A $65K job at Anthropic becomes a flashpoint in S.F’s affordability crisis

Some people assumed — no, were certain — it was a mistake. Anthropic, the AI company currently valued at an estimated $965 billion, had just posted that it was hiring for a baseline salary of $65,000 to $85,000, the lower end being less than sixty percent of San Francisco’s median income. 

Among the minimum qualifications listed: “hands-on research experience in molecular biology, biochemistry, or a closely related field […] experience with aseptic technique and bacteria…”

A ripple of public outrage ensued. The city’s rental and real estate market is going bonkers as other Anthropic employees with equity are poised to become ridiculously rich. The company’s initial public offering, as well as competitor OpenAI’s, promises to deluge the city with hundreds of freshly minted multi-millionaires. 

An annual salary of $65,000 would squeeze out a thin slice of life in San Francisco, where the average rent for a studio apartment was $2,595 as of July 8, according to Zillow.

“Anthropic should be embarrassed, 65-85k for masters-level techs in the Bay Area is utterly shameful,” Jacob Boysen, a Bay Area genome engineer and data scientist, wrote on X. “Sure you can do it–sadly the market supports it–but it says a lot about a company when they do so, [especially] a trillion dollar [company] that positions itself as ‘morally righteous.’”

Perhaps the applicant can ask about stock options? The post touts “competitive compensation and benefits, optional equity donation matching, generous vacation and parental leave, flexible working hours, and a lovely office space in which to collaborate with colleagues” which left some room for doubt. When contacted by Mission Local this morning, Anthropic declined to comment about the job posting, which remains online.

“$65k to help build the future of biology in San Francisco,” Paula Dozsa, an iOS engineer at Tolan and previously xAI, wrote on X. “The first experiment is whether you can survive on that.”

Legislatively, it may be a challenge to find the political will to help residents adapt to another likely surge in income inequality. 

“My biggest fear is the market pressure that goes along with S.F. residents who are suddenly going to be enjoying disproportionate wealth – and that we’re going to see more rent hikes that equal eviction notices,” said District 6 Supervisor Matt Dorsey. “We need stable communities.”

Dorsey said he’s exploring a proposal to empower the city’s rent board to offer tenant assistance in the event of illegal rent hikes exceeding the state’s 5 percent annual cap. 

District 7 Supervisor Myrna Melgar is considering focusing on landlords.

“People are looking to take advantage of the moment,” Melgar told Mission Local. “I think the legislative cure is to make it really clear from the get-go what landlords can and cannot do.”

Namely, she said she’s working on legislation that would tighten the definition of a “bad faith eviction” in the city’s rent ordinance, over which tenants can sue for damages. Melgar said the city rent ordinance lacks clarity on the term — and hopes to tailor it to combat exaggerated nuisance complaints that landlords have used, for example, to try and evict multiple tenants at 1120 Jackson St. on the border of Nob Hill and Chinatown.

Melgar’s proposal will likely sit over the summer recess before the full Board of Supervisors. The same is expected of Dorsey’s rent board proposal.

Meanwhile, another housing measure before the Board of Supervisors seeks to cut the amount of affordable units developers have to include in their market-rate and luxury projects, from an average of 15 to 5 percent. The Planning Commission recently voted in favor of it 4-2. Supervisors will consider the legislation this Tuesday.