While I don't in any way think the antagonism towards tech workers make sense, I don't think you're quite on target with your numbers.
A) income tax is progressive and continuous, you can't say $28k in taxes for the 28% bracket (however, FICA and CA income taxes mean that number is in the right ball park)
B) a couple living on one income in a 2-bedroom isn't considered a birthright in dense cities like SF
C) $100k would be an unusually low salary even for someone just out of school taking the megacorp buses, and this is before bonuses and RSUs
So I disagree with the thesis that Bay Area tech workers are by any measure living a spartan life.
Net of deductions (Federal & State income tax, FICA, SSI, healthcare, and 401k -- remember, you've got to save for retirement too), figuring taking home 60% of your salary isn't a bad ballpark. So yes, after
I'm not so sure that low six figures is considered low for someone straight out of school, remembering that not all hires are superstars, and there are a lot of less technical positions being filled as well.
And in the Bay Area, childcare and/or education expenses are likely to add up unless you've got a very good local public school.
There's short-term accessible savings, and your retirement.
Part of those "subsistence wages" are the funds which cover your expenses when you aren't working. Whether due to disability, between gigs (part of Smith's detailed discussion of the basis of wages in Book I, Ch. VIII of Wealth of Nations, I recommend it strongly), or in old age.
Your 401k funds are not generally available to you to meet pre-retirement expense needs. There are some exceptions, but in almost all cases, you're very strongly advised not to make use of them: you can borrow against 401k funds, but this 1) costs you the earnings on those funds (part of the basis of the whole concept) and 2) the loan must be repaid (though without interest) if you terminate a relationship with a loan sponsor. Which is to say: at the very time you're most likely to have a cash crunch (you're transitioning employment), you have to repay the loan.
Early distribution is also possible, but with very significant financial penalties.
Just for a little context, fewer than half of Americans even have access to a 401(k) (or 403(b) or similar) retirement plan, and its disproportionately the wealthy that can afford to take advantage of such plans: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-401k-retirement-plans-fail...
Look, I get where you're coming from, in that you don't feel rich, especially in the context of San Francisco, but seriously...
"The median household income in the United States today is $50,000. Half of all households make more than this. Half of all households make less. The big expenses in the Xxxxxxxxx family budget--their $60,000 a year in contributions to tax-favored retirement savings vehicles, their $25,000 a year savings building home equity, their $55,000 for housing, their $60,000 in private school costs, even their $10,000 a year for new cars--are simply out of reach for the overwhelming majority of Americans."
Just for a little context, fewer than half of Americans even have access to a 401(k)
Yep. That's going to be a problem.
Even many of those who do have a 401(k) (or equivalent) are subject to market losses, insufficient funding, interrupted employment (how many 30-40 somethings do you know with significant interruptions in the professional lives -- right in the middle of their peak earning years)? One of a number of messes we're busily creating.
I've been arguing in another thread about what a minimum living wage means, and on those terms, you've got to allow for retirement. Otherwise the alternative (including state support of retirees) remains yet another net welfare support for businesses which were paying insufficient salaries in the first place.
A) income tax is progressive and continuous, you can't say $28k in taxes for the 28% bracket (however, FICA and CA income taxes mean that number is in the right ball park)
B) a couple living on one income in a 2-bedroom isn't considered a birthright in dense cities like SF
C) $100k would be an unusually low salary even for someone just out of school taking the megacorp buses, and this is before bonuses and RSUs
So I disagree with the thesis that Bay Area tech workers are by any measure living a spartan life.