$500k house in an exurb. We eat at Maggianos instead of Per Se, but we can afford “rich people” luxuries like a house on the water, sending our kids to private school, etc. But those are choices. An ordinary American would consider us all “rich,” and rightfully so. They don’t care whether we spend our riches on boats versus exclusive neighborhoods versus the cultural amenities of a big city.
The choice is tightly bundled with economic opportunity, income, specific jobs, school quality, and other factors.
I'm interpreting "living in SF" to mean broadly within the SF Bay Area metro region, which would include much of the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa. Arguably parts of Marin and Santa Cruz. For some of the longer commutes, Sonoma, Solano, Yolo, Sacramento, and San Joaquin.
Housing is scarce and expensive throughout the region. It's one of few economic hubs in the US let alone the state. And people have increasingly been priced out, or simply unable to find housing (including replacement after natural disasters).
"Choice" isn't a binary, or absent profound implications, opportunities, and/or consequences.
Using lattes as an example of burning money in your pocket is just laughable and really shows how much you understand how the local economics of the bay area. I don't think there are many owners of RV/campers/Boat owners who live in SF but spot on reference. Throw on hatred of Tesla et voila:
Ok Mr. Old Republican Avocado Toast hating throwaway troll account - wish you the best of luck in your distorted world. Your worldview is a sad deeply inaccurate take and I hope you realize that before its too late.
Maybe about 5 years ago I would have said that people making 200k are wealthy. Today I would say that they are a lot of people that have been duped into a lifestyle where they "think" they are wealthy but are not. They spend MOST of their salary on non-essential and non-asset building things. So in a sense they are people that should be rich, but are not. Instead they don't own property (renters) buy lattes, restaurant food (for every meal) and the rest of that income is just going to payments - the tesla, rv/campers/boats, storage facilities for the stuff that doesn't fit in the apartment.
Those people certainly could become winners of the economic system if they stopped paying everyone else - but they identify with wealthy people making 400k but have absolutely no appreciating assets (ok except for their self driving module that Elon duped them into - which it turns out isn't actually "sellable" to the next owner anyway!).
I don't think these people identify with working class - instead they are pushing a narrative for themselves as poor to feel less guilty about that large salary and how poorly it's being pissed away.
That's the closest I can "explain" that from my personal perspective at least.