Rich? Not hardly,moneywise,but I have a roof over my head,plenty of food and ways to cook it… Clean water and a working bathroom. Peaceful nights,restful days…
My point was that I can afford much more than survival in NYC- a house, vacations,non-public schools , college for two kids ( a master’s for one) with no financial aid, etc on less than $250K. And plenty of people do it on a household income of less than $10K per month. The only way a middle-class lifestyle requires $10K a month is if the middle-class lifestyle includes not only some luxuries, but a certain level of those luxuries. Where owning a house doesn’t count unless it’s in the “right” neighborhood- and a clean, quiet ,safe neighborhood isn’t necessarily one of the right neighborhoods. And somehow paying for college doesn’t count unless it’s a private college. And only some vacations count.
But if owning a house in a nice neighborhood, taking driving vacations,paying for public college etc, doesn't count as a middle-class lifestyle, then what would you call that lifestyle? It's certainly not poor- poor people can't afford luxuries at all.
Again, $250K is not rich in NYC and $120K certainly isn’t. But $120K ($10K per month) is not the lower boundary of middle class in NYC . That would mean that people under that income are just surviving- and that’s not the case.
Maybe she feels poor because she has to spend thousands of dollars on something that most people get for free.
FYI, my husband and I started making six figures when I got a job. We’ve been making six figures for over a decade. I don’t particularly feel rich because an average house in my area is at least 300k with at least 5k in property taxes. I feel a little rich because we have over a million dollars in assets that we have collectively saved. If something were to happen to one of us, we would probably be okay fiscally for at least a decade if not far longer. That’s very comforting and it feels like being wealthy to me.
I am never ceased to be amazed by people who can honestly say with a straight face that they are just barely getting by making $100k or that $70k is essentially nothing.
I make somewhere in between that and I feel pretty damn well off. People have very little perspective. It’s rather sad.
$100k per household is $50k per working adult. That’s attainable for most Americans, I think. Even those in the fields that are decried for being low-paying (teachers, service workers) can crack that figure. $250k is less attainable, especially for Americans who don’t live on one of the coasts.
She’s certainly entitled to feel that way, but I wish she’d shut up about it. She made a choice to wait till her 40s to have children (for years she insisted she didn’t want them). She complains about money within earshot of folks who get paid very little compared to what she brings home. It’s just inconsiderate of her, IMHO.
I think this pretty much sums it up. How “rich” or “poor” we feel is relative to what we see on a daily basis. If everyone around you seems to be doing better than you, you don’t feel rich. And if you’re able to keep up with the pack around you, you feel as if you’re right in the middle. I’m willing to bet that no matter what income level we define as “rich”, someone at or above that threshold will insist it’s not accurate since there are other people doing a lot better than them.
Dangerosa mentioned the typical middle-class lifestyle including a bedroom for each kid. Is this really the norm? I had my own bedroom for a few years…once my older brother graduated from high school and went into the Army. But most of my childhood was spent doubled-up with my twin sister. This seemed to be the norm for multiple-sibling families back in my day (the 80s). Has this changed?
If you’ve got two kids, a bedroom for each kid isn’t that ambitious. But anything more than three bedrooms and you are taking about a luxury item. I don’t care what part of the country you live in. Now, if everyone in a person’s social circle owns large(r) homes, I can totally see how he or she would feel compelled to have one too. But that doesn’t mean it’s still not a luxury item.
It doesn’t really surprise me that a lot of households hit the 100k mark at least once year of their working lives. Using a salary calculator to predict my wages between now and retirement, even if I continue on in the same position without a promotion I’ll come close to that all by myself regardless of whether or not marry. If I marry someone who has an income even a third of mine or get even a single promotion, I’ll definitely hit that mark by retirement.
I think it’s also worth noting that living in a high-cost of living area is, in itself, a luxury. Those places aren’t randomly expensive–they are expensive because people prefer to live there compared to other places for whatever reason.
If I were a teacher in New York, I wouldn’t be able to afford a 1700 square foot house in a safe neighborhood with good public schools. But I would be living in New York. I’d have nightlife and culture and Central Park and cool little places to eat and all those exciting things. In a very real way, I am choosing to spend my money on a house and the New York person is choosing to spend it on a location. And those are both valid choices. But I think sometimes the value added of living in a highly desirable location isn’t factored in when people talk about their relative lifestyle–they compare things that are directly purchased, only.
It is not a luxury to live in a high cost of living area when that is where your job is located. My husband and I would like to move out of the NYC / NJ area but where the hell is he going to find a job comparable to the one he holds? Especially in his late 40’s in the middle of a recession?
That also ignores other intangibles in larger areas such as easy access to public transportation and the fact that someone living in the NYC area often has relatives and friends who also live here. My husband commutes by public transit to work, allowing us to save money by avoiding the expenses necessary for second car. It also ignores other factors such as culture and religion. As an indifferent Reform Jew married to an atheist, my husband and I would hardly fit into a small town in the south where life revolves around the local church.
I am not saying it’s a bad choice. It may be such an overwhelmingly clearly better choice that no other choice is really plausible. But you are getting something for your money. Things like a culture you fit into. Close access to family and friends. For you, not living as a lonely social outcast is worth paying for. I would pay for that to.
It’s just that people who are scornful of those who live in the Flyover states while bemoaning the high cost of living on the coasts sometimes do not seem to see the connection: they are paying not to live in the flyover states.
There’s a joke on 30 Rock where the Tracy Jordan movie star character is throwing a temper tantrum over the 2-days he spent making a movie. He winds up saying, “What did I get? A million dollars, a yellow bentley, and nothing!”
People like that remind me of that quote. Why, after I’m done paying for my gorgeous house, buying my kids an amazing education, saving tens of thousands a year for my lavish retirement and receiving the best healthcare available what do I have to show for it? Nothing!
I think there’s technically some validity to point out that it doesn’t make you rich, but acting like you’re barely getting by is silly.
Another way to put it: even if you, personally, would trade living in NYC for a cultural wasteland provided you could have a larger disposable income, and the only thing that keeps you there is a career that is only viable in the big city*, for tons of people, that’s not the case. Tons of people every year leave places with lower costs of living for NYC because they value living in a large urban environment. They are paying a large percentage of their income for that experience because they value that experience more than they value whatever else they could get for the money–a larger living space, a car, good public schools, whatever.
*and even then, if someone desperately wants to be in a career that is only viable in a large urban environment, it’s because they value that career: either they love it, and find it worth sacrificing other things for, or they hope it will be much more lucrative over the long run, and so worth it. These are trade-offs, not injustices…
You can calculate how much you’re willing to pay to live in NYC fairly easily, too, with the U.S. Census Bureau’s cost of living indexes.
Say you enjoy a $100,000 income in Akron, OH (indexed at 100.2% of national average) and want to live in Manhattan (index at 216.7% of national average).
If you can get a job for $216,000 in Manhattan then aside from the fact that these are just averages, it shouldn’t cost you anymore proportionally than Akron did. If the best job you can find is $150,000, you’re accepting a big decrease to live in Manhattan.
Obviously there are complicating real world factors, like actual availability of jobs in a given area.
Another complicating factor is what constitutes “middle class” in Akron, OH does not match what’s in NYC. Home-ownership is the norm for the middle class in OH. So is car ownership. These things are considered major luxuries in NYC.
So if you’re expecting to own the same-sized house that you owned in OH, of course you’re going to have to increase your salary by a gazillion. But what you’re more likely to do is adjust to a much smaller house or just rent like everyone else in your new social circle does. Maybe, if you’re a couple, you’ll downsize from two cars to one. Instead of going to NYC every summer, you’ll do the staycation thing or drive down to the shore. And you won’t really feel weird about any of these changes, because your definition of what constitutes “middle class” lifestyle has adapted to suit the situation.
Yup, that’s it exactly, and it’s really sad.
I’m going to come out and say that even though I make well less than $100k a year, and if I lost my job today you bet your ass I’d be scrambling to find another ASAP, while I lived off of savings for at least a few months if needed, I do indeed feel rather rich.
I didn’t come up from poverty by any stretch, I had two working class parents who had a mortgage on a 3 bedroom home and made ends meet… but I personally have enough money that I can go out and spend $100 on a movie and dinner night and not think much of it. Could I do it over and over and over? No. But I can do it as often as I want, and to me, that makes me rich.
I never worry about money. I have no debt other than student loan debt. As long as I do my job, I earn what I need to earn in order to pay my bills, sock away money each month into savings, and I’m able to buy video games, go out to movies and restaurants as often as I want, etc. By any objective measure, I’m pretty damn rich. And no, I don’t like to admit it, because no one does. I don’t own a mansion and I can’t live off of investment income.
But I’m rich and anyone who makes more than me and thinks that they aren’t rich need to get some damn perspective.
Here in the midwest - yeah. I know that isn’t the case in higher cost of living areas, but I can’t think of any of my kids friend’s who share a room - not even the ones getting free or reduced lunch - who, by government standards, wouldn’t be “middle class.” But they are also all from small families - a three bedroom house fits mom and dad and two kids.
I think you misunderstand me. I’m not saying that relying on a paycheck makes you poor. It makes you not rich.
For those of you who think 100k makes you rich, how many live in an area in which you pay $16,000 a year in property taxes? I think many really aren’t taking into account cost of living differences and tax differences.
I don’t think making $100K makes you rich, but I’ll answer anyway. Yes, $16,000 is a lot of money. But no one is forcing you to pay that much in property taxes. That is how you choose to spend your $100K+. Presumably you and your family benefit a whole lot from paying this much.
Just like I benefit from paying as much as I do in rent. I live in a cool neighborhood that’s within short walking distance to fru-fru grocery stores and hip restaurants. I don’t have to drive to work, and I don’t have to dodge gun shots or crackwhores or mounds of trash. It’s because of these things that I feel so fortunate and well-to-do.
If you aren’t getting amenities like a clean safe neighborhood and high-quality schools with your property taxes, then you’re being ripped off. But I’m betting you’ve STILL got it a lot better than the homeowner a few miles down the street who only pays a quarter of that amount. You may not be rich in any absolute sense (if there is such a thing). But you ARE doing better than most people.
No one wants to pay $16K. But everyone would love to be able to get a bill in the mail for $16K and only suffer from mild annoyance.
I think job mobility is an axis orthogonal to wealth. Or maybe not entirely orthogonal, but one that only tends to break down at the extremely poor and extremely rich ends of the spectrum (unskilled labor and capital gains have something in common in that it doesn’t really matter where you do them). One of my aunts works in child care, she makes barely anything and is definitely poor (especially after some of the teacher’s union busting in WI). However, if she had the means she could move most anywhere and make the same (small) amount of money.
My other aunt and uncle, on the other hand, are very affluent. Most of their money comes from investments now. They could move almost anywhere and have tons of money. They choose to live in a very low cost of living area to be close to family, and it magnifies their wealth.
Compare this to someone who has an expertise that can only (reliably) be found in Silicon Valley or something. Even if they made the same as my wealthy aunt and uncle, they’re far worse off by being almost required to live in a very high cost of living area. They’re still better off than my extremely poor aunt, but they’re also worse off compared to someone with a job with comparable pay (in absolute numbers) that has tons of positions in flyover country.
There’s a marked difference between someone who lives in the Upper East Side* because the like the culture, and someone who lives there because it’s difficult to find a job in their incredibly narrow specialization of Ionizing Spoingots anywhere else.
You might say they’re “paying so they can work in their specialization”, but to me that smells of being similar to arguing that poor people shouldn’t ever spend money on anything fun and instead spend that time self-teaching themselves engineering.
- I realize the Upper East Side probably isn’t the best example, but I think my point is clear.
It’s complicated.
My family makes over $100k, but with $1,700 to rent a one bedroom apartment where baby shares our room, $1,200 for three day a week childcare, it definitely doesn’t feel like a lot. We are trying to save a down payment, and it’s been one step forward and two steps back financially. Many of our friends have a lot of help from their families, and it’s hard not to compare how much easier life is when your parents find your wedding (we did city hall), give you a down payment and pay off your schooling.
But I also grew up without a lot of money, and I’m well aware of the hundreds of little ways I am currently rich. Health insurance, phones, heck, even being able to take the metro whenever I want rather than walking a couple miles to save a buck feels like wealth.
And I can’t help but think of it on a global level. Holy shit, we live like kings. Not only do we live like kings today, but we live in luxury unimaginable for much of history. Even things like street lights and sidewalks are pretty luxurious.
Anyway, I don’t think wealth is a continuum. It’s rather a bunch of different measures that may not neatly compare across each other or really make sense together.