S/O: Affluence

[Guest]

I disagree. Maybe it's true in some areas, but definitely not in my area. We don't have many options for outsourced classes because homeschoolers won't or can't pay much. The affluent families I know have two full time, well paid working professionals. Having one parent at home some or most of the time puts most homeschooling parents around here at a definite financial disadvantage.

Agreed. Most of the homeschoolers here are lower middle class to middle class, some are downright poor, and some are exceedingly wealthy. I'd say it's a pretty standard bell curve with the median set maybe 15k below the typical median family income for the area. Most of us are, shall we say industrious, in trying to scrimp and save to make things work for one spouse to stay home, or the homeschooling parent works a night shift a few times a week at the hospital, is an adjunct professor, or other jobs where the hours can be flexed a bit.

 

The wealthiest families we know in activities and through work have dual income parents and are not home educating their kiddos.

[Jean in Newcastle]

The family budget calculator was inaccurate right from the start.  You could not get even an apartment here for the monthly housing allowance that the calculator showed.  I know that our mortgage is higher and we have a good interest rate.  And the rising costs of rents are in the local news all the time so I know what the range is for the area. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I looked at Careertrends.com and it was much more accurate on how much it actually costs to live here.  We are very slightly above that figure but it is eaten up (and more) by medical bills. 

[FaithManor]

Top 10-19% nationally, but top 5% regionally, and 1% for our county.

[DawnM]

I looked at Careertrends.com and it was much more accurate on how much it actually costs to live here.  We are very slightly above that figure but it is eaten up (and more) by medical bills. 

 

 

That is an interesting fact.  None of these take into account your health insurance/health care.

 

This year I got my own health insurance and got off DH's.  His is better in some ways.  For mine, if I stay in network I pay less than his staying in network.  But he has far more out of network benefits.

 

But overall I can't complain.  

[Crimson Wife]

I'm hardened.

 

These threads don't bother me. It still astounds me that people who are well off think they are not. But that's not just a WTM thing, that's an everywhere thing. There are people in my city crying poor at $180, 000/year. When the median is closer to 50k.

 

The HCL thing makes me laugh a bit. When you live in a HCL area, there are always - always - people serving you and your community - as teachers, cleaners, nurses, firefighters, any number of jobs, really, include your barista - who have to manage on significantly less than 450, 000. Definitely on much less than $180 000. The idea that HCL makes wealthy people no longer wealthy - nope. Your wealth may not stretch as far as it would elsewhere, but relative to your neighbours earning at the median or less, you're still wealthy.

If said middle income people bought before the run-up in housing prices, they may actually have far more disposable income than their neighbors who make more on paper. Plenty of our neighbors in the same subdivision (nearly identical homes) paid 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost for their homes as we did simply because they are older and lucky enough to buy before we could. And if we had to buy at current prices, we would need a significantly higher income.

 

So spare me the "cost of living doesn't matter" claims

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[heartlikealion]

I'm liking these posts for the information, but those prices for tuition are making me go :svengo:

 

I think we'd fall closer to the bare bones homeschoolers, though I know people that use absolutely free materials. I didn't use all free stuff but some was.

 

As for income being better than average, that's definitely not always true. Sometimes it's the road of least resistance to homeschool because it makes sense for some reason for one parent to stay home (based on local job opportunities, ages of children, etc.) and the local schools aren't very desirable. At least this has been our case.

[Carol in Cal.]

I'm hardened.

 

You sound really bitter.  I'm sorry.  (((Sadie)))

[emmaluv+2more]

Nm. On second thought, too much info.

Edited April 11, 2017 by emmaluv+2more

[heartlikealion]

I think Sadie and Crimson Wife both make good points. The home I grew up in in California was not large or fancy. After moving away for some time we wouldn't have been able to afford to move back into the same home (I'm not sure how much time passed before that was the case but the area is always developing). That's just how crazy the housing is there.

 

 

But if we compare like to like, the higher income earners in a generation are still wealthy compared to the lower income earners, no matter how high the COL.

 

Are we comparing people with the same number of children? If so, then this may be so. If one couple has two boys that share a room and the other couple has a boy and a girl and they want separate rooms for their kids, they might feel they "need" the home with the extra bedroom. There may be misc. factors like this to consider. But if everything is more or less the same across the board, then yeah I can see what you mean.

[Catwoman]

I based my post on the previous post. If you don't wish to participate then don't, but don't accuse me of playing a "How rich are you" game because you are reading intent into it and that wasn't my intent.

 

And we are certainly not rich or affluent.

I didn't think you were trying to upset anyone; I just assumed you were curious based on the posts in the other thread. :)

 

But I can also understand Mergath's position, because any time there are threads about income or financial status, it can make some people uncomfortable and they might feel like they're being judged -- and I think that can apply to people at both ends of the financial spectrum.

 

But I guess people can choose to open the threads or not, and they can choose to participate in the poll and the discussion, or they can simply move on to the next thread. (Not me, because I'm way too nosy, but other people might be able to do that. ;) )

[Artichoke]

I'm hardened.

 

These threads don't bother me. It still astounds me that people who are well off think they are not. But that's not just a WTM thing, that's an everywhere thing. There are people in my city crying poor at $180, 000/year. When the median is closer to 50k.

 

The HCL thing makes me laugh a bit. When you live in a HCL area, there are always - always - people serving you and your community - as teachers, cleaners, nurses, firefighters, any number of jobs, really, include your barista - who have to manage on significantly less than 450, 000. Definitely on much less than $180 000. The idea that HCL makes wealthy people no longer wealthy - nope. Your wealth may not stretch as far as it would elsewhere, but relative to your neighbours earning at the median or less, you're still wealthy.

 

 

True. 

 

We live next to a city with soaring rents and property prices.  One of the large service industries/employers in the area purchased an older hotel and renovated it as studio apts for its workers.    The workers only pay a fraction of market value as one of their benefits.  

[eternalsummer]

For me, I remember the real difference between being poor and not being poor was that I could go to the grocery store and buy more or less what I felt like buying.

 

When we were poor, I went to the store with say $24, and I knew I was there to get a can of tuna, a bag of pretzels, a jar of peanut butter, and a bag of apples.  I was buying the cheapest acceptable brand of each of the above, and I knew exactly what they would cost before I got to the store.  I could not see a nice fish or a loaf of tasty-looking bread and decide to buy it.  Never.  

 

The difference between being middle-class and affluent, imo, is having this ability with things that are more expensive than food.

 

So right now I don't have to worry about which loaf of bread I can afford - I can afford all the bread.  I can buy fish if I feel like it.

 

But I can't refuse to carry car insurance.  I can't travel whenever and wherever I want.  I can't not account for healthcare costs or taxes in the budget.  If I were affluent,  I feel like those things would mean nothing to me; I could do as I liked without consideration for cost.

[DawnM]

I didn't think you were trying to upset anyone; I just assumed you were curious based on the posts in the other thread. :)

 

But I can also understand Mergath's position, because any time there are threads about income or financial status, it can make some people uncomfortable and they might feel like they're being judged -- and I think that can apply to people at both ends of the financial spectrum.

 

But I guess people can choose to open the threads or not, and they can choose to participate in the poll and the discussion, or they can simply move on to the next thread. (Not me, because I'm way too nosy, but other people might be able to do that. ;) )

 

 

It wasn't necessarily WHAT was said, just the way it was said.

 

I never talk in actual numbers.  There are VERY few people who get that info.  

[Guest]

For me, I remember the real difference between being poor and not being poor was that I could go to the grocery store and buy more or less what I felt like buying.

 

When we were poor, I went to the store with say $24, and I knew I was there to get a can of tuna, a bag of pretzels, a jar of peanut butter, and a bag of apples. I was buying the cheapest acceptable brand of each of the above, and I knew exactly what they would cost before I got to the store. I could not see a nice fish or a loaf of tasty-looking bread and decide to buy it. Never.

 

The difference between being middle-class and affluent, imo, is having this ability with things that are more expensive than food.

 

So right now I don't have to worry about which loaf of bread I can afford - I can afford all the bread. I can buy fish if I feel like it.

 

But I can't refuse to carry car insurance. I can't travel whenever and wherever I want. I can't not account for healthcare costs or taxes in the budget. If I were affluent, I feel like those things would mean nothing to me; I could do as I liked without consideration for cost.

Or going a week and a half between paychecks with less than $20 for groceries. I'd say pantries are the difference between poor and lower middle class on that. Poor is having $20 and bare cupboards, and lower middle class is having $20 and just needing to spend very, very carefully to be able to stretch it with other dry goods you have on hand.

 

I've never been bare cupboards poor as an adult, just for a few months one summer in college and it was AWFUL. But I'd certainly love to be a little more comfortable in middle class.

 

I'd say your definition of affluent is what I'd call upper middle class or comfortable middle class. Wealthy is having your money passively make you money where I'm from :). We do know many people like that, but it's not us. Maybe some day!

[Guest]

It wasn't necessarily WHAT was said, just the way it was said.

 

I never talk in actual numbers. There are VERY few people who get that info.

Hey I think it's a good thread. I find money discussions fascinating and it is AMAZING how much is subjective.

[Carrie12345]

I found this calculator interesting as it adjusts for family size and location. It calculates what you would need to make to live a modest but comfortable lifestyle based on your family size and the COL where you live. I feel that we live a fairly comfortable life although we do have to be careful and things do get tight sometimes. We make a decent amount below the amount it gives us. We also spend less in every category so we make it work. If we did make that much I still wouldn't consider us wealthy but we would be able to relax a bit.

 

http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/

 

 

The chart in the OP doesn't quite seem right to me. Our income certainly doesn't put us in the "top" of anything in our HCOL, High tax area.

 

Well, if we're getting nitty gritty, it won't let me put in 5 kids, and it's basing housing costs on current prices while our market is completely tanked and we purchased before the bubble burst (so I'm paying over 50% more than they're using.)

I don't, however, pay for childcare.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don't understand how COL wouldn't matter. For the original price of our foreclosure ( which cost much less than normally priced homes in our area 20 years ago) we could buy a mansion in a low COL area across the country at today's prices.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arcadia]

This 2015 article "Jesse Klein: Relative wealth" in The Michigan Daily is better read as a tongue in cheek opinion piece or people may get offended.

 

"My family’s household income is $250,000 a year, but I promise you I am middle class. I live in a $2 million dollar house, but I promise you I am still middle class. It has one story, doesn’t have a pool or its own movie theater. It is a modest three-bedroom, two-bath.

...

But wealth is a relative measure in some respects. Because of the high cost of living in Palo Alto, I grew up middle class and I have found that my views on money sometimes differ drastically from those of in-state students.

...

Out-of-staters are known to have money — how else could we afford the $50,000 tuition costs? But middle class is a varied group of people. What is deemed important enough to save up for and what something is worth in dollars can be extremely diverse" https://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/02jesse-klein-relative-wealth16

[imagine.more]

Just for the craziness, I Googled the tuition for the private high schools in the area:

 

$37,780

$39,375

$39,645

$40,310

 

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

 

The Roman Catholic girls' school charges $17k. The (Evangelical Protestant) Christian high school charges $11k.

All of these exceed our annual income! Holy cow!

 

I always wonder how on earth people find these mythical good paying careers. My husband, while he has a masters and experience, is geared towards the lowest paying of careers it seems. He hates computers and anything technical. So it seems we're stuck forever making under $40k. We make do, but it'd be nice to have money to save sometime, or take our kids to see the beach once before they grow up.

[Aelwydd]

Incomes are not; standards of living, and whether a family falls in the poverty, middle, or upper class range in economic calculations, are.

And yet, I have encountered the claim that having more children "does not really cost all that much" several times. We live in a high COL society, that is virtually punitive towards having children, financially speaking. Housing, clothing, medical care, food, schooling, extra curricular activities....you can't even have a pet these days without spending $$$.

[2ndGenHomeschooler]

The family budget calculator was inaccurate right from the start. You could not get even an apartment here for the monthly housing allowance that the calculator showed. I know that our mortgage is higher and we have a good interest rate. And the rising costs of rents are in the local news all the time so I know what the range is for the area.

I agree that the housing figure was off. We pay less but everyone else we know pays more. We just happened to buy a small fixer when housing prices were low and the seller was motivated. We also live in a relatively low tax town. Most people we know pay $400-$500 a month just in property taxes (on homes that are under 2,000sq ft) I think you could probably get an apartment for the amount given but probably not one big enough for a family with 4 kids and certainly not a house to rent.

[FaithManor]

And yet, I have encountered the claim that having more children "does not really cost all that much" several times. We live in a high COL society, that is virtually punitive towards having children, financially speaking. Housing, clothing, medical care, food, schooling, extra curricular activities....you can't even have a pet these days without spending $$$.

This.

 

Dd and hubby barely afford their one child, and that is with very frugal spending. But he has not been able to find a position in a more affordable area, and dad's health does not allow more than part time work.

 

Dear nephew and wife figure that by the time they pay off their student loans plus make enough to even consider her being off work for six weeks post partum, it will be biologically too late to have children.

[MinivanMom]

This 2015 article "Jesse Klein: Relative wealth" in The Michigan Daily is better read as a tongue in cheek opinion piece or people may get offended.

 

"My family’s household income is $250,000 a year, but I promise you I am middle class. I live in a $2 million dollar house, but I promise you I am still middle class. It has one story, doesn’t have a pool or its own movie theater. It is a modest three-bedroom, two-bath.

...

But wealth is a relative measure in some respects. Because of the high cost of living in Palo Alto, I grew up middle class and I have found that my views on money sometimes differ drastically from those of in-state students.

...

Out-of-staters are known to have money — how else could we afford the $50,000 tuition costs? But middle class is a varied group of people. What is deemed important enough to save up for and what something is worth in dollars can be extremely diverse" https://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/02jesse-klein-relative-wealth16

 

Uh, it didn't read like it was tongue-in-cheek. It read like the kind of cluelessness I've encountered in affluent folks on both coasts. I was homeless in the Silicon Valley as a kid, and folks there are happy to tell you all about how they are "poor" because they bought a modest 3-bedroom home instead of something on the hill or because they can't afford fancy vacations after paying for violin lessons. Sorry, but if you can afford to buy a home and pay for violin lessons . . . then you aren't poor. If you can afford a 2-million dollar home in Palo Alto and save enough money to pay $50k per year in tuition for an out-of-state college . . . then you aren't middle class.

 

It's worth scrolling down to read the comments section. I was laughing so loud that my daughter came downstairs to ask what was wrong with me. Best comment ever:

 

"I'm sorry that you didn't get to enjoy the simple pleasure of cooling off in your own pool while having to settle for the AC in your $2 million home.

I'm sorry that you didn't get to grow up watching movies with surround sound and comfy movie theater chairs and had to watch them like the peasants do.

I'm sorry it's more expensive for you to get wasted off your parents money in California while other people have the privilege of buying a drink at half the price from the $50,000 they worked for.

I'm sorry the kids with all the $3 million dollar homes laughed at you from their 2nd floor while you and all the other $2 million dollar home kids had to play in the dirt.

I'm sorry you didn't have the means of knowing other cold weather brands besides North Face back in California in case you got hit by a cold front of 60 degrees.

I'm sorry that you most likely have only one BMW and no Teslas.

I'm sorry that others cannot understand your enlightened stance on spending habits because they're too busy staring at a wall while wearing Versace while you're off at these musical festivals (keeping it kosher I assume) and exotic destinations opening your mind to so many experiences and ideas and, therefore, have absolutely no ignorance whatsoever. At all. No ignorance. So aware...

I feel so sorry for you"

[foxbridgeacademy]

Up until a year ago we were right around the 48-50 mark, now we're in the top 24 but we live almost the same because where we moved to the COL is much higher than where we came from (we do have a bigger, nicer house but we also have 2 additional teenagers).

[luuknam]

Just for the craziness, I Googled the tuition for the private high schools in the area:

 

$37,780

$39,375

$39,645

$40,310

 

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

 

The Roman Catholic girls' school charges $17k. The (Evangelical Protestant) Christian high school charges $11k.

 

 

Doesn't surprise me at all. The private school Broccoli's daycare owner suggested to me costs about $20k for elementary school - and only 43% get any financial aid at all, so the majority pays full price, and Buffalo isn't full of rich people, isn't a HCOL, or anything. At two kids, we could afford that if we moved into a cardboard box (or, more realistically, our income is right around the amount that the financial aid company thinks is the cut-off for a free ride, though the school of course a) doesn't have to admit our kids, and b) doesn't have to give as much aid as the company they hire to suggest a number suggests). In my quick search, I came across 2 high schools here that charge about $23k, and a whole slew of religious schools that charge $13+k. The big cities on the coasts have a larger population, so even if the income distribution were the same there'd be more rich people to support even more expensive schools, but the income distribution of course is not the same, so, anyway... I'm not surprised. 

 

Also, I suspect the really rich here might prefer to spend $50k to send their kid to some fancy boarding school somewhere for networking opportunities than to spend $30-40k here in the middle of nowhere.

 

I still think it's crazy though.

Edited April 12, 2017 by luuknam

[Crimson Wife]

 

But if we compare like to like, the higher income earners in a generation are still wealthy compared to the lower income earners, no matter how high the COL.

 

There simply AREN'T young low-to-middle income earners (unless they inherited a home from their parents) because they have been priced out. There are older folks with more modest incomes and younger high-income folks and that's it.

 

It's not just CA, either. I grew up on what used to be called "Teacher's Row" but the only teachers who still live there are retired ones. The younger teachers simply cannot afford to live in the town where they teach but have to commute from elsewhere.

[Carol in Cal.]

There simply AREN'T young low-to-middle income earners (unless they inherited a home from their parents) because they have been priced out. There are older folks with more modest incomes and younger high-income folks and that's it.

 

It's not just CA, either. I grew up on what used to be called "Teacher's Row" but the only teachers who still live there are retired ones. The younger teachers simply cannot afford to live in the town where they teach but have to commute from elsewhere.

No, actually there are.

 

You see the younger folks with modest incomes commuting in from Modesto, or Stockton.  Sometimes they can rent a room in a SRO place, to share among several of them, so they don't have to go back and forth 5-6 days per week.

 

Or they are stacked up in one of those SRO places--a mother and two kids living in a single room, with one bed and no hangers, and half a fridge shelf plus a shelf in a kitchen cabinet.

 

Or they are living in one of those illegal conversions of a garage, fire trap though it might be.

 

You would be surprised at how sleezy some of the landlords are.  We looked at a house on South 3rd street with a carriage house out back (it was pre-auto vintage), and the carriage house had been divided into three or four SRO rooms, each rented to a different person.  The only water heater in the place was right by the only door to the building itself.  Can you say fire trap?

 

There are a plethora of cheaply built older apartments available for exhorbitent prices, usually pretty crowded.

 

And the unmarrieds in their 20s largely live with their parents.

[SeaConquest]

All of these exceed our annual income! Holy cow!

 

I always wonder how on earth people find these mythical good paying careers. My husband, while he has a masters and experience, is geared towards the lowest paying of careers it seems. He hates computers and anything technical. So it seems we're stuck forever making under $40k. We make do, but it'd be nice to have money to save sometime, or take our kids to see the beach once before they grow up.

My husband is an engineer who fixes boats for a living. He bills out at $105/hour. His clients' average boat is above 45 feet long and costs in excess of 300k. His clients are not generally doctors or lawyers, or people who get paid a salary. They are generally business owners. You want to be affluent in our country, you use the tax code to make your money work for you. Edited April 12, 2017 by SeaConquest

[SKL]

I wonder, wouldn't there be some way for people to rent a room or a basement / 2nd floor in those rich areas?  Or are there laws against it?

 

I know it can be hard to introduce multi-unit housing in fancy neighborhoods, but what's to stop young people from sharing?

[Jean in Newcastle]

I wonder, wouldn't there be some way for people to rent a room or a basement / 2nd floor in those rich areas?  Or are there laws against it?

 

I know it can be hard to introduce multi-unit housing in fancy neighborhoods, but what's to stop young people from sharing?

 

My neighbor rents out a one room basement room for as much as my entire mortgage for our house - and she had people lining up to take it.  Not that my neighborhood is fancy.  It's lower/ mid middle class. 

[Carrie12345]

I don't understand how COL wouldn't matter. For the original price of our foreclosure ( which cost much less than normally priced homes in our area 20 years ago) we could buy a mansion in a low COL area across the country at today's prices.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

COL will always matter in determining disposable income, which is really what is meant by "affluence", right?

 

As I said in the original thread, we are statistically affluent in our lowish COL area. It doesn't usually FEEL that way to me, because we have 5 kids, purchased our house in 2005 without a crystal ball, and our health insurance policy leaves us open to financial ruin, but there's still no denying our income is higher than the majority in our area, or even the majority in the country.  No, we wouldn't be able to "make it" in Manhattan. It still wouldn't change raw numbers.

 

What sticks out to me is all of the "if that, if this, because of that, because of this" that we all (including me) apply to our situations.  I wish more people (I'm not saying WTM specifically, but people in general) would recognize that people who are genuinely struggling to meet basic needs don't usually get to play with such frivolous variables.

 

When I point out that I have many kids, a single income, homeschool, live where a reliable vehicle is essential, whatever, those are all choices we made BECAUSE our income allowed us to juggle some things and make it happen.  So, sure, it gives us less to spend elsewhere.  Theoretically, I could have spent just as much on a fancy boat or donated it all to charity, and my bottom line would be the same.  I'm fortunate to have had the choice of where to put that "disposable" income.  I cannot pretend that makes me "the same" as another family with the same bottom line that didn't have the cream to skim off the top for such lifestyle choices.

[heartlikealion]

I wonder, wouldn't there be some way for people to rent a room or a basement / 2nd floor in those rich areas?  Or are there laws against it?

 

I know it can be hard to introduce multi-unit housing in fancy neighborhoods, but what's to stop young people from sharing?

 

Some people may butt heads with their HOA with definitions like "single family use" or such. I never lived anywhere with an HOA personally.

 

[amy g.]

In our area, many, many people of all ages rent a room in a house.

 

My neighbor across the street built a beautiful apartment in his basement to rent out. Now he is building out his attic where he and his wife will live while they rent out the main floor.

 

Next door to him is a couple with one child who have two roommates.

 

Dh has attorneys who work for him who are living in a rented rooms.

 

It seems like people are doing whatever they need to do to make their situation work.

[mommyoffive]

I found this calculator interesting as it adjusts for family size and location. It calculates what you would need to make to live a modest but comfortable lifestyle based on your family size and the COL where you live. I feel that we live a fairly comfortable life although we do have to be careful and things do get tight sometimes. We make a decent amount below the amount it gives us. We also spend less in every category so we make it work. If we did make that much I still wouldn't consider us wealthy but we would be able to relax a bit.

 

http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/

 

 

The chart in the OP doesn't quite seem right to me. Our income certainly doesn't put us in the "top" of anything in our HCOL, High tax area.

 

I like that site, but it doesn't have enough kids on it for me!  :)

[amy g.]

I think I see why there is a difference of opinion.

 

Some people are defining affluence as having a ton of disposable income. I think of affluence as having the money to make choices about our lives.

 

We see on the boards people who have disposable income that they put away for travel or savings or to pay off their house. They may have a very small income, but outsiders see them as affluent.

 

We have made choices that decrease our disposable income such as having 5 kids, supporting them through graduate school, moving to a high COL area, having me stay home...

 

But we made those choices *because* we had enough affluence to have options.

 

If I carry the example out to an extreme example, I imagine someone with an annual income in the multimillions. If they make choices to spend/give most of their income and have very little disposable income each month, are they squarely middle class?

 

Not in my opinion, because they may not have that money now, but the money bought them the choice of how to use it.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I acknowledge that I have choices. I don't have infinite choices. I don't have as many choices as many on this board. But I am happy for the most part with the choices I have. Though it would be nice to have enough money for a vacation on occasion. Or to have the money to remodel our house so that I don't have most of my kitchen cabinets open because the doors literally fell off in my hand. But we chose to get a house in an area with a higher cost of living than we can comfortably afford because we were tired of hiding when there were drive by shootings and the excitement of having a high speed car chase end in our front yard.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[2_girls_mommy]

I voted based on your link and we were one group up from where I thought! This is one income though, so if we made that as a combined income, we could not homeschool. The fact that DH makes as much as he does makes it possible for me to stay home. If you split that 50%/50% me and him, and I gave up the 50% to homeschool, we'd live below the poverty level. So the ability to live on a single income makes a huge difference in a way that household income cannot tell you. We are more "affluent" than a household that makes the same annual income between two wage earners. I feel like there is at least some validity in saying that the majority of homeschoolers are "affluent."

I somewhat agree. We live in a LCOL area. Going by the Family Budget Calculator above, we still don't make what a family our size in our area needs, yet we have everything we need and more. We don't have the childcare expenses. That amount goes into school and activities here. We don't spend as much on food as it gives us on the calculator. I cook from scratch, shop Aldi, use coupons, watch for bargains on everything we buy. So we get by comfortably, and have in the past on much less during job loss and the recession. 

 

If we were both working and splitting that income we would have child care expenses and other work expenses like better clothes and would spend more on food and everything due to me having less time for shopping around. So in that regard, I agree that many people living on our same income in this area, aren't feeling as comfortable as we are, especially if they have school or other debt. But still, due to the fact of our income level alone, there isn't a way to call us affluent, I don't think. Comfortable and blessed yes. But I wouldn't ever go so far as affluent. :) 

[DawnM]

I wonder, wouldn't there be some way for people to rent a room or a basement / 2nd floor in those rich areas?  Or are there laws against it?

 

I know it can be hard to introduce multi-unit housing in fancy neighborhoods, but what's to stop young people from sharing?

 

 

It is certainly a possibility in many areas.  Right now we live too far from the city for anyone to want to rent from  us, but we aren't in a position to want to share our house right now either.  

 

Our city does allow for granny pods and/or tiny houses to be put onto property.

 

One guy in our city, closer in, has 3 tiny homes in his backyard that he rents out.

 

In the area we are moving TO, I did see a few homes with rentable space.  One had a guest house and said, "Currently rented at $1299/mo."

[SeaConquest]

There simply AREN'T young low-to-middle income earners (unless they inherited a home from their parents) because they have been priced out. There are older folks with more modest incomes and younger high-income folks and that's it.

 

It's not just CA, either. I grew up on what used to be called "Teacher's Row" but the only teachers who still live there are retired ones. The younger teachers simply cannot afford to live in the town where they teach but have to commute from elsewhere.

 

This is a huge problem in the Bay area (and presumably other high COL areas as well). I remember reading about the concern vis a vis a large earthquake/natural disaster or terrorist attack. I believe it was in the SF Chronicle. Basically, the counties and cities in the Bay area are concerned that first responders/medical personnel won't be able to adequately cover a disaster in the more affluent areas (the City, Silicon Valley, etc.) because the first responders are too far away (primarily coming from the South and East Bay) to get to the more expensive areas quickly. 

 

San Diego and LA have their expensive coastal areas, but we also have pockets of less expensive urban areas that are pretty central to the more expensive areas (for example, Linda Vista and City Heights in SD, which are less expensive, are right next to North Park and Mission Hills, more expensive areas). In SF, you have to travel a very long distance in heavy traffic before you can find the Bay area equivalent of Linda Vista or City Heights. It's a real problem up north.

Edited April 12, 2017 by SeaConquest

[Guest]

There are a tonne of poor people in San Francisco and surrounding areas 🙄

[mom2scouts]

I thought about this thread today when someone asked on a FB homeschooling group whether they could homeschool if they were getting SNAP and medicaid. A significant number of homeschoolers who responded said they are or were getting some kind of government assistance during their time as homeschoolers. I still think homeschoolers represent quite a range of income levels.

[Carol in Cal.]

There are a tonne of poor people in San Francisco and surrounding areas 🙄

Not as many as there used to be, though.

People are being forced out.

Ethnic diversity is far less in San Francisco than when I was growing up there.

 

Rent control is draconian there, but there have been a lot of suspicious fires and rebuilds that involve whole new groups of more affluent tenants.  One of the few reasons landlords can kick paid up people out is so that they themselves can move in, and it is not uncommon for someone to say they are doing so, but not do it, and then rent the unit at a far higher price.  I don't blame the landlords for wanting to do so, but the result is that low income folks are being squeezed out of the city that they have lived in for a long time.

 

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/I-Unit-San-Francisco-Landlords-May-Have-Wrongfully-Evicted-Hundreds-of-Tenants-400775391.html

[Arcadia]

I remember reading about the concern vis a vis a large earthquake/natural disaster or terrorist attack. I believe it was in the SF Chronicle. Basically, the counties and cities in the Bay area are concerned that first responders/medical personnel won't be able to adequately cover a disaster in the more affluent areas (the City, Silicon Valley, etc.) because the first responders are too far away (primarily coming from the South and East Bay) to get to the more expensive areas quickly.

There are town planning and urban planning issues everywhere.

 

The first thing we looked at when buying a home here and at potential colleges was nearest to a hospital. There are 5 hospitals with helipads that are within 16 miles of my home which takes 45mins to drive to at normal traffic conditions. A good friend of mine is an army medic with an army helicopter license. My SIL is an Air Force helicopter pilot (not medic). My home country is a densely built tiny nation and helicopters are probably the best in a disaster as the landing requirements is so relatively low. An ambulance or even a fire truck from neighboring cities won't be able to get to SF if the Golden Gate Bridge, Bay Bridge, US101, Highway 1 are all unusable at the same time due to earthquakes. I'm also near to Moffett Federal Field and some national guards rescue helicopters are stationed there.

 

Link to map of hospitals in California with helipads. http://dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/helipads/dataplates/index.htm

[Bluegoat]

More of this type of thing has to happen. Cities can't function without the non-elite, and there is a commute time ( and in my city, people regularly commute for 90+ minutes as standard) beyond which it's just not possible for for people to live outside the city and travel in without significant issues, both individual and systemic. 

 

It's a bit odd though, in that instance.  Those people, if they are married/attached or for sure if they have kids, must be keeping them in housing farther away.  It becomes a situation where poor people are living away from family most of the time to work.

 

Even if the company was priding some more substantial low cost housing, there are a lot of downsides to that - housing is then tied to the job, just like health insurance.  And people aren't building up equity, and will need to have other investments to compensate.

 

My sense of this kind of arrangement for lower wage workers is that it very often ends up being exploitative or having negative social effects.

[SereneHome]

Income NEVER makes people affluent.  It just doesn't. 

 

I just spent 2.5 months looking and hundreds and hundreds of W2s, 1099s, 1098s, K-1s, etc etc etc

 

Would you believe me if I told you that there are people making very average salaries who have rentals and investments and savings and there are people who are making anywhere from $150K to over $500K that have none of that.  I mean NONE.  They don't even put money in 401Ks.  And there are people in between. 

 

So, would I really consider someone affluent who is making $450K and has nothing to show for it?  Nope.  Bc the second his salary is gone - he is done.

 

I think all those polls (I am talking about national ones, not WTM one) are completely useless.  Salary means something, but there are so many other factors that mean a lot more, even beyond COL and number of people in the family

[Jean in Newcastle]

Being temporarily affluent doesn't mean that you aren't affluent for that period of time. Even lottery winners who blow it all within six months have six months of affluence.  Not that that is fiscally prudent or anything. 

[Carrie12345]

This is a huge problem in the Bay area (and presumably other high COL areas as well). I remember reading about the concern vis a vis a large earthquake/natural disaster or terrorist attack. I believe it was in the SF Chronicle. Basically, the counties and cities in the Bay area are concerned that first responders/medical personnel won't be able to adequately cover a disaster in the more affluent areas (the City, Silicon Valley, etc.) because the first responders are too far away (primarily coming from the South and East Bay) to get to the more expensive areas quickly. 

 

 

There are town planning and urban planning issues everywhere.

 

Absolutely.

My whole region is semi-rural.  We depend on state and regional police, with a few small departments in the larger towns/townships.  EMS is cobbled together with mostly private companies.  Fire is entirely volunteer for more than 2,000 square miles.  Very little, if any, of our area is segregated by money.  EVERYONE has to wait a long time for emergency services.  Our firehouse is about 8 miles away, with firefighters living as much as 15 miles away from the station. (Honestly, most are closer, but that's about the allowed radius.)

 

It is kind of scary, but there doesn't seem to be any easy solution.  In my house, we just put a lot of focus on evacuation drills and plans!

[Desert Strawberry]

by the first calculator, we are in the 35th percentile. which is higher than i would have guessed. 

 

by the family budget calculator, we are close, but not quite there, but we have lower expenses than allotted. the calculator only allows for 4 children, and we have five, so i would estimate we are at least $10,000 below where they say we should be. 

 

the middle class calculator puts us solidly at the middle income level for our area and the nation. 50th percentile. 

 

so depending on how you look at it, we are fairly well off, not earning enough, or exactly in the middle. 

 

in reality, i would say we have a good income, but we live very modestly. our expenses are small, and more than covered. affluent? definitely not.

 

 

[Desert Strawberry]

Do you think there is something about those higher income levels that makes homeschooling more possible/appealing? I guess what you are saying is that some of these families are essentially choosing outsourced homeschool classes as a sort of pick-and-choose private schooling?

 

(as an aside:

 

The majority of people living in and around those big coastal cities are not making six figures.

 

When our older children were young we were in the Los Angeles area with income averaging around $50,000--some. years less. )

isn't this what the wealthy have traditionally done? hire in tutors of each specialty to provide the best education? i don't think it's necessarily homeschooling as we know it, but it's surely been around for a long time, and it's a great option for those can afford it.