Ohdanigirl Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 http://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/02jesse-klein-relative-wealth16 Has this op/ed been discussed? I am still processing it, but am interested in what others think. I don't think what this young person describes is middle class, though. Danielle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I think the comments are more interesting than the article. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 It sounds like their $2 million Palo Alto house is middle class, even if the income isn't. I'm off to read the comments now. ETA: What I mean is that the house is similar to middle class houses in most of the country. Obviously the price is for the upper class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I found this response interesting as well. http://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/jenny-wang-response-relative-wealth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohdanigirl Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 I found this response interesting as well. http://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/jenny-wang-response-relative-wealth Thank you for posting this. Off to finish reading the comments section..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Having lived in CA for a few years, I can imagine very well that an income like this in an extremely high COL buys the family the kind of lifestyle that an income close to the US median can purchase in the rural Midwest. My friend's half million dollar home in Colorado is smaller and more modest than a 100k home in our area. Money that would make them have a rich lifestyle elsewhere may just suffice to pay the bills - and the mortgage must be insanely high. Middle class is relative. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFSinIL Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 My childhood home, a four-bedroom, two bath ranch in Orange, CA, built in 1962 was at one time worth one million dollars. $23,000 when new, sold for about $40,000 in 1974 when we moved to a two-story four-bedroom tract home a few miles away for $54,000. This newer house is still valued now at over a million, although the first house is a more "reasonable" $600,000!!!!! (I peek at my old homes on-line sometimes.) Location, location, location. The house I am in now, a ramshackle 1906 two-story American Foursquare in the Midwest, we could NOT afford if it was in California. At all. No way. I might add, no way would I have been able to stay home to raise four kids if we lived in California, either. Location location location. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I live in a relatively COL area. About 10 years ago we considered a job transfer to Palo Alto. For about as long as it took to assess housing prices. i can definitely see 250K being an income level that just allows what most people consider basic middle lifestyle (small-mid size home, no luxury vehicles, recreational sports or music lessons for kids). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 My problem with COL comparisons is that they take situations and compare them nationally while ignoring local comparisons. Certainly COL varies widely in the US, but if you're making $250,000 anywhere in the country, you're making more than the vast majority of people who are also dealing with the same COL you are. Your $2 million home might look like someone else's $150,000 home in a very different place but it looks way nicer than the apartment someone making minimum wage is living in, and there are far more people in high COL areas making minimum wage than making $250,000. It also ignores that there are far more opportunities to make $250,000 in a high COL area. You can talk all you want about being able to buy a much nicer home in a low COL area, but it's not likely you could move there and make $250,000- those jobs aren't there. So no, even though the author of that article feels middle class, a $2 million dollar home still puts them far above the vast majority of people in any area and being in the top 10% of wage earners in your area means to me that you're not middle class. 23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Like someone said in the other giant income thread, living in a super high COL area might mean you don't have a mansion and a BMW even with a relatively high income, but just living in an area like that is a privilege because of the numerous cultural and educational opportunities a person has there. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Ever watch some of the HGTV shows? They feature a lot of homes in Canada. In some areas a pretty regular looking place starts at over half a million. Even something that is old and rather dumpy which needs work costs way more than anything new around where I live. So I really can see how it is relative. I 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Like someone said in the other giant income thread, living in a super high COL area might mean you don't have a mansion and a BMW even with a relatively high income, but just living in an area like that is a privilege because of the numerous cultural and educational opportunities a person has there. I don't follow. I've lived in an area with a high COL, with a decent income (not mansion/BMW income, but good). It did not feel like a privilege to live there. We couldn't wait to move to a lower COL area, and not so we could have a mansion and BMW, just... a normal life. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 It appears that the article was written by a college student with very little life experience. I don't put much stock in anything she wrote, as she is still viewing the world through the eyes of a kid being supported by her parents, not as an adult who is actually earning the money or paying the bills. 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 http://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/02jesse-klein-relative-wealth16 Has this op/ed been discussed? I am still processing it, but am interested in what others think. I don't think what this young person describes is middle class, though. I read it and thought . . . not much of anything. 'Cause I really don't know what her point was. Certainly nothing profound. ;) I think it's pretty well known that cost of living varies, and that people who have a bit of disposable income like to spend it on different things. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 for a fun look at Vancouver real estate, have a go at "crack shack or mansion?" COL, and esp housing sucks up huge gobs of money here. Most people are living on credit. We haven't had our crash yet.... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali in OR Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I understand a little of what she was trying to say...I think. We had to move out of Palo Alto because as a teacher married to an engineer, we knew we could never afford a house there. And most of the housing there is what you might call dumpy unless you're a fan of midcentury modern (Eichlers). When she talks about a 2 million 3 bedroom/2 bath ranch, I'm picturing those dumpy little Eichlers--not a luxurious life at all. I'm sure there are many, many people living in the bay area who have those jumbo mortgages and have to put most of their monthly income into their pretty humble, needs-a-lot-of-work, small square footage house. They don't feel privileged or rich at all. And if you work in high tech, you don't really have much job mobility--most of the jobs are in the bay area. So I get where she's coming from. But at the same time, she doesn't understand that just having the ability to have a house in Palo Alto puts you on a different level than most of the country. We moved because we wouldn't be able to achieve that--or if we had tried we also would be up to our necks in debt. Palo Alto schools are tops in the area--a privilege she probably doesn't fully realize. But I'll cut her some slack. She's young and though she does not feel rich, she doesn't realize yet how much advantage she really grew up with. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I don't follow. I've lived in an area with a high COL, with a decent income (not mansion/BMW income, but good). It did not feel like a privilege to live there. We couldn't wait to move to a lower COL area, and not so we could have a mansion and BMW, just... a normal life. I'm not sure how to state it any clearer. Most high COL areas are larger metropolitan areas. You pay more to live there, but you have access to a broader range of cultural, artistic, and educational opportunities. Perhaps it doesn't seem like to to you, but being able to hop on a bus and see an opera, tour an art museum, or shop at fourteen different organic grocery stores is a privilege. People who live in low COL rural midwestern towns can't do that, for the most part. 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8circles Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I'm having a hard time being gracious. She sounds immature at best. Venice or Versace? This is the middle class dilemma? Lol OK. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bootsie Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 My childhood home, a four-bedroom, two bath ranch in Orange, CA, built in 1962 was at one time worth one million dollars. $23,000 when new, sold for about $40,000 in 1974 when we moved to a two-story four-bedroom tract home a few miles away for $54,000. This newer house is still valued now at over a million, although the first house is a more "reasonable" $600,000!!!!! (I peek at my old homes on-line sometimes.) If you consider if someone bought a house in 1974 for $54,000 and sold it 40 years later for $1,000,000, they made only a 7.57% annual return on their investment. That is a lot lower than some other investment possibilities (and those other possibilities would not have had to be painted, etc.) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 She is young, naïve, and out in the big world for the first time. I would cut her a lot of slack. She has obviously led a very insular and charmed life. She will eventually learn about how people live when they have no job security, no health care, no options. Then she will have to re-evaluate her ideas about her life. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I'm not sure how to state it any clearer. Most high COL areas are larger metropolitan areas. You pay more to live there, but you have access to a broader range of cultural, artistic, and educational opportunities. Perhaps it doesn't seem like to to you, but being able to hop on a bus and see an opera, tour an art museum, or shop at fourteen different organic grocery stores is a privilege. People who live in low COL rural midwestern towns can't do that, for the most part. All I know is that my friend moved to St. Louis from Boston, and not only can she afford more than twice the house (4-bedroom two story there, vs. a four room house next to the highway here - but the bigger house there cost less), but she is still in a large metropolitan area with lots of cultural stuff - except there it's all free (zoo, museums), whereas here it costs upwards of $20-30 just to park at one, then $10-$20 or more per person to enter said event. So, not so clear. As others have stated, though, if you're in high tech, you're pretty much stuck in the truly high COL areas because the jobs are there. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 In the US it seems that everyone who makes more than $1 and under whatever Warren Buffet cleared last year is "middle class". Because after all they are at some point between the lowest and highest, ergo that is "the middle". The plain reality is that of five quintiles of income, the middle quintile spans an income bracket of $50,521-$78,000. 2 in 5 households are living off of less than $50,521 a year, many of those in HCOL areas where they can earn those wages because in LCOL areas they would be making far less. https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/2013/f01AR.xls 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I agree with Cammie. She is a kid. My first college conversation about the FAFSA ended like this: "They expected us to sell our BOATS! Can you imagine?" Me: from a logging town, worked from the age of 14, dad is on disability but a deadbeat anyway, still not getting aid because mom is employed in a decent wage though she's still paying on her mortgage... "Oh no... not your boats..." She also complained she couldn't fit all her shoes in the closet. I had two pairs of shoes. One pair of Doc Martens and a pair of flip-flops. Both of us thought we were middle class. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I have been thinking about this. The reality is that even people who have "higher than average" incomes still don't feel "rich" in today's US. Maybe the goals have changed. Maybe people expect more. All I know is that we make "higher than average" but we are panicked about paying for college - because most likely we won't qualify for ANY federal aid or need based aid from schools. But we don't have a huge stockpile to draw from to pay $50,000 a year. So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I think there is always this mentality that if I could just earn X amount I would feel that I had enough. But it hardly ever is. Housing prices are just insane in the areas where the high paying jobs are. Someone might have a GREAT job - but a $2 million dollar mortgage is a $2 million dollar mortgage that doesn't leave much left over. I think instead of focusing on who is or is not "middle class" we should be focusing on why there is such a gap between the 1% and the rest of the nation. Why have we, as a culture, accepted that the uber-wealthy are "entitled" to their luxury lifestyles instead of being disgusted at them? 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 ArcticMama, I can access a lot of the quality of life benefits of our area for free or very little. For example: -I can print free passes for most of the museums and many attractions via my library website, good for any day. I can go on free first Thursdays without printing a ticket. -I can get dress rehearsal tickets to the opera and many other performances by volunteering or knowing the right person. There are also various discounts available for students, young adults, parents, modest means, pay what you can days etc. For most things, if we want to see it, I can find a way that is legit and either free or cheap. Community connections make it possible. -when we were double income and above the median for the area, we easily afforded subscriptions to the science center, zoo, children's theater etc. I never spent more than $500 a year on that stuff. Now we do passes and such (available to anyone) via the library to economize. Also, friends take us as their free guest etc at other times. These friends are by and large not wealthy, but either middle or affluent. When we were members, we took them and others. -the tax base supports parks and recreational infrastructure like community centers. I am often surprised to hear of the lack of some of these resources in other lower cost of living areas. -I have 2 of the best library systems at my disposal and they host an amazing range of free events and classes for kids and families. We've seen puppet shows, attended lectures, attended plays, science classes, programming classes etc. All straight up free. I pay a smallish alumni association fee to access the university library. -Both sons do piano, one son does violin. There's so many music instructors I was able to find someone I could afford. Because there's a demand for the sort of work I do here (and probably not in many low cost areas), I can pay for their weekly lessons by only doing a few hours a month of billable contract work. Literally, the 4 hours I spent today on a few things covers all of those lessons for a month. If I made a LCOL hourly for my work though 4 hours wouldn't cover one week of even cheap music lessons. -We get the few sports tickets we get per year from group discounts. A baseball game or two with my brother's daughter's school or our t-ball team, a homeschool group ticket discount for a basketball game. We don't go often, but we do go and it's not at full price. There's several roller derby leagues too and again, can be had on the cheap. -The university offers a lot of programs, lectures and workshops. Some are free, some are not but they are there and doable for many. My son and niece both take weekly classes at university affiliated programs and are doing longer summer programs. -while I have issues with our bus service on some points, if one is trying to get to civic centers it is exceptionally good and usually preferable to driving. Because who wants to pay to park or deal with traffic?! I take the bus downtown with my older son to go to the symphony hall not infrequently, and and sporting event means a bus ride. -and that's just arts and recreation. I can rattle off a lot of other things made easier for us by living here. So yes, I do think middle and even low income families can make those things happen if they live in a community resource rich environment. Besides extremely strong family and friend ties, I would be loathe to leave the area because of quality of life factors like recreation and arts. I know there are other areas just as great, and in some cases better but I also know that many places just don't have this stuff and I would personally miss it. Every so often I get a bug up my butt to move to a LCOL area but considerations like this keep us here. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 NM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Faith- Detroit is bankrupt with a lot of complexities I am sure you know more about than me. It's sad but it's not comparable to HCOL cities with strong economies and excellent art and recreation infrastructure (eta- well the ones which invest in making things affordable!) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 NM, I have discovered I just can't converse until I've had my morning coffee. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I agree with Cammie. She is a kid. My first college conversation about the FAFSA ended like this: "They expected us to sell our BOATS! Can you imagine?" Me: from a logging town, worked from the age of 14, dad is on disability but a deadbeat anyway, still not getting aid because mom is employed in a decent wage though she's still paying on her mortgage... "Oh no... not your boats..." She also complained she couldn't fit all her shoes in the closet. I had two pairs of shoes. One pair of Doc Martens and a pair of flip-flops. Both of us thought we were middle class. I had a church friend empathize with me because she too had "grown up poor". She went to private school her grandparents' trust paid for, her parents were both lawyers, they lived in a tony area of town. She was poor because they'd only ever bought one car new. They drove luxury German imports. But only one was bought new. And apparently they didn't ever go on more than one nicer vacation a year. I didn't say anything because seriously what do you say, on the spot, in that situation when you personally had the sort of poor childhood where you lived out of a 20 year old van for periods of time? STFU, you don't know from poor would be, uh, rather unkind even if it would be understandable. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I'm not sure how to state it any clearer. Most high COL areas are larger metropolitan areas. You pay more to live there, but you have access to a broader range of cultural, artistic, and educational opportunities. Perhaps it doesn't seem like to to you, but being able to hop on a bus and see an opera, tour an art museum, or shop at fourteen different organic grocery stores is a privilege. People who live in low COL rural midwestern towns can't do that, for the most part. It's not just rural mid western towns that are lower/average cost. Not that I don't think you know that. A lot of people simply don't want to live in a city like the city I live in. Many will stretch themselves to live in nearby suburbs. (Obviously not all need to stretch themselves.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinivanMom Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I get the point about cost-of-living in different areas of the country. Yes, this is an issue. I just don't think someone in the Bay Area who makes 250k a year and can afford any kind of housing in Palo Alto is the best person to be making that point. I know a whole bunch of working-class families from that area who could probably have written a much more compelling and sympathetic article. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaKinVA Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 So, I get the point about cost-of-living in different areas of the country. Yes, this is an issue. I just don't think someone in the Bay Area who makes 250k a year and can afford any kind of housing in Palo Alto is the best person to be making that point. I know a whole bunch of working-class families from that area who could probably have written a much more compelling and sympathetic article. I very much appreciated your post -- I just want to reflect for a moment on the point the author was trying to make. The author wasn't trying to say they were poor, but they were middle class. Where so many get lost is in the salary and housing costs. We automatically compare that to what we know. Unless one has lived in many different areas and have seen first hand what a dollar buys in that area of the country, one may not have a good understanding of the huge differences of a $250,000 income or a $2 million house. Perspective colors things. I grew up in the Bay area, not too far from IBM headquarters -- I saw the initial boom, then initial bust, and we moved before the next huge jump. My parents' first two homes there are worth well over $600,000, our third home (built in 1973) is close to $1, our fourth home is worth about $800,000, and our fifth home is closer to $2 million. We built the $2 million home for $225,000 in 1979, during the first boom (I should add that it's on an acre of land). My older relatives are still living in the homes they purchased in the 50's and 60's. The younger relatives (50's), who are living in the area (and single), are often renting rooms like college students, Some of these room-renting relatives make what sounds like an incredible salary. I also have many friends who "made it" and are living it large, and I have many friends who live that middle class lifestyle -- with incomes that sound like they would be living the life of the rich and famous. When I was living in CA, we were middle class -- maybe upper middle class at some points -- but middle class. My friends who I say are living a middle class lifestyle in the Bay Area are living not much different lives from what I did back then. Living in the DC area, a middle class income is very wealthy when one compares it to that income back in Ft. Smith, AR. To work in DC, we could have purchased a condo -- or we could live an hour away and commute and for the same price get a modest 2 story home in a tract. Both are middle class. Living in VA Beach, the average house in our price range (that is not a fixer-upper, or a foreclosure) is a 30-50 year old renovated 1600 square ft. house. That is a $250,000 house -- most areas would call that a "starter home." However, if you put that same house in Ft. Smith, AR it would cost roughly $85,000 (new). $250,000 in Ft. Smith, AR gets you a 3,000 square foot custom home on the river, with a dock. There is a reason we lived in my parents basement for a decade -- and dh and I weren't making the "median income" for the area, but definitely making above the national "median income. The national "median income" at that point in time would not allow one to rent/buy a decent home, and allow us to feed & clothe our children. AND, as a bonus, our income just priced us out of most of the safety net (this was during the housing boom, before the bust of the early 2000's). The "median income" for our area was $75,000 a year. People earning less (who didn't already have places to live) were doing what my cousin in CA is doing -- renting rooms, living on top of one another. I'm sure I've posted about the conversation I had with my MIL -- who insisted dh and I should be able to find a decent home for $100,000 (that was, in her mind, what a decent home should cost). She was certain we just weren't looking hard enough -- or that we were lazy. I took her to look at some homes that she saw were "for sale" in these older, middle-class neighborhoods, and she was stunned to see these 1800 sq.ft. homes for sale for $350,000+. l then took her to the properties in my area that were listed for sale in the price range we could afford -- they were (for the most part) tear-downs. There was one old single wide -- but it didn't have a working well. They were selling it for the land. She shut up about our living arrangements after that. The 10 years we lived in my parents' basement -- making above the national median income -- we were NOT middle class. We weren't. We've been clawing our way back to middle class since 2002, and I finally feel like we've arrived. BUT, to be honest, I won't truly consider that we've made it until the credit cards are all paid off, and we have a bit more money in the bank. We make a good salary. We now make the median income for our county of residence (which, shocker, has gone up). We still, however, don't make enough for trips to Disney World, or to do much more than we did and afford more than about an 1800 sq. ft. home in a small tract in order to have anything left over to save/put towards school & any outside activities/entertainment. The middle class lifestyle is more difficult to attain/sustain in these areas, even with a salary that is nearly twice the "national median." 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I'm not sure how to state it any clearer. Most high COL areas are larger metropolitan areas. You pay more to live there, but you have access to a broader range of cultural, artistic, and educational opportunities. Perhaps it doesn't seem like to to you, but being able to hop on a bus and see an opera, tour an art museum, or shop at fourteen different organic grocery stores is a privilege. People who live in low COL rural midwestern towns can't do that, for the most part. The metropolis I live in has tons of culture, numerous universities, a couple of the most respected hospital systems in the world, all the major sports teams, etc. And you can buy a house for less than $20K within walking distance of all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 All I know is that my friend moved to St. Louis from Boston, and not only can she afford more than twice the house (4-bedroom two story there, vs. a four room house next to the highway here - but the bigger house there cost less), but she is still in a large metropolitan area with lots of cultural stuff - except there it's all free (zoo, museums), whereas here it costs upwards of $20-30 just to park at one, then $10-$20 or more per person to enter said event. So, not so clear. As others have stated, though, if you're in high tech, you're pretty much stuck in the truly high COL areas because the jobs are there. Yeah, that too (the bolded). Well, it isn't all "free" here but a lot is, and even an expensive cultural experience here costs nothing near what it costs in NYC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFSinIL Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 If you consider if someone bought a house in 1974 for $54,000 and sold it 40 years later for $1,000,000, they made only a 7.57% annual return on their investment. That is a lot lower than some other investment possibilities (and those other possibilities would not have had to be painted, etc.) My folks had sold the house for $250,000 when they divorced 30 years later. Other folks owned it when it shot up to a million. Still, from $54,000 to $250,000 is pretty darn good, and we will never see that kind of increase in value! Our house is probably worth a tad less than what we bought it for 21 years ago (here in the Midwest). :-( My folks lucked out in getting a a large return on their housing investment! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I think instead of focusing on who is or is not "middle class" we should be focusing on why there is such a gap between the 1% and the rest of the nation. Why have we, as a culture, accepted that the uber-wealthy are "entitled" to their luxury lifestyles instead of being disgusted at them? Really? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNative Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 NM, I have discovered I just can't converse until I've had my morning coffee. Lol! I have no idea what your first post said but this post times a thousand!!! ;) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovinmyboys Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I wasnt able to read the article. I don't know that it is always a privilege to live in a hcol area. DH works for the federal government and we live a middle class lifestyle with four kids in a Midwestern city (think Indianapolis, St. Louis, cincinnati, Kansas City). We have access to good parks, libraries, museums, shows, etc. There is no way we could live what I consider a middle class lifestyle on his salary alone in a hcol (even with the cost of living increase). Lots of his colleagues in hcol areas survive by taking on debt and living a 2hr commute away from work. Others have no kids or are a dual income family and they do ok and love the perks of the area. Some people really love living there (but none of them have four kids). I don't think we would be "poor" in those areas. We would probably still be middle class, but our budget would be very tight and we would probably be living quite far from Dh work. I wouldn't feel "middle class." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I think we should distinguish between high income and "luxury lifestyle." A lot of people have a luxury lifestyle financed by debt. And a lot of other people have a high income and a middle-class lifestyle. That said, for those who really can afford and choose to pay for a luxury lifestyle, who cares? If all the money spent on luxuries in the USA were instead spread among the regular people, we'd end up with a few dollars each. It isn't worth hating over. Besides, that kind of lifestyle creates jobs, and a job is a job. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 As far as income quintiles, I have seen an article (I think it was discussed here before) showing that the lower 2 quintiles enjoy such a boost from entitlements, their all-in disposable income is greater than that of the next one or two quintiles up. Or at least not as different as it sounds when you just talk about income quintiles. I will see if I can find and link it so I can be more accurate than that. ETA: This is not the article I had seen before, and it does not show the exact same result, but it gives the logic behind the other article I saw. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1999/09/income-inequality I gotta run so I can't keep searching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 We've lived on every type of income in every type of COL area. We've been below the poverty line for about 7 years of our marriage in both very low COL areas and a very high COL area (one of the highest in the US). We've also been been solidly in the middle in moderate COL areas for five years. We've been relatively wealthy when we've lived overseas, even the times when we've had much less money than the typical expat because we still had far more money than the typical person living in Kyrgyzstan. I wouldn't care to return to poverty-line life every again, but there were definite advantages to being low income in a high COL area because I think there are major advantages to living in urban areas. We spent almost no money on transportation because we were able to walk almost everywhere we needed to go. We had access to low-income housing that is not available in most of the country. I had lots of choices for grocery shopping and, with a little effort, could cook healthy inexpensive meals for my family. Those stores and warehouses aren't available everywhere. It didn't matter that I couldn't buy books because our library was amazing. There were far more parks and outdoor options that were free, and there were often free events for us to go to. Our lives were far richer and more varied in a high COL area even though our income was the same as when we lived in a low COL area. I think there's a lot more to the equation than the cost of a 3-bedroom house and the price of chicken in any area. And I think there's a lot more to it than whether a person feels middle class or not. I think looking at the incomes in an area and calling the people whose income puts them in the middle statistically are middle class even if your middle class doesn't look like someone else's middle class 2000 miles away. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MomtoCandJ Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 In the US it seems that everyone who makes more than $1 and under whatever Warren Buffet cleared last year is "middle class". Because after all they are at some point between the lowest and highest, ergo that is "the middle". The plain reality is that of five quintiles of income, the middle quintile spans an income bracket of $50,521-$78,000. 2 in 5 households are living off of less than $50,521 a year, many of those in HCOL areas where they can earn those wages because in LCOL areas they would be making far less. https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/2013/f01AR.xls Ugh we still aren't middle class. Dh makes almost $40,000 a year. We seem to be doing ok (though we are pretty much living paycheck to paycheck). We own our house (small payments), own 2 cars (one with payments, one paid off). Oh well, I'm sure once I'm done with school and start working we will be firmly middle class. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I don't get the "but poor people live in the high COL area too." No they don't. Not here in Seattle. Not in San Francisco. That is a huge, huge problem. The poor are getting ousted from their apartments. The homeless population goes up. Gentrification. Californication. Bring your money, buy a home for pennies on the dollar compared to property in LA or the Bay Area. The poor people will find another place to live, as will the families. "I feel like I've been living in A city with no children in itA garden left for ruin by a millionaire inside of a private prison..." (Arcade Fire) They drive in, for an hour or more, from Auburn, from the north side of Everett. Their children are in all-day care. They drive in to get a tiny bit more per hour. Or they just plain leave. http://blogs.seattletimes.com/fyi-guy/2013/07/11/what-is-seattles-most-kid-free-neighborhood/ http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Families-exodus-leaves-S-F-whiter-less-diverse-3393637.php Funny because they all wanted to live in a "vibrant" area. Like I know people who say they don't want to live in our neighborhoods in the suburbs because they want their kids exposed to diversity. But only rich white people apparently think that way, because all the poor white people and brown people I know live in the cheaper suburbs or commuter villages! It's almost comical. But no, there are not lots of poor people coping with the same high COL areas. They can't afford it, not nowadays. I say this as someone who has been a student-parent in this area. I lived in student housing. The first thing people tried to do was get OUT of the city and its high COL. We all loved the city. But paying off loans plus starting first and second careers--well, the city is just not an option for many families. It was only useful when we had subsidized (by the college) housing with the free parking that came with that. It has a 2-year waiting list. Those who do stay, yes they have a better QOL than they would if they moved out and saved. Because they save so much time on the commute and stress and daycare for the children. You can't have two parents working in a major city to get that $250k salary (because again, I am sorry, but those salaries are few and far between, so it's really two $150k or a senior engineer at $170k + full time nurse at another $70k) and live in the suburbs in a big house. You would literally never see your kid or each other. It is hard enough how we have it, scraping to get by on a middle-class income, with two parents doing a small commute. So COL is real and it does not apply the same way to the poor people living in those areas because poor people don't live in those areas. They commute in but do their shopping elsewhere. And yes the suffer with kids in daycare, but what happens is that usually one parent sacrifices a job so they stay lower income but one adult has time with the children. If a poor person is living in the city, usually it is because they have refused to sell their home to gentrification, but that means their home is a fixed-rate mortgage (they continue to afford it) and so they aren't buying new and facing that cost. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Sure, Tukwila, Renton, Des Moines, and Tacoma are a lot cheaper than the U District or Ballard and some areas of downtown Seattle. No question about that. But I don't think that their cost of living is so much less that they're affordable for people whose income is low. High COL bleeds over into the suburbs or you're stuck with an area that's dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3in9th Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I have been thinking about this. The reality is that even people who have "higher than average" incomes still don't feel "rich" in today's US. Maybe the goals have changed. Maybe people expect more. All I know is that we make "higher than average" but we are panicked about paying for college - because most likely we won't qualify for ANY federal aid or need based aid from schools. But we don't have a huge stockpile to draw from to pay $50,000 a year. So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I think there is always this mentality that if I could just earn X amount I would feel that I had enough. But it hardly ever is. Housing prices are just insane in the areas where the high paying jobs are. Someone might have a GREAT job - but a $2 million dollar mortgage is a $2 million dollar mortgage that doesn't leave much left over. I think instead of focusing on who is or is not "middle class" we should be focusing on why there is such a gap between the 1% and the rest of the nation. Why have we, as a culture, accepted that the uber-wealthy are "entitled" to their luxury lifestyles instead of being disgusted at them? I'm disgusted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3in9th Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I've studied American social class and even done a panel on it and I'm always baffled that Americans don't make the distinction between the two very different, distinct middle classes. If you're a Downton Abbey fan or anglophile in general, they have three classes depicted on the show that are representative of their three socio-economic classes- the aristocracy and super rich (think the Granthams), the middle class (think Matthew Crawley and his mother before Matthew was heir) and the lower/working class (everyone downstairs). We are much different. The UK middle class most likely had servants (think the Schlegel sisters of Howard's End) and either had enough money from inheritance or work not to have to do domestic duties. And their servants were most likely live-in. Our middle class wouldn't have servants at all and most likely wouldn't even have help occasionally. Dh and I are in the 4th quintile and we can't afford someone to clean our house even twice a month. America is a bit more stratified. Upper class, Upper Middle Class (where the OP probably belongs), Middle Class, Working Class, Lower Class. I think that if you can outright pay for your child to attend a public state university, you're probably Upper Middle Class. If you can afford to take a yearly vacation in which you pay for all meals and lodging on your own (rather than staying with family and friends), you might be Upper Middle Class. Alright, I'll stop teaching. I just really wish we wouldn't include the $2million home sort in the "middle class." I firmly hold they are Upper Middle Class. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 A lot of this population is comprised of retirees. Around here a vet exemption and a senior exemption from property taxes is available, and their pensions include medical, so their money goes far. Typically right to the second home in Florida. Hard to feel sorry for the 'low income' knowing they have voted for lot sizes that mean no starter homes are likely to be built and made sure that dense housing isnt alllwed other than that for seniors..thus forcing families starting out to double up in housing or send the wife to work just to afford a place to live. I think you may be seriously overestimating the benefits available to most seniors. The veterans' discount on property taxes is just a few hundred dollars a year where we live (and where taxes on even a modest home are over $10,000 per year,) and the "senior exemption" doesn't exempt them from paying property taxes; it gives them a freeze on their rate -- and that is only if they meet income requirements which are very low and include things like interest income. Not all seniors have pensions at all, and of those who do, many of their plans do not include lifelong medical insurance. Many people think seniors have it easy and that all sorts of wonderful benefits are simply handed to them due to their age, but that is truly not the case. A lot of them are really struggling to get by, and after they spend their whole lives working hard and raising their families, it doesn't seem fair that they should have to worry so much about money in what should be their golden years. And you know what? If they did work hard for all those years and saved their money so they are fortunate enough to be able to afford that second home in Florida, would you really begrudge them that opportunity? I wouldn't. (And if they have the second home, they probably don't qualify for things like discounts on the property taxes on their primary home because they wouldn't meet income requirements, unless they do things much differently in your area than in mine.) 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I agree completely that this just doesn't make sense in terms of three classes. I think that how I grew up and was taught in college most certainly acknowledged more than one social class. There was poor (dependent on benefits), working and artistic class aka lower middle class, middle-class (corresponding to middle management and the merchant class), upper-middle class (including the creative class with connections, upper-middle management), and finally the elite. My grandfather grew up at a time when poor meant minority/unhireable, disabled. Orphans, widows, invalids, the traditional poor classes. If you were working, you were working class. You could eat. You could take a stay-cation. You didn't get any form of handout. But now the workers cannot necessarily afford to buy their own food in many areas. They qualify for benefits. This is the outrage one sees on the streets. Nobody whines about poor people suffering. But when being in the 30th%ile intellectually means you are too poor to feed a family then people start freaking out and rightly so. The idea that a working entitles you to be paid for that work... revolutionary (literally). Also, on these boards, you see a lot of confusion. Some people are so keen to encourage others to aim high, that they forget that "meeting need" only applies to the poor. Not to the workers or middle classes. So there are a lot of people who talk about their EFC for private school, because they thought that private school was accessible to people from all classes. The reality is that this myth has helped private schools rake in a ton of $$$ for applications but most people simply cannot afford their EFC for those schools. I'm always floored, since we actually are middle class though I identify as working class as those are my roots, I had to scramble to get this far--when people claim on the one hand they are scraping for soup and on the other hand their child has applied to several lib arts private schools. In my world, you apply to an elite school if you're a national merit semi-finalist and have one amazing characteristic AND your family can meet EFC for a state school no problem. That's not us at this point. My kids will be working their butts off to get great deals at our local colleges or MAYBE one of the Jesuit schools which have very liberal aid (thank you, Catholics). Why Americans do not see this as a problem between themselves and their employers who are getting richer and richer, but instead talk about "elites" and "class" and "the government" I will never know. Take it all out of the equation and you need to find a way to get paid a living wage for your life's work. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I have been thinking about this. The reality is that even people who have "higher than average" incomes still don't feel "rich" in today's US. Maybe the goals have changed. Maybe people expect more. All I know is that we make "higher than average" but we are panicked about paying for college - because most likely we won't qualify for ANY federal aid or need based aid from schools. But we don't have a huge stockpile to draw from to pay $50,000 a year. So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I think there is always this mentality that if I could just earn X amount I would feel that I had enough. But it hardly ever is. Housing prices are just insane in the areas where the high paying jobs are. Someone might have a GREAT job - but a $2 million dollar mortgage is a $2 million dollar mortgage that doesn't leave much left over. I think instead of focusing on who is or is not "middle class" we should be focusing on why there is such a gap between the 1% and the rest of the nation. Why have we, as a culture, accepted that the uber-wealthy are "entitled" to their luxury lifestyles instead of being disgusted at them? The problem is 50,000 a year of college. Is that what you meant? 50,000 a year for college? That is insanity and I wouldn't be encouraging my child to,go that route. Because other than that you are doing ok financially. So why sink the boat for college? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I don't get the "but poor people live in the high COL area too." No they don't. Not here in Seattle. Not in San Francisco. That is a huge, huge problem. The poor are getting ousted from their apartments. The homeless population goes up. Gentrification. Californication. Bring your money, buy a home for pennies on the dollar compared to property in LA or the Bay Area. The poor people will find another place to live, as will the families. " I feel like I've been living in A city with no children in it A garden left for ruin by a millionaire inside of a private prison..." (Arcade Fire)They drive in, for an hour or more, from Auburn, from the north side of Everett. Their children are in all-day care. They drive in to get a tiny bit more per hour. Or they just plain leave. http://blogs.seattletimes.com/fyi-guy/2013/07/11/what-is-seattles-most-kid-free-neighborhood/ http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Families-exodus-leaves-S-F-whiter-less-diverse-3393637.php Funny because they all wanted to live in a "vibrant" area. Like I know people who say they don't want to live in our neighborhoods in the suburbs because they want their kids exposed to diversity. But only rich white people apparently think that way, because all the poor white people and brown people I know live in the cheaper suburbs or commuter villages! It's almost comical. But no, there are not lots of poor people coping with the same high COL areas. They can't afford it, not nowadays. I say this as someone who has been a student-parent in this area. I lived in student housing. The first thing people tried to do was get OUT of the city and its high COL. We all loved the city. But paying off loans plus starting first and second careers--well, the city is just not an option for many families. It was only useful when we had subsidized (by the college) housing with the free parking that came with that. It has a 2-year waiting list. Those who do stay, yes they have a better QOL than they would if they moved out and saved. Because they save so much time on the commute and stress and daycare for the children. You can't have two parents working in a major city to get that $250k salary (because again, I am sorry, but those salaries are few and far between, so it's really two $150k or a senior engineer at $170k + full time nurse at another $70k) and live in the suburbs in a big house. You would literally never see your kid or each other. It is hard enough how we have it, scraping to get by on a middle-class income, with two parents doing a small commute. So COL is real and it does not apply the same way to the poor people living in those areas because poor people don't live in those areas. They commute in but do their shopping elsewhere. And yes the suffer with kids in daycare, but what happens is that usually one parent sacrifices a job so they stay lower income but one adult has time with the children. If a poor person is living in the city, usually it is because they have refused to sell their home to gentrification, but that means their home is a fixed-rate mortgage (they continue to afford it) and so they aren't buying new and facing that cost. Or they rent housing that many would consider too small for a family. There are cheaper areas to live in and near almost any city. Certainly in Seattle. Seattle is a metro area that covers a large area. The fact that one lives in Renton or Shoreline or Burien doesn't mean they don't have access to the array of benefits of living in this area. A large percentage of students here are in free and reduced lunch, they live in the same city as the affluent techies. Seattle does not necessarily mean classic colonial on Queen Anne or new townhouse in Madrona. It also means living in a MIL apartment in Judkins Park or a 2 bedroom apartment in the International District or a tiny rental house on the side of Beacon Hill or sharing a house with another family in Wallingford. We lived, as new parents, in first a studio and then a 1 bedroom house just north of Ballard. Then we later bought a house in Lake City, in the city limits. Now we are just outside of the city but the area we live in isn't cheaper overall than most of the city. It's affordable to us because we live in apartments developed for workforce mixed income housing. More of this housing stock is opened every year. Access is an ongoing issue, as is public policy to preserve affordable housing options. Not going to minimize that. But we, and most of our peers are living here on far less than $250K. 1/2 of households with families living in Seattle are living on less than $52k a year. I regularly interact with many families living here on less than that and just a little more than that. So yes, average and poor people are living in the city and metro area. Yes, people live in Everett and Auburn but that doesn't mean they are especially poor either- many middle class people live in those areas. I'm not arguing that gentrification isn't real, hellz the old Seattle Medium (small weekly paper) building is now a doggie daycare but the affluent are not the only people living here, not by a long shot. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.