WDYT? Top ten percent of households (income)

[Catwoman]

Very poor choice of words, Cat. Sounds like the " 47% moochers" blunder that Romney regretted. I'm guessing you're not actually calling those in the bottom 90% "poorer than dirt". No one is hating on you and your lifestyle. I don't consider you to be elite, you simply enjoy commenting on your lifestyle.

Actually, I don't think it was a poor choice of words.

 

There often seems to be a visible prejudice on this forum toward those who are financially secure. I am surprised you haven't noticed it. Of course I wasn't referring to the bottom 90% as being poorer than dirt. You are intentionally misreading my comment.

 

And as for me "enjoying commenting on my lifestyle," I have never mentioned any specifics about our family income or bragged about taking fancy vacations. Obviously, in threads like this, it's impossible not to make vague statements about lifestyle, but I think I am probably one of the least specific people on this forum when it comes to things like that, mainly because my financial situation is no one's business.

 

Quite frankly, you have no clue as to whether or not I would qualify as "elite," and that is the way it should be.

[Murphy101]

I don't think anyone is saying that $150k isn't substantially more than the median, because it is obviously a very significant amount higher.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but what I was saying is that, where we live (and I'm sure where you live as well,) $150k isn't anywhere near enough to provide a family with an elite lifestyle.

And what I am saying is all those things you think are just normal? They are in fact elite.

 

It is elite bc only only a few people (10% or less) can have what you term as a so-called normal lifestyle. Elite is not classified by whether we think the lifestyle is luxurious or not. Elite is classified by how few can have it. The fewer that can have it, the more elite it is.

 

Now if you want to say that it should not be elite to live that lifestyle you think is just normal middle class living? I completely agree. That is actually the argument of the 90% who are not elite. a basic life with medical care, clothes, food, modest shelter and maintaining such a life without life-long stress should not be reserved to only the elite in a country that proports to be a modern first world nation.

[Catwoman]

Now if you want to say that it should not be elite to live that lifestyle you think is just normal middle class living? I completely agree. That is actually the argument of the 90% who are not elite. a basic life with medical care, clothes, food, modest shelter and maintaining such a life without life-long stress should not be reserved to only the elite in a country that proports to be a modern first world nation.

I absolutely agree with you about that. I wish I knew how to change it. Hardworking families should not have to constantly worry about paying their expenses, feeding and clothing their families, and getting good health care.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

I have no problem believing that 150K is the top 10%.  I just saw an article a few weeks ago which showed what you needed to make in your state to be in the top 1%.   For most states, that's in thee $300-400k range, with NY being above $500k.  

 

Of course, COL and number of children matters.  If I'm making 150k as a single income person, life is golden.  If I'm making 150k with 4-5 kids, it's not going to go very far.  One kid, you can afford private school.  Three or four kids, maybe not if schools cost 15-20k/year.   Even for somebody making $250k/year, taking away $80,000 of your post-tax income is going to be difficult.   But the fact that you have the luxury to even consider private school is another thing altogether.  The fact that you could spend what would be the cost of a house in some parts of the country (or maybe half of a nice house), each and every year.....that's an amazing luxury.  The fact that even with one kid, you're basically spending the cost of a new car on school, is luxurious.

 

We have four kids, two of my friends have only one.  Of course, it's a lot easier for them to enroll their kids in after school activities, take them to Disney/Universal, etc.   If we go to Disney (which we've yet to do with the kids), it's minimum of $600/day just to get in.  If they go, it's half that amount.  If I take my kids to the local trampoline place, I'm dropping $80 for the afternoon.  If my friend goes, it's $20.  (Which is why we only go when we have a Groupon.)  

 

We do have a big income inequality problem in this country.  I'm not sure how it's going to be resolved, or if it ever will be. 

 

This is so trivial, lol- BUT- Disney is only $100 per person/per day if you go for one day. The longer you go, the cheaper it is.

 

We are going in May, and 8 day tickets are around $350 a person (don't remember exactly).

 

And, we are staying offsite in a condo- only $99 a night! And we're splitting it with my mom and aunt who are coming with us, so we're only paying $376 for 12 nights.

 

(www.floridasunvacationhomes.com)

 

Again, I know this is *so* trivial compared to what this thread is talking about. I'm sorry!!

 

But you can take your kids to Disney on the cheap :) Every kid should get to go to DIsney :)

 

There are lots of us Disney junkies on here that could help you with that ;)

[SKL]

And what I am saying is all those things you think are just normal? They are in fact elite.

 

It is elite bc only only a few people (10% or less) can have what you term as a so-called normal lifestyle. Elite is not classified by whether we think the lifestyle is luxurious or not. Elite is classified by how few can have it. The fewer that can have it, the more elite it is.

 

Now if you want to say that it should not be elite to live that lifestyle you think is just normal middle class living? I completely agree. That is actually the argument of the 90% who are not elite. a basic life with medical care, clothes, food, modest shelter and maintaining such a life without life-long stress should not be reserved to only the elite in a country that proports to be a modern first world nation.

 

I disagree.  Having an average-sized house in a HCOL area costs a huge amount of money.  But having an average-sized house is not an "elite lifestyle."

 

Replacing old / unserviceable appliances is not an "elite lifestyle."

 

If earning in the top 10% automatically means one has an elite lifestyle, then you do as well, because I'm betting you earn in the top 10% of the world's households.  By global standards, having a long-term roof over your head, modern utilities/appliances, high school education, and 3 meals a day is pretty elite.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

dp

[73349]

The number sounds reasonable to me. What is shocking to me is just how far that is above minimum wage: ten times it.

[Murphy101]

Actually, I don't think it was a poor choice of words.

I actually had no issue with your words.

 

There often seems to be a visible prejudice on this forum toward those who are financially secure. I am surprised you haven't noticed it. Of course I wasn't referring to the bottom 90% as being poorer than dirt. You are intentionally misreading my comment.

There is a fine line between prejudice against finance and prejudice against blindness of socioeconomics.

 

When someone tells you that for a fact 90% of the population cannot live or attain X lifestyle and you keep insisting it is normal middle class living - that seems like purposely ignoring facts. At one time in our history, it was normal middle class living but the numbers have been rolling in for some time now and have reached an 80-90% of our population that is no longer able to live that way. The so-called middle class lifestyle has become something only a few, the elite, can have. And the middle class is disappearing. There's just nothing to argue about that. No one wants to say that. It's bad news economicly, politically, and socially. But we can't ignore it and think it is going to change.

 

And as for me "enjoying commenting on my lifestyle," I have never mentioned any specifics about our family income or bragged about taking fancy vacations. Obviously, in threads like this, it's impossible not to make vague statements about lifestyle, but I think I am probably one of the least specific people on this forum when it comes to things like that, mainly because my financial situation is no one's business.

 

Quite frankly, you have no clue as to whether or not I would qualify as "elite," and that is the way it should be.

I do think you have painted a solid elite picture of your lifestyle over the course of your posts on WTM. I don't care if you enjoy your economic status. I would too! ;) I've never gotten the impression you are snotty or whatever. I like you and I'm sure I would IRL too. But yes, you often post things about your everyday life that very clearly speak to an elite lifestyle and I think you don't really grasp that. For you, it is just your life. Which is fine and dandy. I don't think you have to hide it and I don't harbor any prejudice or ill-will against you for enjoying those things.

[ikslo]

Just saw this article: Coming Soon: A Change in Who Gets Overtime Pay and the Chamber's recommendation of applying geographically specific thresholds made me think of this thread.

[SKL]

My ex-boss was making at least $300K/year (probably more like $500K).  He lived in DC.  They lived in a skinny townhouse and their two daughters did not have a bedroom.  Each night they had to pull out a fold-up bed for the girls to sleep on in the living room.  Now I was born poor, and yet I always had a bedroom (that I shared with siblings).  Even when I earned under $50,000/year (gross), I had a house that was many times the size of that DC town house.  Which of us was living an "elite lifestyle"?

 

Granted, he had a more expensive car and he sent his kids to an expensive private school.  (Can't really blame him on the latter, in DC.)

[Tanaqui]

He had the option of living in a cheaper area, he didn't take it. He had the option of sending his kids to public, or a cheaper private school, he didn't take it. Having options IS "having an elite lifestyle".

[SKL]

I do think you have painted a solid elite picture of your lifestyle over the course of your posts on WTM. I don't care if you enjoy your economic status. I would too! ;) I've never gotten the impression you are snotty or whatever. I like you and I'm sure I would IRL too. But yes, you often post things about your everyday life that very clearly speak to an elite lifestyle and I think you don't really grasp that. For you, it is just your life. Which is fine and dandy. I don't think you have to hide it and I don't harbor any prejudice or ill-will against you for enjoying those things.

 

I agree that Cat comes across as a person who is financially more than just comfortable.  But [another poster, not you] using words like "you enjoy commenting on your lifestyle" is kind of provocative.  I hear many people on this site who talk in detail about their lower-income lifestyle.  What would the reaction be if I said they "enjoy talking about their poor lifestyle"?  I'm guessing a lot of "wow. just wow."

 

[Murphy101]

I disagree. Having an average-sized house in a HCOL area costs a huge amount of money. But having an average-sized house is not an "elite lifestyle."

 

Replacing old / unserviceable appliances is not an "elite lifestyle."

 

If earning in the top 10% automatically means one has an elite lifestyle, then you do as well, because I'm betting you earn in the top 10% of the world's households. By global standards, having a long-term roof over your head, modern utilities/appliances, high school education, and 3 meals a day is pretty elite.

Yes it is elite if only 10% of the population can afford to do it. Should it be? No. Completely agree about that. But it IS.

 

And of course globally I am by far better off than in a third world ghetto. Did I say otherwise? Is that really the best we should expect out of what is supposed to be a modern first world country?

 

Are we really telling the 90% that can't live what *used to be* a basic middle class lifestyle bc only the elite 10% can now afford to live that to just shut up about it bc well they have it better than in the third world ghetto? (Nevermind how first world oppressive policies keep those third world countries where they are.)

 

It SHOULD be middle class living. I completely agree about that.

But it is NOT bc there is no longer a "middle" when only 10% or less can live that way. What used to be middle has become elite.

[Btervet]

My ex-boss was making at least $300K/year (probably more like $500K).  He lived in DC.  They lived in a skinny townhouse and their two daughters did not have a bedroom.  Each night they had to pull out a fold-up bed for the girls to sleep on in the living room.  Now I was born poor, and yet I always had a bedroom (that I shared with siblings).  Even when I earned under $50,000/year (gross), I had a house that was many times the size of that DC town house.  Which of us was living an "elite lifestyle"?

 

Granted, he had a more expensive car and he sent his kids to an expensive private school.  (Can't really blame him on the latter, in DC.)

 

He was. Absolutely. My DH's job is in DC, and makes a tiny fraction of that. I worked with people who made minimum wage in DC. Their skinny townhouse was probably in an expensive area (maybe a classic rowhouse) and I'm sure he had health insurance and savings. That is NOT normal in DC. Many families I know have 10 relatives living in 2-3 bedroom rented apartments. That is middle class here.

 

I think this is what's so frustrating about these threads. People this this is normal? Making $300k a year, just cause you are HCOL? How much do you think the people who run the metro, staff the grocery stores, and make coffee at Starbucks in DC make? Most of them are adults supporting families. 

 

If a certain lifestyle is so far out of reach for 80-90% of people that they will never achieve it, it IS NOT middle class. It just isn't. Right now, middle class means struggling. It means almost no outside classes for kids. It means rarely having savings. It means renting in HCOL areas because buying would almost never happen. It means lots of CC debt. THAT is middle class. 

[Murphy101]

I agree that Cat comes across as a person who is financially more than just comfortable. But [another poster, not you] using words like "you enjoy commenting on your lifestyle" is kind of provocative. I hear many people on this site who talk in detail about their lower-income lifestyle. What would the reaction be if I said they "enjoy talking about their poor lifestyle"? I'm guessing a lot of "wow. just wow."

I agree the wording could have been better. I have no idea has to their intention though.

 

Idk about commenting on poor lifestyles... Ime they don't say wow. But boy howdy does the air get colder sometimes.

[Catwoman]

I do think you have painted a solid elite picture of your lifestyle over the course of your posts on WTM. I don't care if you enjoy your economic status. I would too! ;) I've never gotten the impression you are snotty or whatever. I like you and I'm sure I would IRL too. But yes, you often post things about your everyday life that very clearly speak to an elite lifestyle and I think you don't really grasp that. For you, it is just your life. Which is fine and dandy. I don't think you have to hide it and I don't harbor any prejudice or ill-will against you for enjoying those things.

Thanks, Martha -- you know I like you, too. :)

 

It honestly didn't dawn on me until you posted that general comments about my everyday life would be particularly noticeable to anyone. I guess it's easy to forget that one person's everyday normal isn't the same as another person's everyday normal, so when I post stuff, I don't even think about it being different from anyone else. In threads like this one, we probably all think about it, but in the average thread, we're usually just chatting away and posting personal experiences, so we aren't thinking about status or money or whatever, but the people reading our posts just might be paying attention to it.

 

I'm going to have to start paying more attention to that stuff. Thanks for pointing it out in such a kind way.

[SKL]

He had the option of living in a cheaper area, he didn't take it. He had the option of sending his kids to public, or a cheaper private school, he didn't take it. Having options IS "having an elite lifestyle".

 

Yes and no.  To live in a cheaper area and still work in DC would mean commuting for hours every day, which most people do not have to do.  To send his kids to DC public school would mean giving them an education that is far under the average middle class education in this country.  If he took a job in another city (leaving behind the professional value he had built up by working directly with people in the federal government, as well as the COL differential our company gave for working in DC), his pay would have gone down.

 

I don't think sending one's kids to non-public school is "elite."  Lots of people at various income levels do that across the country.  It's just a different choice, and most people in most places can afford it if they prioritize it.  The problem is that in DC there are no comparable schools that are affordable to the average American.

 

(I would be willing to concede that my ex-boss was on the verge of "elite" anyway, but he was making a lot more than $150K.)

[Catwoman]

I agree that Cat comes across as a person who is financially more than just comfortable. But [another poster, not you] using words like "you enjoy commenting on your lifestyle" is kind of provocative. I hear many people on this site who talk in detail about their lower-income lifestyle. What would the reaction be if I said they "enjoy talking about their poor lifestyle"? I'm guessing a lot of "wow. just wow."

Thank you very much for saying that, SKL. :)

[Murphy101]

Thanks, Martha -- you know I like you, too. :)

 

It honestly didn't dawn on me until you posted that general comments about my everyday life would be particularly noticeable to anyone. I guess it's easy to forget that one person's everyday normal isn't the same as another person's everyday normal, so when I post stuff, I don't even think about it being different from anyone else. In threads like this one, we probably all think about it, but in the average thread, we're usually just chatting away and posting personal experiences, so we aren't thinking about status or money or whatever, but the people reading our posts just might be paying attention to it.

 

I'm going to have to start paying more attention to that stuff. Thanks for pointing it out in such a kind way.

I don't think you should have to pay attention to it. There's nothing wrong with your lifestyle. It's nothing you should feel you can't share or should hide. I don't think anyone is really paying attention to it per se. (I'm not anyways.). It's just something that over time a person notices whether you intend it or not. It takes longer online than in person, but we all do it and notice these things.

[justamouse]

In a high cost of living area, that is enough to put a roof over your head if you have a few kids. Maybe a modest sized cape, with a small yard. 

We have areas of NJ where the property taxes are 40,000 a year. People are leaving NJ in droves just because that 'elite' amount of $ gets them nowhere. 

That's what I hate about stats like that, they never take into account COL, and dependents. 

[Wildcat]

Yes it is elite if only 10% of the population can afford to do it. Should it be? No. Completely agree about that. But it IS.

 

And of course globally I am by far better off than in a third world ghetto. Did I say otherwise? Is that really the best we should expect out of what is supposed to be a modern first world country?

 

Are we really telling the 90% that can't live what *used to be* a basic middle class lifestyle bc only the elite 10% can now afford to live that to just shut up about it bc well they have it better than in the third world ghetto? (Nevermind how first world oppressive policies keep those third world countries where they are.)

 

It SHOULD be middle class living. I completely agree about that.

But it is NOT bc there is no longer a "middle" when only 10% or less can live that way. What used to be middle has become elite.

 

Martha, I'm only quoting you because of of the part I bolded. You posted as I was typing my reply to the thread and I agree with what you wrote, except the term 'elite'. To me 'elite' would be not having any monetary worries, and that is definitely not the case with many who make a $150K income. They have many fewer worries, yes, but there are still worries, even in a lower COL area. That, to me, does not define 'elite'. The truly 'elite' don't have to worry about money no matter what the COL is where they live.

 

My thoughts are, could it be that the definition of “middle class†needs to change? Middle class, to me, is what many of you are considering ‘elite’.  In my low COL area, to live like the “middle class†being talked about on this thread, one needs to have an income upwards of $100K, and even closer to the $150K mark being talked about in this thread. That the magic number of $150K is in the top 10% of household incomes in this country tells me that the term ‘middle class’ is being erroneously used (not just here, but in Washington, and the media). 

 

Sadly, I feel that the majority of this country is NOT middle class any more when we talk about incomes and living wages. I grew up middle class in the 70s and 80s. We had a roof over our heads, food on the table, presents at Christmas, and the occasional vacation (like once every few years). There was no worry over bills until we kids became teens, and by that time it was the late 80s and prices on things had jumped---plus, teens are very expensive. I have absolutely no idea how my parents managed it on what they made. 

 

The term 'middle class' is based on the out-dated middle class income-to-expenses levels. I haven’t seen anyone in print or TV media address that issue---- all I have seen and heard are sound bites that the middle class is shrinking. In my opinion, the middle class IS shrinking, and there is a about 70% (does anyone have a figure handy of the households making less than $100K?) of the country that should not be defined as 'middle class', but as lower class (I hate that term! How about something like the “working–our-butts-off and-can’t-afford-to-live†class?) because their incomes CAN'T sustain what we all consider a middle class lifestyle.

 

What a pity that a country like the US has such a huge problem with this, and it’s only getting worse. I truly, truly fear for the future. What we have going on now is not sustainable. What I would bet on, though, is that the definition of a middle class income will NOT change any time soon because then, those in Washington would have to admit that there is a huge problem in this country, and I just don't see that happening. It is easier for them to speak around the issue and use terms like "shrinking" and toss out tax cuts than to come right out and say what the problem is. Both parties do this, so I'm not picking on any one party. 

 

[Tanaqui]

Yes and no.  To live in a cheaper area and still work in DC would mean commuting for hours every day, which most people do not have to do.  To send his kids to DC public school would mean giving them an education that is far under the average middle class education in this country.  If he took a job in another city (leaving behind the professional value he had built up by working directly with people in the federal government, as well as the COL differential our company gave for working in DC), his pay would have gone down.

 

But he could have done all that.

 

Lots of people have to commute for hours every day, because they can't afford to live close to their jobs.

 

Lots of people have to send their kids to public schools, because they can't afford private school and they can't afford to sacrifice an income to stay home. (And it's a travesty that our schools aren't all excellent.)

 

Lots of people don't have choices.

 

Having choices, in the US, is a privilege. Failing to acknowledge that is a sign of a seriously skewed perspective.

[freesia]

How do we do it? Not necessarily with debt-but everything is thought out carefully. We are NYC metropolitan folks who make far, far less than $150000. We give one present at Xmas and one at birthdays (around $30). We choose extra curriculars carefully and choose the low cost option. Dd does not get the horseback riding lessons even though the one time she had them it turned out she is a natural. We can't drop $20 on this and that like folks around us. We rarely go out. We do a paid vacation every other year and visit our Moms' otherwise. Only dh gets organic bc of allergies. Clothes are hand me downs or thrift store. The kids get one pair of shoes snd a pair of boots. We don't 'do' packaged snacks. I could go on .

 

basically it's about making deliberate choices in every area. We don't have a ton of college savings but probably won't qualify for a ton of aid. So, although dh and I went to 'elite' colleges, our kids probably won't.

 

However, I have lived in a developing country and know that even at our salary in our high col area, we are elite. Honestly, $150,000 does seem elite to me just because it would be lovely not to have to constantly cut corners. but I feel comfortable and we have plenty. There are many folks who make less than we do around me.

[SKL]

Yes it is elite if only 10% of the population can afford to do it. Should it be? No. Completely agree about that. But it IS.

 

And of course globally I am by far better off than in a third world ghetto. Did I say otherwise? Is that really the best we should expect out of what is supposed to be a modern first world country?

 

Are we really telling the 90% that can't live what *used to be* a basic middle class lifestyle bc only the elite 10% can now afford to live that to just shut up about it bc well they have it better than in the third world ghetto? (Nevermind how first world oppressive policies keep those third world countries where they are.)

 

It SHOULD be middle class living. I completely agree about that.

But it is NOT bc there is no longer a "middle" when only 10% or less can live that way. What used to be middle has become elite.

 

No.  Like I said, go online and see what it would cost you to buy or rent the home you live in in a really HCOL area.  I was dating a guy who wanted me to marry him and move to LA (he had a job offer there).  I told him I didn't want to leave my nice affordable lifestyle.  He tried to convince me by doing some house hunting.  The cheapest thing he could find (on the outskirts of the city) was a tiny ugly little house, 1/3 the size of my present house, for nearly $400K.  That house was a small, modest house by middle-class standards.  Yet no average middle-class family could afford that price tag.  That's just one example.

 

The very same house an average middle-class person can afford in most of the USA is way out of reach in HCOL areas.

 

Other things also cost significantly more.  For me to hop in my car and drive to work, it just costs me the gas of a 20-30 minute drive (depending on the time of day).  In a HCOL big city, it's a much longer drive (more traffic) and then I'd have to pay a lot of $$ to park my car.  I could drive to a transit train station instead, but that isn't free either, and I'm not doing that when I work late hours.

 

And I am sorry, but I don't agree that 90% or even 50% of Americans cannot afford to buy appliances.  Everyone I know, rich or poor, has a refrigerator, stove, and microwave, and I'm guessing the majority of families have a washer, dryer, and dishwasher.

[Jean in Newcastle]

 

 

If a certain lifestyle is so far out of reach for 80-90% of people that they will never achieve it, it IS NOT middle class. It just isn't. Right now, middle class means struggling. It means almost no outside classes for kids. It means rarely having savings. It means renting in HCOL areas because buying would almost never happen. It means lots of CC debt. THAT is middle class. 

But some of that whole lifestyle thing is a new (as in the last 50 years) phenomena where people expect a lot more than previous generations did at comparable incomes (adjusted for inflation etc.)  I know people who retired very comfortably indeed but they skimped and saved their whole lives to do so.  They did not buy nice things or often just didn't buy at all.  They did not take the vacations etc.

 

I'm going to get into trouble for saying this, but there are a lot of everyday decisions we make that do influence our financial health.  How many kids we have, where we live, how we live, how we school, how we shop, how we save, who works.  And then there is stuff that we can't control or otherwise took us by surprise - health issues, layoffs, series of bad things like car accidents, a tree falling on the house etc.  Some of these we can mitigate somewhat by taking out insurance against problems of this sort and some we can't.  I wish I could go back in time and redo some of our decisions when we were younger and first married or even when I was single but of course I can't so we just do the best we can.  

[regentrude]

I don't think sending one's kids to non-public school is "elite."  Lots of people at various income levels do that across the country.  It's just a different choice, and most people in most places can afford it if they prioritize it.  The problem is that in DC there are no comparable schools that are affordable to the average American.

 

No to the bolded. Most people can NOT afford private school, even if they value education.

 

ETA: Our local catholic school is only 3k tuition, so very inexpensive as far as private schools go. For the majority of my homeschooling friends, this would be completely unaffordable even for a single child.

[catz]

I'm actually really glad to see the tide of this thread has turned.  I had regretted dipping into it and it so often turns into this US vs. THEM.  I did feel some what attacked for taking a road trip or 2 a year and having functional appliances.   I am actually totally in favor  of things like minimum wage increase and eliminating tax loopholes for the wealthiest.  I am truly not the face of the enemy?  Like I said, I have lived at different income levels.  The difference to me has been having stress levels, options to spend more in some areas, and having a good base of savings.  I have always had working appliances and shoes.  

 

I also think comparing a family with 1 or 2 kids with a family with 10 kids will always be apples to oranges.  With 10 kids we would have 5 kids in a bedroom and there would be no vacations or college savings.  It just wouldn't happen. 

[ikslo]

Sorry if you felt attacked, WoolySocks.  I assure you it wasn't my intention.

[Catwoman]

In a high cost of living area, that is enough to put a roof over your head if you have a few kids. Maybe a modest sized cape, with a small yard.

 

We have areas of NJ where the property taxes are 40,000 a year. People are leaving NJ in droves just because that 'elite' amount of $ gets them nowhere.

 

That's what I hate about stats like that, they never take into account COL, and dependents.

This is such an excellent point.

 

In places like metro NY and NJ, $500,000 will buy you a very modest home in a not-so-wonderful neighborhood, and then you have to pay outrageously high property taxes on that little house. The monthly carrying costs are outrageous, so it's hard for people to feel elite when they make what sounds like incredible money, but have expenses that eat it up as quickly as it comes in.

 

The number of dependents aspect is crucial, as well. Justamouse's family and mine could have the exact same annual income, but she has a very large family and my dh and I only have one child. That means that even if we lived in the exact same neighborhood in very similar homes, my family would be able to afford a far more "elite" lifestyle than hers, simply because we are a tiny family of three and it's a whole lot cheaper to provide for a small family than it is to provide for a large one.

[SKL]

But he could have done all that.

 

Lots of people have to commute for hours every day, because they can't afford to live close to their jobs.

 

Lots of people have to send their kids to public schools, because they can't afford private school and they can't afford to sacrifice an income to stay home. (And it's a travesty that our schools aren't all excellent.)

 

Lots of people don't have choices.

 

Having choices, in the US, is a privilege. Failing to acknowledge that is a sign of a seriously skewed perspective.

 

All that is true, except that lots of middle class people do have choices.  Having choices about where you live and how your kids are educated is not "elite."

 

[justamouse]

This is such an excellent point.

 

In places like metro NY and NJ, $500,000 will buy you a very modest home in a not-so-wonderful neighborhood, and then you have to pay outrageously high property taxes on that little house. The monthly carrying costs are outrageous, so it's hard for people to feel elite when they make what sounds like incredible money, but have expenses that eat it up as quickly as it comes in.

 

The number of dependents aspect is crucial, as well. Justamouse's family and mine could have the exact same annual income, but she has a very large family and my dh and I only have one child. That means that even if we lived in the exact same neighborhood in very similar homes, my family would be able to afford a far more "elite" lifestyle than hers, simply because we are a tiny family of three and it's a whole lot cheaper to provide for a small family than it is to provide for a large one.

 

 

You know, I was thinking of the Chatham area when I said that, but I think you are right, a small cape in Chatham/Peakpack/Madison probably will run you 500k these days. 

 

And the taxes, fugheddaboutit. 

 

 

[Catwoman]

I'm actually really glad to see the tide of this thread has turned. I had regretted dipping into it and it so often turns into this US vs. THEM. I did feel some what attacked for taking a road trip or 2 a year and having functional appliances. I am actually totally in favor of things like minimum wage increase and eliminating tax loopholes for the wealthiest. I am truly not the face of the enemy? Like I said, I have lived at different income levels. The difference to me has been having stress levels, options to spend more in some areas, and having a good base of savings. I have always had working appliances and shoes.

 

I also think comparing a family with 1 or 2 kids with a family with 10 kids will always be apples to oranges. With 10 kids we would have 5 kids in a bedroom and there would be no vacations or college savings. It just wouldn't happen.

:iagree:

 

There are so many factors that enter into the equation.

 

I am also noticing a big difference in how "middle class" is defined by different people. It's hard to have this kind of discussion because there are no set rules as to what constitutes middle class. I suspect that you and I have a similar definition, but I can see that others would vehemently disagree.

[Catwoman]

You know, I was thinking of the Chatham area when I said that, but I think you are right, a small cape in Chatham/Peakpack/Madison probably will run you 500k these days.

 

And the taxes, fugheddaboutit.

 

 

:iagree:

 

The home prices in Hudson and Bergen counties are crazy high, too. I know a woman who recently sold a tiny 2-bedroom, 1-bath cape on a postage stamp lot for around $550k, and it was a fixer-upper that needed a new kitchen, new bath, new flooring... :eek: The neighborhood was safe enough, but it wasn't exactly a garden spot or that her house was the only one on the street that needed work.

 

But in a lot of places, if she told people she had sold her home for $550k, they would think she had been living in luxury.

[Pawz4me]

:iagree:

 

There are so many factors that enter into the equation.

 

I am also noticing a big difference in how "middle class" is defined by different people. It's hard to have this kind of discussion because there are no set rules as to what constitutes middle class. I suspect that you and I have a similar definition, but I can see that others would vehemently disagree.

 

I agree.  As far as I know there isn't and never has been a widely accepted definition of what constitutes the middle class.

[SKL]

No to the bolded. Most people can NOT afford private school, even if they value education.

 

ETA: Our local catholic school is only 3k tuition, so very inexpensive as far as private schools go. For the majority of my homeschooling friends, this would be completely unaffordable even for a single child.

 

Many parochial schools around the country are affordable on a middle-class income, especially for members of the associated church.  The children who attend these schools are not generally from "elite" families.

 

I agree that different people might be using "middle class" differently.  "Middle class" does not include the working poor IMO.  Poor =/= middle class.  The federal poverty line for a family of 4 is roughly $25,000.  Taxpayer-funded subsidies for low-income families are generally available to people who make up to 2x the federal poverty line.  IMO middle class is not low income.  However, some of the folks between the $25,000 and $50,000 have what I consider a middle class lifestyle, at least in low COL areas.

 

[justamouse]

You know for fun I just checked out Realtor.com and looked up Chatham?

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/24-Willow-St_Chatham_NJ_07928_M66854-55859?row=2

 

484,900 and on .16 of an acre 

Stock laminate cabenits, plain walls, run of the mill furniture that many of you might have in your house. This is not elite living. 

[LisaKinVA]

This is a sticking point in our family, because based upon our income level we feel like we should be able to do/have more than we are.  In our potential move to VA Beach, the mortgage we are trying to get by with (much, much less than we'd qualify for), on average gets us a 1500 sq. ft. in our preferred area.  This is smaller than our first house in Ft. Smith, AR 18 years ago. This means, we will most likely be living well outside of our preferred area (unless we get lucky), DH may have to commute 45-60 minutes again (looking into van pools), and we will be living in a much older home that in all likelihood needs a bit of work.

 

It's frustrating, because even without debt when you factor in just the basic costs of living (food, utilities, school, personal care/clothing, etc.), there isn't much left over -- and nothing left over if we swim and/or do a few scouting trips.  

 

We've been so spoiled with good food at low cost, inexpensive sporting activities (it was 200 euro a month for all 5 to do Club Swim with the Italian Clubs, at home, $200 a month won't even cover one of my older swimmers!  Here, I at least have the option of some courses through the high school -- won't have that at home, either.  It's been rather scary to think about taking this "great" job back home, because we'll feel like we're going back to paycheck to paycheck (we aren't, but that is what it feels like).

 

Top that off with reading the high school/college boards about fees, difficulty with scholarship money, the amount FAFSA thinks we should be spending on kids' college...and I find myself wishing we could live overseas for the next 20-25 years.

 

 

[Χά�ων]

:iagree:

 

There are so many factors that enter into the equation.

 

I am also noticing a big difference in how "middle class" is defined by different people. It's hard to have this kind of discussion because there are no set rules as to what constitutes middle class. I suspect that you and I have a similar definition, but I can see that others would vehemently disagree.

Sounds like it may need to be defined. I am not sure how. He is a stab at it.

 

To start low:

Not living in a car or tent due to not be able to afford anything else.

Able to eat more than ramen, rice and beans.

Able to buy 1-2 new outfits (2 pants, 2 shirts 2 pairs of socks, 2 pairs of under garments) a year from walmart.

 

 

Shelter, food and clothes to start. :)

 

I tried to go as low as possibly, but even then I know families who cannot afford 1-2 outfits from walmart a year. Note I did not say per person.

[SKL]

Sounds like it may need to be defined. I am not sure how. He is a stab at it.

 

To start low:

Not living in a car or tent due to not be able to afford anything else.

Able to eat more than ramen, rice and beans.

Able to buy 1-2 new outfits (2 pants, 2 shirts 2 pairs of socks, 2 pairs of under garments) a year from walmart.

 

 

Shelter, food and clothes to start. :)

 

I tried to go as low as possibly, but even then I know families who cannot afford 1-2 outfits from walmart a year. Note I did not say per person.

 

Sounds like you are including everyone who isn't destitute.  What does the "middle" in "middle class" mean if everyone who isn't starving is included?

 

[QueenCat]

I'm wondering if people remember the difference between "mean" and "median"...............

 

http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/algebra/AD2/measure.htm

[Scarlett]

I'm actually really glad to see the tide of this thread has turned. I had regretted dipping into it and it so often turns into this US vs. THEM. I did feel some what attacked for taking a road trip or 2 a year and having functional appliances. I am actually totally in favor of things like minimum wage increase and eliminating tax loopholes for the wealthiest. I am truly not the face of the enemy? Like I said, I have lived at different income levels. The difference to me has been having stress levels, options to spend more in some areas, and having a good base of savings. I have always had working appliances and shoes.

 

I also think comparing a family with 1 or 2 kids with a family with 10 kids will always be apples to oranges. With 10 kids we would have 5 kids in a bedroom and there would be no vacations or college savings. It just wouldn't happen.

The reason your post got my attention is because it was less about your income and more about how you are living. You are living nicely. Comfortably. Relatively stress free when it comes to money. I am HAPPY that anyone gets to live like that. But so so many do not. And to assume that most people are living like you are regardless of income or COL is just wrong.

 

There are a lot of factors...as Jean said, some are our own bad choices......and it is easy to point out the bad choices and say see that is the reason they can't get by. But as often as not it is less about bad choices and more about lack of income. Plain and simple.

[Catwoman]

You know for fun I just checked out Realtor.com and looked up Chatham?

 

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/24-Willow-St_Chatham_NJ_07928_M66854-55859?row=2

 

484,900 and on .16 of an acre

 

Stock laminate cabenits, plain walls, run of the mill furniture that many of you might have in your house. This is not elite living.

And it's on the wrong side of town, to boot, so that's why it is priced as low as it is.

[Murphy101]

I also think comparing a family with 1 or 2 kids with a family with 10 kids will always be apples to oranges. With 10 kids we would have 5 kids in a bedroom and there would be no vacations or college savings. It just wouldn't happen.

Wait. When did this become about me having 10 kids? Most people below the top 10% don't have more than 3 kids and they are really hurting. Most of them are hurting a lot more than I am.

 

There is of course some truth to making the best with what one has. Be it HCOL, number of kids...

 

But the bottom line for many is that sometimes there is no doing best, there's just surviving. A buck can only be stretched so far. When 10% of the population makes 150k+ AND the inflations keeps rising, the dollars stop stretching much at all.

 

I think no one wants to really discuss this bc it seems overwhelming and depressing and hopeless.

 

But it isn't. Yet.

 

But it will be if it isn't dealt with.

[regentrude]

I'm wondering if people remember the difference between "mean" and "median"...............

 

http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/algebra/AD2/measure.htm

 

For the discussion of the top 10th percentile, this distinction is not relevant.

 

But I agree; the median income is a much more sensible measure than the average (mean) income, because the average is skewed upwards by a tiny number of people with extremely large incomes. The stats I linked on page 1

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/09/29/what-is-your-us-income-percentile-ranking-n1712430/page/full

indicate both median and average incomes.

 

 

 

[Catwoman]

Sounds like it may need to be defined. I am not sure how. He is a stab at it.

 

To start low:

Not living in a car or tent due to not be able to afford anything else.

Able to eat more than ramen, rice and beans.

Able to buy 1-2 new outfits (2 pants, 2 shirts 2 pairs of socks, 2 pairs of under garments) a year from walmart.

 

 

Shelter, food and clothes to start. :)

 

I tried to go as low as possibly, but even then I know families who cannot afford 1-2 outfits from walmart a year. Note I did not say per person.

I would classify that as lower than middle class -- and that is precisely why these discussions are so difficult. :)

[Jean in Newcastle]

I would classify that as lower than middle class -- and that is precisely why these discussions are so difficult. :)

:iagree:   I think people don't like to use the term lower class because somehow they think it is equivalent to being "low class" which it doesn't.  

 

 

[Catwoman]

Wait. When did this become about me having 10 kids? Most people below the top 10% don't have more than 3 kids and they are really hurting. Most of them are hurting a lot more than I am.

 

There is of course some truth to making the best with what one has. Be it HCOL, number of kids...

 

But the bottom line for many is that sometimes there is no doing best, there's just surviving. A buck can only be stretched so far. When 10% of the population makes 150k+ AND the inflations keeps rising, the dollars stop stretching much at all.

 

I think no one wants to really discuss this bc it seems overwhelming and depressing and hopeless.

 

But it isn't. Yet.

 

But it will be if it isn't dealt with.

I think she just meant that a small family can live on less money than a larger family can. Kids are expensive, even if you're frugal, so if my family and yours had the exact same annual income, my family would have a lot more money left over after we paid for the basics, simply by virtue of a family of three being less expensive to support than a family of 12.

[QueenCat]

Sounds like it may need to be defined. I am not sure how. He is a stab at it.

 

To start low:

Not living in a car or tent due to not be able to afford anything else.

Able to eat more than ramen, rice and beans.

Able to buy 1-2 new outfits (2 pants, 2 shirts 2 pairs of socks, 2 pairs of under garments) a year from walmart.

 

 

Shelter, food and clothes to start. :)

 

I tried to go as low as possibly, but even then I know families who cannot afford 1-2 outfits from walmart a year. Note I did not say per person.

 

I wouldn't thing a family in this situation is middle class.......... I'd think they were  lower income or living in poverty.

[Wildcat]

I would classify that as lower than middle class -- and that is precisely why these discussions are so difficult. :)

 

I agree. That is what I wrote in my post at the top of this page--- years ago middle class was 'living comfortably' (think "Leave it to Beaver"), but in the last several decades, the term 'middle class' hasn't changed, yet COL has gone up considerably, thereby making discussions such as this as effective as trying to herd cats.

 

Going back to the number $150K, that is living comfortably for most, and *extremely well* for others, but nowhere near elite.

 

(I miss multi quote!!!!)

[idnib]

There's a lot of research already (and disagreement) on what constitutes to U.S. middle class.

 

Here's a chart from the link: