OK, it is a bit exagerated, but try living on $130k in SF (as opposed to, say, East Palo Alto), paying off student loans, saving a bit, etc.

$130k is a very good salary if you moved to SF a couple of decades ago and bought a house then.

H1B holders don't have student loans

argument fails. you can rent, max out your 401k, and enjoy all the frivolousness you want on a 130k salary. downpayment? yeah not gonna happen. better off than 95% of the population? immediately gonna happen.

I don't get this perspective.

SF is one of the most expensive cities in the US. The very fact you live there means you're well off. People with the mean (or median) US wage, couldn't even fathom living within the city limits.

It's kind of like someone who lives in Beverley Hills saying "I make $500K per year, but I'm only middle class since I can't afford an average home in Beverley Hills". Well no shit, the homes there are tens of millions of dollars.

OK, I'm going to try and keep this simple, rather than a rant.

Big expensive cities (like NYC) usually have inexpensive areas inside them. SF basically has the Tenderloin, and rents there are still nuts.

Edited to add: BTW, aside from the fact that Beverly Hills has less expensive neighborhoods within city limits (south of Wilshire? I forget) there are other even less expensive areas practically next door (just go downhill to where nobody has a view).

Oh, and comparing to the average probably isn't what you want to use to make your argument, you probably want to compare to the median.

The median would definitely be lower. I'd wager money on this. The mean is skewed upwards thanks to executives earning USD 1 million+ . The median would just treat these people as being above the 50th percentile.

Of course the median would be lower. That's why I said that it is the figure you should be using to better make your argument.