In California, the phrase “six-figure salary” once conjured images of financial stability, upward mobility, and homeownership. Today, in a growing number of counties, it marks the threshold of need. According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s newly-released 2025 State Income Limits, single adults earning up to $109,700 a year in five Northern California counties—Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz—now qualify as “low income.”
That’s not a typo. In Santa Clara County, home to Silicon Valley’s billion-dollar tech campuses, $111,700 is considered low income—for one person.
California’s housing crisis has become so extreme, and home prices so inflated, that even people earning salaries far above the national median are struggling to stay afloat. The problem is not just wage stagnation. The deeper crisis is a decades-long failure to build enough housing—especially affordable and workforce housing—in the places where people live and work.
Take Santa Clara County as a case study. A median-priced home now exceeds $1.5 million. That puts even a 20% down payment—$300,000—out of reach for most residents, including those earning more than $100,000 a year. And it’s not just ownership that’s unaffordable. High rents, rising property taxes, and artificial scarcity driven by restrictive zoning are squeezing middle-class families out of the communities they serve.
Nor is this just a Bay Area problem. A three-person household making six figures is considered low income in a growing list of counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Diego, Napa, and Ventura among them. These are places that increasingly rely on nurses, teachers, utility workers, grocery store managers, and city staff who—despite earning “good” incomes—struggle to afford to live anywhere near their jobs. They’re commuting long hours or leaving the state altogether.
The latest numbers from the California Association of Realtors (C.A.R.) drive the point home. In April 2025, the median home price statewide hit a record $910,160, marking the 22nd consecutive month of year-over-year price increases. The homeownership dream has never felt further away for so many Californians. While mortgage rates have cooled slightly, hovering around 6.7%, that still means monthly payments in the $5,000–$6,000 range for a modest house—before taxes, insurance, or maintenance.
C.A.R. reports that sales of existing single-family homes have retreated for the second straight month, down 3.4% in April. Buyers are hesitant. Inventory is growing, but not fast enough. The public’s confidence in the market is fraying, as recession fears triggered by trade tensions and elevated interest rates continue to loom. Meanwhile, the state’s housing supply remains profoundly misaligned with actual need.
We may not lack land, but we do lack political courage.
Too many communities continue to block new housing through exclusionary zoning, local voter measures, and endless CEQA litigation. This has led to a system in which supply can’t keep up with demand—especially in urban job centers—and where housing prices escalate faster than wages.
The implications go far beyond housing.
When six-figure earners qualify for affordable housing assistance, the safety net stretches thin.
Resources meant to lift up our most vulnerable families are now being shared with middle-income earners who can’t find a way into the market. This isn’t because they’re overreaching. It’s because California’s housing policy has been underbuilding for decades.
Moreover, while state agencies dutifully release income limits and affordability metrics, the systems designed to respond to these thresholds—local planning commissions, city councils, homeowner associations—remain largely dysfunctional or resistant to change. They fight new development, oppose density, and prioritize “neighborhood character” over affordability. In the wealthiest communities, this amounts to economic gatekeeping.
Yes, wages need to rise—this is not supposed to read as a defense of the deep poverty that pervades California and the US.
But this data shows that the problem is not that $100,000 is too little income—it’s that $100,000 doesn’t go far when your rent is $3,000 and your grocery bill has doubled.
Housing is the largest expense for most households. When it’s out of control, everything else suffers: child care, retirement savings, health care, transportation, and local economic participation.
So what’s the solution?
First, we need to build—urgently and across the spectrum. That means more multifamily housing, more missing-middle homes, and yes, more market-rate development in high-opportunity neighborhoods. But it also means stronger investment in subsidized affordable housing for those who need it most, especially extremely low-income and unhoused residents. The market cannot solve this alone.
Sorry for the people angry about the supposed “build baby build” but there is no solution to the housing crisis that doesn’t revolve around more housing in some form or another.
Second, the state must fully enforce housing production laws. Too many cities are ignoring their legal obligations under the Housing Element framework, defying RHNA targets, and flouting the builder’s remedy. These laws are on the books for a reason—now they need real teeth.
Third, we must shift public perception. Housing abundance is not a threat to your property value or community identity—it’s a prerequisite for fairness and economic health. We cannot continue to function as a state if our workforce can’t afford to live where they work. California cannot be a place where you make $100,000 and still need housing assistance.
It’s time to admit what these income limit charts are telling us: California’s housing market is broken.
That’s true not just for the poor, but for the professional middle class. It’s true not just in San Francisco, but across the entire state.
Until we address the housing supply shortage head-on, no salary will ever feel high enough.
From article: “In Santa Clara County, home to Silicon Valley’s billion-dollar tech campuses, . . .”
And yet, you wonder “why” housing is expensive there.
If communities (or more accurately, their “leaders”) are going to pursue those type of companies in a finite area, that’s the entirely-predictable result. Especially if you also have decent weather, nearby outdoor recreational opportunities, etc.
From article: “These are places that increasingly rely on nurses, teachers, utility workers, grocery store managers, and city staff who—despite earning “good” incomes—struggle to afford to live anywhere near their jobs. They’re commuting long hours or leaving the state altogether.”
Not sure how “true” this actually is. For one thing, “nurses” and “teachers” don’t belong in the same income category – not even close. Nor should police/fire be lumped in with teachers, grocery store managers, etc.
Of course, most households don’t rely upon a single worker’s salary, and many of them don’t work in the same locale as their partner does.
Perhaps more-importantly, what kind of fool expects to buy a house in an expensive area if they have NO EQUITY saved up?
As far as leaving the state or area – that’s a logical solution, and relieves pressure on the housing market as well. (Or more commonly, it’s a reason to not move TO an expensive area.)
A significant number of Davis residents moved to Davis from more-expensive areas. They view Davis housing as “cheap” in comparison.
But if you actually want to discourage long-distance commuting, the FIRST STEP is to discourage sprawl in far-flung locales. And yet, neither the YIMBYs or their political allies ever touch that, do they? (A rhetorical question, as we all know the answer to that.)
Fortunately, there comes a point (already reached) where companies themselves leave the area – and bring their workers with them.
From article: “C.A.R. reports that sales of existing single-family homes have retreated for the second straight month, down 3.4% in April. Buyers are hesitant.”
Right – that’s what happens when housing prices rise to a point where they’re more than buyers are willing to pay. The free market at work.
From article: “Inventory is growing, but not fast enough.”
Don’t know what that means – if inventory is growing, but buyers aren’t purchasing – the next thing that occurs is that prices come down.
From article: “Meanwhile, the state’s housing supply remains profoundly misaligned with actual need.”
Whose “need”? The technology industry’s “need”? The real estate industry’s “need”?
From article: “We may not lack land, but we do lack political courage.”
We do – but not in the manner you’re suggesting. But there are an increasing number of communities and local representatives who do have some courage regarding standing up to the state, contacting their own state representatives, etc. Encinitas comes to mind.
Ron, no one is denying that areas like Santa Clara are attractive places with strong economies and limited land—but that’s exactly why planning for housing supply matters.
The mismatch between job centers and housing isn’t a natural law—it’s the result of decades of exclusionary zoning, local resistance to growth, and underbuilding near employment hubs.
Suggesting that people should just leave the state or not expect to live where they work isn’t a serious solution—it’s an admission that the status quo is fine, even if it’s economically unsustainable and socially inequitable.
And while you may believe the market will self-correct, the cost of inaction isn’t just high prices—it’s longer commutes, declining school enrollment, workforce shortages in essential jobs, and a frayed social fabric.
Housing policy isn’t about making sure everyone can own a home in Nob Hill—it’s about whether a nurse, a teacher, or a utility worker can reasonably expect to live within 30 miles of where they serve the community.
I sort of agree, David – if a community is going to pursue billion-dollar companies with millionaire employees, there’s going to be an impact on the local housing market.
As far as “natural law”, I don’t know what that means in this context. Silicon Valley was already developed BEFORE these companies moved-in (and/or grew to their current size). Communities and buildings already existed, prior to the rise of the technology industry in that area. Requiring those communities to “go along with” companies that want to continue expanding is not the responsibility of those communities. In addition, it’s quite expensive to redevelop sites which already contain infrastructure (buildings, water, sewers, roads, etc. – a lot of which cannot be easily changed).
Although pre-existing homeowners might “like” seeing their houses rise in value (on paper) as a result of the pursuit of these companies, it seems that they’re now realizing that pursuing these companies is a double-edged sword – especially when they turn against a community by funding YIMBY groups and their political allies.
Regarding existing residents, current homeowners are NOT being priced out. If you want current renters to not be priced out as well – there’s a very effective tool which can accomplish that (rent control).
The people you’re referring to are generally those attempting to move to an area AFTER the billion-dollar companies created the situation.
Regarding “inequity”, there is no question that there’s a relative lack of “equity” in regard to the makeup of the owners and employees of technology companies. (Both in terms of race AND sex.) Quite often, these companies also recruit foreign skilled workers, since they have the skills that they are seeking. I know someone who makes a tremendous salary at a Silicon Valley company, and he is not a citizen. Ultimately, he chose to move to Silicon Valley (rather than stay in this area by telecommuting) since his employer incentivized his move – beyond the enormous salary and stock options he already had. I’m not sure if he would be classified as a “white” person using some definitions, but I don’t think so (nor do I care).
But since you do, I would think that you’d be writing articles regarding the lack of equity for groups at Silicon Valley employers. Perhaps the real problem is that our own education systems and cultures are not adequately preparing young people to “compete” with skilled foreign workers.
“Sorry for the people angry about the supposed “build baby build” but there is no solution to the housing crisis that doesn’t revolve around more housing in some form or another.” Sorry. The US has more vacant homes than homeless people. San Francisco has five times its homeless population in vacant homes. We need more homes not at all. We need more sprawl even less.
Your proposed “solutions” don’t include taxes on vacant homes, house hoarding, and addressing collusion to raise rents or keep rentals off the market.
One other significant contributor to high home prices: Prop 13. Because it’s a safe and cheap place to park wealth, the oligarchy making most of the money now is buying up homes. You can see the ads on TV soliciting homes to buy. Without Prop 13, it wouldn’t be cheap to park the wealth in real estate–and we wouldn’t have a $12 billion shortfall in the state budget. JFYI, that amount is what closing the loophole for commercial property in Prop 13 would bring in tax revenue.
Prop 13 also makes land speculation profitable and cheap, raising the price of land because the speculators can keep it off the market until it reaches peak price.
Oh, OK. I was critical of you statement last time about vacant property being more than homeless population – but I thought your direction was to move homeless people into people’s property. But all the things you mention in this comment are spot on and core to what is wrong in CA. I retract previous article comment
Yes, we should absolutely tax vacant units, curb institutional hoarding, and close the commercial Prop 13 loophole—those are essential steps toward a more equitable housing system. But even if every vacant home in San Francisco were suddenly filled, we’d still face a multi-million-unit shortage across California, especially in job-rich, high-demand regions. Moreover, there’s no feasible or scalable mechanism to ensure every vacant home is occupied—some will always be between tenants, undergoing repairs, or held for legitimate reasons. Vacancy reform matters, but it doesn’t replace the need to build. The long-term solution isn’t to pit systemic reform against new construction—it’s to do both.
Well, I agree with you on the systemic reform . . . part.
Yet you still support Measure J. Your hypocracy knows no limits.