$200,000: The New Standard Salary?

[BurtWorm]

What a load of crap.


http://salary.com/advice/layoutscripts/advl_display.asp?tab=adv&cat=nocat&ser=Ser369&part=Par543

$200,000: The New Standard

A few years back, making $100,000 per year meant that you drove a Benz with shiny rims, put your kids through Yale no problem, paid your country club dues ahead of time, and generally walked with your head (or nose) held high. You were one of the elite and at the top of your game. A lifetime of hard work had peaked at the coveted six-figure salary. Times have changed. These days a $100,000 salary means you drive a domestic car with missing hubcaps, have two outstanding loans to cover your child's state school education, and complain that the greens fees at the public golf course are too steep. Well, perhaps it isn't that bad. The point is that making $100K no longer makes you special. Let's face it: $100,000 is not what it used to be; $200,000 is the new standard.


...

[redqueen]

1. What planet are these idiots living on?

:grr:

[BlueEyedSon]

5. What planet are YOU living on?

Not planet NYC, LA, SF, etc.... apparently!

[SteppingRazor]

8. I gotta agree...

Here in South Florida, making 100k a year, you wouldn't be driving a Benz and putting a kid through Yale.

[BeTheChange]

27. Then they need to learn some financial planning skills...

It is incomprehensible to me how people who make 100k a year cannot drive a benz or put a child through yale.

My husband and I make 120K per year together. We do not have a child and we dont own a house, as a result of that, we have managed to put away 40 in the last year and pay for our own 20k wedding/honeymoon, 10k in medical bills and bought a used 11k car outright.

We do not live very frugally either. "Where are we eating tonite" is said more then "what should I make tonight". This isnt an attempt to brag, this is simply disbelief that someone making 20k less that has had years to save up cant afford these things. Im 27, he is 26. If we hadnt paid for a wedding or the medical bills, and we sure wouldnt need to buy a car every year.. even with a family and a mortgage, I just dont understand what people spend money on.

[MXMLLN]

31. You don't have children. ;^)

[BeTheChange]

33. What are they, little money eating monsters?

I mean, do I have to feed them dollar bills?

[lastliberalintexas]

37. Pretty much

Ever looked at the price of formula? Day care? Ever tried to pay for health insurance for your child? Or if you didn't have health insurance, tried to pay the doctor's bill for the child with asthma or recurrant ear infections? And while adults can literally go years without having to purchase new clothes, children have this funny little thing called a growth spurt every so often, after which their old clothes no longer fit.

Plus, you said you don't own a house. You've apparently never had to drop $4000 in a day for a new HVAC after the old one died in the dead of winter (or in the blast furnace known as the Texas summer). Or had to spend at least $500 to replace the icebox. You don't pay homeowners' insurance, which in some areas is astronomical. You apparently don't have to worry about maintenance and repair costs for the house. And tax benefits of owning a home? Bleh. Most Americans can't even itemize. And if you can't itemize, you can't take that deduction for the taxes or interest you've paid all year.

I'm glad for you and your husband that you make decent wages while you are so young. But you really have no idea what it's like for most working families, and your youth certainly showed in your post.

[BeTheChange]

43. I see...

So, health insurance for a child, clothes- Im assuming we are talking sean john or something of the sort to quantify the money here, 20 new fridges, a few air conditioning units, of course, the SUV and gas that Im gonna have to have to be a true soccer mom...that's going to eat up a surplus of 70k a year. We pay as much in rent as we do on a mortgage, probably more actually, considering that we are currently stuck in TX.


I dont mean to be rude, but I wasnt talking about families that struggled to make the average family income. I was talking about a person who made 100k a year and I think that your comment about my youth is ridiculous. If you consider an individual that makes 100k a year a working family... okey dokey

My FIL is a pastor, he probably clears 40k a year. They pay a mortgage on a home, have two children living there still and my MIL has never worked a day in their life. They just replaced their ac. They live comfortably. If he made 100k a year, they would live very comfortably.

My grandfather was a line worker at ford. He had 13 children. Every week they bought a 25 dollar savings bond. Now, my grandmother has atleast a mil in the bank and will never have to worry.

Our families never placed an emphasis on designer clothing, we shopped at thrift stores. We didnt need ipods and cellphones. They didnt buy new cars every couple years. We didnt keep up with the Joneses.

[lastliberalintexas]

54. No, I mean clothes from Target or Walmart

And you're mostly talking about families of yesteryear. While I agree with your point about frugality, there are real expenses that you're quite discounting. Again, I am not saying that the family making $100K a year is poor. All I am saying is that they are NOT wealthy. No American has the purchasing power they did even 20 years ago, much less that of 50 years ago- not even those earning $100K a year.

Anyone who works for a living is in a working family. If you can be *fired from a job*, you should join Karl Marx's Workers of the World, because you are a *gasp* WORKER. I don't care if you're making $20K, $45K or even $100K a year. You're still JUST A WORKER. If you're a small business owner, you shouldn't buy into the BS belief that you're as "important" and/or powerful as Halliburton and that your interests are similar just because you're business people.

Until people stop thinking of themselves as wealthy when they're not or powerful when they're not, we're never really going to understand where the true dividing line is. George Bush is wealthy. Ted Kennedy is wealthy. Paris Hilton is wealthy. Joe Schmoe busting his ass for $100K a year (and less!) is not.


These divide and conquer stories are pretty successful every time one is posted here. From the way this thread is starting, it looks like it will be too.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

66. Heavens no

Target & Walmart clothes? How can you be seen outside in those rags?

"Joe Schmoe busting his ass for $100K a year (and less!) is not."

"And less" perhaps. $100K though? Don't think so! $100K classifies you as VERY well off. Unless you are totally not living in your means and are $500,000 in debt. Probably because the $10 pair of jeans at wal mart just wouldn't do, so you had to go for the $150 pair.

Now is 100,000 filthy "I can build an intercontinental air port" rich? No, of course not. But you can LIVE just fine, and you CERTAINLY have enough for plenty of comfort costs.

If you are making 100,000 the party should not even factor you in to economic concerns because people in the lower tiers have it a HELL of a lot more rough.

[nickinSTL]

237. $100,000 is not wealthy...

Well, it looks pretty fing wealthy from where I'm sitting.

I don't mean to be rude, but hell...I'm working 2 jobs for under $35k gross a year. Supporting 2 people on that. And struggling.

Plus, being in grad school, racking up ever more debt.

$100,000 a year? I'd LOVE to have just a one-time payment of $100,000!

Anyone bitching about making 'only' $100,000 a year can just shut the F up.
/end rant

[phylny]

87. Our property and school taxes are $12,000/year.

No, we didn't choose to live here, we had to move or my husband would have lost his job.

Our car insurance (not *new* cars) is almost $4,000/year. We live in a more rural area and have to drive - no public transporation here. For my job, I have to drive from house to house to see kids. Gas bill for me alone is routinely $90/week or more. We have a generous company-paid health insurance plan, but we still contribute between $400-$600/month for it (I don't recall the exact amount now).

My daughter's college tuition/room & board is $28,000/year. She WAS in-state, but since we were forced to move, the tuition's now out-of-state. Sure, we could demand she switch schools, but she's at a prestigious PUBLIC university and I didn't want her to have to up and leave and lose credits to go to a NY state university.

All I know is we can't afford a Mercedes and eat out about once per month.

[MissB]

96. You're making some interesting assumptions

That I could blow away if I wanted to itemize my life, but that's okay.

Basically, making a $100k/year salary does not exempt one from being frugal, unless one wishes to be up to one's eyeballs in debt.

[BurtWorm]

51. Child care is a killer!

We frequently scratch our heads wondering why we can never save anything, and the answer is always child care. If one of you doesn't work, child care costs nothing but you lose half your income. If you both work, you get twice the income, but half of it goes into childcare. :crazy:

[Joacheme Misrahe]

63. Good god

Have you ever lived a day in your life with out money?

I grew up in the ghetto. There were shootings in our neighborhood on a monthly basis. My mom was a single parent after she got tired of our father beating her and she had three of us. Let me tell you how the world works for those of us who have never had money in the family.

"Day care?"

Shit, we never had this. When we were very young our mother had friends look after us while she was at work. After that we stayed home alone. Mind you this is after we got out of the shelter and had a place to stay.

"Ever tried to pay for health insurance for your child"

Didn't have this. At least you HAD health insurance to pay for.

"And while adults can literally go years without having to purchase new clothes, children have this funny little thing called a growth spurt every so often, after which their old clothes no longer fit."

It's called the church clothing donation bin or hand me downs. Apparently to you those concepts don't even exist. Believe it or not everyone in the world doesn't go out and buy new clothes every month. Coincidentally, that's also how we ate most of the time. We'd get donated cans of food. McDonalds was something we might get on a birthday as a special treat.

"You apparently don't have to worry about maintenance and repair costs for the house."

Assuming you HAVE a house to repair.

"But you really have no idea what it's like for most working families"

Friend, you obviously have no idea what it's like for the working poor. Please, get off the soapbox. To those of us who had no money in our family you have no idea how spoiled you sound. Go toss your high paying job and move down to single digit hourly wages. Then come back and talk about it. This is why the party doesn't connect as well as it used to with those of who make nothing anymore. The party is full of people who are completely out of touch and consider themselves horribly poor on $100,000 a year. Sometimes I wonder if we even exist in the eyes of the party.

[lastliberalintexas]

65. And you've missed my point

I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE FAMILY EARNING $100K A YEAR IS POOR BY ANY MEANS. There, is that better?

All that I *AM* saying is that family is not, not, not wealthy. Yes, they are comfortable. Yes, there are many people who are worse off. Yes, we must do better for our workers in this country.

Intra-class bickering does absolutely NOTHING to advance the cause of the true majority of the world- the laborers.


And I've never said that this is about me, now have I?

[Joacheme Misrahe]

67. I just find it sick

that there are $100K pity piece articles out there and people on a progressive site actually buy in to it. "No hub caps" my ass. They must be made out of solid gold.

Next you'll see an article from bill gates titled "I'm so poor I don't know what to do".

"Intra-class bickering does absolutely NOTHING" $100,000 is a TOTALLY different level from $10,000.

100K is at worst "middle-middle class". It can't hold a candle to lower class tiers.

[lastliberalintexas]

69. Be a part of the problem then

If all that you can see is the dollar sign showing the amount of earnings and if you don't understand the real and true *common interests* of all workers, then I guess we have nothing more to say. :hi:

[Joacheme Misrahe]

71. Of course there are common interests of all workers

but the work someone making $100K does is considerably different than the work someone making $10K does.

Hell, is 100K even possible in a non-management position? I've never heard of a union that lets people in who are management or above. You know why that is? Because the interests of a person making management money are considerably different than the person making far less.

Obviously you are example of why that is. We can't even talk on the same terms because your reality is so different. I consider a 100K earner extremely well off, and apparently some 100K earners consider themselves the working poor. They have no idea what it means to actually be poor.

[lastliberalintexas]

79. I know people who work in paper mills

who make $80-110. I know people who work in petro-chemical plants and refineries who make in that same range. Nope, they're not management, either. In fact, their immediate supervisor usually make LESS than they do, because they've often been put on salary with that good ol' promotion.

Those people make that kind of money by busting their asses, working 70-80 hour weeks, working every overtime shift they can find. It's not easy work by any means- I know I wouldn't last. It's far more common than you are apparently aware of. Check the stats.


"I consider a 100K earner extremely well off, and apparently some 100K earners consider themselves the working poor."

I never said that I considered them working poor or that I knew of any who did. ALL that I said was that they are not wealthy, and that we shouldn't engage in the eat our own intra-class warfare than keeps the focus off the Ruling Elite. In fact, if you read my posts, you'll see that I've said repeatedly that the $100K family *is comfortable*. Just not rich.


And btw, I don't think I've said on this thread what *I* earn, because I am not making this about me. This is about crafting public policy which affects and improves the lives of workers, whatever they earn.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

114. BS

First of all if they are pulling in 80-110K they are in the TOP TEN PERECENT of the country economically. Working 80 hours a week is not required. Check the stats huh? Ok - I did. Census says those people are top 10%. Must be VERY "common".

If they are doing it then it's because they put themselves in major debt so they could afford 110K life styles on a 40K wage. Hope they enjoy wasting most of their life for it 80 hours a week.

People in those positions also have a degree generally. There are plenty of people like my self who don't. You obviously haven't a clue what work is like on single digits an hour. If I worked over time even for a single MINUTE I would be *literally* fired the next day. Company policy. Either that or I would be working off the clock.

[AngryAmish]

122. I met ironworkers who have been over $100k in good years

However, one does no meet many old ironworkers who don't walk funny.

[hfojvt]

115. I was talking to a welder at the factory where I made from 5.4 to 6.25

an hour. He said he made $12 an hour, but he "busted his a$$" for that (it was a piece rate). My thought was that at least he had the option of working a little less and still making $9 an hour. Nobody was forcing him to scramble for $12. There was no way possible for me to work fast enough to even make $7.
I did read about workers in Des Moines who made $60,000 a year, but were forced to work about 3000 hours a year to do so - mandatory overtime. Yes, the money looks good, but not at that cost. If they are doing it voluntarily, that is their own choice, no one is holding a gun to their head.
I have worked in the same factory as a temp where a husband and wife who worked there probably made close to $100,000 when their over-time was added in (without over-time they would be at $75,000). There is far less need for a policy which will benefit their lives than there is for one which will benefit the temps. Even though they work at the same factory, their interests, much less their lifestyles, are not the same. I think policy should help those at the bottom, first and foremost, even if I am no longer there.

[hfojvt]

73. they simply ARE wealthy

they make more money than over 85% of all other households. Granted, they are not as wealthy as someone making $10 million, nor as wealthy as $100,000 annual income would have made them in 1987. Yes, there are plenty of ways to spend that money, like a $185,000 house (and yes, even my sisters have that, and it seems like a bad deal too. I mean they are nice houses, but not five times as nice as my $35,000 house.) but they simply have far more spending power than 85% of the population. Anything over 75% is wealthy to me, but there are other factors besides income which will determine how financially well-off someone is. Next year I will have the same income, but I will no longer have house payments to make.

[lastliberalintexas]

83. Sigh

Earnings do not make one wealthy or rich, accumulated wealth/assets/capital do. But please continue- the Bill Gates, Ken Lays and George Bushes of the world are glad that your attentions are misdirected.

[MissB]

89. In our area, the $35k houses were common about 15 years ago.

And even those were pretty hovel-ish. We were able to buy one for a bit less than $60k back then that needed some serious work.

Now you can't find a decent (read: more than 900 sq feet in a neighborhood without constant gunshots) for under $280k. That under $60k house appreciated by more than $300k in the intervening years.

My point of course is that not every $100k+ salary is going to be in an area where housing is affordable. Our urban growth boundary is busting at the seams, and still affordable housing escapes many people.

[hfojvt]

106. somehow people making much less manage to find housing

or some sort of shelter in the same areas. Unless the entire area is making 100K or more a year, which would explain how the housing market sustains itself. I had to go with a 45 minute commute to find affordable housing, but some of that was due to the fact that I did not want to live in the city itself. Then I ended up losing that job anyway. They have a bunch of $250,000 houses in this town that they are hard-pressed to sell.

[MissB]

112. If you want to rent, then yes.

But if you want to own, no. We have an insane local housing market. Our prices aren't anything close to NYC or San Fran, but the median house price and the average salary don't line up anywhere on the affordable side of things. I cannot explain how people manage - we know several couples who have recently plunked down upwards of $270-$290k and are saddled with $1700/mo house payments. These people aren't making $100k - they're in that $50 to $75k salary range. It just doesn't compute for me - that would be hugely uncomfortable for me.

The people that bought our old house two years ago did so as first-time home buyers with $5k cash down. Their mortgage must've been hell - we sold for over $360k. I really just don't get it. Our schools are getting crappier, and yet the housing market isn't at all cooling off. A series of articles a few weeks ago mentioned the median price being $280k or so, and houses with mold issues being subjects of bidding wars.

It is unfortunate, especially for first time home buyers with kids. Unless they want to plunk down in Felony Flats (which is probably meth haven at this point) then they're going to end up with either renting or an unaffordable mortgage.

With the price of gasoline (and a great local transit system), those city houses are looking more and more attractive.

[Misunderestimator]

81. Welcome to DU.

Your post is way too harsh. $100,000 is NOT wealthy. Not with a family and not in this economy.

There are a LOT of people in "the party" you speak of. In all ranges of income, with all sorts of experiences.

I agree with the poster who said that this is fodder for the divide and conquer mentality. Your post helps that strategy quite well.

[Clark2008]

180. Depends on where you live

In my area, $100,000 with a family *IS* well-off.

I'm making it with one child and sporadic child support on less than $25,000. I have a house, insurance, but no savings.

I'd LOVE to make $100,000 a year.

[Misunderestimator]

190. Of course it depends on where you live...

and where I live the median price for a very modest (2 to 3 bedroom) home is about $500,000. It truly is all relative.

[stopbush]

213. Exactly. If you make $110k in CA's Central Valley that's equal

to making $212k in NYC. It all depends on where you live and the COL in your area.

[Carni]

260. Yes exactly! Area plays a huge role NT

[Sapphire Blue]

100. Well said! Welcome to DU!

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

Millions of people in this country are living in poverty, struggling to make it just one more day, fighting a nearly losing battle to provide for their families, struggling to just put food on the table... while others making $100k are feeling sorry for themselves and have no idea what it's like to go without, won't even consider the concept... they don't have a clue... probably never will.

[bunny planet]

149. Yes it's all relative anyway. My sister-in-law and her husband

must make 750K between them, one kid, million McMansion, and because he has two kids to support from his first marriage, they complain that they have to live on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. They are delusional. I can't even listen to them complain with a straight face.

Of course they voted Republican too.

[misanthrope]

150. HEAR HEAR!!!!!!...

...I get sick of hearing the whining from the middle and upper middle class. I used to think that was reserved mainly to conservatives, people who were so blinded by our consumption-oriented economy and media that they were totally unappreciative of what they did have and only could think of what they didn't have.

Sadly, that's not the case, as I saw when I tried to prompt discussion here about the stratified class structure in this society. Some of the responses I heard then only buttressed my beliefs as to why so many in this country don't vote, why they feel so alienated by both conservatives and supposed liberals.

Can't get by on 100K a year? Sing that song to someone in Roxbury, or Harlem, or Appalachia, or the Black Belt of Alabama, or a South Dakota reservation and see how much sympathy you elicit.

[MXMLLN]

40. They are all-consuming.

Really ... it is the result of adding the support of a whole other person (or multiple persons) to your budget.

First, there's the doctor/hospital costs associated with the neonatal care and birth.

... then there are pediatric costs.

... and you'll either lose an income or have to pay for day-care.

... at some point you'll begin to to have school-associated costs.

... and the cost of keeping them occupied when they're not in school.

... finally ... you'll have college costs.

Current estimates are that it costs around $250,000.00 to raise a child to age 22 these days.

[BeTheChange]

52. That is 11,400 a year, take a few bucks..

I dont have all the answers, obviously.. and Im not trying to down on anyone. We are incredibly blessed. Two years ago, we were unemployed and scraping by on 30k combined. Im simply saying that 100k a year sure isnt anything to be scoffed at and I have a hard time understanding, given the specific article posted how a single earner making 100k a year should not be able to drive a shiny bmw or put a child through yale.


Tell me a family of four with two teachers as parents who make 80k combined if they are lucky cant do it and Ill say, okay.. but one person's salary of 100k of a year? Oh woe is me.

[MXMLLN]

56. That's $11,400.00 a year ... per child.

Have a couple ... or more ... and they'll take a big bite out of anybody'd budget.

Not saying that it's impossible (obviously parents have been doing it for years ... with much less) ... but parenting undeniably involves a big slice of parental self-sacrifice.

P.S. Per your previous post (to another poster) ... it will go a lot better if parents use sound financial planning, ... and are disciplined, ... so that neither they, nor their children, ... will have to have the latest, most recognized, name-brand or gadget.

You may as well wait till you get the house to have the kids ... you'll need one soon after ... and the smart thing will be to begin to invest now to fund your kids' college costs.

[MissB]

84. I chose not to work because the day care bill was topping $1500/month

for two kids.

We survive quite well on a bit more than $100k/year. But we drive two cars that are paid for (one of which is not used as a commuter car and sits in the driveway). I buy in bulk and cook from scratch. I sew and garden and have chickens. We've often said that if we cannot survive on that one salary then we're doing something wrong.

But I consider us quite lucky. We've been lucky with real estate and that allows us to have a very moderate mortgage in comparison to the property we have. We don't live in a McMansion, and have no wish to do so.

We invest money, save for retirement and college funds, and give money to charities and favorite organizations. None of that is especially super-sized and we certainly don't drive a Mercedes or belong to a country club.

Like most of the middle class, we're still just a few medical tragedies or a job loss away from being poor. I don't expect that we'll be paying for Yale, unless we sell the house and use the profits to pay for college. We're saving enough to put our kids through a state college.

I wouldn't drive a shiny BMW if I wanted one. I prefer to have cars that are paid for, and in order for me to have a shiny BMW I'd have to have a car loan. No freakin' way, even with a $100k+/year salary we'd want to swing that.

I guess what I'm saying is that I *could* have the shiny BMW and pay for a couple of Yale degrees, but I'm not interested in being deeply in debt, thank-you-very-much.

[Merope215]

144. Well, Yale's pretty expensive

It costs, in fact, a little over $40,000 a year. Probably closer to 45 when you factor in books, travel, and incidentals. If $100,000 is your after-tax income, sure, maybe it wouldn't be too hard. But if you actually make $100,000, you're likely to take home only 65 or 70 of that, which makes a Yale education much more expensive relative to your household income.

I go to Yale, so I have firsthand knowledge of how hard this can turn out to be. It's tough. My education costs half of my family's income. You might want to look at how much these things actually cost - as someone else said, yeah, kids are very, very expensive. Especially if they manage to get into private colleges - you're looking at about $175,000 over four years, with a high likelihood of more kids on their way to the same places.

Just sayin'.

[burythehatchet]

42. If you could feed them dollar bills you'd be very happy

no, more like 20's and 50's is what they eat. For you, it would be even worse because the real money kicks in when both parents work.

[BeTheChange]

46. Well, my husband now has even more ammo

To wait to have children till we are "financially secure" which to him seems to mean, own a house outright and have college prepaid :)

[aeolian]

49. Good plan.

:thumbsup:

[Bake]

59. If you had children, you would know what we're talking about

I'm always amused at the childless people who "don't get it" with regard to the fact that children are incredibly expensive to raise.

Bake

[BeTheChange]

127. My mother didnt make 100k a year..

she didnt even make 50k and she raised me just fine, with daycare, college, food.. the whole shebang. I did not want for anything.

I dont come from a family-less black hole. No, I dont have a family of my own yet and no.. I dont have all the answers. But I look at the crap that parents buy their children nowadays and the "clothes" that they just musta had to have.. And the SUV that they tote Jimmy and Sally around to baseball practice in, that the mom needs to drive because its safer and she has to have a whole lotta room for all those prepackaged dinners and mini coke cans. I look at my 14 year old sister in law and she doesnt have the latest ipod, or fancy paris blues jeans.. but boy, if she isnt the most amazing young woman I know. Heck, she didnt even get the 110.00 LOTR watch from Macy's for her birthday this year, because a 14 year old doesnt need a 110.00 watch.

Im not saying children arent an expense. Im just saying that they arent money shredding machines unless you let them be. Or, God forbid, you have a child that is sick.. or has challenges. That, I can understand. I can understand how 100K wouldnt go far in that situation. But in the world I see around me. In the lives of the families of my 15 aunts , 3 uncles their spouses and families, myself, my inlaws, the people Im friends with.. none of them would say 100k is a hard living. And over half of those families live in SF and NYC.

I supposed alot of it is all in how you were raised. And luckily, we were raised to be very finiancally responsible.

[MissB]

130. No matter what the salary

a decent daycare (one that doesn't sit in a family's home and has some sort of oversight) in this city runs about $750/month per kid. Two kids: $1500/month for daycare.

My kids have never seen an Xbox. We shop at thrift stores. I cook from scratch. I have no consumer debt. Both cars are paid for and we'll drive them into the ground. We have a very manageable mortgage and not a bit of granite in this house.

We make over $100k/year.

It'd be useful if you'd stop making assumptions about what sort of lives people with $100k+/year incomes lead.

[BeTheChange]

136. Im not asking anyone to justify their life..

And my "assumptions" are only based on what I see around me. None of my posts were meant as a personal attack and Im sorry so many of you see it that way.

But regardless of what anyone says, Im not going to feel like 100k is a hardship. Im sorry if it is for you.

Im more concerned with a family of 4 living on 30k a year.

[MissB]

141. I didn't consider it a personal attack.

I just don't find it useful for us to engage in some sort of middle-class versus upper middle class warfare on DU. $100k in many parts of the country doesn't make one rich, especially when housing costs are so out of control. It may make life a bit more comfy, but it doesn't mean one can afford a membership at the local country club. Several posters seem to be suggesting that those of us that have incomes over $100k are driving shiny Mercedes and eating caviar. It isn't the reality.

I don't know how families making $50 to $75k can buy a house in this city when the average house price is $280k. I'm sure the families pulling in $30k have no hope of owning a home.

I'm fortunate in my life and I'm well aware of that. I don't consider my life to be a hardship in any way.

[Carni]

261. Where the hell do you live that you are such a *big wheel*

Making a combined income of 100 thousand between two people?

[Joacheme Misrahe]

148. Hmmm

Ok so 18,000 year for day care. That leaves 82,000.

No Xbox. Thrift stores. Cook from scratch. No debt. Both cards paid for. No granite.

Make over 100K/year. "About what sort of lives?" you live?

Well, it sounds like you probably live within your means. It sounds like you also have money to play with if you wanted to, but don't blow it on expensive putting your self in debt purchases.

In other words - you live comfortably, and manage money responsibly. No doubt you could put a lot in savings.

So you don't live like an english monarch. But surely you must admit you don't worry about where your next meal is coming from like many in this country do?

The primary complaint is not HOW 100K earners live - it is the 100K earners who want to bitch and moan to the other 90% of the nation that make less than them about how hard life is for 100K earners.

[MissB]

152. Then get off the English Monarch idea

100k salary per year does not mean we get to live like English Monarchs.

Those that do on that salary are probably up to their eyeballs in debt.

[taught_me_patience]

222. take home is only $60k

Average home price here in Los Angeles is 500k.

100k is not a lot of money... but its a heck of a lot better than making 50k! I think 30k salary is the threshold of living in Los Angeles.

[BurtWorm]

221. You should hold off judging the financial responsibility of parents

until you become one yourself. And I really mean this as friendly advice. Your basic point about consumer society values warping the wealth picture is valid and sound, though.

[redqueen]

64. And just imagine... if you hear the middle class complaining...

imagine what it's like for those of us who are average!

[Joacheme Misrahe]

75. So people in the upper 10% are "middle class"?

[MissB]

98. Except for those upper 2 percenters, yeah.

Only the uber-wealthy are really cushioned from the reality of life in America.

[redqueen]

200. Doesn't make sense, but we don't wanna alienate the "middle class"

I guess...

*sigh*

[MissB]

76. LOLOLOL

They might as well be.

Once they start school, it gets worse. I think I escaped most of the "gimme" years by limiting tv and just saying "no". I've never really been a fan of plastic toys anyway.

But in our area, the public school systems mostly suck. Even the ones that are good (like the one we moved into) still has tons of fees. I track them in Microsoft Money, and over the course of the school year, I've shelled out more than $1k in just miscellaneous fees. These are things like registration fees, school supply fees, sports fees, library card fees, field trips, etc. And my kids are in K and 1st.

And yes, in part to teach them to use money wisely, I do give them dollar bills each week. Hopefully they don't eat them.

[Pithlet]

86. Money eating monsters

You've hit the nail on the head. Kids are expensive.

[GiovanniC]

189. Um... Yeah.

I would know.

[LibertyLover]

238. Feeding kids money

I should be so lucky if my kid could be fed dollar bills - it would be cheaper.

[Carni]

259. Pretty much so

Kids are costly there is no sugar coating it--they grow and they grow fast... most of the time my kid doesn't get 4 months out of an article of clothing because she either grows out of it, or wears it out. School activities are a never ending wallet drain.

Additionally living in an apartment you have no idea how much $$$ gets dumped into a house for upkeep--you have landscaping costs, repairs etc etc.

I think most people can certainly live confortably on 100 grand a year but they certainly aren't driving a new Benz (unless it's leased) or sending their kid to Yale on it.

[aeolian]

45. tuition alone

for one child at Yale would be about 20% of your annual gross income (i.e. before taxes are even taken out). That's not counting housing, books, and fees. That's after you've already spent $100,000's of dollars over the years that we without children do not spend, much of which cannot possibly be budgeted or controlled.

And we with homes occasionally have to sink thousands of dollars into them in a single day. That sucks for cash flow.


I'm 27 and make just about what one of you must make on your own. I would never claim that $100,000/yr = financial freedom.

[BeTheChange]

48. 20% of my annual income..

By the time we have children and they get to college, I guess I would just think that we could have saved up enough to support their endeavors.

I didnt say that 100k a year equaled financial freedom, but for the average person it should not leave them strapped. Many many people make do with much much less.

[friesianrider]

74. Well good for you, but...

Things unexpected DO happen in life and not everyone who isn't financially secure off of $100,000 a year isn't because they mismanage their money. The fact is many people do have kids, high health insurance, cars, upkeep of a home, home improvements, a mortgage, college tuition, school books, kids clothes, etc etc etc. Plus we all like to stash some away in savings/kids' college accounts. Just because YOU don't have those things doesn't mean someone else who does is mismanaging their money. Similarly, just because someone else spends money on things like vacations, pets, their home, etc doesn't mean they should stop everything to live like you. Renting is nice and all I guess, but you definitely won't make money from renting. The difference between rent and a mortgage is so small that you truly do lose money by renting. That being said, homeowners must spend a lot on upkeep, repairs, etc. That's where a lot of homeowners' money goes. Plus property taxes. My father is a financial planner and always recommends buying a home - even if small or a fixer-upper - rather than renting. As he says, "renters stay poor and homeowners get rich." I bought my first house young, and banked nearly $110,000 off the sale of that house in just 1 year.

I think it's pompous to act like if everyone just lived exactly like you they'd have more money, or criticize others by asking in a snotty way "I don't understand what people spend all their money on." Maybe a little less bragging and a little more attempts at understanding others' situations would serve you better if you're really trying to "understand" why people are in the situations they are. No offense or anything, but you just come off like you know it all and everyone should live financially like you - and if they don't then you think they're wasting their money on dumb crap they don't need. That's just not the case at all for the majority of people.

[phylny]

92. Good points.

Not only that, people who are making $100K/year probably haven't been making that amount for the past 20 years. Most people start out making a modest salary, and slowly, but steadily, get raises to bring them to that amount.

[BeTheChange]

134. Ugh..

See.. IM NOT AS FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE AS I SHOULD BE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

And Im not trying to brag. Im am honestly flabbergasted how if we can have basically 30k in what would translate in a normal year (ie, not the year we got married)to unexpected expenses and still manage to save a good chunk of money and the only thing we dont do is go out and buy a bunch of material stuff we dont need.

My mother is horrified with how we manage our money. And if it was a problem, if we were making what we make and struggling Id be seriously evaluating it. Infact, now that wedding bells have rung, we know its time to seriously evaluate our spending and saving habits.

See, to us we live within our means. We cant afford to buy a bay area house for half a million dollars with what we have. We can rent a house that sells for 400k for 900 a month and save up our money and move up. People did do that once upon a time, they didnt buy just to buy. I dont care about turning a profit on my house. I care about being able to pay for it.


I just cannot understand how you can make 100k, unless perhaps you have a very large family, or medical bills and no insurance, or crappy insurance--and not be doing very well- strapped by no means-- without living beyond your means. I cant understand that. We were unemployed bay area refugees that got rear ended and screwed by the party at fault's insurance company... I understand medical bills.. and we got off pretty lucky. But the average person is not going to get any sympathy from me when they bring home their 100k paycheck.

Im sorry if I came off as a braggart. That was not my intention. I was simply trying to give an example because in my life, and in the lives around me.. I just cant understand it for Joe Schmoe, average american.

[friesianrider]

163. Well...

My best friend's mother made $90,000 a year and she's definitely not well off. She had two horses (same as me!) and one child, my best friend Amanda. Well, her father decided to write some bad checks and was thrown in jail, so the mother lost her child support. Then she fell off one of her horses, and injured her knee (it needed major reconstructive surgery), so was hobbling around on crutches. Exactly 2 weeks after that, she was laid off. Then Mandy came home with the chance to do a summer abroad in England - so not wanting to disappoint her kid, Mandy's mom worked two jobs to pay for it. By that time, she was still making around $85,000 a year after she got a new job, but with the mortgage, paying for her horses and other pets, Amanda's needs, her own needs, health insurance, the car, Amanda's car (so Amanda could work), and saving a few bucks every month for Amanda's college, she had nothing to put away. The money slips out quicker than you can believe if you just add a few small parts to the equation. in her case, it was the cost of the horses, medical bills, the mortgage, etc that really devastated her financially. It's tough...

I also think people always tend to live above their means. I try to live like my uncle making half a mil, he tries to live like his boss making over $1M. I think once you cross a threshold (like maybe making $75,000 a year) a lot of people try very hard to live the good life - and maybe overextend themselves unintentionally.

And like you said, unless someone has avery large family, or medical bills and no insurance, or crappy insurance they should be ok, but a lot of people do fit those categories (welcome to Bush's America lol).

[fortyfeetunder]

171. How about geographic cost of living?

I bet $100K in Texas would go a lot farther than $100K in Seattle, New York City, San Francisco or Los Angeles.

[BeTheChange]

177. It definately does..

I wish that we wanted to live in Texas, Id buy that 130k, 2000sq foot house that was a few years old in a heartbeat.

But we are only here temporarily, refugees from the SF Bay area.

I actually pay 31 bucks more a month in rent here.. But yes, food, gas, electricity.. its all cheaper. But Im talking a couple hundred-maybe 300 during the summer because of air conditioning- bucks a month difference in our lives. Im not saying 300 bucks isnt alot of money to someone struggling, but to someone making 100k a year... is it truly that much of a difference?

If we owned a home, that would mean a whole lot more, obviously. 400k in the bay area gets you a fixer upper.. here, it gets you a mansion. But we know we cant afford that, so we rented. We are here for too short of a time to consider buying.

http://www.patrick.net/housing/crash.html
I think that this site makes a couple good points about renting vs buying when it is not within your means. I obviously dont agree with every point.. but its interesting nonetheless.

[Carni]

263. "We can rent a house that sells for 400k for 900 a month"

Where do 400K homes rent for 900 dollars a month?

I know a person who is renting a room in some elderly man's house in a not so great neighborhood for 90 bucks a week so where on earth are you renting a house of that price for 900 dollars a month?

One bedroom apartments in this area go for 800 a month -- I guess I don't understand how you would be getting such a deal?

[jmowreader]

113. Housing prices are a BIG one

Do me a favor and google "Seattle Real Estate," willya? There starter homes cost $250,000. Starter homes. Those things you buy after you get out of college.

Tomlinson Black in Spokane shows a lot of starter homes in the $150s. A hundred and fifty thousand dollars for an 1100-sf house is fucking ridiculous, but they're getting it.

Oh yeah: According to Yale University's website, they estimate the cost of one year at Yale to be $43,600. Okay, let's say your young'un has a 70-percent free ride to Yale, which means you only have to pull out $13,080 per year to send her to this school. Divide that by twelve and you'll need $1090 per month for educational expenses.

Let's do some numbers: You live in Spokane in a modest non-starter home. Those run about $300,000, so using the one-percent rule (house payments are generally one percent of the purchase price) you're paying $3000 per month just for your house payment. Your child's stay in Connecticut is costing you $1090 per month, therefore a roof over your head and a child at Yale costs about $4100 every thirty days.

Now! You make $100,000 doing something. Washington state doesn't have an income tax, so federal is all you have to deal with. Let's play around and say your tax rate is 25 percent after all deductions are taken, so you get to go home with $6250 per month. Subtract the $4100 Washington Mutual and Yale College are taking and you're left with $2150 per month--for all of your expenses, from car insurance to cat food. That ain't very much when you consider that you started this exercise earning $100,000 per year.

I think they're right: any more, $100,000 is a decent middle-class income, nothing more. Man, a Home Depot store manager makes more than that.

[BeTheChange]

138. 250k over 30 years...

can you crunch those numbers?

See in the bay area, where we would be buying a home, they start around 400k.. so Im aware.

[MissB]

157. Depending on the down payment and the interest rate

It's probably around $1500/month excluding taxes and insurance. I think the 10% rule would apply safely, depending on the area.

[Carni]

265. So you are renting a house for 900 a month in the bay area?

LOL!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

126. How much do you pay in rent and utilities?

what are the housing prices like where you live? Does your state have high taxes? How about car insurance?

Your profile says you live in Texas. Texas-even big cities like Dallas, Austin, and Houston-is a hell of a lot cheaper than NYC, San Francisco, Boston, or LA. Your food prices are cheaper. Your gas is cheaper. Your overall cost of living is cheaper.

[BeTheChange]

140. Im a refugee at the moment..

in Dallas. We pay about 1500 in rent and utilities.

We've been here for about 7 months, we are from the bay area. We paid about the same in the bay area. About 100 bucks more for electricity.

Things are definately cheaper here, Ill give you that.

[MissB]

142. Try adding two kids to the mix, and then your

daycare costs can match your housing costs. The cost of daycare is simply appalling (and one very big reason why I left the workforce).

I do not want to pay more for daycare than I pay in mortgage.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

143. Exactly-daycare is outrageously expensive

it's a really tough call for most families-does someone stay home with the kids, or do you continue to pay through the nose for daycare?

[MissB]

147. And it does have long term effects one way or another

Some kids don't fare well in daycare. Some moms don't handle staying at home well. Some moms sacrifice future income by putting their careers on hold for a few years.

Ah, that magical $100k income. Yeah, it's cushy, baby.

[davekriss]

165. It seems I really don't understand...

...financial planning. You say you two make 120k, yet you managed to spend $81,000 on luxuries and savings before spending a dime on those resturants you allude to.

Well in my state a $120,000 married couple without kids claiming the standard deduction and 2 exemptions gets to keep $84,165 after taxes.

So that means you have $3,165 leftover after your big ticket spend and savings to pay for rent (you say you don't own your home), utilities, renters insurance, car insurance, gas and oil, car maintenance, household expenses (cleaning supplies, soap, paper towels, etc.), cable (surely on $3k you're not splurging on cable?!), medical insurance premiums and copays, what food you do bring into the house, and for all those glitzy resturants you eat at.

How do you do it?

[BeTheChange]

167. I didnt say that

"My husband and I make 120K per year together. We do not have a child and we dont own a house, as a result of that, we have managed to put away 40 in the last year and pay for our own 20k wedding/honeymoon, 10k in medical bills and bought a used 11k car outright."

We had a little less then a grand in the bank prior to that. So, that puts me at about 41k total. I rounded. I dont understand where I said 81K on luxuries and savings.

[davekriss]

170. Here's my interpretation of your words...

You saved $40k
You spent $20k on a wedding/honeymoon (congrats, btw)
You spent $10k in medical bills
You spent $11k on a car outright

40k+20k+10k+11K = $81k

Did I just misinterpret? You saved $40k, add to that the $1k starting balance, then spent $20k + $10k + $11k for a total of $41k, yielding an end balance of $0.

Given the latter interpretation, then, you had roughly $44k to rent, insure, pay utilities, buy food, clothes, and eat out. A much more realistic figure.

Apologies if I misinterpreted the words of the first post... :)

[BeTheChange]

173. Maybe that is why it was insinuated I was a braggart... :)

I meant we saved 40k and spent that money in x, y, z distribution... not going into every detail like, the wedding/hm total probably came out to more like 19664.59, medical bills a smidge over 10k and we had a little money saved at the start of the period....I was trying to round.. I did not mean to make it seem like we had 40k in the bank.. plus 41k in various crap..

I wish we had 40k in the bank..

Thanks for the congrats. I guess the big thing I was trying to convey is that I feel like we lived like friggin rockstars this year, and werent as responsible as we will hopefully be in our future. That's why I have a hard time understanding 100k salaries not being able to insure comfort. With what we make I feel incredibly blessed and very comfortable.

[ObaMania]

184. Well... you don't own a house, first of all..

..Second, you buy a used car for 11K (probably not a Benz), and I'm thinking where you live could have some bearing on savings/expenditures.

My wife and I make around 110K living in Northern VA, have no kids, and are just getting by. And I assure you, we have excellent financial planning skills.

200K is unfortuneately about right in the Bu$h economy.

[hughee99]

274. My wife and I see it differently...

Together we make just over 100K a year. We also have no children, but we do have a house (we live near Boston). After all of our taxes (Federal, state, and local property taxes) and home/auto/health insurance, we make somewhere in the neighborhood of 50k/year. Of that, about 12K goes into retirement planning (401K/IRA) and another 16k goes toward our house, so now we're down to about 22k. We are making payments on 2 cars (about $7500/year for a used Jeep and a used Toyota), so we're now down to about $14.5K a year for other expenses. Add in heat, electricity, phone, cable and we're now somewhere around 11K. This is to cover all other expenses (food, clothing, travel, entertainment, etc...) Now don't get me wrong, I'm not crying about this, I'm putting away a good portion of my income for retirement, and my house will hopefully be worth more when I sell it than what I am paying now, but I'm not exactly making my country club payments early or driving around in a BMW. If I were to make the same income in another part of the country, I can see where this would be different (especially my mortgage), but there are definitely places around the country where making "6 figures" isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[Lorien]

77. I use to make a bit more than that in central Florida

I had a new Camry and a 1600 sq. ft. home in the historic district-but a luxury car and Yale tuition would have been a bit out of the question. Fortunately, luxury never appealed much to me (which is especially good now that my BushCo era wages are what I used to pay in taxes)!

[redqueen]

12. SO you think most people in those cities earn that much?

Is that what you're saying?

I'm not disagreeing that in order to drive luxury vehicles and pay for your kids' college you need that kind of money... I'm just saying that writing articles about the "standard" salary which are WAY OVER the *ACTUAL* standard is idiotic.

[BlueEyedSon]

14. The ones who own their condo/co-op, have a car, have a kid in private

school/college? Yup.

The "standard" the writer is talking about is a fast-forward to the present day of the old "6-figure" salary (the upper middle/professional class benchmark). The suggestion is that the first digit needs to be a "2" now.

[BurtWorm]

17. I live in NYC and I agree with you.

I think what others in this thread are saying is that $100,000, which used to be *the* gold standard of salaries for *strivers* (the proverbial six-figure salary) won't make you rich if you have property, a car, children in school, etc. In other words, even for yuppies, times are hard. (But I wouldn't sneeze at that measly amount if my bosses offered it to me.)

[LSK]

20. Yes, combined salaries of a married couple are close to 100k

I can imagine a lot of suburbanites in the Chicagoland area make close to that. And I dont consider them to have "made it".

[redqueen]

21. "most people" is not equal to "a lot"

Apparently the use of the word "standard" in this article is not what I thought it was...

[sandnsea]

26. Another oblivious one

If you're making $200,000 a year, you're in the top 5% of earners. The other 95% make MUCH MUCH less. $100,000? Top 90%. I am so so so sick of wealthy people who don't understand how goddamned wealthy they really are. And I don't care where you live. How do you think the people who make $30,000 a year are doing in NYC, LA, SF, etc? They're there too.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

36. yes

nothing makes me more pissed off than this.

nothing.

[fujiyama]

179. I'm absolutely astounded at this!

People are whining about living off of $100K a year?!!

Honestly it's mind boggling.

The median income in the US is $43318 (2003 numbers). For NY that's $43160. So $100k is still a VERY comfortable amount to be making.

Are some people REALLY this delusional?

[Carni]

267. But it depends on AREA

First off I don't make six figures... but the housing costs in the area I am in are crazy--you really cannot touch anything in a safe area for under 180,000 (and that is for a modest smallish subdivision home)

I don't think the point was *whining* about six figures by the people on this thread-- at least not from my stand point as I read the article and tha assorted responses from people.

I know many people that make combined salaries of probably 80 thousand and they are not living large, no new cars, lavish extravagant 50 thousand dollar kitchens, country club memberships etc.

To live the "I have arrived yuppie lifestyle" that is promoted on TV I will go out on a limb and say even 200 thou a year probably doesn't put someone in a position to throw their money around and be a legend in their mind.

I am certainly not saying that *I* personally would not wish to make 100 thousand a year.

[lastliberalintexas]

38. Yes, because *earnings* are all that matter, right?

Come on sandnsea, you know better than that. You know that accumulated wealth is the real problem, and that this kind of article simply keeps the working poor angry and resentful with the working comfortable. And the Ruling Elite laugh all the way to the bank, while our energies are incorrectly focused on each other.

[MissB]

90. Very good post.

There is no need to pit the working poor against the working comfortable. Both "classes" are just one really bad medical incident or job loss away from complete poverty. The working comfortable just have a harsher fall because the working poor are already much closer (or in) poverty.

[sandnsea]

159. Bullshit

What I know is that 90% of the country are blaming themselves for not working hard enough because articles like this portray a tiny slice of the population as the "standard". What I also know is that the tiny slice of the "working comfortable" refuse to acknowledge that they are WEALTHY, compared to the rest of the US; and FILTHY RICH compared to the rest of the world. Very tired of listening to self pity from rich people. If you're one of them, STFU.

[SmokingJacket]

44. Yes!

The "standard" salary means the standard salary for a tiny, weeny minority of people who apparently count for SO MUCH more than everyone else.

:puke:

I love reading the New Yorker's journalism, but I have to say it bugs the hell out of me that they depict the "average" person as one who has a summer house, a nanny, a wine cellar...

[friesianrider]

78. Everyone is wealthy when compared to someone else...

I'm wealthy compared to a homeless person. My uncle who makes $600,000 a year is wealthy compared to me. His boss, who makes $1.5 million a year is compared to him, and Donald Trump is wealthy compared to my uncle's boss. The homeless man would feel wealthy if he was me, I'd feel wealthy if I were my uncle, my uncle would feel wealthy if he were his boss, and his boss would feel wealthy if he were Trump. It's all relative - it's only human nature to want more and wonder "if only I could make as much as X, then I'd really be financially well off."

[Joacheme Misrahe]

120. No one is talking about wealth

Here are the five tiers that count

Tier 1 - ZERO money. Homeless.

Tier 2 - Enough money to make it, but not enough for anything else.

Tier 3 - More than enough money to make it, and enough for a few nice things.

Tier 4 - Plenty of money. More than enough to make it and plenty of nice things.

Tier 5 - Super rich. Owns air ports and multi-million/billion dollar company.


When you are talking "wealth" you are talking tier 3 and above. Tier 1 & 2 are not about wealth. They about surival. Period.

What you see here are people in tier 3 and above bitching and moaning about how hard it is for them and making comparisons about how they have it tough like tier 1 & 2. They have ZERO problems surviving. Their problem is that they can only get 2 new cars instead of 3. Or can only be in two country clubs and not three.

[friesianrider]

125. Actually, they were talking about wealth...

See the post I replied to:

<snip>

I am so so so sick of wealthy people who don't understand how goddamned wealthy they really are.

<snip>

[sandnsea]

162. Uh, no

Tier 1 homeless, near homeless
Tier 2 - Enough money to juggle bills, and only have the power turned off or be evicted once every couple of years.
Tier 3 - Enough money to make it, but not for anything else
Tier 4 - Enough money to buy a new car, take a vacation, and maybe save for retirement
Tier 5 - Everybody else

Tier 5 is the top 5-10%. That is how income and wealth is really divided up in this country.

[sandnsea]

160. Wealthy people ARE wealthy

Facts are facts. 10% of HOUSEHOLD incomes are over $100,000. The rest struggle to get by. I'm sick of whiny rich people who refuse to acknowledge how well off they really are. Living on $20,000 a year IS NOT the same as living on $100,000 a year, and the difference has absolutely nothing to do with human nature to want more.

[friesianrider]

164. I hear ya...

And I agree with what you're saying totally, I was just pointing out that people do always want more but you're right it has nothing to do with the fact that those making $20k have much different "financial" problems than those making $100k. A great book for this discussion is Nickel and Dimed. REALLY interesting read. I tell all my Republican friends who bitch and moan about people on welfare to read it (but of course they never do). I love when they act like if these lazy poor people just got off their ass and worked as a greeter at the local Wal-Mart, they'd be just fine paying a mortgage and car payment and putting three kids through college. Not to say there aren't a LOT of people abusing the welfare system but the fact is one just CANNOT get by on what a minimum wage worker is bringing home. It's just impossible, and it's a shame it happens in this country.

[Johonny]

35. I agree

I lived in all three places.

"We make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money"

[RedSpartan]

47. Or planet NJ, for that matter.

[formernaderite]

276. They're living on either the East or West coast...

in a major urban center. I can in fact NOW live on much less than I used to. But these days, with the price of housing increasing, along with fuel and car costs, $200,000 does not go as far as it used to. I have friends who earn in the $225 range, have three kids under 16 in private schools($52,000) a mortgage for an older medium sized split level($48,000), a babysitter($22,000) two older cars( ten years average age) and are barely saving any money for their college funds....they live in the city, which in turn means they pay slightly more in taxes as well. I have three kids as well, but they're older...I couldn't afford to have them these days either.

[tk2kewl]

2. when median housing prices are over 1/2 a mil 100Gs is nothing

ask anyone living in NYC, San Fran, Boston, Chicago

[BurtWorm]

6. You mean I earn less than nothing?

;)

[tk2kewl]

7. lol

ok... it's not much

[Warpy]

22. A low six figure salary is the MINIMUM for calling oneself middle class

At $100K, you will be able to hire the au pair and lawn service, but you won't, just in case the rug rat grows up and wants to be a doctor or lawyer.

At $200K, you will be able to afford the au pair and lawn service, but you'll still feel strapped when you think of the rug rat going to a brand name college.

At $300K, you may have hired the lawn service, but let's face it, Yale aint gettin any cheaper.

At $500K, you are comfortable and can supply your needs now and in the foreseeable future, but gawd, it would be really nice to have a place up in the mountains that isn't a shack.

At $1M, you've arrived to the point that your vacation house has all the amenities your suburban house does, right down to the granite countertops, but you're starting to catch glimpses of the super rich and you realize you're still small potatoes and you'd be sneered at if you went to Manassas Airport to watch the private jets arrive and depart.

And that's where the middle class is right now, folks.

Didn't know you were poor, did you?

[Morose]

29. Good breakdown

and factor in for those of us who paid our own way through college and who didn't have help with our house downpayment...that we're still paying a nice chuck of that low 6 figure in student loans and very high housing prices.

Imagine what all these lifestyles would be like if people didn't have the ability to charge up all that additional debt. Wonder how much a % increase over their actual income most people are living (esp the middle class who has access to debt)

[phylny]

94. You're right WRT college loans.

Right now, I'm working my ass off - really - to try to pay for our first-born's college costs because I don't want her saddled with college loans. I know so many people who are so bogged down with college loans that it makes everything more difficult for them.

It's not that I'm against our daughter having a financial stake in her tuition, it's just that the loans are so difficult to pay off and seem to be rigged so that it takes years to do so. Maybe I'm wrong, but working my ass off is my contribution to her future - so she has a better financial future.

[The_Casual_Observer]

70. This story sounds right out of NPR, the land of trust fund journalists

I'll bet there isn't a SINGLE job on monster.com or in the paper that pays anywhere close to 200,000 and very few around 100,000. At that level you either own the business, are a partner or do day and night freelance consulting in a niche area.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

41. For the love of god

If you can't afford a $2 mil house then get something IN YOUR PRICE RANGE.

I make 8/hr. When I was looking for a place I didn't look for the sign that said "Homes here starting at $500,000" I looked for something I could *afford*, and on my wages it isn't exactly a mansion.

Should I be shedding tears for $100,000 earner who can't get that $2 million home and has to settle for the measly $400,000 place instead?

I truly can't believe your post. You make it sound like the inability of a $100,000 earner to get a $2 million house is a crime. Trust me - I've lived in Chicago and you can find a place to live on FAR less than $100,000. Is it in the ghetto? Damn right, but it's a place to live. It sounds like some people can't stand the thought of having to move down to anything other than the super rich level as far as housing. They're too good to live with those of us who don't have money.

[redqueen]

50. Great post!

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[tk2kewl]

103. and I guess you can't or don't read either

[redqueen]

199. See my reply to #198.

Why don't you get off your high horse and realize how MOST of us live?

[tk2kewl]

240. you only reinforce that article's point and my point

100K doesn't get you the low-crime, good-schools picket-fence suburban life any longer.

[redqueen]

280. NO amount of money gets what it used to get...

I don't know why this is a surprise to anyone.

[tk2kewl]

101. i guess you cant read. I said median was 1/2 mil

thats $500,000. get it? Thats what it costs to buy a 1200 sq ft house on 5000 sq ft lot in most neighborhoods not overrun with gang activity on LI. Get off your high-horse and see what's going on in other parts of the world.

[MissB]

102. In my city, a barely more than 900 square foot house

in a not-so-great neighborhood (i.e.- nightly gunshots) goes into a bidding war (even with mold issues) and sells for damn near $300k.

I don't think the issue is with people with $100k salaries not being able to afford a *median* house price of $500k. I think the issue is with the median house price being so high that houses are unaffordable to many, many people.

When people with $50k to $80k salaries are getting into bidding wars over shitty $300k houses, there isn't anything to be said about people moving "down to anything other than the super rich level as far as housing". It isn't the reality of the local housing market.

It is simply a struggle to find a reasonable home in the local housing market, no matter what the income level. If you have a kid, you aren't going to be looking in a ghetto either (not that we technically have any ghettos around here). I really feel for first-time home buyers in our area.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

131. tk2kewl had it right:: in large metro areas, housing is not affordable

single-and multi-family dumps in inner city neighborhoods sell for 3-400K, and 750K-1 million in decent neighborhoods. How is the average person supposed to afford this?

[amazona]

201. what's a large metro area?

Pick your metro area wisely. Families have homes in nice neighborhoods in the greater New Orleans area on way less than $100K a year, a fabulous income that nobody earns down here unless they're a brain surgeon or a Saints player or something like that. No property tax on homes assessed at $75K or less. I don't understand people who complain about property tax alone being $6,000 or $12,000 a year. There comes a point where it's like the beagle who won't stop howling. It's up to him to roll over and stop crushing his own testicles.

Flyover country is full of large, cheap homes in safe neighborhoods also. I know some folks who couldn't even afford to live in Louisiana, which I thought was the cheapest state ever. They moved to Kansas and were then able to buy a home. You've just got to investigate all the options.

[BurtWorm]

249. A new development in Brooklyn was approved with 43% affordable units

and this was after the city council raised that number from Bloomberg's original 23%. This development (in Williamsburg, across the East River from the lovely Manhattan skyline), in other words, will have less than half of its units "affordable" (that's the word they use) to working stiffs. This is not unusual in NYC developments, to have less than half--and often closer to just a third or a quarter--of the units "affordable."

That's fucked up.

[HuckleB]

68. Indeed.

But most of us don't live in those cities.

[redqueen]

198. And MOST of us who DO live in large cities

STILL can't afford to pay 500K for the "nice" homes in the "nice" neighborhoods.

But we don't matter... all that matter are the people who CAN afford to buy the "nice" homes in the "nice" neighborhoods. Shouldn't we all feel bad for them?

[HuckleB]

207. ?

:shrug:

I live in a supposedly fairly expensive city. I'm not saying my home was cheap, but you could still buy two of them in my very nice neighborhood for 500K, even today.

I'm just trying to bring some perspective to the table. It seems like this board isn't so much a discussion of realities, as it is a back and forth slam using exaggerations.

What's the point of that?

[redqueen]

210. Exaggerations?

Where?

I make $25K and support a family of 4. Excuse me if I have little sympathy for those pulling in $100K who complain about expensive housing.

[HuckleB]

211. Hmm.

Sounds like you weren't actually responding to what I wrote then.

Why is that?

I dunno. In general, you seem to be all over the board, making it quite difficult to actually discuss anything at all.

[redqueen]

212. What?

You wrote that not everyone lives in those large cities... I commented that even the average people who DO live there still manage to get by... and observed that apparently according to many, those people don't matter... the "middle class" still are reasonable to whine about high housing costs... then you responded about housing costs where you live (?) and complained about the tone of the thread...

How was I not responding to you?

I can't explain why you think I wasn't... please explain.

I'm "all over the board, making it difficult to discuss anything at all"? Would you please explain that comment... soon?

[LSdemocrat]

3. Maybe if you're in NYC or some other insanely expensive city

Of course the debts people (myself included) are racking up going through college and grad school probably are causing people to have somewhat less lavish lifestyles, but in most places $100,000 per year is still a damn good salary.

[Shoeempress]

4. Yea in 1950 $100K gave you the Benz, Yale, etc.

[ThomWV]

18. It Would In 1990 Too

[jojo54]

9. A few years back, 100K would have made me feel

very, very rich. Still feel the same way today, damn it.

[ThomWV]

10. I Believe the Average Family Income Is Considerably Less Than $100,000

It seems to me that I heard a family of 4 averaged out at close to 50 grand these days, nationwide.

[redqueen]

11. Average people don't exist anymore, apparently.

[movie_girl99]

15. check this out

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html

[BlueEyedSon]

16. I don't think the average person has a Benz & pays out of pocket for Yale,

Harvard, etc.

This discussion is not about "average".

[Renew Deal]

13. I would agree with that.

But, I live in NY.

[Fescue4u]

19. Sounds about right to me.

Whats crap about it?

[HughBeaumont]

23. Maybe where home prices are vaulting.

Like DC, San Fran, NY and Mass - there, 100k is kind of minimal. In dead markets like DOH-hio, $100k a year still gets you a pretty comfortable life. For now.

Remember when $75k was a great income? That's what both of us make combined . . . and we can't get ahead to save our lives. And we don't live in an expensive area or an expensive house, or drive expensive cars by any means. If it isn't going towards our house (55 years old), it's going towards some damned three-digit emergency expense . . . every single month.

[SoCalDem]

32. and EVERY car repair seems to cost a minimum of $300

no matter what's wrong with it:(

[BlueEyedSon]

24. So basically, the dollar has devalued by half since the 50's/60's

when "6-figure salary" was the benchmark of a particular lifestyle.....

[davekriss]

262. Average yearly inflation last century

1900 through 2000 was about 4.1% (I'm at work, don't ask me to look up a link!). By the rule of 78's, that means the value of a dollar has halved every 20 years. That means a $100,000 income in 2000 is equivalent to about $50,000 in 1980 and $25,000 in 1960 and $12,500 in 1940.

Rather than wrestle over nominal dollars vs. real, more importantly is the distribution of wealth and income by segments of population. I recommend, for a quick look, that anyone interested look at www.inequality.org, which shows that since the beginning of the Reagan Revolution in 1981 almost all real gain in value has gone to the top 10% of our population, and the overwhelming majority of that to the top 0.5%. The middle 20% has basically treaded water, and the bottom 40% has lost ground.

Look it up. Things have not been good for the vast majority of us while we let the robber-barons of capitalism sweep us off our feet with Horatio Alger prayers at the altar of economic efficiency.

In other words, we have been increasingly robbed of the economic value our work has created while a thin sliver at the top increasingly rewarded themselves -- and, meanwhile, they amassed $8 trillion in federal debt in our names! They threw themselves a luxurious party an intend to leave us with the bill (in the form of depressed future economic activity, transfers of wealth from those who create it to those who control it, reduced social safety nets, reduced social security benefits, etc. etc. etc. -- a f*cking travesty, if you ask me!!).

[MsTryska]

25. If by making $100K, they mean

2 people making $50K each. I can see that.



remember housing has inflated to where 500K houses are apparently normal suburban boxes.

[sadiesworld]

28. Which is why Wes Clark and John Kerry had it right when they

called for the * tax cuts to be repealed for those making over $200K per year. And why those calling for raising the SS cap to $130K per year are wrong. Piss off the blue staters at your peril, dems.

[SoCalDem]

30. Hey.. sign ME up for the "unwanted $100K".. I'll gladly accept

less than the "new norm":)

[lastliberalintexas]

34. Don't take the bait, people

Yes, a family with an income of $100,000 is comfortable, and doesn't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from. But they aren't wealthy, and they usually aren't the ones hurting the family trying to survive on $30,000 a year. The $100K family can be just as devastated by medical bills and unemployment as the $30K family.

Focus your energies where they should be- on the Ruling Elite who love to see the rabble divided and attacking one another. After all, THEY know what Class Warfare is truly about- and you can bet your ass that they aren't worried about those making a measly $100,000.

[redqueen]

53. Oh give me a frickin' break!

It's not the lower classes resentment that keeps the elites in charge is it? No, it's the contentedness of the middle class... the ones who ate up all that NAFTA bullshit when Clinton was the one hawking it to us.

I agree that we shouldn't unduly blame the middle class for our predicament, but lets be honest -- it's the middle class that has by and large sided with the super rich against US, not the other way around.

:grr:

[lastliberalintexas]

55. Actually, I think it's a 2 way street

Don't you remember during the 2000 election when Gore started talking about raising taxes on the top 2% and so many people disagreed with him? It was because about 40% of Americans though they were IN THE TOP 2%! Yes, I think many in the "middle" class have a lot to learn about their TRUE socio-economic standing in the world- the poor already know that.

The upper middle income earners need to stop thinking of themselves as better than the rest of workers (we're all workers), and the lower/lower middle class earners need to stop thinking that those making $80 or $100K a year are rich.


All I'm asking is that the energy be focused on what should be the real target- accumulated wealth is the problem, not earnings.

[redqueen]

58. You just provided an example

of how it's the middle class being the problem.

I agree that the energy should be focused on accumulated wealth, but when we're discussing earnings, it's obviously those in the middle who are being idiots because they identify with the rich. Morans.

[lastliberalintexas]

60. Sort of

I think it's a problem for both, because the upper middle class wage earners SELF identify as rich, and the lower/lower middle class wage earners ALSO identify "them" as rich. Neither is correct, though.

Even though things were a little different in his day, Karl Marx was correct in that it is the WORKERS of the world who need to unite, REGARDLESS of earnings. Workers are not the true problem, after all- capital/wealth accumulation usually is! :)

[redqueen]

61. Good point... I always call them middle class.

I can understand why poor people think those middle class are rich though... for one thing, it's hard to have a frame of reference if poor is all you've ever known... for another - far too many of the middle class friggin self-identify as rich!

:crazy:

[redqueen]

62. Good point... I always call them middle class.

I can understand why poor people think those middle class are rich though... for one thing, it's hard to have a frame of reference if poor is all you've ever known... for another - far too many of the middle class friggin self-identify as rich!

:crazy:

[sadiesworld]

128. Why is this such a difficult concept?

Surely, DUers are not so naive as to believe a New Yorker is living the high life on $100K per year? The shills must be working overtime...I can't believe that seemingly intelligent, articulate individuals would allow their focus to be misdirected from the zillionnaire laughing all the way to the bank.

[redqueen]

205. The reason why is the percentage breakdown.

The "middle class" has sided with the rich for SO LONG now, that they've enabled legislation which has resulted in the "middle class" being reduced to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

When you look at earnings by percentage, they are up there with the rich.

[redqueen]

232. Also, it's not so much jealousy about the "high life"...

it's disgust listening to those earning more than enough to get by complaining.

[Misunderestimator]

281. Who is complaining? Really... I want to know.

I see so many people complaining about people complaining about making $100,000, but I have YET to see anyone complaining about making $100,000. What did I miss?

[redqueen]

282. It's a matter of semantics.

I'm not going to call out posters for you, but I will explain so that you can go back and see what I'm talking about.

What happened was people who earn a lot of money got defensive, and decided to start itemizing what they spent so they could prove that they're not wealthy, despite earning a lot of money. In doing so, it comes off as them complaining about all the things they have to spend money on. As you can see from the exchanges that developed, those that would love to have such problems (e.g. paying for new things when they break) read the laundry list of purchases as complaints about how hard it is to have to live on 100K.

So no, if you want to be literal, no one was ACTUALLY complaining about it... however that is CLEARLY the way it reads when defensive but NOT WEALTHY people start spelling out all the things they have to spend all that money on.

[Misunderestimator]

283. I did read....and like the article, it is NOT about whether $100K is...

comfortable... it's about how much less $100,000 buys now than before. I think they were just trying to explain to those that think $100,000 is wealthy (which it is not)... why exactly it isn't. Those were not complaints.

This is ALL too personal on this thread. And it is MUCH too divisive.

[redqueen]

284. That's true of ANY amount of money.

This article, and thread, are just ridiculous.

Not only does $100K buy less than before... the same thing is true for $50K, $30K, $12K... EVERYONE is in the same boat. THAT'S why this article is idiotic.

[Misunderestimator]

185. Well put.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

39. I'm sorry

If you don't think $100,000 a year is enough money then you've had WAY, WAY too much of it.

I make $8/hr. I have no college and never in my life have I made anymore than $10/hr. My family has always been poor. I remember when I was 6 years old going to McDonalds was considered a rare and exciting going out to a nice dinner experience.

But anyway... $100,000 is a ton. When I meet people that make 30,000 a year I think "wow you're rich!".

Frankly I don't mind making what I make. I don't need money to be happy, nor do I have desire for many material things. And I certainly will not shed a tear for someone who makes $100,000, but somehow can't have a car with hub caps. On 8/hr I have a car with hub caps. Most people do not make anywhere NEAR 100,000. If that's not enough money for some people then nothing is.

[JanMichael]

57. You are correct the majority of American Households don't make near 100k.

# HOUSEHOLDS UNDER $75,000 72%

# HOUSEHOLDS UNDER $100,000 83%

# HOUSEHOLDS UNDER $150,000 92%

# HOUSEHOLDS UNDER $200,000 95%

# HOUSEHOLDS UNDER $250,000 97%

You can get the raw numbers here at the Census site.

[BurtWorm]

151. Thanks for these numbers, JanMichael.

So the "standard" single salary they're proposing would instantly qualify the bearer to an income that 95% of US households can't match.

[lectrobyte]

72. I'd love to make $100K. Admittedly, it's not what it once was, but

it'd still be pretty nice from my perspective.

[Pithlet]

80. While you're definitely not hurting at 100,000 a year

It isn't the ticket to prestige that it once was. Many in that category live in areas where it is very expensive, and 100,000 doesn't stretch very far comparatively speaking. And just as many are in debt up to their eyeballs sustaining the standard of living they think that kind of salary should give them. Someone who manages their money right and doesn't live beyond their means should do very well on 100,000, though. There's really no excuse not to.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

82. Play frisbee golf.

It's free!

[BlueEyedSon]

108. I play Ultimate, but at my age that means health insurance & such!

[Debbi801]

85. We make a little over 100k and we are No Way well off....

We do not have fancy cars, we have a Mazda MPV and a Prius, we don't live in a fancy house (it is a traditional colonial built in 1973), my older 2 kids go to public schools. But, We live in the Baltimore/Washington corridor where everything costs more. By the time we pay the mortgage, car payments, day care for the youngest, after school care for the older two (I won't do the latch key thing), etc. And then factor in insurance, groceries, and so on the money is pretty much sucked up.

We rarely go to the movies--maybe once a year, we get our books from the library, and try to be frugal any way we can. We were doing better a few years ago, until I was in an accident and my van (paid for) was totaled. Needless to say, even thought it was the other person's fault, I didn't get anywhere near enough to replace my vehicle. So, we had to add a car payment to the mix. Soon after, my husband's car died and we went from no car payments to 2 car payments.

It is funny, as a young adult, I always figured 100K was upper class. Reality is so different. I know that our money would go further if we lived elsewhere. But, odds are, we'd make less too.

Just my take on things.

[phylny]

97. Expensive area indeed. Our old house, just outside of D.C. in No. Va.

has appreciated ... ready? $275,000 since we sold it last year. In one year. That's in addition the appreciation for the preceding four years, from the time we bought to the time we sold it.

Should've held on to the sucker and rented here ;)

[Joacheme Misrahe]

107. Sorry I don't buy it

The money has to be going somewhere. You claim you're living modestly, but by my standards you're living like an English monarch. Yet you consider your self "not well off". You're obviously living outside your means if your style is tough to afford. You should have zero problems suriving easily on 100K. Those are nice cars. If you have car payments, you have nice cars.

So only your older 2 suffer the dishonor of public schools? That statement strongly suggests you have others that go to private. Fortunately they need not have to endure the association of commoners.

Insurance? If you live so modestly what exactly are you insuring at a high enough rate to count? My insurance for my 15 year old car is $50/month.

If I had $100,000 right now and no other money do you know how long it would take me to reach a balance of zero based on how I live if I had NO other income? AT LEAST 10 years.

I find it so amusing how the rich have such tough lives. The economic struggles must be hell. What shall I get? My new car or my country club membership? Damn it all I shouldn't have bought the hounds, fence, and sentry guns.

[MissB]

139. Do you own a home?

Do you pay taxes? Do you have children?

If you own a home, you pay a mortgage. You also pay property taxes and insurance. If you don't own a brand-spankin' new home, then you're replacing minor and major things each year. Just those first three items - mortgage, property taxes and insurance cost me (with a much less than average local first-time home buyer mortgage) nearly $25k per year.

I spend $1k on school fees each year for my kids. These are basic things that the school does not cover and the parents have to cough up money for.

I spend $3k each year on food costs (and that is conservative for a family of 4, because I'm growing some of my own food and cooking from scratch). If you think this is high, check out the USDA's charts on food costs. It is actually much less than the frugal option on their charts.

I'm paying nearly $20k a year in taxes.

Car insurance runs me $1600 a year. (No car payments because the cars are paid for). Maintenance on the cars runs me an additional $1k each year, if I'm lucky.

So far, we're up to over half of my yearly income. And that's just the basics of owning a home and having a small family of 4.

That doesn't include anything like gas, clothing and shoes, medical costs and emergency costs (like when the furnace goes out in the wintertime and you have to plunk down $4k). It certainly doesn't include the non-existant club membership or that payment on the non-existant shiny BMW.

Class warfare amongst the middle class and the upper middle class is stupid. Get disgusted by those dropping $150k in six months at a single boutique, not those of us making $100k a year. $100k isn't much, unless you're a poor college student with no family and no house.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

154. Do you HAVE to own a home?

Would your life be over if you had to rent for 800/month? When you decided to own a home were you not aware of the costs involved? Yet you chose to take on the debt anyway.

Do I own a home? No. I am aware of the costs involved and I know it would not be practical to even try. That's called living in your means.

You make it sound like owning a home is mandatory. Perhaps that's another mindset of those making 100K I don't relate to. Regardless, all of that cost was optional. You could easily rent for far less like millions of others do in this country though you would not have the prestige.

Should home onwership be easily affordable for someone making 100K? Yes, of course. However that is another matter entirely. If something is not affordable don't buy it.

The fact is you are still in the top 10%, yet it's so hard for you. If you were making 10,000-30,000 a year like millions in this country what would you do? Suicide like the great depression? We can get by with out being in major debt, but the top 10% has a tough time?

It's only hard for you because you decided to take on optional debts.

[MissB]

156. Real estate is just like any other financial investment

It should only be considered if it benefits you financially. If it doesn't, then one should probably not consider it.

Selling the property at some point in the future is just one more way to help fund a comfortable retirement. Putting that money towards rent won't help our family reach our financial goals.

That is true of most people that invest in real estate, no matter where they fall on the income spectrum.

I've never stated that making $100k is hard, have I? I'm merely trying to point out that it isn't all Mercedes and caviar like some apparently think it is. My life isn't much different from yours. I still pay bills each month. My money does not yet work for me.

Class wars between the middle class and the upper middle class are stupid. If you're still working for your money like my family is, then you're in the same boat as I am. If your money is working for you, then great! You've made it. Time to hire the maid.

(Oh, and I can't really see much prestige in my plywood cabinets or my appliances from 1962. If you can, more power to you.)

[Misunderestimator]

194. So you advocate that everyone should rent instead of fighting the

inequities of home ownership? That's your solution to live within your means? What happens when you get old and cannot work any longer? What happens when you can no longer afford to pay rent?

You do realize that a big reason most people buy homes is so that they will be mainly paid for when they are older and have a more fixed (and lower) income, right?

It's odd that you would advocate for people to rent apartments instead of owning their own homes, instead of discussing why someone who would have very recently been considered well off cannot afford a home in our economy.

Should home onwership be easily affordable for someone making 100K? Yes, of course. However that is another matter entirely. No, it is not another matter at all. It is the subject of this thread.

[conflictgirl]

166. No, it totally depends on where you live

We are supporting a family of 5 on about $50K a year and we feel pretty damn comfortable. Granted, our cars are 4 and 8 years old, but we have a very nice house in a neighborhood with good schools and a little bit of money in savings.

$100K a year would enable us to get hybrid vehicles and set up college funds for the kids, so I guess if you consider not having enough money for those things "poor", then we are. But in some areas $100K is still a hell of a lot of money.

[Biased Liberal Media]

178. Actually to those making under 25k a year it is

and to me, someone in the "middle class" bracket is usually making UNDER $100k. I'm not unrealistic. I've lived in a high-cost area in the past making it on ONE income (under $20k a year) for a family of three. Now we're under $25k/year and one of those in our family happens to be a five-year old. The average income in my county (which is in WA state) is $27,000/year IIRC and the average price of a house is now up to $250k. We can't afford it, but do you think for one minute because we're not homeowners we don't have other expenses?? Wrong. There's rent, groceries, bills, car insurance, gas, and we do not have money leftover usually. We're piddling away $25 at a time when we CAN afford it.

We are also one of the millions who cannot afford medical insurance and I have medical problems which we cannot afford to treat. I'm currently a full-time college student and am hoping to up our income to be able to afford THAT and a home.

However, with that said, I am not complaining. Times have been tougher for us, but we are doing okay now. I just hate to hear when those making $100k a year whine and complain that it's hard to make it on that income. I'm sorry, but I've been in an area where the average cost of a home was $700k and about 90% of our income went to rent. I could MAKE $100k work VERY easily.

[Debbi801]

187. Thank you, something else I forgot to mention in my post...

In the past 2 years, we have needed to replace the water heater, and all the kitchen appliances which were the originals with the house (30 + years old). Prior to that, we needed to replace the roof and the washer and dryer (also original with the house). This year, the A/C died. Luckily, it was minor, because this is also the original unit.

[Debbi801]

186. Who are you to judge me?

I love my kids schools and would not put them in private schools, even if I could afford it. I mentioned that my kids were in public schools to point out that money was not going for private school. In my area, private school costs Up wards of 15K a year. Several are in the 20-25K range.

Our house is not big, in fact my 2 sons share a bedroom. And no, I am not saying that to whine about my house. We were lucky to buy it when we did 5 years ago. Do you know what a 3 bedroom 1800 square foot house in this area goes for? The house next door just sold for almost 500K!!!!!!!!!

When I mention insurance, I was including health and car insurance. My kids have many allergy problems as do I. On top of the insurance, there are co-pays, deductibles, prescription drugs, etc. Not to mention braces, religious school on Sundays, fees for the kids to play a sport through our local rec council.

You try living in a city where the cost of living is high. Country clubs? You must be joking. We do splurge and belong to the Y. That way, kids' camp is a little less expensive and we can take them swimming in the summer. Oh, and we have a dog that is not in the best of health and sucks up a lot of money too.

Our clothes come from Target, thrift shops, and Ebay, other than one nice outfit for each kid each year to wear to synagogue.

Sorry, I do not consider us rich by any stretch of the imagination. Nor do I appreciate the way you are speaking to me.

[Misunderestimator]

195. Well, if you cannot afford insurance, just don't buy it.

:sarcasm:

[Debbi801]

196. Ok.

:-)

:hi:

[Misunderestimator]

197. :)

:hi:

[Misunderestimator]

193. "The rich?" Why are you so combative about this subject?

You say that someone making 100K lives like a Monarch, you belittle anything they say to refute that idea. You are "amused" by the conversation.

The point here is that $100,000 doesn't represent comfort and wealth the way it used to. Not that $100,000 isn't a good income. It is. Much the same as $40,000 used to be a good income.

Arguing about whether that salary makes one rich only divides us in our purpose to better the situation for everyone. Republicans sure aren't going to help there. It's up to us. And we can't get there by tearing eachother apart.

[BurtWorm]

153. This is a very interesting thread because of posts like this.

I notice that most DUers who put themselves in the $100,000 household range are talking of dual-income families--or potentially dual-income families. And it's very interesting to note that six-figure households are not doing as well as Americans were generally doing in the 1990s.

We too are dual income, living in NYC. She's a social worker and I'm an editor, so we don't even break $100,000 together; but we don't own a car and we live in a rent stabilized apt--and we're struggling, mainly because of child care, which eats nearly a quarter of our combined monthly income. We're well in the top 20-25% of household incomes, according to the census data JanMichael posted above, but we oftentimes scrape by to get to the next paycheck.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. You forget that the "keep up with the Joneses" standards have

also gone through the roof.

Yes, kids are expensive, but they're more expensive if you feel compelled to make them jump through all the yuppie hoops, putting them in private schools and four extra-curricular activities, not to mention sports camp in the summer, and dressing them in designer clothes and giving them their own phones and their own TVs and their own stereos and their own computers and all the latest games and other playthings and then their own cars the minute they turn 16. Not to mention buying a jumbo house that would have been two houses in the 1950s and 1960s and at least one SUV or minivan, because you can't take your children anywhere in an ordinary car--or what? All the other soccer moms (who were probably "Heathers" in high school) would laugh at you?

What I see are parents who grew up over-indulged and materialistic who think their children have to be even more pampered.

$100,000 a year? Get those people some food stamps! :sarcasm:

[MissB]

95. Yeahhhh....

I see that a lot where I live. I don't buy into the keeping up with the Joneses stuff and I do pause for a minute now and then to reflect how fortunate I am to be able to put my kids in really good school district.

Yeah, my kids don't get dropped off in a Hummer or a limo, but they get a good education. Yeah, we don't jet off to France or Africa during spring break, but camping is kinda fun.

I do a double take when I learn that a fellow mom has dropped in excess of $150k at a single boutique so far this year. I like my life and cannot imagine such a moneyed one.

I've seen bored kids and excessive celebrations. It's all fascinating as hell, but not my type of life. I prefer "normal".

[dave29]

91. I snort coke using ben franklins

off of dead hookers three times daily. But I donate an equal amount to charity

[newblewtoo]

104. "I snort coke using ben franklins"

"I snort coke using ben franklins"
Posted by dave29
off of dead hookers three times daily. But I donate an equal amount to charity


Not Yuppie Food Stamps ( those crisp Jackson 20's from the ATM )?


Dave, dude, Hundreds are so Seventies....how gauche..... ;~)

[dave29]

192. hey I don't tell you how to snort coke

off of dead hookers ;)

[fujiyama]

183. OMFG!

LOL, I just burst out laughing reading your post. :rofl:

Thanks I needed that.

[dave29]

191. anytime!

except for when I'm snorting coke off of dead hookers

[krkaufman]

93. Reading the article... Standard == Standard *Executive* salary

Article appears to be discussing the standard executive salary, not one for commoners, thus the emphasis on Mercedes Benz and Yale.

[SlightlyWorried]

99. I totally agree with the article.

200k is the new standard for upper middle class. Both my wife and I make over 100k yet we do not drive fancy cars, she has a camry and I have a mitsubishi and both cars are over 6 years old. We live in a decent house but it is no great shakes. We don't even have a country house.

We live just like what you would expect from middle class people from the 70s.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

111. BAHAHAHAHA

"We don't even have a country house."

You mean you don't EVEN HAVE a country house? Not EVEN one? Well, what do you do when the commoners mistake you for one of them? Surely you strike them down or release the hounds on them I hope.

[SlightlyWorried]

116. It was more common than you would think

I said it that way since in the 1960's and 1970's many families lived in the city and then had country houses for the summer time. It was not uncommon to see a couple, perhaps a teacher and a office worker, who owned a house and country house. Today that is far less common.

Perhaps you were not around during those times. It was not that long ago.

[madmark]

105. Quite frankly $200,000 doesn't really cut it either

[AuntPatsy]

109. Completely agree, which is why it makes me sick to see the

minimum wage so disgustingly low and these idiots that make the rules see nothing wrong with it? And they wonder why people need to get on medicade and assistance even if they are working....

[madmark]

129. Morgan Spurlock is going to do a tv show on fx where

he lives for 30 days on minimum wage. It ought to illustrate your point. That said, even doubling minimum wage is not going to restore a middle class lifestyle to the majority of Americans. Third world wage competition and the foriegn capital buying t-bills and fueling housing speculation (both driving the housing bubble) are putting a stake in it.

[SW FL Dem]

245. It previews tonight on FX - should be interesting.

[Beaverhausen]

110. well then 95% of america isn't cutting it

If you can't make it on $200,000 you are doing something wrong.

[madmark]

118. Well one can subsist on 200k

But not high on the hog. And for people that do not make that kind of money, 95% of the US, I do not know how they make it. I think this growing domestic housing bubble coupled with third world wage competition is going to destroy whats left of the facade that we have functional middle class unless the economic equivalent of the internet gets discovered again this decade.

[Beaverhausen]

123. How do they make it? They live within their means

Amazing how we do it, isn't it? :eyes:

[Sapphire Blue]

124. I 'subsist' on considerably less than $200k.... and don't care for hogs

[Sapphire Blue]

119. What the fuck are you cutting... diamonds or platinum???

I could support my family and a few neighbors' families on $200k.

[madmark]

135. What do mean cutting? If you mean cutting back your actually bringing to

mind specific example. I actually wanted a platinum watch and was looking around for one and it turned out that I could not afford one. That's what I mean not being able to live high on the hog. You'd have to make like $500,000 to afford something like that. The bar just gets set higher.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

137. Oh no

No platinum watch. It's a crime against humanity.

[Sapphire Blue]

146. Oh, God, I hope your post is meant to be sarcastic!

If not, perhaps you just need to work harder to become a 'have or a have more' so you can buy that platinum watch. :sarcasm:

By asking WTF you're cutting, I was referring to your comment: 105. Quite frankly $200,000 doesn't really cut it either

I don't care for hogs... either the four-legged or the two-legged variety. Two feet planted firmly on the ground works for me... along with a cheap Timex watch.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

158. you're joking, right?

[Beaverhausen]

206. Please tell us you are kidding!!!

[toddaa]

117. 100K and the house of cards

My wife and I manage a bit over this magic mark of 6 figure income (put together, that is). But we're both ITers living in an age where job security means we know what we will be doing next week, not next month. The basic premise of our lifestyle is that we're both going to lose our jobs any minute now. It's a house of cards. A slight breeze and the whole thing will come crashing down.

We're upper middle class one pink slip or medical emergency away from being destitute.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

121. Stop spending

and pay all debt ASAP.

Many people who make 100k+ lose a job and have all the debt from living over their means (see many posts above) come crashing down on them.

The only way to avoid that fate is to pay all debt and lower the life style.

[madmark]

132. Its sound advice and there are many successful entreprenuers

that follow that frugal model. However, there are other types, entrepreneurs, professionals, others, for whom spending is part of the fuel that drives the performance that drives the income. I'm not saying its right, or that's how it should be, but lord knows for many its how it is.

[toddaa]

133. We're doing that

And I've figured that we could lose my wife's salary, and we'd be very tight, but still okay. Her job is far more tenuous than mine. Last year, we ended up having to buy a new car to replace the old junker, which we were tired of dumping 3k a year into just to keep running. Apart from that, the cards are paid down and no vacations this year. I think we're fine, but I who knows what the future holds. We don't live beyond our means by any stretch, but we could always be more frugal.

Look on the bright side, when Peak Oil hits, we'll all be in the same boat.

[MissB]

145. Even those of us with modest investments

and retirement savings aren't that far away from financial ruin. It takes one big job loss and one big medical disaster for most families.

Other than mortgage debt, we don't have debt. You're not being realistic if you think that making $100k a year and owning a home in my area means I'm living above my means. It is actually quite laughable, considering I've calculated the cost of my making focaccia bread (hey, only 12 cents a loaf!!! Woohoo) and raise chickens. :rofl:

I can't cushion enough from losing a breadwinner from some horrible medical disaster. No one can. Don't fool yourself.

$100k isn't some magical mark where you start hiring housekeepers and limo drivers and going to the club for Sunday brunch. It may mean a more comfortable living in certain parts of the country, but in an urban area with high housing costs, that $100k does dick.

[donheld]

155. I demand back pay

If $200,000 is the new standard i have a hell of a lot of back pay coming to me.

[BiggJawn]

161. Where's my fucking FOOD STAMPS????

If 100 kilobucks gets you an old Hoopdy with no hubcaps, then a pissy-assed $39,000 ought to get me some damn food stamps!

Stupid yuppies pissing about not having a Rolex for every day of the week when I make do with a $19 Timex...Fukkem!

[kineneb]

168. I get them first!

I get $17K with no benefits and Hubby is applying for disability. We alread qualify for low-income stuff. We may actually qualify for food stamps. I intend to apply.

[BiggJawn]

188. You probably will.

Go for it. You work, your hubby worked, you paid your taxes, you EARNED those benefits.
Good luck!

[Jamison]

169. If you're not making it on 100K/yr...

then you don't know how to budget IMO.

My wife and I make it on 40K/yr. combined. Granted we still rent a cheap apartment, drive old beaters, eat a lot of Mac & Cheese and Ramen, and only do free leisure activities like parks, ballgames on TV, etc.

[davepc]

172. People live to their means

or in the immortal words of Sean Combs: Mo' Money, Mo' Problems.

The intra-class warfare in this thread makes me sick.

As peoples income levels rise, their levels of consumption rise. People who make more money spend more money.

Very very very rare and few is the person who makes 100,000 but who lives to the level of some one making 40,000.

And if the person who makes 40,000 soon found themselves making 100,000 more often then not they'd start to spend to the level of a person making 100,000. Of course, just most of the people making less then 100,000 in this thread excluded. They'd know not to do any such thing.

[NMMNG]

174. $200k a year?

:rofl:

Take both of my full-time jobs together, multiply the combined salaries plus some overtime by six and that equals around $200k in a year.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

175. Here's my situation:

I was recently laid off, but had a promising interview today, so let's assume I get that job and have the same salary (pre-tax, about $30,000 in Los Angeles):

Pros: No wife, no kids, no pets, no large health insurance payments, generally good health, low gas expenses, no student loans, no car payments

Cons: Credit card debt, $700 monthly rent for a studio apt

The rent eats up 40% of my after-tax income right off the bat. With the CC debt (my fault), it's hard too save up too much. And living in Los Angeles, I'd have to be crazy to even try to buy a house here.

Of course, I need to manage my finances better, but I would GLADLY take $100K a year and be happy. I'm not into new cars or clothes or whatever new overpriced crap is out there.

But to lighten this thread up, I'd like to quote Chris Rock from his most recent special:

"Shaquille O'Neal is rich. The white man who signs his check is wealthy. Oprah Winfrey is rich. Bill Gates is wealthy. If Bill Gates woke up tomorrow with Oprah Winfrey's money, he'd jump out the fucking window!"

[earth mom]

176. If you can't make it on $100K....

then something is seriously wrong. To me, 100K is the point where life is easy, no worries, no stress. Try living on a quarter that or half that which my DH and I have done and are doing. The real difference is that people making 100K have absolutely no idea what it is like to juggle bills and constantly rob Peter to pay Paul. They have not a clue what it's like to struggle on a daily basis with the continual worry about losing a home, a car, the electricity, or having to turn to the last resort of pawning the wedding rings or floating checks to cover a bill.

I don't feel sorry for anyone who says 100K is not enough when they can still take nice vacations, still afford elegant dinners out every week or even those who live frugally but have money saved in the bank. What a luxury it would be for us to go to our "savings" for unexpected bills or OMG! "splurges".

Savings? Oh yeah, it's all those pennies in my sons piggy bank. :eyes:

[Maine-ah]

181. I think this depends on where you live.

we make 50-60k a year, it's a little tight but we do ok. Now, my brother in law, (former) makes 100k a year, lives in N.H. He does way better than we do. Owns a huge home, new car ect....

Now, 100k obviously wouldn't go far in say, California or New York. But up here I would be rich.

[trebizond]

182. my minimum-wage earning heart bleeds

:puke:

[MidnightWind]

202. I'd be damn happy making half of 100K a year!

WTF?

[DemocracyInaction]

203. Your time is coming---when you get "outsourced". You see,....

..the new prey is the white collar worker. They cost too damn much. First corporations gutted and destroyed blue collar jobs and white collar yawned, scratched their asses and said "they probably deserve it". Now the crosshairs are on the white collar. It's only a matter of time before you wonder where even your mere $100k went. Looking for another $100k job when you are like over the hill (above say 35 years old)will be impossible. Sounds like a lot of you will have to think of real creative ways to make that hamburger flipping money stretch (by the by--report says that teens cannot find jobs this summer due primarily to laid off white collars taking all the jobs). You right now are right at the top of the American Dream Bubble and it's going to blow within the next 10 years.

[Pockets]

204. In a Democratic group

I would expect there to be more empathy for individuals working their butts off for survival wages of 16-20k. But I rarely see it.

Those folks often have the added experience of seeing their credit rating shot to hell because of the radical desire to, maybe once, buy clothes from someplace other than K-mart, or buy a bed to sleep on, or pay the phone bill. As a result they pay the rest of their lives and probably will never actually own a home.

But alas you'll find everywhere people who are complacent with the notion that low wage earners are just meant to live that way, they are not a part of the manifest destiny crowd to which high paid pity mongers belong.

[Sapphire Blue]

215. What's empathy?

The underclass is typically invisible to the privileged class... receiving occasional acknowledgment during the Thanksgiving or Christmas seasons when the privileged class is kind enough to bestow food bank donations upon them... wonderfully nutritious items like ramen noodles and macaroni & cheese. :sarcasm: Well, guess what? There are people in this country who are hungry right now and many food bank pantries are empty.

The privileged class has historically taken for granted that all of their needs will be met and all selected luxuries will be affordable. A financial dilemma might be which model of hybrid car to buy. When they can't afford the $500k house, it's a tragedy. When a low-income family is evicted from their home because the wage earner was laid off and can't pay the rent, and living in the family car (if they are fortunate to have one), well, so what? The privileged class closes their eyes to the suffering of their neighbor and keeps whining about having to buy their $400k house instead of the $500k one that they wanted. We should feel empathy for them, don't you think? :sarcasm:

[redqueen]

231. I think I get the logic...

Since the poor have more of an idea of suffering, they should be used to it... so an eviction or having your utilities cut off is no big deal, to them.

The "middle class", however, they are comfortable (at least somewhat), and will be more significantly impacted by such horrors as having to do without... so they deserve more sympathy.

[Sapphire Blue]

248. The $200k 'middle class' will get my sympathy when they know WTF it's like

... to look into the face of their hungry child and know that their fucking cupboards are bare... or the only thing they have to feed them is crackers. A child does not get used to hunger pangs, and for a parent making minimum wage, looking into this child's eyes is a pain that sears one's soul.

When the privileged class can ignore anyone's hungry child and whine about having to buy a $400k house instead of a $500k house, I have nothing but disdain.

[redqueen]

253. THIS is what those asking for solidarity apparently don't realize.

Explaining to your children why they can't have the cereal they want (because you have to get your cereal from the food bank) is another fun experience they'll never understand, hopefully.

:pals:

[NYPagan]

208. I make about 15 thousand dollars a year

Selling spells and blessings. I woudl like to know why these people NEED so much, and why do they think they shoudl be able to keep it. There are plenty of people on this planet who coudl use it much better than they could. It's not fair.

[Pockets]

209. Compared to the rest of the world

15k a year would be well off. 100k a year is in the stratosphere.

Yes, property prices are ridiculous but who's fault is that, the rich who drive up prices by reselling property, or charge rents to tenants who are paying their mortgages and other expenses. Personally I think housing prices should be much more regulated (for another topic).

[4 t 4]

214. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH JOACHEME.............

I don't think many of you are getting the point. There is a HUGE, HUGE difference between really hardly having ANY MONEY to but food and having to buy food within your budget be it 10k to fucking 100 million. The difference is "Pay attention here" between pretty much having NOTHING and having whatever the fuck else $110,00 dollar house a $200,000 house a 4 million dollar house or almost NOTHING -food ,clothing, money. Those are the people we should be thinking about and helping. Or maybe thats just me....

[Pockets]

219. Any affluenza sufferers?

Affluenza

Definition: extreme materialism which is the impetus for accumulating wealth and for overconsumption of goods; also, feelings of guilt and isolation from the dysfunctional pursuit of wealth and goods.

Example: Affluenza is the social disease caused by consumerism, commercialism, and rampant materialism and its antidote is simple living.

[NYPagan]

256. Landlords are the scum of the earth!

Mine is easily a republican.

[Yavin4]

216. Geography Is Everything

$100K a year in NYC DOES NOT MAKE you rich. It does not make you poor either, but you are lower middle class. Rents on a studio apartment here go for on average, $1900, a month.

[Pockets]

217. $1900 rent = $77,000 left over

Still more money than most even imagine making.

Since these folk are lower middle class, I guess that gives them a free pass from ever considering living with a relative for a year, and maybe then donating $40k to a village that's starving somewhere.

[SlightlyWorried]

218. Uhm, what?

So how much do you think that person making 100k in New York is paying in taxes? Let's see probably something like oh 48% for every marignal dollar and let's say an overall tax of something like 40%. So that's 60k. Subtract the 23k. Ok now we are down to 37k.

Don't forget it's expensive to live in the big city. You own a car? parking is going to hurt.

I can totally see how 100k is lower middle class in new york.

[Pockets]

223. I forgot

I took taxes into consideration, which is why I said $40k and not $77k.

Look, if someone is so great as to be worth $100k/year, certainly they can figure out how to live on a budget.

I mean 90% of people are so lowly that they could not even begin to contemplate the strategics or thought processes of those who wouldn't even piss on $60k, the lowest of the low who would be thrilled at the thought of making $25k a year, barely worth thinking about.

[Misunderestimator]

235. Why are you trying to split people apart with such black/white judgements?

:shrug:

"if someone is so great"... "90% of people are so lowly"... as if people in this bracket must consider themselves superior and others lowly. Why that language? Simply because someone makes $100K, you judge them as judgmental, materialistic assholes?

How about the very real problem that $100K, which is a LOT of money, is barely enough to survive in many of our cities. That fewer people will be able to contribute money or time to charities and progressive politics because they have to work more hours for less money. That fewer and fewer families can afford to own their own homes? That fewer and fewer people can save money so that they will not have to work until they drop dead.

The problems of the poor still exist, and are worsening. But to compare those issues to this is counter-productive. We're all in this together.

[Misunderestimator]

220. Sure, if that's a tax-free $100K.

Take away federal, state and city/local taxes, quite high in NYC, and you're left with something more like $40,000. And when you take away necessity items, such as food and clothing, which are also much more costly in NYC... you are left with precious little.

Let's not exaggerate this. Of course a family could consider moving in with a relative (if they even have a relative willing to take them) to save money. But why on earth should that have to be a choice?

This isn't about whether it's better to give to the poor... of course the world would be a better place if everyone was completely selfless and charitable. That's another subject. Bringing that moral argument into this conversation doesn't seem really constructive to me.

[Pockets]

225. How do people making that much justify it?

Unless they actually constructed and own their own business, do they really believe that they are somehow worth more than 90% of everyone else in the U.S. and 99.9% of the people on Earth? Do they think they are inherently superior? Really. To say $100k is lower middle class, let's see, I guess is probably more likely some squeaky wheel get the grease phenomenon.

[Misunderestimator]

228. I don't get why you are arguing this way.

This is not a conversation about socialism.

[redqueen]

229. Look at it differently...

it's not that they're not worth more than anyone else... it's that everyone else is being royally screwed by the TRULY wealthy.

We can't fight the "middle class", because they're not the enemy... they should be our allies against the people screwing all of us...

[Misunderestimator]

230. Exactly.

[redqueen]

233. I understand this very well, however...

those who are middle class should avoid complaining about their situation... I doubt any who haven't lived in poverty can understand just how aggravating and insulting that is.

[Misunderestimator]

236. I don't think that anyone is complaining. The thread is much more general

than that, even though people keep trying to make it personal. It's simply about the fact that $100,000 isn't going very far these days for a lot of families. It's a good conversation to have.

[redqueen]

246. Doesn't that go without saying?

If there are increasing numbers of malnourished children showing up... not to mention fewer jobs, lower salaries, fewer jobs with pensions, etc... isn't it just obvious that money doesn't go as far... for *everyone*?

Isn't it also obvious that threads complaining about how it's harder to get into good neighborhoods and whatever are really insulting to those who REALLY ARE struggling?

[Misunderestimator]

250. Yes, but I don't think this thread is "complaining"...

it's just stating the facts of where our economy is right now.

[redqueen]

254. I see your point.

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective. :shrug:

[MissB]

268. It isn't *just* a matter of perspective

People can go around and bash those of us that make that oh-so-magical $100k/year figure, especially if it makes them feel better.

If some people on this thread want to get into class warfare, then us "snotty $100k+/year" people can look down and wonder why poorer people aren't managing their money better.

That's nice, isn't it? Nice assumptions that I've just made there about people with less income than my family.

To be perfectly serious, I'd never say that about people making the median salary (or less than the median salary). And frankly, it'd be really nice if people would stop thinking that we're complaining about getting by on $100k.

My main point in this thread has been that not all of those people making $100k+ a year are looking to plunk their money down on things that will make them look like they are wealthy. We're not all evil, corrupt assholes. We aren't all just looking out for ourselves.

I'm very careful with the money that our family makes. I've been careful with it through the years - back when we were pulling in a small fraction of what we pull in now. I'm damned happy that I can contribute some of my money to causes that are near and dear to my heart.

I'll say it again: class warfare between the middle class and the upper middle class is stupid. Making assumptions about those that make bigger salaries than the average Americans isn't exactly heartwarming for me to read.

So turn it around. What sort of assumptions do you specifically want us to make for those of you that make less than $100k/year? What would be fair for us to assume? Should we assume that those that make less than that amount are lazy? Help me out here.

Do you get it? Class warfare amongst the vast middle class is stupid.

[redqueen]

269. That was uncalled for and misguided.

Have you seen me making assumptions about "middle class" people?

It IS a matter of perspective... whether or not these people are complaining about not being able to afford nice homes in nice neighborhoods... listing the things they own and stating that it's not that great (when to MANY it's a FUCKING DREAM COME TRUE)... yeah... that most certainly is a matter of perspective!

[MissB]

271. Not at all.

My previous post wasn't just directed to you, redqueen.

I was struck by a few of your posts, though. Like the one (#231) where you were talking about the apparent logic of the privileged class. Apparently, the privileged class thinks that "since the poor have more of an idea of suffering, they should be used to it... so an eviction or having your utilities cut off is no big deal, to them."

Which is wrong. Not all members of the privileged class think that way about those making the median salary or less than the median salary.

I just think that it is stupid for any of us to engage in middle class warfare on DU. So what if someone makes more than another? We cannot possibly know everything about that family - we don't know how far down the ladder of the middle class they started, or even if they had a leg on even a rung of the middle class to begin with. We don't know whether they tithe a big percentage of their salary to their church, or if they are committed to donating tens of thousands of dollars each year to progressive charities.

The assumptions about those making more than $100k a year astound me.

I just want to know where the hell my platinum watch is? Where is my Mercedes Benz? Hmmm?? Gee, I make more than $100k/year, so clearly I am entitled to it, right? :sarcasm:

It seems counter-productive to curse those that have achieved the American Dream. So some of them have arrived. Big deal. Maybe they'll do something worthwhile with their money. Maybe they won't. But pitting fellow Democrats against each other based on how much money they make? Not good.

[redqueen]

272. Were you struck by that one?

Not surprising, since it was inspired by yours:

"Both "classes" are just one really bad medical incident or job loss away from complete poverty. The working comfortable just have a harsher fall because the working poor are already much closer (or in) poverty."

It is stupid to engage in class warfare... so the middle class should stop fighting the poor and realize how fucking good they have it and stop being so fucking defensive about being called on it. YES we should all have it better... but that does NOT mean that people who are doing better than... what is it... 90% of the rest of us?... should be surprised when people are offended that they complain about their meager two new cars that cost them oh-so-much.

[MissB]

275. What two new cars?

There are those assumptions again.

See, I watched the Affluenza special on PBS years ago. I gave up a car that I loved, because I realized I didn't "need" it any any way.

Why assume that those of us making $100k+ a year have two new cars that cost "oh-so-much"? It is just another misconception about people that make a certain amount of money.

I happen to agree that we should all have it better. Apparently I'm supposed to be greedy instead. *insert rolleyes smilie here*

You did interpret my comment on the harshness of the fall. I'm not going to bother to try to straighten out your perception, since you apparently want to see those of us making some magical amount of money as evil. Just continue to feel burned by others apparently living some mystical high-class life.

Classify missb under the category of greedy bitch. I'll never be able to live up to that expectation, but go for it.

Class warfare between the middle class is stupid. May you find peace with whatever salary you happen to earn.

[redqueen]

279. Not assumptions.

That is based on information in other posts in this thread... not directed at you personally.

I don't know why you assume that I have you pigeonholed or want to pigeonhole you as anything. Not all people earning 100K are the same. One thing that you can safely assume, however, is that they are relatively comfortable. That's all. I don't feel burned... I don't know where you get that impression, either. You apparently aren't reading my posts in this thread, and are attributing things others have said to me. I don't know why you'd do that, though.

As I said in the post you replied to, class warfare between the middle class and lower *is* stupid. However, the onus of keeping the peace between those classes does not in any way rest entirely on the poor. That's my only point. Discussing what a struggle it is to get by on $100K is insulting and offensive. Period.

[Yavin4]

224. Let Me Give You An Example of NYC Cost of Living

I just dropped off two shirts and two pair of pants at the dry cleaners. These are regular shirts and pants, no fancy fabric or anything. Guess how much this will cost?

[Beaverhausen]

226. You can't wash them yourself?

sorry - I just had to say that!

[Sapphire Blue]

234. You beat me to it!

:hi:

Damn, I still do my own laundry... what's wrong with me?!?!

[Yavin4]

241. Yes, I do My Own Laundry, But Some Things You Have To Dry Clean

You can't wash everything. These clothes are the only ones that I dry clean.

[Yavin4]

247. $13.40

That's what two pair of pants and two shirts cost to dry clean.

[Pockets]

227. More than what many make in a day I'm sure.

Might as well ask me how much your BMW payment is. Don't know, don't care.

(Edit: Sorry about the hostility. I wonder where all the high cost of living money in NYC is going. Maybe to he Bin Ladens?)

[4 t 4]

239. MOST EVERYONE IS BEING SCREWED

thats why i think we should look out for the people below us. Things are really screwed up right now, everyone needs to pull together help out others and be really happy for what they have and realize life is different and really sucks under the evil republican rule

[redqueen]

243. "life is different and really sucks under the evil democratic rule"

:wtf:

[Pockets]

251. Maybe a troll?

I have to admit that I have no more trust in Dems than Cons when it comes to who I would would want as an employer. Dems can be just as greedy, in my experience. But in terms of government I think it's clear Democrats are much more competent.

[redqueen]

252. I'm curious as to what that meant.

I'll agree Democrats are no great shakes when it comes to helping the poor, but they've done SO much more than Republicans... it's not even close!

[4 t 4]

255. WTF IS RIGHT

I'm so shot! I'm at work and kinda busy and I meant republican rule sorry sorry

[Yavin4]

242. I don't own a car

I live like a pauper. I have roommates, and I take public transportation.

[Pockets]

257. Again... I'm sorry

about being hostile and jealous of your situation. It's not a habit of mine to act that way. I usually just accept the fact that some people are lowly and worthless, others are worth $100k+, and remember not to question it... there I go again being sarcastic.

Seriously, you are correct that the high cost of living on some places is unacceptable.

[Susang]

277. Pockets, Pockets, Pockets.....

And here you told me that you LIKED people from New York! }(

[question everything]

244. The subject line is misleading. s/b the new standard for indulgence

for living in macmansions and owning at least extra one, eating out every night at expensive restaurants, driving new cars, preferably macmonsters and taking expensive vacations several times a year.

[GoldenOldie]

258. Even with the Best Laid Plans??

It can only take one major illness to wipe your savings out.

There have been many couples that have maintained 2 jobs with extremely high salaries, invested wisely, planned for their children's future but tragedy can strike at any time and to anyone.

If one of the couples or both lose their jobs and with it any health care benefits and a serious illness occurs to either them or to their children.......I have seen this happen to a professional woman (heart failure, age 43 and her 17 yr old son, cancer)....it can wipe them out.
Even though her husband continued to work, the lack of the better health program that she had been able to obtain with her job was not able to cover the cost of medical care for her and her son. They used up the $350,000 savings and mortgaged their home, only to lose it in foreclosure. This woman's death is imminent yet she still had to fight the system to get care for her son.

The moral of this story is: Don't judge others until you have been in their shoes or you know the full story. Don't be so arrogant as to think you have all the answers until you have gone down the same path.

[question everything]

270. But this happens to many others, too many others

who are not making $200K, not even $100K. This is why we need to tackle the atrocity of what we call "health care" in this country.

But the original post was that $100K is not what it used to be. Well, too many families live on $25,000 or less.

So some perspective, especially on this board is needed.

[liontamer]

264. I guess by standard they mean gold standard

If for example you live in NYC and pay 3500 a month in rent, 25,000 a year/child for private school and you still want to eat out and travel(luxury style of course)you pretty much would have to make 200 grand a year(if you wanted to save money for your "golden years" as well.)

[noonwitch]

266. I'd be happy with $55,000 a year

I would have a lot less stress in my life.

[Nikia]

273. I realize, they mean a "wealthy" standard

Those complaining about $100,000 being poor though have no idea. Somehow, people making less than a quarter of that can survive, though, even in big cities. How do you suppose that is?

[seg4527]

278. wow. my dad makes a little over 50k a year

and my mom is an independent aflac agent who is in her first year and has yet to see a profit.

before that, she was a waitress making about 4k a year, just doing it part time to stay busy.

and we have never had a problem with money. i'm 18, going to be in my second year next year at the University of Minnesota, i'm an out of state student, so I pay full tuition (18k). My parents cover 10k a year of it.

How the hell does someone make 100k and feel a pinch? I consider my family rich. And we make half that much.

Granted, we don't live in an especially pricey part of the country. Pennsylvania, about 2 hours north ears of philly. But I go to school in the Twin Cities, and don't recall everything costing twice as much. Rent is higher, yeah. 650 for a one bedroom, but I'm near campus, so its' more than normal Twin Cities. Here a one bedroom is like 500.

And my parents have perfect credit. My dad drives a park avenue, my mom drives a buick lesabre. I drive a Honda Accord that used to be my dads.

I'm not trying to brag. I'm just saying my dad makes 50k. We have nice stuff. They have great credit. We are pretty damn well off.

I honestly don'tunderstand it.

[MXMLLN]

285. You're 18 years old ...

The financial items you've mentioned ... cars, having nice stuff, $500/month college apartment rent, $10,000.00 college tuition, good credit, ... don't even begin to touch the totality of what must be your parent's financial situation.

In addition, your parents pay a mortgage, car payments, credit card payments, utility payments, health and car insurance, federal, state, local, and property taxes ... and hopefully contribute to their retirement fund.

Do you have any idea what their total indebtedness is ? ... that will have to be paid off at some point. But, instead of doing that, they will spend the next 3-4 years shelling out at least $10,000.00/year for you to go to college.

Do you realize that after taxes, and your school costs ... your parents are probably making it on about $35,000.00 a year ?

Do you have any other siblings ... ?

Are you starting to understand ... ?

[seg4527]

286. re

my parents did inherit some money for my aunt to pay for 10,000 a year for my college and my sisters college.

they are in no debt whatsoever, except the car payments they make on one car.

my parents don't pay a mortgage. we sold our townhome in queens, new york for 150,000 about 10 years ago and bought a house in rural pa for 100,000 that is much nicer.

i understand. i don't think i'm filthy rich. but at 50k a year that my dad makes, we have not in recent memory felt a financial burden.

my dad thinks that he's rich, because when he was a kid, they had to eat soup 5 nights a week for dinner.

when we first moved to PA, and he was making 18k a year, then times were a little tough. maybe it's because both of my parents grew up poor that they can manage 50k a year so well and we can live so comfortably. i don't know. i have a hard time feeling bad for people who make 100,000 a year is all i'm saying.

[MXMLLN]

287. Inherited money is a form of wealth, ... even moreso than income.

The fact that your family inherited money kind of undercuts your argument regarding how well your dad makes it on $50,000/year ... because they (your parents) have more than $50,000 available to them per year ... right ?

[seg4527]

288. kind of.

it's available to them, in theory. they decided to use it to send both my and my sister to college, since they never had the chance.

they do have a little more they are saving up for retirement. it's not loads, though. maybe 20k. if there was ever an emergency, we are god damn lucky to have it, though.

my dad was a bus driver for most of his life, started at the company where he is now (they do truck stuff) at 9 dollars an hour when we first moved here, and now he's moved up and makes 50k. they have more available, but they don't use it. it is a nice comfort zone. back when he made 35k and had nothing in the bank, we were still doing okay though.

i understand that it is more expensive to live in cities and so forth. but if we live on 50k a year, a family of four, and manage to do pretty okay, i'm just saying i don't feel especially bad for people making 100k. twice what we do.