{"id":220742,"date":"2026-03-15T13:22:15","date_gmt":"2026-03-15T13:22:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/220742\/"},"modified":"2026-03-15T13:22:15","modified_gmt":"2026-03-15T13:22:15","slug":"sf-families-earning-400k-buckle-under-child-care","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/220742\/","title":{"rendered":"SF families earning $400K buckle under child care"},"content":{"rendered":"

At a mayoral forum last year, a woman raised her hand. She said she and her husband both worked in tech. Between them, they earned $400,000 a year \u2014 a figure that would place them in the 97th percentile (opens in new tab)<\/a> for U.S. households.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In San Francisco, however, it meant that the couple had abandoned an attempt to buy a home after realizing they couldn\u2019t afford it \u2014 even when pooling resources with her parents. And she was pregnant with twins, terrified about the cost of child care coming down the pike.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe can\u2019t make it work here,\u201d she told the room. \u201cWhat gives?\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2018s a question that may be hard to take seriously: The family\u2019s $400,000 is, by any national measure, a lot of money \u2014 about five times the U.S. median household income (opens in new tab)<\/a>. But San Francisco has a way of humbling a paycheck.\u00a0<\/p>\n

After The Standard\u2019s report last month<\/a> on what child care costs across the income spectrum in San Francisco \u2014 from a single mother earning $18,000 a year to a family spending $160,000 annually on nannies and private school \u2014 the most consistent response we heard wasn\u2019t about the most extreme cases. It was about the ones just above the cutoff for the city\u2019s new child-care subsidy<\/a>: families earning $310,000 to $400,000, who, as one Instagram commenter put it, \u201care barely making enough to get by but also making too much to qualify for subsidies \u2014 it hurts.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Here is the math. A household earning $400,000 in San Francisco, after federal and state taxes, takes home roughly $260,000 a year (opens in new tab)<\/a>. Subtract $5,000 a month in rent, the going rate (opens in new tab)<\/a> for a two-bedroom apartment, and you\u2019re at $200,000. Now account for child care, at $30,000 a year (opens in new tab)<\/a>, and a single-child home is left with $170,000. That still leaves plenty for discretionary spending, yet, for San Francisco\u2019s comfortable-but-not-rich, a feeling of precarity persists.<\/p>\n

\u2018I\u2019m not 25 and an AI software engineer. I\u2019m a 37-year-old mom. And I don\u2019t know if I can make it work here.\u2019<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s be clear: These parents are not poor. But in San Francisco, families earning between $310,000 and $400,000 say they occupy a specific, uncomfortable middle ground in which it feels like many of their upper-middle-class dreams \u2014 more kids, homeownership, summer camp \u2014 cannot be fulfilled. And any loss of a job \u2014 a heightened fear for people working in tech and other AI-shaken white-collar professions \u2014 could send them teetering from success to struggle.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Everyone we interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to reveal intimate details about their personal finances. The following interviews have been edited for length and clarity. Salaries and child-care expenses are self-reported.<\/p>\n

\"AnThe marketer wife and her engineer husband<\/p>\n

Neighborhood: Outer Sunset
Kids: Twins, age 6 months\u00a0
Combined household income: $400,000
Child-care spend: $90,000 per year
Housing status: Renters ($5,000 per month)<\/p>\n

The cost breakdown: We have a full-time nanny, five days a week. We pay her $42 an hour, which comes out to about $90,000 a year. The cost gives us heart palpitations. We know it\u2019s not sustainable, and we\u2019ve started dipping into our savings. Later this year we\u2019re switching to daycare, which will save us about $1,500 a month \u2014 not nothing, but not exactly a solution either.<\/p>\n

Why this setup: I went back to work full time when the twins were 3 months old. I started a new job and wasn\u2019t really given the option to start later. With both of us working, we needed someone in the house to look after the babies, since they were still so tiny. People sometimes say, \u201cWell, you\u2019re barely breaking even, you could just stay home.\u201d But I don\u2019t want to stay home. I\u2019m a productive person. I love to work on things that matter. The mental health value of continuing to work is worth it, even if the math is brutal.<\/p>\n

The financial reality: I was let go from my previous position \u2014 in a field I really believed in \u2014 while I was pregnant. I spent months applying to a hundred jobs and couldn\u2019t land one. The job I eventually took is in AI, which I have real reservations about. But I have twins, and it\u2019s expensive to live here, so that\u2019s what I\u2019m doing so we can make ends meet. It\u2019s not where I ever pictured my career going.<\/p>\n

The trade-offs: With our income right now, we can\u2019t afford to buy a house. We looked in the East Bay recently and tried pooling resources with my parents for intergenerational living. Even with what they could contribute, we couldn\u2019t make it work.<\/p>\n

The \u201cmore kids\u201d question: I almost hit the floor when they told me I was having twins. I went from not being sure I wanted children to getting pregnant relatively quickly to finding out I was having two at once. So no, we have a boy and a girl, and we\u2019re done.<\/p>\n

The SF factor: My husband is from another country. His mother visited recently and couldn\u2019t believe what we\u2019re paying for child care. We\u2019ve thought about moving to where he\u2019s from, but our jobs are here, which is the Catch 22: The places with these salaries are the places where you can\u2019t afford to live on them. I\u2019m invested in this city. I go to every civic meeting I can. I\u2019ve got San Francisco\u2019s back. I just don\u2019t feel like it has mine. I\u2019m not 25 and an AI software engineer. I\u2019m a 37-year-old mom. And I don\u2019t know if I can make it work here.<\/p>\n

\"ThreeThe professor wife and her surgical resident husband<\/p>\n

Neighborhood: Haight-Ashbury
Kids: One 8-month-old
Combined household income: $315,000
Child-care spend: $36,000 per year
Housing status: Owners ($2,000 per month mortgage)<\/p>\n

The cost breakdown: Our baby is in a full-time nanny share. That costs us $34,000 a year, plus we spend about $200 a month on babysitting. Since our baby was born, we\u2019ve had a rotating cast of family members living with us and helping with child care. In the last eight months, there was only about a month and a half when we didn\u2019t have someone staying with us to assist.<\/p>\n

Why this setup: We couldn\u2019t afford an individual nanny. And with daycare, we just couldn\u2019t handle the unpredictability \u2014 the slightest sign of sickness, and they can\u2019t come in. My husband works 80 to 90 hours a week. With his schedule, I\u2019m essentially a single parent.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The financial reality: When we saw the news about the city\u2019s new child-care package, we were originally excited. Then we looked into it and realized we weren\u2019t eligible. Our combined income is right at that threshold. We\u2019re still saving into retirement accounts, and we budget for a vacation each year, but after that we\u2019re month-to-month. The only reason it works is because our mortgage is so low, thanks to a housing assistance program that my work provides. That is a game changer.<\/p>\n

The trade-offs: We rely heavily on family. My mom just relocated from the East Coast to help us. When she was looking for a studio, we went to open houses where 30 other people were vying for the same unit. Studios were going above asking, and we had a very limited budget. The place my mom ended up getting isn\u2019t technically a legal apartment because it doesn\u2019t have a kitchen. But it was the only affordable option she could find. She has a toaster oven and a hot plate. She cooks at our house and brings food back home. She\u2019s going to live there full time, and I honestly don\u2019t know how I would cope without her support.<\/p>\n

The \u201cmore kids\u201d question:\u2028We would like to have a second child. My mom moving here makes that feel more possible than it did before. But it\u2019s an ongoing conversation. It\u2019s scary to think about potentially doubling what we\u2019re already paying, even if it\u2019s just for a year or two.<\/p>\n

\"FourThe clinical liaison wife and her hotel manager wife<\/p>\n

Neighborhood: Duboce Triangle
Kids: One 2-year-old
Combined household income: $350,000
Child-care spend: $48,000 per year
Housing status: Renters ($4,000 per month)<\/p>\n

The cost breakdown: We\u2019re in a nanny share \u2014 $4,000 a month, or $48,000 a year. In August, our toddler ages into preschool, which will run about $42,000 a year. So the number is coming down slightly, but not in any way that changes the fundamental math.<\/p>\n

Why this setup: A private nanny was too expensive. The nanny share felt like the best of both worlds \u2014 the intimacy of in-home care, plus another baby for our child to grow up alongside.<\/p>\n

The financial reality: Before our child, there was another ledger to balance. As a same-sex couple, we had to save up before we could even start trying \u2014 donor sperm, IVF, treatment costs. All told, around $19,000 before we got to the baby itself. We don\u2019t qualify for the city\u2019s new child-care subsidy. When the news broke, I rushed to check our income like everyone else. We just missed it. <\/p>\n

The \u201cmore kids\u201d question: We planned for two, so we banked a second embryo. I\u2019m healthy, I could carry again, and our child\u2019s age is perfect for a sibling. But when I run the numbers \u2014 $48,000 for a nanny plus $42,000 for preschool \u2014 there\u2019s just no give. The stress around whether to have a second child is a different kind of stress; it\u2019s actually just a sadness. I know there are parents in this city with less than we have who make it work. But for our lifestyle, we just don\u2019t want to be overly stressed out in the day-to-day. So we\u2019ve mostly just pushed the embryo out of our minds \u2014 which isn\u2019t really a decision. It\u2019s just unfortunate, because we didn\u2019t anticipate how costly child care would be and how hard it would make choosing to have a second child when we were ready.<\/p>\n

The SF factor: We\u2019d leave if the right opportunity came. But leaving isn\u2019t simple. We\u2019re a same-sex couple, and San Francisco gives us something that\u2019s hard to put a price on. We don\u2019t feel judged. If we moved, we\u2019d have to think carefully about where \u2014 we wouldn\u2019t want to live somewhere rights are being taken away.<\/p>\n

\"AnThe consultant husband and his stay-at-home wife<\/p>\n

Neighborhood: Mission
Kids: One 2-year-old
Combined household income: $400,000
Child-care spend: $12,000 per year
Housing status: Owners ($4,300 per month mortgage)<\/p>\n

The cost breakdown: We don\u2019t pay for daycare or a nanny. When my wife got pregnant, we ran the numbers, and her salary would have mostly gone toward child care after taxes. So we decided she wouldn\u2019t go back to work, and we\u2019d adjust to one income. Our main child-care expense is flying family in. If I\u2019m traveling for a conference or we just need extra help, we\u2019ll fly relatives out to stay with us. It probably averages out to about $1,000 a month.<\/p>\n

Why this setup: Financially, it made sense for my wife to stay home. But it\u2019s intense. I get a \u201cbreak\u201d in the sense that I leave for work; she doesn\u2019t. She\u2019s always on. During the day with our child, my wife says the city\u2019s free programs, things like library story times, have been huge.<\/p>\n

The financial reality: I make around $400,000 a year, depending on the year. It sounds like a lot, and I know it is. But on one income, with a $4,300 mortgage and everything else, it feels different than it used to. We bought our place in 2020, in that brief window when rates were low and competition slowed. That was lucky. But now the market\u2019s down, so selling isn\u2019t really an option. There\u2019s also job insecurity \u2014 consulting is changing quickly with AI \u2014 and it\u2019s stressful knowing this is our only income. When the city expanded the child-care subsidy threshold, I actually went back and checked my last five tax returns to see if there was any chance we\u2019d qualify. We don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

The trade-offs: The trade-off is pressure. It\u2019s pressure on me to earn, and pressure on my wife, who\u2019s with our child all day. We\u2019ve made lifestyle changes to make it work, but the bills didn\u2019t shrink when we dropped to one salary. We try to put money into our daughter\u2019s 529 [savings account], so instead of buying her gifts, we ask family and friends to contribute to it for birthdays and holidays.<\/p>\n

The \u201cmore kids\u201d question: We talk about having a second, but space and cost are real considerations. A two-bedroom with one bathroom is already tight, especially when family comes to stay. If it happened, we\u2019d be thrilled \u2014 but we\u2019d stop at two. In San Francisco, even one feels like a big financial commitment.<\/p>\n

\"ThreeThe healthcare worker wife and her healthcare worker husband<\/p>\n

Neighborhood: Outer Sunset
Kids: 5 and 7 years old
Combined household income: $365,000
Child-care spend: $32,000 per year
Housing status: Owners ($4,800 per month mortgage)<\/p>\n

The cost breakdown: Our older child is now in public school, which gave us a huge boost. Our younger one goes to preschool half-days \u2014 about $1,000 a month \u2014 and we supplement with a nanny for the rest, which runs $1,600 a month. Before our older one entered SFUSD, we were spending closer to $90,000 a year. Now, a lot of what we\u2019re no longer spending on child care goes straight into sports, camps, and activities.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Why this setup: We chose this preschool for the community. A lot of our close friends\u2019 kids go there, and we wanted to stay connected to them.<\/p>\n

The financial reality: The beginning of the year is very stressful. You\u2019ve barely come up for air from the holidays, which are so expensive, and then you\u2019re forced to sign up for summer camps all at once, or you can\u2019t get a spot. A lot of times we end up putting camps on a credit card and slowly paying it off each pay period, because it\u2019s such a huge lump sum. Then you\u2019ve got to pay taxes on top of it. On paper, we make a lot of money. But we never qualify for any kind of subsidy, and we\u2019re at the lower end of this bracket. So even though a good amount comes in every month, it goes out so fast.<\/p>\n

The trade-offs: We\u2019re definitely taking fewer vacations than we\u2019d like, or than I feel like our peers are. We\u2019d love more space, or to do some remodeling on our current home to make it work better for our family, but we\u2019ve put that off. I don\u2019t know how we\u2019d ever do it unless we took out a home equity line of credit.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The \u201cmore kids\u201d question: We\u2019re done. That\u2019s not even a financial decision \u2014 it\u2019s a space decision. We don\u2019t have room for another child in this house.<\/p>\n

The SF factor: Our community is what keeps us here. We love our public school. We got really lucky with it. But honestly, we also feel a little trapped. We refinanced during the pandemic and got down to a 2.6% interest rate, which makes us feel stuck \u2014 I don\u2019t know where we would ever go or how we could trade up for more space in this current climate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"At a mayoral forum last year, a woman raised her hand. She said she and her husband both…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":220743,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[2305,2655,38697,101,103,102,104,106,105,37511],"class_list":["post-220742","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-san-francisco","tag-children","tag-housing-market","tag-parenting","tag-san-francisco","tag-san-francisco-headlines","tag-san-francisco-news","tag-sf","tag-sf-headlines","tag-sf-news","tag-sf-reality-check"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220742","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=220742"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220742\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/220743"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220742"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220742"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220742"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}