S/O: Affluence

[Bluegoat]

Lower wage workers get exploited all over town; at least this way they get exploited with a roof over their head and a short commute to work.

 

We are probably heading back to a concept of 'being in service'. Studio apartments instead of the maid's room. 

 

Affordable housing in general doesn't need to be tied to work, though it might need to be tied to occupation. 

 

It may go that way.  I think better urban planning would make more sense though, so there are neighbbourhoods at various price points throughout cities.

 

I do think they may have to rethink some aspects of how they are housing people in the sense of the format.  For example, you don;t often see boarding houses any more, or even people with boarders.  Some of its diven by building codes I think, but also pepole seem to have developed an expectation for more privacy.  It's even evident when looking at thing like university housing, it seems to be going in a much diferent direction now than it was 20 years ago.  But it makes it more expensive.

[Guest]

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

The second his 450,000 salary his salary is gone he's done???

 

Lol so what.

 

This guy not knowing how to use money doesn't make him not-affluent, it makes him wasteful.

[Guest]

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

I think COL is a really big deal, because I see people's kids entering adulthood (nieces, nephews, friends) and a large number of them are moving out of state or to the farther-flung parts of this state. Housing costs are a major reason. The only young people I see doing well with housing directly in this area are those who have impressive rehabbing skills and/or have parents working in construction. (A couple of my nephews have gone this route.) But as far as directly buying a home that is not a major fixer-upper, it is not that feasible unless one or both partners have a well-paying, professional job.

 

Even as my own kids enter adulthood, I will not be surprised if they don't put down roots locally due to housing costs, and I practically *expect* they will be wanting assistance from DH, who is knowledgeable about construction, in order to have a home that is decent and affordable. My BIL has been assissting each of his 4grown kids for the past several years as they have each opted to build or rehab a home to live in.

[Bluegoat]

The second his 450,000 salary his salary is gone he's done???

 

Lol so what.

 

This guy not knowing how to use money doesn't make him not-affluent, it makes him wasteful.

 

It can be funny though.  People can have assets that are unusable by them, or they could have a high salary taken up entirely from some sort of debt.

 

Usually it isn't going to be completely extreme, but I think in some cases i could be.  After the financial crisis there were people for example who suddenly found themselves with very weird financial positions.

[Guest]

It can be funny though.  People can have assets that are unusable by them, or they could have a high salary taken up entirely from some sort of debt.

 

Usually it isn't going to be completely extreme, but I think in some cases i could be.  After the financial crisis there were people for example who suddenly found themselves with very weird financial positions.

 

I know. But $450,000 > less than 450,000$, regardless of what you do with it.

[SereneHome]

The second his 450,000 salary his salary is gone he's done???

 

Lol so what.

 

This guy not knowing how to use money doesn't make him not-affluent, it makes him wasteful.

 

Of course it doesn't make him affluent.  To be affluent you have to be able to sustain affluent life style.  If you are only able to do that while earning your $450K, that makes it very fragile and not very long term.

 

Sure for those 5 minutes that you are making that high salary you can be living the life.

 

But it's people who accumulate ASSETS that are truly affluent.  That is the definition of the word - having an abundance of wealth, property, or other material goods; prosperous.

 

So even if you make a lot of money, but spend it all on - no, you are not affluent, you are just a rich for a minute.

[Guest]

Of course it doesn't make him affluent. To be affluent you have to be able to sustain affluent life style. If you are only able to do that while earning your $450K, that makes it very fragile and not very long term.

 

Sure for those 5 minutes that you are making that high salary you can be living the life.

 

But it's people who accumulate ASSETS that are truly affluent. That is the definition of the word - having an abundance of wealth, property, or other material goods; prosperous.

 

So even if you make a lot of money, but spend it all on - no, you are not affluent, you are just a rich for a minute.

The ABILITY to accumulate a certain amount or value in assets makes a person affluent.

[amy g.]

The ABILITY to accumulate a certain amount or value in assets makes a person affluent.

Even if they waste the opportunity.

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that affluence really combines two things--the ability to gain funds, and the know how and determination to use them wisely.  Without the first, people are batted around and reliant on largess and windfalls.  Without the second, people waste both windfalls and the first.

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that affluence really combines two things--the ability to gain funds, and the know how and determination to use them wisely.  Without the first, people are batted around and reliant on largess and windfalls.  Without the second, people waste both windfalls and the first.

[Guest]

I think that affluence really combines two things--the ability to gain funds, and the know how and determination to use them wisely. Without the first, people are batted around and reliant on largess and windfalls. Without the second, people waste both windfalls and the first.

Even if they don't use it wisely though...And my working definition of using it wisely is makes their money "work for them..." a person is still affluent if they reach a certain threshold of money coming in.

 

An affluent person could, for example, give away 400,000$ to poor people every year and live off their remaining 50,000$.

 

Use whatever numbers you want to account for col and family size.

 

A person who is not affluent could never do that, even though it's not really using money wisely, and blowing it on hookers would amount to essentially the same thing financially (except for taxes).

 

Chris Rock has that great bit about being rich like him, versus being wealthy like Oprah. But for all intents and purposes they are both affluent (and I think the line past which a person is affluent is well before you get to Chris Rock! Just using that por.)

[SereneHome]

The ABILITY to accumulate a certain amount or value in assets makes a person affluent.

 

I disagree.  

 

POTENTIAL does not equal accomplishment

 

I grew up with a girl who was very very talented painter.  Her ability and potential didn't make her a great artist bc she never did anything with it.

 

To me, it's the same with $$.  Earning a good salary it's just a start.  A GREAT start, but just that - a start.  To be affluent, you have to  create wealth that can last beyond  a paycheck.

 

Both, my husband and I have very marketable degrees.  But I stopped working when I was pregnant with my oldest.  I can assure you - we are very very far from being affluent.  My ability to get us there (may be) does not make us so.

[frogger]

 

I think people confuse "cost of living" with housing prices. Yes, one encapsulates the other but really it is not one on one. Why would you have a whole house in a city anyway? Shared spaces like parks and garden plots even maker centers make up for space in a home or land. It is crowded and you have to share space. You can get by without a car in the city or the ones I've lived in.

 

Our condo in the city was equivalent to a home in the country even though it was a bottom level 2 bedroom thing that barely fit a couch and table. I have lived in both the city and a place so rural there was no road to it and we just had an outhouse and then a larger suburban home but I wasn't really in a different "class" when I moved. I just had a different experience.

 

 

I do think that COL matters though. Where I live servers make a base of $8.50 and then tips off that. Minimum wage is higher and cut-offs for state assistance are higher. The cut off for Denali Kid Care (state health insurance) was about $80,000 for a family our size. We had three kids at the time. I have had employer insurance so I don't know how things have changed since the ACA. I assume a lot. Anyway, COL does matter but it isn't just housing.

Edited April 16, 2017 by frogger

[DawnM]

I think people confuse "cost of living" with housing prices. Yes, one encapsulates the other but really it is not one on one. Why would you have a whole house in a city anyway? Shared spaces like parks and garden plots even maker centers make up for space in a home or land. It is crowded and you have to share space. You can get by without a car in the city or the ones I've lived in.

 

Our condo in the city was equivalent to a home in the country. I have lived in both the city and a place so rural there was no road to it and we just had an outhouse but I wasn't really in a different "class" when I moved. I just had a different experience.

 

 

I do think that COL matters though. Where I live servers make a base of $8.50 and then tips off that. Minimum wage is higher and cut-offs for state assistance are higher. The cut off for Denali Kid Care (state health insurance) was about $80,000 for a family our size. We had three kids at the time. I have had employer insurance so I don't know how things have changed since the ACA. I assume a lot. Anyway, COL does matter but it isn't just housing.

 

Without a car at all?

 

There was no way to have done that when we lived in Los Angeles.  It is a huge urban SPRAWL and you cannot rely only on public transpiration to get where you need to go.  Work, church, out for dinner....no way.  The public transportation has historically been very car dependent.

 

Even my friends in major cities (NYC, San Fran, Ontario, Chicago) who use public transportation for work and general stores, have a car of some sort to go visit relatives, go on trips, etc......

 

And I think typically high cost of housing is indicative of high costs of living.  I know we got double the house for half the price when we moved to NC.  We know moving back will mean half the house for double the price.

 

Thankfully the weather is such that we kind of "live" outside, which is easier to do with a yard than go hang out after work at a park, when I am exhausted and just want to enjoy my own personal private backyard, preferably with a pool.   :laugh:

Edited April 16, 2017 by DawnM

[Guest]

I disagree.

 

POTENTIAL does not equal accomplishment

 

I grew up with a girl who was very very talented painter. Her ability and potential didn't make her a great artist bc she never did anything with it.

 

To me, it's the same with $$. Earning a good salary it's just a start. A GREAT start, but just that - a start. To be affluent, you have to create wealth that can last beyond a paycheck.

 

Both, my husband and I have very marketable degrees. But I stopped working when I was pregnant with my oldest. I can assure you - we are very very far from being affluent. My ability to get us there (may be) does not make us so.

Ok. We disagree. Though, I agree that having a degree isn't the same thing as making money (?).

[SereneHome]

But you said that being affluent is an ABILITY to make money.  I definitely have an ability to make money.  May be not $450K/yr, but not peanuts either.  My ability does not translate into actual assets, though.

 

People think  that if only they could have that high income, their financial worries would be forever gone bc they would be rich.  And that kind of mindset really worries me bc there is so so much more than just making high salary.

[Guest]

Without a car at all?

 

There was no way to have done that when we lived in Los Angeles. It is a huge urban SPRAWL and you cannot rely only on public transpiration to get where you need to go. Work, church, out for dinner....no way. The public transportation has historically been very car dependent.

 

Even my friends in major cities (NYC, San Fran, Ontario, Chicago) who use public transportation for work and general stores, have a car of some sort to go visit relatives, go on trips, etc......

 

And I think typically high cost of housing is indicative of high costs of living. I know we got double the house for half the price when we moved to NC. We know moving back will mean half the house for double the price.

 

Thankfully the weather is such that we kind of "live" outside, which is easier to do with a yard than go hang out after work at a park, when I am exhausted and just want to enjoy my own personal private backyard, preferably with a pool. :laugh:

Transportation is such a huge problem in this country.

 

Boston is a very easy city to have no car in while living well. Car shares for out of town trips==easy. Easier than paying rent for a parking space anyway.

 

A city like Seattle, though? Or even really San Francisco. Absolutely not, you MUST have a car, or have a much, uh, smaller life.

[maize]

a person earning $450,000 in a year has more $$ to do something with than 99.9% of people in the world.

 

That person is absolutely affluent.

 

Are their wealthier people? Sure. But I think the number of people s/he is ahead of in terms of income matters more.

 

Now, if that person has done something idiotically profligate and is in debt up to the gills they may in fact not have a ton of disposable income. Too bad so sad because they still have more $$ they could have done something with than the huge vast majority of people on the earth. So what that they are affluent enough to dig a bigger debt hole for themself than other folks with fewer resources to begin with can?

Edited April 16, 2017 by maize

[Guest]

The ABILITY to accumulate a certain amount or value in assets makes a person affluent.

  

But you said that being affluent is an ABILITY to make money.  I definitely have an ability to make money.  May be not $450K/yr, but not peanuts either.  My ability does not translate into actual assets, though.

 

People think  that if only they could have that high income, their financial worries would be forever gone bc they would be rich.  And that kind of mindset really worries me bc there is so so much more than just making high salary.

Negative.

 

You said 450,000$ salary =\= affluence because the person may not use the money to accumulate [valuable] assets.

 

I disagreed, pointing out that a person with the scratch to accumulate assets, whether they do or not, is affluent.

[frogger]

Without a car at all?

 

There was no way to have done that when we lived in Los Angeles. It is a huge urban SPRAWL and you cannot rely only on public transpiration to get where you need to go. Work, church, out for dinner....no way. The public transportation has historically been very car dependent.

 

Even my friends in major cities (NYC, San Fran, Ontario, Chicago) who use public transportation for work and general stores, have a car of some sort to go visit relatives, go on trips, etc......

 

And I think typically high cost of housing is indicative of high costs of living. I know we got double the house for half the price when we moved to NC. We know moving back will mean half the house for double the price.

 

Thankfully the weather is such that we kind of "live" outside, which is easier to do with a yard than go hang out after work at a park, when I am exhausted and just want to enjoy my own personal private backyard, preferably with a pool. :laugh:

 

Yes, but that is a choice for a luxury. I'm happy that you can enjoy it but it is a form of wealth. In other words don't call something a necessity that others survive without. And don't try to say you are poor. :) I found a ground floor condo that had a few trees behind it and my fenced yard where my son had a sand box so we could grill or sit outside while he played. It was the size of the balconies above us. That is how we budgeted for our luxury. I knew it was a luxury because our last apartment was a ghetto apartment that looked out at a concrete retaining wall that held up a bar across the back alley. It is perfectly ok to have your own yard but I hope you can see why others would scoff if you said you are barely scrapping by because it is hard to afford private school and pool maintenence. Not that you said that. I'm just throwing it out there to make a point.

 

Yes, government subsidies have created very unsustainable sprawl that is true. It is hard on those who can't afford a vehicle. I think a very large gas tax to pay for transportation infrastructure would make a lot of sense and create better incentives. Right now all the federal funds going to roads are basically a form of welfare so people who can't afford it can get yards with pools. I lived in a Seattle suburb for some time and biked to work once I could afford a bike. Before that I walked. I first inherited a car by marrying someone with a car. I now live in a place where I mostly drive so I would be paying it too but it might encourage smart change in how our cities are structured. I cannot imagine spending such a large number of hours of my life sitting in traffic as appeared to be the case just recently when I drove through Phoenix.

 

 

Edited for missing words etc.

Edited April 16, 2017 by frogger

[Jean in Newcastle]

I think people confuse "cost of living" with housing prices. Yes, one encapsulates the other but really it is not one on one. .

No one said that housing prices are the sum total of cost of living. But it was the easiest example of how much farther money can go in one state over another.

[frogger]

No one said that housing prices are the sum total of cost of living. But it was the easiest example of how much farther money can go in one state over another.

I recognize this as true but I also see a lot of implying that wealthy people are actually poor because houses cost x amount.

 

I also recognize that people's perspective is skewed by seeing mostly people in their own circle. Where I live currently I could compare myself to all the people in my local circle and feel poor and barely making it. I could move ten miles away and be one of the richest people in the neighborhood. :) So much of life is perspective.

[SereneHome]

  

Negative.

 

You said 450,000$ salary =\= affluence because the person may not use the money to accumulate [valuable] assets.

 

I disagreed, pointing out that a person with the scratch to accumulate assets, whether they do or not, is affluent.

 

Well, that's not the definition of affluence, but whatever. 

 

Now, if that $450K guaranteed for life - then yes, that would make person affluent. 

[DawnM]

Yes, but that is a choice for a luxury. I'm happy that you can enjoy it but it is a form of wealth. In other words don't call something a necessity that others survive without. And don't try to say you are poor. :) I found a ground floor condo that had a few trees behind it and my fenced yard where my son had a sand box so we could grill or sit outside while he played. It was the size of the balconies above us. That is how we budgeted for our luxury. I knew it was a luxury because our last apartment was a ghetto apartment that looked out at a concrete retaining wall that held up a bar across the back alley. It is perfectly ok to have your own yard but I hope you can see why others would scoff if you said you are barely scrapping by because it is hard to afford private school and pool maintenence. Not that you said that. I'm just throwing it out there to make a point.

 

Yes, government subsidies have created very unsustainable sprawl that is true. It is hard on those who can't afford a vehicle. I think a very large gas tax to pay for transportation infrastructure would make a lot of sense and create better incentives. Right now all the federal funds going to roads are basically a form of welfare so people who can't afford it can get yards with pools. I lived in a Seattle suburb for some time and biked to work once I could afford a bike. Before that I walked. I first inherited a car by marrying someone with a car. I now live in a place where I mostly drive so I would be paying it too but it might encourage smart change in how our cities are structured. I cannot imagine spending such a large number of hours of my life sitting in traffic as appeared to be the case just recently when I drove through Phoenix.

 

 

Edited for missing words etc.

 

 

 I never ONCE said I was poor, nor did I claim to be anywhere on the poor spectrum.  Never, ever, ever.  Read through every post I have ever posted and I have never claimed to be poor, nor did I EVER claim to be "just scraping by."

 

You are confusing me with someone else.   Really.

 

I grew up in a 3rd world country and have worked in inner city schools for almost 20 years.  I don't need a lesson on what poor looks like.

[frogger]

I'm sorry you took it that way. I did not mean to offend you and that came across wrong. I was just saying that in a city where space is in demand we have to say that a house with a yard is not the norm and not comparable to middle class living. That is all and no you weren't saying that you were poor but it was in response to the whole thread not just your quote which is why I said, "Not that you said that". It was always there but I went back and bolded it for you.  Though I quoted you I was furthering the past discussion of using basic housing cost as affecting COL I think it isn't as direct a correlation as people think it is and city people do things differently than those in the country to make up for it. 

 

I apologize for stating it like that.  I was just trying to further discussion and did not mean to attack at all. 
 

Edited April 16, 2017 by frogger

[Guest]

Well, that's not the definition of affluence, but whatever. 

 

 

 

What is the definition?

[maize]

What is the definition?

Here are a few from online dictionaries:

 

The state of having a great deal of money

 

 

The definition of affluence is to have a large amount of something, most often money.

 

1. A plentiful supply of material goods; wealth.

2. A great quantity; an abundance.

 

 

 

the state of having a lot of money or a high standard of living.

 

 

 

 

And yeah, $450,000 is a very, very, very large amount of money, way more than 99.9% of people who live in this planet will see in a year.

 

Affluence is entirely a relative term, but it is really hard to argue that a person in the top 99.9th percentile doesn't qualify as having a lot.

[Guest]

Here are a few from online dictionaries:

 

The state of having a great deal of money

 

 

The definition of affluence is to have a large amount of something, most often money.

 

1. A plentiful supply of material goods; wealth.

2. A great quantity; an abundance.

 

 

 

the state of having a lot of money or a high standard of living.

 

 

 

 

And yeah, $450,000 is a very, very, very large amount of money, way more than 99.9% of people who live in this planet will see in a year.

 

Affluence is entirely a relative term, but it is really hard to argue that a person in the top 99.9th percentile doesn't qualify as having a lot.

 

yup

 

Even if you set it on fire just to watch it burn.

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by OKBud

[maize]

According to this calculator, a person with $300,000 net income would be in the top 0.03% globally.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

 

So, top 99.97th percentile in terms of income.

Edited April 16, 2017 by maize

[maize]

This calculator puts $450000 in income at the 99.5th percentile for the US. Again, way, way, way ahead of almost everyone in the country.

 

https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/

Edited April 16, 2017 by maize

[maize]

I kinda feel like some people don't want to acknowledge affluence unless a person is among, say, the 100 wealthiest folks in the country...

[luuknam]

This calculator puts $450000 in income at the 99.5th percentile for the US. Again, way, way, way ahead of almost everyone in the country.

 

 

Wouldn't you have to divide that income by the number of people in your household though, for that calculator, since it seems that they're including the entire world population?

 

(not arguing that $450k isn't much - it is several times as much as our annual household income)

 

ETA: Wait, are you talking about a different calculator than the globalrichlist one posted just above your post? Because I don't see a way that one mentions how you stack up compared to the US, just the world.

Edited April 16, 2017 by luuknam

[DawnM]

I'm sorry you took it that way. I did not mean to offend you and that came across wrong. I was just saying that in a city where space is in demand we have to say that a house with a yard is not the norm and not comparable to middle class living. That is all and no you weren't saying that you were poor but it was in response to the whole thread not just your quote which is why I said, "Not that you said that". It was always there but I went back and bolded it for you.  Though I quoted you I was furthering the past discussion of using basic housing cost as affecting COL I think it isn't as direct a correlation as people think it is and city people do things differently than those in the country to make up for it. 

 

I apologize for stating it like that.  I was just trying to further discussion and did not mean to attack at all. 

 

 

Ok, thank you. 

 

I was told about a year or two ago here that my post was "my privilege talking" and I think I am still upset about that, so I do get reactive when questioned on my understanding on what poor is.

 

Now, if we lived in the heart of NYC, I am confident we could not afford a car if the parking space was $250K just to buy.  And I am sure we would not have a yard.

 

But in CA we can have a yard, albeit small!  Our last yard in LA was 16,000 sq. ft. and people thought it was HUGE.  We now have 2.5 ACRES in NC and 16,000 sq. ft. seems tiny.

[frogger]

Thank you for accepting my apology.

[maize]

Wouldn't you have to divide that income by the number of people in your household though, for that calculator, since it seems that they're including the entire world population?

 

(not arguing that $450k isn't much - it is several times as much as our annual household income)

 

ETA: Wait, are you talking about a different calculator than the globalrichlist one posted just above your post? Because I don't see a way that one mentions how you stack up compared to the US, just the world.

Yes, my aplogies! Seems I left off the link. I've fixed it now.

[SereneHome]

What is the definition?

 

I've posted the definition numerous time.  But here it is once again

 

Definition of affluent

1. 1 :  having an abundance of goods or riches :  wealthy affluent families our affluent society

 

 

You seem to think that it's *my* definition.  It's not.

 

I know finance.  From business and personal standpoint.  And I can tell you that people who think that high W2 income makes people affluent, rich, wealthy don't really understand finance.  It's really not a slant against them.  It's just a fact.

 

W2 income, no matter how high does not fit the definition of affluent unless that income is converted into income-producing assets or other assets.

 

A person who has high W2 income might be able to afford many luxuries while earning that income.

 

I tell people of various backgrounds and earning potentials - it's not what you make, it's what you keep that is important. 

 

In any case, I don't think I can add anything else to this discussion

[maize]

I've posted the definition numerous time. But here it is once again

 

Definition of affluent

• 1 : having an abundance of goods or riches : wealthy affluent families our affluent society

You seem to think that it's *my* definition. It's not.

 

I know finance. From business and personal standpoint. And I can tell you that people who think that high W2 income makes people affluent, rich, wealthy don't really understand finance. It's really not a slant against them. It's just a fact.

 

W2 income, no matter how high does not fit the definition of affluent unless that income is converted into income-producing assets or other assets.

 

A person who has high W2 income might be able to afford many luxuries while earning that income.

 

I tell people of various backgrounds and earning potentials - it's not what you make, it's what you keep that is important.

 

In any case, I don't think I can add anything else to this discussion

Money IS riches, an asset. A person who earns $450,000 in one year IS affluent that year--they have more riches than almost anyone else.

 

You seem to think that doesn't count unless they turn their riches into a more permanently productive sort of asset. It is true that unless they do that they make no progress towards long term wealth, but that does not mean they are not affluent during the year they earn the $450,000.

 

Affluence may be temporary...And yes a person can absolutely be affluent at a given point in time while not attaining either a high net worth or financial independence. That they spend their affluent riches profligately does not mean the riches don't count.

Edited April 16, 2017 by maize

[Carol in Cal.]

. Anyway, COL does matter but it isn't just housing.

This is true, but it is far more common to have people spend extremely high PROPORTIONS of their income on housing in high housing cost areas than elsewhere. 

[Carol in Cal.]

" Or even really San Francisco. Absolutely not, you MUST have a car, or have a much, uh, smaller life."

 

No, you could get by really well without a car in SF.  Public transportation is excellent there, and also Uber is common.

[8circles]

I've posted the definition numerous time.  But here it is once again

 

Definition of affluent

1. 1 :  having an abundance of goods or riches :  wealthy affluent families our affluent society

 

 

You seem to think that it's *my* definition.  It's not.

 

I know finance.  From business and personal standpoint.  And I can tell you that people who think that high W2 income makes people affluent, rich, wealthy don't really understand finance.  It's really not a slant against them.  It's just a fact.

 

W2 income, no matter how high does not fit the definition of affluent unless that income is converted into income-producing assets or other assets.

 

A person who has high W2 income might be able to afford many luxuries while earning that income.

 

I tell people of various backgrounds and earning potentials - it's not what you make, it's what you keep that is important. 

 

In any case, I don't think I can add anything else to this discussion

 

So $450,000 is not an abundance of riches? Alrighty then.

 

It is to me in a lower COL area and it is to my siblings in a HCOL area.

[BarbecueMom]

To me (and I'm probably wrong per the specific definition), affluence describes a lifestyle commensurate with wealth or financial security. Income contributes to that lifestyle. For instance, if DH's already decent income suddenly tripled, we'd be very well off and very high income. But until we sold our lower middle class house, upgraded our older cars (or even bothered with the cosmetic damage on them), planned a long fancy vacation (or any vacation, we don't travel at all), or made friends with people with higher spending habits, I wouldn't consider us affluent. Other than our kids playing higher cost sports (although not at travel or select levels), we don't have any of the hallmarks of an affluent lifestyle.

 

When we were planning to rebuild a deck, a friend recommended a company that I had heard radio ads for. We already had an estimate from a nearby contractor for about $9,000. The sales guy (having a sales guy should have been my clue) came out, did his spiel, then handed us a "basic" quote for... $22,000.

 

What I didn't understand before, and do now, is that companies with sales reps and radio ads are not the people you work with in a lower-to-middle, middle class neighborhood. It doesn't matter how much money you have, they are targeting affluent homeowners. My friend, at the time, had a HHI less than ours, but they had a newer, nicer house, that warranted working with a company like this.

 

So that's my quick and dirty and error-ridden test for affluence. If a company advertises on a highly rated afternoon radio show, and you don't think twice about calling them to work on your house... you are probably affluent. If you say, "Thanks, but no thanks, we'll just temp DIY it, the house isn't worth that kind of work"... not affluent.

[Audrey]

Not in the US, but for Canadian families of two or more, our income falls in the middle 20%.

 

 

I'm not sure where our income ranks us compared to other Canadians.  I voted based on actual income in Cdn dollars, not adjusting for the exchange rate.  I'm going to guess the exchange rate becomes irrelevant when you consider that I don't pay for insurance premiums and co-pays and such. 

 

But, I can un-vote if you think it will skew your results.  I just like polls. :)

[Guest]

To me (and I'm probably wrong per the specific definition), affluence describes a lifestyle commensurate with wealth or financial security. Income contributes to that lifestyle. For instance, if DH's already decent income suddenly tripled, we'd be very well off and very high income. But until we sold our lower middle class house, upgraded our older cars (or even bothered with the cosmetic damage on them), planned a long fancy vacation (or any vacation, we don't travel at all), or made friends with people with higher spending habits, I wouldn't consider us affluent. Other than our kids playing higher cost sports (although not at travel or select levels), we don't have any of the hallmarks of an affluent lifestyle.

 

When we were planning to rebuild a deck, a friend recommended a company that I had heard radio ads for. We already had an estimate from a nearby contractor for about $9,000. The sales guy (having a sales guy should have been my clue) came out, did his spiel, then handed us a "basic" quote for... $22,000.

 

What I didn't understand before, and do now, is that companies with sales reps and radio ads are not the people you work with in a lower-to-middle, middle class neighborhood. It doesn't matter how much money you have, they are targeting affluent homeowners. My friend, at the time, had a HHI less than ours, but they had a newer, nicer house, that warranted working with a company like this.

 

So that's my quick and dirty and error-ridden test for affluence. If a company advertises on a highly rated afternoon radio show, and you don't think twice about calling them to work on your house... you are probably affluent. If you say, "Thanks, but no thanks, we'll just temp DIY it, the house isn't worth that kind of work"... not affluent.

 

I'm on board with your salesguy line of thinking fwiw, but I do not at all understand the bolded. Am I reading it correctly?

 

What I see is you saying that if you had the MEANS to do all those things, you wouldn't actually be affluent until you either did them or made friends with affluent people.

[BarbecueMom]

I'm on board with your salesguy line of thinking fwiw, but I do not at all understand the bolded. Am I reading it correctly?

 

What I see is you saying that if you had the MEANS to do all those things, you wouldn't actually be affluent until you either did them or made friends with affluent people.

That's what I mean, as my brain equates affluence with lifestyle choices as opposed to income or account balances.

 

By "making friends with affluent people", I guess I meant being comfortable socially with those also living an affluent lifestyle. My son plays hockey and I feel like a complete imposter sitting there at the arena, watching him play. I don't belong. There are a LOT of nice, new pickup trucks and luxury SUVs in the parking lot. Kids and parents are dressed well. Because I grew up poor, hockey was always something out of reach financially for me and anyone else I knew. It's very uncomfortable and it would take a lot of changes (often costly changes) to arrange my life to not feel so out of place. We can afford hockey. We can't afford... whatever that is that seems to go along with hockey. And if we could, I'm not sure *I* could handle it.

 

DH, who did not grow up poor like I did, does not seem to have these internal crises. He just doesn't notice this stuff. Maybe that's why I have an odd take on it. I have issues.

[Garga]

When we were planning to rebuild a deck, a friend recommended a company that I had heard radio ads for. We already had an estimate from a nearby contractor for about $9,000. The sales guy (having a sales guy should have been my clue) came out, did his spiel, then handed us a "basic" quote for... $22,000.

 

What I didn't understand before, and do now, is that companies with sales reps and radio ads are not the people you work with in a lower-to-middle, middle class neighborhood. It doesn't matter how much money you have, they are targeting affluent homeowners. My friend, at the time, had a HHI less than ours, but they had a newer, nicer house, that warranted working with a company like this.

 

So that's my quick and dirty and error-ridden test for affluence. If a company advertises on a highly rated afternoon radio show, and you don't think twice about calling them to work on your house... you are probably affluent. If you say, "Thanks, but no thanks, we'll just temp DIY it, the house isn't worth that kind of work"... not affluent.

 

 

Oh, they come out and try to sell, but you have to look at them like they're crazy when they slide the paper with the $22k estimate toward you across your kitchen table and say, "Yeaaah.  No."  And then they knock off a bunch of the price.  And then you look at them at say, "Uh uh.  That's still too high.  I'll get a quote from somewhere else."  And then they often get down to $9000.  

 

You're right that they do seek out affluent people who don't know the game and then they can charge them $22k for a $9k job.  But I agree with you that it's better to avoid those companies if you can and find the ones that market right to non-affluent people and don't bother with the game.  I hate games like that.  

[BarbecueMom]

Oh, they come out and try to sell, but you have to look at them like they're crazy when they slide the paper with the $22k estimate toward you across your kitchen table and say, "Yeaaah. No." And then they knock off a bunch of the price. And then you look at them at say, "Uh uh. That's still too high. I'll get a quote from somewhere else." And then they often get down to $9000.

 

You're right that they do seek out affluent people who don't know the game and then they can charge them $22k for a $9k job. But I agree with you that it's better to avoid those companies if you can and find the ones that market right to non-affluent people and don't bother with the game. I hate games like that.

Yes, it's the game! A game that you don't know the rules to, unless you have the money and effort to learn them. And if you have the money, but still don't learn the rules, then you still aren't playing the game.

 

Hillbilly Elegy nailed this. I'm not an emotional person, but I cried reading this book. It was way too personal.

[Guest]

That's what I mean, as my brain equates affluence with lifestyle choices as opposed to income or account balances.

 

By "making friends with affluent people", I guess I meant being comfortable socially with those also living an affluent lifestyle. My son plays hockey and I feel like a complete imposter sitting there at the arena, watching him play. I don't belong. There are a LOT of nice, new pickup trucks and luxury SUVs in the parking lot. Kids and parents are dressed well. Because I grew up poor, hockey was always something out of reach financially for me and anyone else I knew. It's very uncomfortable and it would take a lot of changes (often costly changes) to arrange my life to not feel so out of place. We can afford hockey. We can't afford... whatever that is that seems to go along with hockey. And if we could, I'm not sure *I* could handle it.

 

DH, who did not grow up poor like I did, does not seem to have these internal crises. He just doesn't notice this stuff. Maybe that's why I have an odd take on it. I have issues.

 

Ah, I see what you're saying. Thanks for explaining!

[Jean in Newcastle]

In real life, none of this matters to me. I pray for enough money to meet my obligations. I try not to take on obligations that I can't meet. We don't have all the toys and have to weigh carefully purchases that go beyond the necessities. Things are often tight and I can't say that I have never worried, but for the most part I am content. My initial foray into this thread was to agree with those who said that not all homeschoolers are affluent.

 

Most of the people I know are similar in financial class to my own. I do have one truly affluent couple as friends but we live in different parts of the world. I know a few who don't struggle as much but aren't necessarily affluent. I have some friends who struggle more than we do with finances. All of my friends, regardless of financial class are fine generous people of good character.

 

I'm not sure really what I am trying to prove by saying this. Maybe that some of the discussion has bothered me for some reason that I can't quite articulate.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Garga]

Yes, it's the game! A game that you don't know the rules to, unless you have the money and effort to learn them. And if you have the money, but still don't learn the rules, then you still aren't playing the game.

 

Hillbilly Elegy nailed this. I'm not an emotional person, but I cried reading this book. It was way too personal.

 

You're right about everything.  We didn't know better and spent a TON of money on our windows when one of those salesguys showed up.  We didn't have the money to spend.  It was awful.  

 

It wasn't until after my DH took at a job where he had a budget and had to be the person who hired contractors for his company that he figured out the game.  And when the next salesperson came to our house for a roof, I was sooo anxious.  It wasn't until my normally mild-mannered, polite husband made a "you are CRAZY" face to the salesguy, laughed derisively, and said, "Uh...no.  That's a ridiculous quote," that I started to relax.  There are rules to the game that no one tells you. 

 

I think I need to read Hillbilly Elegy.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Garga

[DawnM]

N/M, not sure I am explaining myself well and don't want to be misinterpreted.

 

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by DawnM