Let that sink in.

The specifics: $125K base plus a 10% bonus, a reasonable desire to max out their 401(k) match and Roth IRA contributions, and a one-bedroom going for $3,200 a month. That's $38,400 a year just for rent — roughly 28% of gross income. By traditional financial wisdom, that's technically within the "affordable" range. But once you factor in California's punishing income taxes, retirement savings goals, and the general cost of existing in this city — groceries, transit, the occasional $18 sandwich — the margins get razor thin.

And this person is doing everything right. They work from home four days a week (hence the need for more than a shoebox studio), they already have furniture, and they have an established social circle, meaning they're not burning cash trying to buy friends at overpriced cocktail bars. They're being financially responsible in a city that punishes financial responsibility.

The uncomfortable truth is that San Francisco's housing costs aren't some natural disaster. They're the predictable result of decades of restrictive zoning, bureaucratic permitting nightmares, and a political class that talks endlessly about "affordability" while making it nearly impossible to build new housing at scale. Every NIMBY objection at a planning meeting, every two-year environmental review for a four-story apartment building, every fee and surcharge ladled onto developers — it all trickles down to that $3,200 price tag.

When someone earning well into the six figures has to crowdsource whether they can afford a one-bedroom, the system isn't working. It's not a housing market — it's a shakedown. And until this city gets serious about letting people build, the math will keep not adding up for the very people San Francisco claims it wants to attract.