Note to readers:The low-income threshold of $169,000 was changed based on incorrect information provided to the Daily Journal. The county has the highest low-income threshold in the country at about $149,000.
Making nearly $150,000 per year is a substantial household income in most of the country, but in San Mateo County, it means you’re struggling to make ends meet, according to a recent MarketWatch report.
Heather Cleary
The data shows the county has one of the highest salaries that are still considered low income, tied with Marin County and San Francisco. The list underscores how living in an economically vibrant region allows for upward mobility, while also making it more difficult to qualify for state and federally-funded benefits, which gauge a household’s need based on much lower incomes.
“The reality of San Mateo County is that it is a great place to live, and it is a very difficult place to be low income,” said Sarah Fields, director of Community Engagement and Public Affairs at the nonprofit LifeMoves.
The $149,000 figure applies to a household of four and is about $26,000 less than the county’s official area median income of $175,000 for the same family size, which is used as a benchmark for certain benefits, such as housing vouchers. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development data shows that one individual making less than $104,000 in the county is considered low income. That is almost seven times higher than the federal poverty line and about five times higher than the income limit for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid plan.
Steve Moon, associate director of LifeMoves' San Mateo County Navigation Center, said helping clients apply for benefits, such as federally-funded Social Security Disability Insurance, is already complex — often taking up to a year to finalize — and even the payments that are approved don’t go very far in a place like the Peninsula.
“On average, the higher benefit for someone that has worked for a long time is … about $1,400 [monthly],” Moon said.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that those payments are often taken into account when determining eligibility for benefits like CalFresh, which has a $2,430 gross monthly income limit. Such income limits are easy to surpass even in the least expensive parts of the state.
Moon said he has personal experience with the benefit application process, as his mother is physically disabled and no longer able to work.
Recommended for you
“This is a person that worked the majority of her adult life, became disabled, in a wheelchair and just gets $1,400 a month [from Social Security]. She's not eligible for an allotment of food stamps because she makes just a little over the threshold of what somebody can make on a monthly basis of that maximum amount,” he said.
Moderate earners not struggling with housing insecurity or physical and mental disabilities are also feeling the pinch. MarketWatch’s report showed that almost 40% of households making $200,000 reported living paycheck to paycheck, and housing costs have far outpaced wage growth over the last decade, both in the Bay Area and nationwide. Child care subsidies are also predicated on family income, and with child care costs in San Mateo County averaging between $19,000 to $22,000 per year — the third most expensive county in the state, according to KidsData — a high-earning family in another part of the country would struggle to afford care in San Mateo County.
Peninsula Family Service CEO Heather Cleary said the regional differences are particularly evident when looking at the organization’s means-tested early learning program.
“We really see that the poverty line that's set and the benefit levels, especially low-income levels, are really challenging for our community. There's a lot of people who need service that aren't able to get it because they make too much money, and that's a big challenge,” Cleary said.
That can leave families with a tough choice between accepting a modest raise and promotion or losing a substantial benefit, such as child care or even health insurance.
“I've had conversations with a family member or single individual who says, ‘I literally cannot take the raise. I’m trying to move forward with my life, but I'm stuck at this one level,’” Moon said.
A bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco, last December would update the federal poverty line to better reflect regional cost-of-living differences, and while Cleary said the likelihood of near-term passage is not high, it still shines an important light on the need for better eligibility criteria.
“People are still living in poverty but they're getting wages that are much higher than the rest of the country,” Cleary said.
Rent control = a life sentence to poverty. Not to mention units will be allowed to deteriorate, so what you do not pay for in money, you pay for with your health. This means a person in a rent controlled unit will die sooner having less time to earn/accumulate wealth (the money you don't spend) to pass onto the next generation. Working poor pay into Social Security for 50+ years but only receive 5-10 years of benefits, the difference in most cases does not go onto the spouse or the next generation. Where as others work the same 50+ years, but get 20-30 years of benefits.
A brand spanking new 2 bedroom apartment in Burlingame costs $3,000 a month. That leaves $133,000 less $20,000 in taxes to live on. Consequently no matter which way you draw it up, $169K a year or $14K a month ain't poverty and living and making ends meet should be a cake walk. They should also be able to save about $4,500 a month.
Updating the Federal Poverty Line is lipstick on the pig and government rent control is not a viable solution.
The Bay Area has been a spectacular economic success, luring talent from all over the world to produce new technologies that have transformed the world. The staggering wealth we’ve generated is the envy of the Planet.
The overwhelming majority of the region’s wealth-creation – profits – has gone to the corporate sector and there is no “Corporate Skin in the Game”. Why should consumers in Helsinki get cheaper iPhones via “substandard” housing in SF?
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(6) comments
Rent control = a life sentence to poverty. Not to mention units will be allowed to deteriorate, so what you do not pay for in money, you pay for with your health. This means a person in a rent controlled unit will die sooner having less time to earn/accumulate wealth (the money you don't spend) to pass onto the next generation. Working poor pay into Social Security for 50+ years but only receive 5-10 years of benefits, the difference in most cases does not go onto the spouse or the next generation. Where as others work the same 50+ years, but get 20-30 years of benefits.
A brand spanking new 2 bedroom apartment in Burlingame costs $3,000 a month. That leaves $133,000 less $20,000 in taxes to live on. Consequently no matter which way you draw it up, $169K a year or $14K a month ain't poverty and living and making ends meet should be a cake walk. They should also be able to save about $4,500 a month.
Updating the Federal Poverty Line is lipstick on the pig and government rent control is not a viable solution.
The Bay Area has been a spectacular economic success, luring talent from all over the world to produce new technologies that have transformed the world. The staggering wealth we’ve generated is the envy of the Planet.
The overwhelming majority of the region’s wealth-creation – profits – has gone to the corporate sector and there is no “Corporate Skin in the Game”. Why should consumers in Helsinki get cheaper iPhones via “substandard” housing in SF?
Been saying it for years to deaf ears: rent control.
How nice of you to dictate how much someone can charge for the use of someone's property.
Been saying it for years to deaf ears: rent control doesn’t work.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.