I'm not debating the definition of the median... I assume everyone knows how percentiles work. I'm debating the idea that its meaningful to use the median income of the entire united states as a comparison.
Prices in San Jose aren't brought down by prices being lower elsewhere because location is basically the most important dimension in real estate.
The median house being 188k in america means nothing when all the houses you can choose from cost over 1mil. And you're stuck there because the bay area has a near monopoly on startups, especially if you receive funding from a bay area accelerator.
Let me take the parent's comment to the next level:
"The median net compensation last year in the world was around $1,200, meaning half of all wage earners earned less. Assuming half the population of the planet doesn't die suddenly in the next three weeks it's fair to say that $50k is "livable""
Equally inapplicable to someone who lives in the bay area.
Prices in San Jose aren't brought down by prices being lower elsewhere because location is basically the most important dimension in real estate.
The median house being 188k in america means nothing when all the houses you can choose from cost over 1mil. And you're stuck there because the bay area has a near monopoly on startups, especially if you receive funding from a bay area accelerator.
Let me take the parent's comment to the next level:
"The median net compensation last year in the world was around $1,200, meaning half of all wage earners earned less. Assuming half the population of the planet doesn't die suddenly in the next three weeks it's fair to say that $50k is "livable""
Equally inapplicable to someone who lives in the bay area.