patrick.net

Only the payroll services can provide this data across all their clients by vocation, title, pay, age, pay history, location, etc etc.. And they dont publish it.

Everthing else is meaningsless..

CL says

(I ask because USAA sent me a guide that says the vast majority of 55-65 year old retirees have less than 100K in retirement savings, which equals $400/month)

Avg is 100K.. and not prepared for retirement. That is why many many left CA for cheaper states for retirement.

There are four distinct pay groups in the Bay Area:

- Immigrants and other poor people. They earn under $50k a year, barely can afford to pay rent and eat, and probably double up (or more) to get by. They work at resturaunts and cleaning services and such.

- Young people early in their careers. They make between $50 and $150k. They do OK for themselves, but couldn't even begin to think about buying a home or starting a family. If they accidentally have a child, they wind up moving way out to tracy or something.

- Well off Engineers, Product Managers, Salesmen, Doctors, Lawyers, etc. They make between $150k and $500k a year. They can afford to buy a home, take vacations, and maybe even have kids (though most choose not to).

- Wealthy people: They make $500k+. This starts with the corporate VPs, but it also includes all the people who get rich from having a stake in the startup community .

How much you 'need' depends on your personal situation. If you're single with no kids, $100k is more than enough to save comfortably for retirement. Go live in the city and enjoy life.

A 65 year old with $100k in savings is going to be fine. They'll get $2366 from social security. I don't know where you're coming up with $400 a month from (I guess you're assuming a 5% annual interest rate or something?), but even at that amount, you can live reasonably well in retirement.

Unless you own your home, I certainly wouldn't want to retire with only $100k in the bank in the bay area though. Rent alone would suck up most of your SS payments, and you'll barely have enough left to eat and pay the bills.

On the other hand, you could live in the midwest on $1000 a month no problem. My father is retired. Between social security and his pension, he gets something like $4000 a month, but his expenses are only about $1500.

It's hard to give an answer without some context,

But for a "family household" 2 adults and kids (which takes out the young adults and the retiree), I consider these low, middle, good and high.

http://www.city-data.com/income/income-San-Francisco-California.html

median family income = 87K. I consider anything below 87K to be low income. The great thing is San Francisco has housing program (below market purchase) geared toward right around the 87K level. So to the extent it falls right in, they are probably better off than the next class who falls out of it. There are several thousand below market units that are spread around in the newer condos. A 600K 2BR condo on the new fillmore/Beacon/Metropolitan can be had for 280K. Plenty of families have kids in this income, it's actually the dominant kids group.

family income @ 75% percentile = around 155K. I consider anything between 87K to 155K to be medium income depending on age. 100K may be good at 28 but horrible at 40. The family is looking at SE corridor like Bayview, Croker Amazon, Oceanview , city college, and Silver.

Family income @ 90th percentile = 230K. I consider anything between 155K - 250K to be good income. This family should not have trouble buying a home in a decent neigborhood like the in/out sunset/parkside/Potrero Hill, Noe Valley, Twin Peaks, Richmond, Portola, Golden Gate Heights, Diamond heights, etc. or a newer 2BR 1000 Sq Ft. condo in SOMA. The majority of the kids (2/3) go to private school from K-8 and hope their kids get into Lowell to avoid 30K HS like SI.

Top 10% of the family makes anywhere from 250K - 500K. I consider that hight income. That is St Francis woods, Presidio, Marina, Pac Heights and large unique condo caliber. None of the kids use public schools.

Retirement fund is one piece to the wealth picture, so net worth is a better gouge as owning two homes in San Francisco is better then 1M in retirement funds. If you are on pace to be able to replace 80% of a good income of 155K - 230K during retirement, then that is considered good net worth. For someone @ 40, a think the milestone may be around 500K net worth with the goal to get to 2M by 65. Combined with a reduced SS, that should be enough to be good for a couple.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

President Bachman

Classic. Have I ever told you how much I appreciate your perspective? :) Kevin says

I don't know where you're coming up with $400 a month from

I think they mean, retire at 65--die at 85=20 years= 240 months=$400/month-ish....not enough!

SFace says

It's hard to give an answer without some context,

Of course. Partly, I was reading about who makes up the 1% and the income threshold is only 350k. More startling was that the top 5 or 10% was only around 100K and change, so that in conjunction with the USAA article was illustrative.

1) Of course, Americans are stupid, especially the 40-60 age group, since I think they have mountains of debt and no savings--no shock there.

2) I think 100K in most cities is probably quite good, but what does it do for you in the Bay?

SFace says

family income @ 75% percentile = around 155K. I consider anything between 87K to 155K to be medium income depending on age. 100K may be good at 28 but horrible at 40. The family is looking at SE corridor like Bayview, Croker Amazon, Oceanview , city college, and Silver

Good points all. You think people in Bayview are making 100K? Yikes!

Still, your stats are SF specific, right, so are slightly skewed up?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fg%2Fa%2F2012%2F01%2F24%2Fbusinessinsidera-six-figure-salary-.DTL

"That's according to tech job listing service Dice.com, which pegged average Silicon Valley salaries at $104,195, up 5% from last year.

That's TECH salaries too. Does that alter anyone's opinions? I'd have to think the non-techie factor would drag that down considerably.

CL says

"That's according to tech job listing service Dice.com, which pegged average Silicon Valley salaries at $104,195, up 5% from last year.
That's TECH salaries too. Does that alter anyone's opinions? I'd have to think the non-techie factor would drag that down considerably.

Over the years... 1)Employers move out, and later eliminate, manufacturing, bottom 20%, and your avg salaries goes up. 2) Move other functions (R&D, SGA, IT) out of state, leaving your top paying officers/directors and fewer staff / R&D skewing average salaries much higher. And who didnt see all this happen over the past decade or two.

Today, the bulk of all Tech jobs are actually outside of SV region where cost of doing business is much less. There is no reason to keep everyone close to the mothership.

CL says

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fg%2Fa%2F2012%2F01%2F24%2Fbusinessinsidera-six-figure-salary-.DTL

"That's according to tech job listing service Dice.com, which pegged average Silicon Valley salaries at $104,195, up 5% from last year.

That's TECH salaries too. Does that alter anyone's opinions? I'd have to think the non-techie factor would drag that down considerably.

If you live in silly con valley, and you aren't in tech, you had better be a doctor/lawyer/other highly paid white collar professional, or married to one.

Living in the bay area on under $100k is something that is only pleasant if you don't have any children to worry about.

So, you think tech is on the low-end of the spectrum in SV? I'm trying to figure out a few things:

If the average tech wages were ~99K and moved to 105k, clearly people make below that amount in tech and live in the SV. Are they interns?

Also, I have been curious about the people who post here, which while diverse, seems like we range from the haves to the have a whole bunch. Just wondering if that skews the advice in a way that the average reader may not relate to.

CL says

people who post here, which while diverse, seems like we range from the haves to the have a whole bunch. Just wondering if that skews the advice in a way that the average reader may not relate to.

Duh.

That's why we, The Bay Areans, are So Cool and Hip.

Really only other Coasters (other side of North American continent or other side of Pacific Ocean) are interesting to Us. Chicago? Pfft. What's that except a place where some pro sports teams play on TV that has an airport we may change in during our jetting setting Between the Coasts?