Confirmed: San Francisco's Wealthiest Residents Are Too Damn Rich

Categories: Money Problems

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for money rain big.jpg
A windy day in the Marina
With all this talk about wealth, gentrification, and Google buses, we thought this informative LA Times video report about income gaps was a nice wrap to the discussion.

The newspaper confirmed, using U.S. Census from 2012, that San Francisco was among the top cities where the income gap was the widest. In other words, the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor here in San Francisco.

According to the report, San Francisco's wealthy residents earned 15 times more than people in the low-income bracket.

The newspaper's discovery originated from the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit policy research group, which released a study yesterday with more details on the rich-poor problems plaguing some of the nation's most vibrant cities. It said cities that have these sort of inequalities will no doubt face some serious problems -- and we're not just talking about Google buses.

Per the Institution:

There are many ways of looking at inequality statistically; one useful way to measure it across places is by using the "95/20 ratio." This figure represents the income at which a household earns more than 95 percent of all other households, divided by the income at which a household earns more than only 20 percent of all other households. In other words, it represents the distance between a household that just cracks the top 5 percent by income, and one that just falls into the bottom 20 percent. Over the past 35 years, members of the former group have generally experienced rising incomes, while those in the latter group have seen their incomes stagnate.

San Francisco's ratio is high because its wealthy households have very high incomes, considerably higher than in any other major city ($353,000 at the 95th percentile).

And now for a depressing map (click to enlarge your misfortune):

CityInequality2012.jpg
Brookings Institution

And more:

Appendix

And, no, we didn't reach out to Tom Perkins for comment.




My Voice Nation Help
7 comments
James A. Hudkins
James A. Hudkins

How did that happen? By what criteria are you using? Who are you to decide what someone else should have? They may have some ideas what you should have. Would you like that?

Amy Perez
Amy Perez

That is why I don't live there no more:) We will be back !

suffering
suffering

And not one of them, have enough money to make them happy, guaranteed.

Paul Varga
Paul Varga

Because CEOs overwork the staff they have and hoard the money that should be spent on hiring more people and/or paying your employees more for doing the work of 2+ people.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...